Was Lincoln Gay? [Dave at Garfield Ridge]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Taking off from Ace's post last night about Andrew "Whiny-Ninny Pants" Sullivan, here's a link to a posting I wrote on the subject a few weeks ago.

First taste's free:

What distresses me and so many others about this line of historical inquiry is that it is so often undertaken with the intent to focus *all* of our attention on a subject's sexuality. Much like many insist "the personal is political," some argue that the "sexual is political." It is certainly the case that the sexual Id is a strong, and sometimes overpowering influence in our lives. However, it is not always the case, and in fact, is rarely so. There is no need to suggest the influence of sexual desire in choices made in the grocery checkout line. There is also no need to suggest it when ordering the blockade of the Confederacy, or the emancipation of the slaves.

Yet, many insist that the *only* thing that is important is sexuality. I don't know why; perhaps it's a search for some historical validation as to why sexuality seems so important in their lives. Thus begins the spiral downward of innuendo, gossip, and ultimately outing of historical figures.

Those who pursue such a line of thought often maintain that they are merely seeking "role models." In the case of Lincoln, is there anything sadder than reading his incredible story and concluding that, for all his heroics, he'd only be complete if we could prove that he was homosexual to boot?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

posted by Ace at 10:26 AM

| Access Comments