Famous Homosexual People
The homosexual lobbies are so powerful in the USA that they are even distorting history to prove their points. Sometimes i feel there is an odd conspiracy theory not only to prove that homosexuality is "natural" (which is weird enough for anybody who has a biological definition of "natural") but even that everybody should become gay.
I found lists that include the following in the "gay" cathegory: Alexander the Great, Socrates, Julius Caesar and countless Roman emperors, Saladin and Suleyman, countless great writers, Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, countless kings and emperors of Europe. (Can these gay propagandists name anyone who was *not* gay?)
I let people be what they want, but i do get upset when people try and rewrite history based on what they want to prove, not on what the record shows, and in the process they gladly insult people who died centuries ago and that most likely would have greatly resented being included in such lists. I also resent that the truth is often told in biased and misguided way: give the whole context.
I really think we should modify the law so that one can be sued for defaming not only living people but also the memory and reputation of people who died centuries ago. It is free and even fun to attribute all sorts of imaginary or at best speculative habits to people who cannot defend themselves in a court of law. Why write that Leonardo was gay, when there is absolutely no proof of it? Why not just write "my personal opinion is that Leonardo may have been gay?" Why write a long list of "Famous Gay People" instead of a very long list of "People Whom at Some Point Someone Suspected of Being Gay but There is Not Evidence They Were"? Because, unfortunately, you don't go to jail for doing that. In fact, you even get millions of readers (you probably got to this page because you were looking for famous gay people).
Of the vast majority of the people usually listed as "gays" we know too little to know for sure what their sexual habits were. The very fact that they did *not* publicize a homosexual relationship (if they ever had one) should the fact to keep in mind.
There are cases in which a homosexual relationship is well documented, but the gay lobbies and their fans routinely omit important details. For example, it is true that many Roman and Greek men had sexual relationships with other men, but why stop there and not be more precise: they were usually boys, not grown ups. Middle-aged men would take a teenage boy as a "companion" and in some cases this escalated to a (documented or suspected) sexual relationship. There were extremely rare cases of a man living with a man. Almost all the cases from ancient history that one can name are of middle-aged men having sex (of being suspected of having sex) with very young boys.
It is true that in Sparta young boys were encouraged to have sex with other boys. But why stop there? Why not tell the whole story, starting with the fact that Sparta was a horrible place that very few of us would want to live in, and why not explain the reason of that homosexual relationship: Sparta was so obsessed with creating the perfect soldier that they thought creating homosexual relationships increased the chances that one soldier would be willing to die for another. Basically, they were using sex to create weapons of mass destruction. If you think that it would be a good idea to program your child so that s/he will be willing to die for someone else in the interest of a brutal dictatorship, that's a model to look at.
Needless to say, the same lobbies carefully omit any mention of the countless "moralists" in the Roman senate and in the Greek cities who condemned these habits as a danger to society (way more people than the ones usually listed as gays or, better, suspected gays). Countless Roman orators predicted the decline and fall of the Roman empire based on the "decadence" of the elite. And by "decadence" they did not mean a compliment. The gay lobbies rarely mention the many documented cases of people sentenced for homosexuality (a sign that those societies were not pro-gay at all).
Incidentally, none of those societies (not even Sparta) ever recognized "gay marriage".
It is also contradictory that only homosexuality is brought up. Incest was commonly practiced in all ancient societies, and even in quite developed ones like Egypt. Polygamy (or, better, the extended family) is indeed "natural" for primates, and was practiced in all societies until the West decided it was bad and the Christian colonial powers slowly eradicated it from the rest of the world (well, almost, because it is still practiced in many places). Sex with underage girls was practiced everywhere until very recently, and it is biologically "natural". In fact, many of the most famous women until relatively recent times got married at very young ages (Helen of Troy was probably 12, Juliet of Romeo's fame was 14). And countless very important men of the past married wives who were much younger than them. Gay lobbies limit their historical "evidence" to famous gay people, but it would be more honest to add that many other sexual practices that are banned today, from sex with a minor to polygamy to incest, used to be more widespread and more widely accepted all over the world than homosexuality: if gay marriage should be legalized, then why not polygamy, incest and sex with underage girls?
Personally, i think that banning polygamy is a ridiculous idea (i have not found a single study that shows any problem with an extended family raising children, whereas i found plenty of studies showing problems with single parents raising children), and i fail to see why a 17-year old can have sex with a 14-year old but a 19-year old goes to jail for the same act (and, for that matter, i would be much unhappier if my underage daughter or sister had sex with a teenage junkie than with a mature, responsible, clean and honest 30-year old man, or with a 70-year old Nobel Prize winner).
I actually have nothing against societies that enforce a strict sexual code. I think there was a high degree of consistency and rationality in the Victorian society, that only allowed sex among married man-woman couples. I think there is a high degree of consistency in traditional Muslim and Hindu societies. These societies are consistent, and i would not argue against the logic of their sexual dogmas (except if they are used to infringe on human rights such as women's rights).
When gay advocates blow homosexuality out of proportion, i do feel that a) ancient people are being insulted; b) young people are being brainwashed; c) a comic degree of inconsistency is introduced in modern society. All of which are worth discussing. It might be that the majority of people will still vote in favor of a strong pro-gay bias, but at least they should be informed and not disinformed.
That said, when i discuss societies in which homosexuals are persecuted (which includes the Western societies until the 1970s) i take the opposite side. Both extremes are forms of fundamentalism and likely to cause more problems than solutions.