Wrong. Are you new to the forum? There is plenty of info to completely render this statement laughable. Now run along and look it up.
Funny how you say "info" but then behave as if what you are saying is cold hard fact. That is alright, however. I will not hold you to providing any real EVIDENCE. A simple link to the "info" that you refer to will do just fine for now. You do agree that posters should provide links, right And actually, no - I'm not new to the forum. On the contrary, I've been coming here regularly since before you even became a member. I do not post very often b/c far too often posters like yourself do not want to discuss facts or issues, but instead come in here to simply incite and derail threads. But I do still keep lurking in spite of this to check the news and different insights from the majority of posters.
If Lincoln was gay I think that's worthy of historical interest, like that George Washington had false teeth, but doesn't change my opinion of his Presidency. What I find more interesting is the immediate negative reaction of those with more consevative leanings towards it. Like mentioning Mary Cheney is gay, a fact she and her parents are open about, this shows that conservatives just can't accept that there are gays of all political persuasions and that doesn't prevent them from contributing to society or even rising to greatness.
That's an unfair and biased generalization. As a conservative, I don't care whether or not Lincoln was gay. Al Rantel is a gay radio talkshow host that I listen to everyday. If I turn this around and make some statements about some specious "evidence" suggesting the homosexual tendencies of Bill Clinton or John F. Kennedy, I am sure there will be no shortage of angry Democrats refuting me. Just because they would choose to refute me would not necessarily make them homophobic. Many people were offended by John Kerry's comments about Mary Cheney because they felt that it crossed the boundaries of political etiquette. Kerry was obviously trying to score some political points by bringing up the private life of an opponent's child. By your logic and rather prejudiced view of conservatives, would this not have worked? How come conservatives were not "scared away" by Cheney's lesbian daughter? Would Bush have garnered even more votes if the sexual orientation of Mary Cheney was not made a campaign issue? I highly doubt it. The only irrefutable facts we know are that Abe Lincoln fathered 4 sons with his wife, who by many accounts, was not the most agreeable and pleasant person in the world.
Many people were offended by John Kerry's comments about Mary Cheney because they felt that it crossed the boundaries of political etiquette. This is a very superficial read. The real problem was that GWB et al were bashing gays' brains out over the right to marry and locking a strong turnout of Republican voting homophobes. Mentioning too often that Dick's daughter was gay weakened their bashing message. Rove et al deserve credit, since they fought hard to keep from geting a mixed message across and won. Kerry law down on this issue and deserved what he got.
I don't know how many liberals would really be upset if evidence came to light that JFK was gay. As far as Kerry, Cheney first mentioned his daughter's homosexuality at a political function. I think if anyone brought it into play it was Dick Cheney. When John Edwards mentioned it Dick Cheney thanked him for the words about his daughter. Yet somehow a few days later, it became wrong to mention Cheney's lesbian daughter. I guess Kerry didn't get the memo when the rules changed.
I think stunned would be the reaction. Jack Kennedy jumped any pretty thing in a skirt who was available, by most accounts. Considering how magnetic the man was, and I can only confirm that he was magnetic as a speaker in person, before thousands at Rice Stadium (including me), one can only imagine his impact on the fairer sex, up close and personal. Lincoln may have been bisexual. Who cares? He was a great man. Keep D&D Civil!!
I thought that Edwards did get some flak for mentioning it. Cheney's terse "thank you" was hardly an a statement of true gratitude. Yes - I agree. The whole gay-marriage issue was a brilliant (sleazy?) political move by Republican strategists. It put Kerry in tough spot. He would be forced to either alienate his liberal base or alienate social conservatives/moderates who were still on the fence. In the end, Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney in the debate probably hurt him more than it helped. I have no qualms about a politician trying to score political points. It's what they do. But I am saying that there were many who felt that Kerry was out of line. Personally, it was a non-issue for me. As a conservative, I just want to say that I do support homosexual marriage and know plenty of conservatives who are agreeable to it also. I just get kind of annoyed when someone attempts to paint all conservatives as homophobes (as Sishir infered in a previous post).
well...i didn't want to say anything...but....James Garfield had sex with barnyard animals. he was a big fan of the Catherine the Great.
The book continues to receive poor reviews ~ the main reason being flimsy evidence promoted as fact. The Gay Emancipator? What's wrong with The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. ... Why, then, have reviewers been so excessively charitable? It's possible that they don't want to align themselves with a position that could seem naive or, worse, anti-gay. Plenty of Lincoln scholars have stuffily refused even to entertain the possibility of Lincoln's bisexuality, either out of an ingrained homophobia or a misguided reverence that borders on idolatry. Perhaps hoping to silence critics, Tripp warns that, "Patriotic motives have proved ever ready to obscure the raw parts [of Lincoln's personality], in effect threatening to turn the real Lincoln into yet another cardboard character." It's also possible that people are hedging their bets because no one wants to be proven wrong. Again, Tripp reminds his readers that the possibility of Eleanor Roosevelt's bisexuality, which now enjoys some credibility, was once written off by scholars. Likewise, in a supportive afterword, historian Michael Chesson notes a similar change in scholarly opinion about Thomas Jefferson's affair with his slave Sally Hemings. In both cases, experts who breezily dismissed allegations of what their societies considered sexual deviance were shown to have been blinkered by cultural prejudices. full article
saw a bumber sticker the other day on an outback in berkeley: "I don't mind straight people, As long as they act gay in public!"
That catherine the great having sex with horses & animals thing is a lie, btw, spread by her contemporaries and passed down through the years. She slept around of course but nothing like that. Just thought I'd rehab her a bit. It's even snopeable: http://www.snopes.com/risque/bestial/catherin.htm When I was a kid, the horse story was even printed in an old Encyclopedia we had lying around, which I thought was awesome; but too awesome to be true alas.
