Joan of Arc and Nine Other "Queer" Saints

Aoxomoxoa said:
I am sorry but I cannot see how you can determine the sexual orientation of an historical figure that never had sex, that is just an attempt to apply modern day social mores to another time and place.
Click to expand...

If you didn't go to the link on Huff Post, and read the synopsis for each saint, then I can't help you.
 
WinterBorn said:
If someone claims to be heterosexual and celibate, unless there is some evidence to the contrary, why would we call them anything else?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't. And a non-sequitur to the secret lives of some. How many celebrities have "come out", whom you had no clue about?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
By "synopsis", you mean conjecture, assertions, projections, and assumptions.
Click to expand...

Are you attempting to engage me in a respectful manner? The answer is "likely", coupled with some eyewitness accounts, which were alluded to at the link site.
 
poet said:
We wouldn't. And a non-sequitur to the secret lives of some. How many celebrities have "come out", whom you had no clue about?
Click to expand...

Numerous ones. But they came out. I didn't assume they were gay because they were celibate and wanted to be buried next to their lifelong friend.

BTW, I agree that one can be celibate and still heterosexual or homosexual. But my question would be, unless they admitted their feelings or urges, how would anyone know?
 
poet said:
Are you attempting to engage me in a respectful manner? The answer is "likely", coupled with some eyewitness accounts, which were alluded to at the link site.
Click to expand...

And the op-ed piece conveniently left out that the reason Joan of Arc wore men's clothing is that it was reported that while in prison and wearing a dress, there was a rape attempt and that men's clothing offered more protection from those so inclined to assault her.

Trying to equate the wearing of men's clothing, with that of being a homosexual, is a stretch by any kind of reasoning.
Articles like this do more to harm the acceptance of homosexuals; because it's nothing more then someone trying to claim something as true, when there is nothing to support it.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I think the thing that distresses me most about reinterpreting history, through modern eyes, is when you see someone stating that an historic figure is homosexual but celibate. I have great difficulty understanding what the fuck that means.
Click to expand...

Celibacy is between a man and a woman??? :)
 
WinterBorn said:
Numerous ones. But they came out. I didn't assume they were gay because they were celibate and wanted to be buried next to their lifelong friend.

BTW, I agree that one can be celibate and still heterosexual or homosexual. But my question would be, unless they admitted their feelings or urges, how would anyone know?
Click to expand...

Because Huffpost said so, because huffpost said so (I forget, how many times do I need to chant this to make it true?)
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I think the thing that distresses me most about reinterpreting history, through modern eyes, is when you see someone stating that an historic figure is homosexual but celibate. I have great difficulty understanding what the fuck that means.
Click to expand...

How could you misunderstand that? A person who is attracted to their own sexual identity who has decided not to have sex. It's really not that difficult of an idea to conceive.
 
Imagine riding a horse into battle, leading men, drawing a sword and getting it all tangled up in your dress.

It's inane to say that Joan d'Arc was gay because she dressed like a guy. Her job pretty much demanded it.
 
Superfreak said:
Because Huffpost said so, because huffpost said so (I forget, how many times do I need to chant this to make it true?)
Click to expand...

It's an award winning credible news source. Questions? Oh that's right. You're partial to Newsmax, Townhall.com, and Fox News.
 
Damocles said:
Imagine riding a horse into battle, leading men, drawing a sword and getting it all tangled up in your dress.

It's inane to say that Joan d'Arc was gay because she dressed like a guy. Her job pretty much demanded it.
Click to expand...

Yet, you'd say that of men who dressed like women, without any reservations. Such hypocrisy.
 
I knew a tomboy in college who was always out playing sports with the guys, and who dressed up in hoodies and sweats, and chose not to wear make-up or mess with her hair. She dated guys, however, and would dress-up really nice for dances, dinners, and all of the important functions that went on. It was always funny to see her in a dress and heels.
 
poet said:
It's an award winning credible news source. Questions? Oh that's right. You're partial to Newsmax, Townhall.com, and Fox News.
Click to expand...

Winning an award does not lend credibility to all of the articles on the site. The article you posted is nonsense. Period. Again, it is like DY/Alias posting his 'homo's are immoral' nonsense. As I stated, in this country you are entitled to your opinion and entitled to express them freely. But we shall mock you for nonsense every bit as much as we do when Alias does it.
 
poet said:
Yet, you'd say that of men who dressed like women, without any reservations. Such hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

If their job demanded they dress like women (like actors of the period) then yeah, I'd say the same thing. There was no evidence that the men who played women's roles in Shakespeare's plays were all homosexual just because they wore a dress. It's silly to suggest that they were. Or the dude who played in "Tootsie"... Or the dudes on "Bosom Buddies"...

Delusional is assuming that a soldier who dresses appropriately is a "sign" that they are gay. And you continue to try to assume hypocrisy where there is none. You should probably ask questions rather than dip right into the fool pool and try to say somebody is hypocritical before you even know their position.
 
Damocles said:
If their job demanded they dress like women (like actors of the period) then yeah, I'd say the same thing. There was no evidence that the men who played women's roles in Shakespeare's plays were all homosexual just because they wore a dress. It's silly to suggest that they were. Or the dude who played in "Tootsie"... Or the dudes on "Bosom Buddies"...

Delusional is assuming that a soldier who dresses appropriately is a "sign" that they are gay. And you continue to try to assume hypocrisy where there is none. You should probably ask questions rather than dip right into the fool pool and try to say somebody is hypocritical before you even know their position.
Click to expand...

Right. But I'm intelligent and can read between your lines, otherwise obscure to lesser persons. You're being intellectually dishonest, yet, again. Having a heavy flow day, are we?
 
Superfreak said:
Winning an award does not lend credibility to all of the articles on the site. The article you posted is nonsense. Period. Again, it is like DY/Alias posting his 'homo's are immoral' nonsense. As I stated, in this country you are entitled to your opinion and entitled to express them freely. But we shall mock you for nonsense every bit as much as we do when Alias does it.
Click to expand...

Sez you. sez you. sez you. mock, to your heart's content. We reserve the right to laugh at your mocking, and cry for attention. Really? We're supposed to take you seriously, and you have the ID and avatar you have? Totally laughable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top