The Gay Side Of Abraham Lincoln Alluded To In Major New Film

[MrRealDeal]

I don't know if your familiar with the Kramer guy but he claims to have written evedence from under the floorboards of where Lincon and Speed lived proving beyond a shodow of a doubt that he was in fact gay and had sexual relationships ..... at least according to Speeds letters. They are in a private collection now and their autenticity is in question of course , but if they are authentic it would certianly tend to add evedence to support him being gay.

Edited November 26, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[7by7]

I'm sorry if the following offends, it's not meant to. On the contrary, it's meant as a bit of light relief.

When I saw the topic title in the forum index, I immediately thought of this:

[Jingthing]

Love the funny video. It's fun to imagine Lincoln seeing that video to see his head explode in so many ways ...

[MrRealDeal]

Nice vid

[Jingthing]

To emphasize again, the movie is most certainly NOT taking a position on whether Lincoln was gay or not.

There is ONE little scene where the historical question is alluded to, and that's it. So Tony Kushner had no gay agenda at all in making this movie. I actually think a straight writer might have taken a few more liberties with the controversy than Kushner.

The historical young man in the scene with Lincoln was John Hay, not the body guard of the night shirt story.

Clearly anyone going to this movie for lurid Lincoln man on man action is going to be sorely disappointed.

I think that it's a mistake for historians to err on either side," Kushner explains. "I don't think we should jump into certainty where there is no certainty, but I also think historians should not say, as some have, he absolutely wasn't gay or bisexual. We don't know, and we will never know unless somebody discovers something lying around.

http://www.metro.us/...ham-lincoln-gay

I totally agree with Kushner. Well, almost totally. I don't see how the young Lincoln and Speed could have avoided getting it on during those four years but that doesn't necessarily mean they were exactly "gay" for each other or that the later Lincoln was into men. BTW, I feel massive admiration and a real personal connection with Kushner's work because I was so lucky to attend the world premiere of his classic play Angels in America even before it was even a fully blown production.

Regarding Larry Kramer, he's entertaining and a provocateur but really not to be taken seriously.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

I don't take him seriously

[Jingthing]

Carl Sandburg was not gay. The idea that a historian has to be gay to see the evidence of a possible gay side of Lincoln is absolutely ridiculous. Besides all that, it will always be recorded as fact for all of time that the young Abe Lincoln slept in a small bed with a dear friend for four years and that they later exchanged very emotional affectionate letters. Draw your own conclusions. Again you don't have to be gay to see the potential homosexual side of that.

History is history. Facts are facts. I personally believe J. Edgar Hoover who in my view was a horrific American fascist (who advocated vicious anti-gay policies) also had a gay side. Many historians don't but I actually have met direct witnesses saying that he was, so I favor their reports. Some famous Nazis were also gay, is that supposed to make gay people feel better about themselves, I think not, but the truth of historical figures should be revealed no matter what.

Back to Lincoln, IF he did have either a homosexual or bisexual orientation, that part may be interesting and the juicy tidbits may fire the imagination, but the bigger question some historians have explored is how that might have impacted on the man's leadership performance. I think it's all theories and speculation but that's also part of what some historians do.

One other point, if minorities want to be proud of great achievers among their ranks, such as blacks being proud of G.W. Carver and Barack Obama and Jews being proud of Sandy Koufax and Albert Einstein, SO WHAT?

Edited November 27, 2012 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

A post "not agreeing" with people being gay has been removed. This is the gay forum. If you don't agree, stay away.

To remind everybody, this topic is about Lincoln and whether he had a gay side. As we are in Thailand, we know the term MSM, which does not mean that men who have sex with men necessarily define themselves as gay. I know I have had sex with men who define themselves as straight. Does that mean they have a gay side? This is the question here.

And I also know men who define themselves as gay who have had sex with women. That kind of complicates things, doesn't it?

[Jingthing]

...

I know I have had sex with men who define themselves as straight. Does that mean they have a gay side? This is the question here.

