Explain to me why you freak out when historians say someone from history was a homosexual

Explain to me why you freak out when historians say someone from history was a homosexual.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy#Medieval_Christendom
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy#Medieval_Christendom

Most Christians wouldn't be publicly homosex. Depending on the society nonChristians might be publicly homosex.

>discover someone was
homos are less then slaves and have never achieved anything. In some ways they cannot achieve anything, hence, their presence should be removed

>implying

Most Christians wouldn’t be publicly sexual; hetero or homo.

i dont,
>freak out
i put 'her' in a dress.

Because most of the time it's "Einstein had Aspergers!" tier speculation. There's a few in history who it made sense over. James Buchanen springs to mind.

But really homosexuality as a definitive sexuality wasn't really a thing until the 20th century. Historically yeah they didn't like dudes fucking dudes but unless you were Oscar Wilde level fag no one really cared unless you were caught.

See also: British boarding schools. The boys all fucked each other in those places. Any upper class Brit who had gone to boarding school and has a "childhood friend" definitely fucked him at one point.

Because it's bullshit for many long but obvious reasons that homostorians will disagree with. As said, it's no different from aspergistorians or autismtorians who claim that any genius was an aspie.

Even the most common assertions, for example Alexander the Great, are mostly baseless.

Al may not have been a fag but if you think he didn't fuck a dude and/or was fucked by a dude at some point you're naive

because you do so with insufficient evidence or faulty logic (such as the idea there was no concept of heterosexuality in a society with marriage as an enshrined religious ceremony that influenced politics and dynasties) then falsely accuse anyone who disagrees of homophobia

doesn't matter if your cause is well meaning if you are plain wrong

>Explain to me why you freak out when historians say someone from history was a homosexual.

Because it's politically correct historical revisionism with nothing to support it.

Soulless Kike

*wins World War II*

Literal nobody who deserve the pain he brought upon himself

uhh no? depends on the place and time.sexual norms of the past were very different. sex with your wife the first time was a communal celebration.

...

Years ago a traveling museum show about Leonardo came through, and it was actually quite good. But in the promotion and at the opening of the exhibit itself they made a lot of noise about how Leonardo "might have been" gay. I don't know how many gays went to see it just because, but the people I talked to all felt like some kind of agenda was being pushed, like the only reason they held the show was as a vehicle to discuss Leonardo 's potential orientation.

homo/hetero-sexuality is a spook

>Even the most common assertions, for example Alexander the Great, are mostly baseless.


ayo dis nigga retarded

>hetero
What are you on, fag ?

Faggots were burned at the stake, while SANE people publicly married and their marriage was celebrated in the entire village

Because we are fed a constant diet of "being homosexual doesn't matter" "they are no different" "it shouldn't be a big deal to be homo"

Then they say x was homo and its a "big deal" and it "matters" because he's "different" than we thought.

Well does it matter if a person is homo or not? And if not why dig up the past to make a big deal about it. If you can find it to be significant that a historical person is gay then we can find it significant that current people are gay. If you want me to leave all the gays alone today, leave all the dead and gone dudes alone.

To summarize: Double Standardism.

From a biographical standpoint it is mildly interesting to know if for example Alexander shagged his companions or not.

And from an anthropological standpoint it might be interesting in the context of how people in certain periods viewed sexuality. There's not really any dissonance between this and the concept that you shouldn't mind what sex your neighbour or MP likes to stick his dick into.

Some if it is definitely just trying to find representation in history though, a bit like we wuzing.

Cause my friends assume I'm homosexual just because I don't stare at or talk about girls.

>Standardism
>ism
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
FUCKING STOP
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The term homosexual today tends to mean something more than just fucking men. It means pursuing sexual/romantic relationships exclusively with men. If you fuck women on the side you'd be bi or whatever.

Homosexuality as we know it today didn't really exist. Even the Greeks went home to their wives after fiddling boys in the gymnasium.

ANACHRONISM, GAY AND STRAIGHT, HETERO AND HOMOE.
>CAPTCHA
>RUBBISH