Why do Historians hate Gays?

>be hesitant to leap to conclusions as any good historian should
>all of a sudden you're a racist sexist homophobe because you don't agree with the conclusions of a leftist blogger
yeah, nah, historians have revealed multiple figures to be gay, when the evidence is sufficient

Homosexuality wasn't a category of identity. It was a thing you did, not who you "are".

Social media was a mistake.

>apparently, the same is not true of heterosexual love
Yes, that is correct.
Even good ol king Richard the lionheArt, the dude who thrashed Phillips boipussy on the regular, settled down with a wife and had a few kids.

>Even good ol king Richard the lionheArt, the dude who thrashed Phillips boipussy on the regular

Gaelic Propaganda

Or is it that everyone hates gays?

>Have more than enough evidence to draw an education conclusion
>All of the sudden you're such a hardliner that you're unwilling to admit homosexual tendencies in a historical figure because the man never labeled himself a peter puffer

Come on, just admit you're a bigot.

>>Have more than enough evidence to draw an education conclusion
>>All of the sudden you're such a hardliner that you're unwilling to admit homosexual tendencies in a historical figure because the man never labeled himself a peter puffer
Who are you quoting?

By repeatedly invoking the "heterosexual" Frantzen inevitably conjures up its longtime companion, the "homosexual"—never mind his terminological scruples. Using either of these terms inevitably locks the discussion into a modern system of sexuality that takes sexual object choice as the primary criterion of classification: if I desire men I am a homosexual, if I desire women I am a heterosexual, and it makes no difference whether I wear a necktie or a dress or who does what to whom in bed. Such a standard is not only unusual among human cultures but is, even in the West, very recent. In the words of Sedgwick: "The definitional narrowing . . . of sexuality as a whole to a binarized calculus of homo- or heterosexuality is a weighty but an entirely historical fact." 15

As we know, in earlier times sexual behavior was classified according to other criteria. In the thirteenth century, for instance, Thomas Aquinas arranged the species of lust according to their relation to reason (children must be raised by married parents) and to nature (the natural end of sex is procreation). Best are those "venereal acts" that respect reason and nature (the union of husband and wife desiring children), worse are those that violate reason, since they are outside marriage (fornication, seduction, adultery, rape), and worst of all "is the vice against nature, which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow" (masturbation, sodomy, bestiality). 16 Some will maintain that the sodomites were really homosexuals and that most of the rest were heterosexuals. By making this claim, however, one blinds oneself to the ways in which people in past times understood their sexual behavior.

...The Middle Ages had no notion of sexual orientation. Consider, for example, what Boccaccio has to say about teachers in his Comento to Dante's Divine Comedy, glossing the passage in which Brunetto Latini names Priscian among his companions in the circle of the sodomites: "I have never read or heard that [Priscian] was guilty of such a sin. Rather, I judge [Dante] put him here to represent those who teach his doctrine, since the majority of them are believed to be tainted with that evil. For most of their students are young; and being young, are timorous and obey both the proper and the improper demands of their teachers. And because the students are so accessible, it is believed that the teachers often fall into this sin." 26 If a gay man today were to tell you that he had decided to become a teacher in a boys' boarding school, you would probably assume that his choice has something to do with his sexual orientation. Boccaccio gives a different explanation. He assumes that, like all humans after the Fall, it is Priscian's nature to sin and that he happened to commit the sin of sodomy because the opportunity to sin this way presented itself to him: because the students are so accessible, teachers often fall into this sin...Priscian did not approach the students because his sexual orientation caused him to seek out boys. He approached his students because they were accessible to him, a postlapsarian human and therefore necessarily prone to sin. This does not mean that Priscian or Brunetto might not have preferred male sexual partners or that they might not have thought of themselves as different from the majority of people on account of that preference—only that they would not have thought their "sexual orientation" was responsible for this difference or that their homosexual orientation distinguished them from the other main class of humans, those with a heterosexual orientation.

Because they're faggots.

I shared a bed with my cousin when I was 14 and had a sleepover. Nothing weird about it.

That's insect

>Gays are hated on for 2000 years but suddenly its ok because some men marched naked in the street

Real question is why don't you hate gays

Gays can't be hated on for 2000 years because the concept of gays is a modern one.

Homosexuality certainly existed in history, but it did not manifest itself like it did today. Men who have sex with men certainly existed in the past, but they still were both expected to get married and have children, and they expected that of themselves too. Getting married was an alliance between families, it didn't matter whether your wife was attractive to you or not.

You can't declare medieval individuals to be homosexual for the same reason you can't diagnose them with a mental illness: it's impossible to evaluate someone effectively without meeting them. I think the author is confusing "we can't call people homosexuals" with "there were no homosexuals" and implicitly "we don't like homosexuals".

>when I was 14 and had a sleepover.
>14
I mean, it's a little weird

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23

They want to be like everyone else?

Sodom and Gomorrah say Hi from 4000 years ago.

Because historians are self-hating gays

I don't feel like they do.
The concept of sexualities (and all the drama we know today) was created by germs for medical classification purposes during the 19th century.
>germs in charge of being the bane of the world

>You can't declare medieval individuals to be homosexual for the same reason you can't diagnose them with a mental illness

Go fuck yourself, you bigot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mentally_ill_monarchs

I'm a historian and I'm not gay nor do I hate gays