Yes of course many men have sex with men and don't define themselves as gay. I actually don't agree that is really the question here though about Lincoln and his era in his culture. We pretty much know that the society then didn't even have the concept of gay as an IDENTITY but that doesn't mean there wasn't same sex love which sometimes was sexual back then because of course there was -- men loving each other romantically/emotionally without sexual attraction and acts, and men loving each other with sexual attraction and acts. About Lincoln, we have no proof that he ever had any same sex sexual relations in his life or the desire or inclination that way. We do have proof that he had a romantic thing with another young man, Joshua Speed and massive opportunity to sexualize that love, but that doesn't mean there was any sexual attraction between the two, or sexual acts and also if those acts were of situational (so horny) or truly deeply desired/preferred the way homosexuals would, word for homosexual or not. I would bet a lot of money that Lincoln and Speed had at least situational sex in the frontier and neither they nor society would have found that especially amazing or ruinous, but whether they were really into it and into each other that way, no way of knowing based on the current historical record. I do agree that there is no need to put Lincoln in a modern box based on our mores and labels. He very well could have been very much in romantic love with Speed, and vice versa, but not in a sexual way. I think men of his era were capable of that and such relationships likely weren't very unusual.

A possibility about Lincoln - Speed that would really be seriously foreign to modern people is if they loved each other romantically AND had situational sex (that darned bed) with both men still being totally oriented heterosexually. If modern people were going to put a label on that, it wouldn't be gay.

About Carl Sandburg's conclusion that there was a gay side to the love of Lincoln and Speed, I do wonder what evidence he had about that beyond what we have, the facts about the four years in bed and the letters. It's a strong clue but he seemed to side with the definitive conclusion and I do wonder what his thinking was behind that.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

I guess it depends on who is doing the defining.

[endure]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/jack-nicholson-leonardo-dicaprio-tom-hanks-denzel,28904/

[MrRealDeal]

[BeforeTigers]

I like the part where the first guy keeps repeating the argument;

Nobody could possibly know whether Lincoln was gay therefore Lincoln definitely wasn't gay.

Then the other guy calmly and logically rebukes him, and then the first guy just says it again for 3 pages while other people chime in periodically with the same basic argument.

The fact that he was married with children is pretty good evidence he wasn't gay. The fact that he shared a bed with his friend with whom he was affectionate in a manner that we, today, would think of as more than friendly is fair evidence that maybe he was.

I kinda hope he was. Would make the history that much more more interesting.

[geriatrickid]

Next thing you'll be telling me is that John Wayne was gay

No I won't.

Of course he was gay. Why would he walk like that, otherwise?

He had chronic back pain, a result of his early days as a stuntman.

What's next, an accusation that Roy Rogers was light in his boots because he wore girlie like outfits?

[Jingthing]

Next thing you'll be telling me is that John Wayne was gay

No I won't.

Of course he was gay. Why would he walk like that, otherwise?

He had chronic back pain, a result of his early days as a stuntman.

What's next, an accusation that Roy Rogers was light in his boots because he wore girlie like outfits?

You didn't know about Roy Rogers?

[geriatrickid]

You didn't know about Roy Rogers?

Roy Rogers was a hero who didn't need a gun to settle a dispute, and he could yodel. He had a horse named Trigger and dog named Bullet. Seriously, how cool is that? Lincoln couldn't yodel. He married a woman that was a nutter and had a hairy face.

I have a feeling you are the mystery villian at the theater.

PS. I haven't laughed so hard in ages. Imagine sitting there watching Lincoln under this scenario. And yes, I won't sit in the balcony just like Graham.

[Fookhaht]

I'm sorry if the following offends, it's not meant to. On the contrary, it's meant as a bit of light relief.

When I saw the topic title in the forum index, I immediately thought of this:

OMG! That's a clip from the movie under discussion? Documentary-quality indeed!

[catmac]

You didn't know about Roy Rogers?

I always thought that he was a little bit too fond of his horse..........