Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homosexual Historical Revisionism"

Latest revision as of 23:10, February 17, 2009

I have to argue that Alexander at the minimum engaged in long term homosexual relations. This was not uncommon in the greek culture of his day. EternalCritic 18:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I had occasion to reread Xenophon's The Persian Expedition recently. Some of the Greeks had their boys along with them. That isn't revisionism...it's primary source. AlanE 18:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

But that does not mean they had them along for sexual purposes, as gay liberals claim.--Saxplayer 20:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I am not going to go through and look for it, but the context was certainly sexual. It was a 1940's translation...Rex Warner...and I remember the class sniggering about it in the late fifties when it was read for our curriculum.AlanE 21:12, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I've just thought...it seems ironic - or appropriate - that I have just been getting rid of the red links on Edward II. Including Berkeley Castle.AlanE 21:34, 10 November 2008 (EST)

not supported with any citations see conservapedia commandments. Quite right. Do you want cites that claim the individual was gay, or cites that claim that they aren't, or one of each, or what? What would be the best way to proceed? I think the article needs examples.--Hsmom 22:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

The article has examples: Jesus, Paul, Robin Hood. The attempt before Conservative's edit to paint ASchlafly as a homosexual is just what a liberal considered humor, and I think you're unlikely to find any citations for it. BHarlan 22:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Correction: I misread. Apparently, it was a different Schlafly, but I'm sure the same applies: this was just a liberal smear that would indicate that anyone was accusing any Schlafly of perversion, even though the intent was that John was not homosexual. Backhanded smears are common liberal style.

Even if I am wrong, it's just more evidence that liberals love to accuse prominent conservatives of homosexuality, especially if they share a name or lineage with other prominent conservatives like Aschlafly. BHarlan 00:04, 11 November 2008 (EST)

You are right BHarlan, that is why I started this article. Homosexual activists try to appropriate our history by blithely making these outrageous claims that "so and so was gay" with no evidence. This article is designed to highlight, and counter, their ridiculous assertions.--Saxplayer 07:32, 11 November 2008 (EST)

It's possible you started this article as a parody. I removed the Liberace reference.

We may need an article on famous closet gays who falsely denied their homosexuality. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:38, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Only one I can think of is Alan Turing. At least we can be completly confident this one actually was gay - it drove him to suicide.NewCrusader 13:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I thought Turing was fairly open about it, which was what got him in trouble? [1] --Hsmom 10:22, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Fred Mercury was certainly gay, I don't understand his inclusion in this. I thought John Schlafly was openly gay, but I don't think he should be included in the list, for obvious reasons, anyway. DrSandstone 12:27, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Smear, smear, smear

There are three claims in the article that the purpose of claiming various figures are gay is to smear various groups of people, but this doesn't hold water. First of all, some conservatives think that being called a homosexual is a smear, but certainly gays wouldn't think that, right? So while you might think it is a smear, it is not an "attempt to smear". Second of all, even if it were their intent, there's not been presented any evidence to this fact. HelpJazz 15:36, 11 November 2008 (EST)

But but but

I was going to put this along with my above comment, but I think I will keep them separated for clarity. Every claim of "being gay" has a reference of someone calling that person gay, but none of them have references that show that these people were not, in fact, gay. In other words, it's not HHR to call a spade a spade, so in order to claim HHR we need to show that these people were not gay. HelpJazz 15:39, 11 November 2008 (EST)

I was rather puzzled by the presence of Freddie Mercury, a noted pervert, who died of AIDS, on that list. I suspected that Mercury's name might have been added by a vandal, but I wasn't sure. —Asphalt P. Stanky 16:17, 11 November 2008 (EST)

With this article, it can be hard to tell. HelpJazz 16:19, 11 November 2008 (EST)

My intent when I created this article was to point out that homosexual activists falsely claim that certain historical figures were gay, when they were not. Liberace and Freddie Mercury were in fact gay, so they should not be in this article, at least that is the way I see it.--Saxplayer 16:59, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Freddie Mercury was very much Bi, though the general consensus was a preference for homoseuxuality. EternalCritic 18:21, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Freddie Mercury himself said he was gay in 1974 [2]. As long as nobody objects, best to remove him from the list.--Ieuan 13:15, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Well it can't, by definition, be historical revisionism if it actually happened, now can it ;-) Yeah, I see no problem in removing it. HelpJazz 13:26, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I have a philosophical question here. If one nut job is making a claim, is it really fair to suggest that such a claim is at all representative of the gay (or liberal) community at large endorsing that claim? That is to say, I know many gay people, scholars, liberals accept the claim that many Greeks were gay, that DaVinci was gay, etc., and certainly some say Paul was gay, but I know of no main stream, "normal", real, gay or liberal person who would seriously assert that Jesus was gay. Is it fair to include those kinds of "one hit wonder" references here? I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find someone on the internet who has taken any and every preposterous position that can be held. doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion on an article. --JeanJacques 13:32, 12 November 2008 (EST)

You seem to have hit the nail on the head. It's a problem we potentially face on many articles -- how does one tell the difference between a fringe view and a mainstream view? I think in this case it's best to properly denote who is doing the accusation. HelpJazz 13:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Fringe, mainstream... isn't it just as important to make sure we get the conservative view? That is, after all, why we are here. NewCrusader 13:51, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I'm glad someone has put the question that way. Let's discuss it and come to a consensus. Then I'll put the result into the [[Conservapedia:guidelines]. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Hoover

There's "concrete evidence" he wasn't homosexual? I'd like to see some of that. LelouchL 11:07, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Tchaikovsky

Tchaikovsky was gay. It has always been agreed he was. Nothing to do with "Revisionism". AlanE 23:40, 30 November 2008 (EST)

More Comments

• I thought it was pretty well accepted that Rock Hudson was gay.
• Robin Hood wasn't a real person, and so doesn't belong on this list.
• As this is an encyclopedia, we should not base articles on what "they" do or say. If there are claims that a historical figure was gay, then the claimant(s) should be named and appropriate evidence cited. Pepperlynn 18:10, 17 February 2009 (EST)