I don't know why I'm so obsessed (and not in a hot way) with this whole Abraham Lincoln homo thing. As I said before, I don't think it matters from a historical perspective and there's already a great case for a gay president (James Buchanan, who lived with a man that other Washingtonians frequently called his "wife" or referred to them as James and Nancy) so why do we need more of them?
See, kids, being gay used to be cool. You know, there weren't that many of us. Now just any ole person can be like, "Hi, my name is President Lincoln, I'm a fag!" And we're supposed to feel good about this because this shows that gays can be great people and emancipate the slaves and whatnot. As if the fact that a gay person may have emancipated the slaves matters. As if "gay people" are such a monolithic organism that the good deeds of one reflect on all of us positively. If that's the case, then we also have to accept that all those gay priests as "part of the community" too, and accept how monstrous they make us. Or Andrew Cunanan. Remember him? He was my favorite serial killer homo. He really shattered the straight ceiling in that regard. A real inspiration to future generations. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you can't murder your fashion designer lover!
Oh, and let's not even start on the fact that there were no gay people in the mid-19th century. There was no such "orientation," so that even men who did have homosexual relationships very often also had healthy heterosexual ones. Now, we know that Abe did not have a healthy relationship with his crazed wife, but we also know that he had a sexually functional one with her. So, why the assumption that, even if Abe was rubbing bungholes with his guard, that he was "gay?" Why not accept the more specific sexual behavior he exhibited and call him "bisexual?" Though even that doesn't really get a grasp on the nature of sexuality in the nineteenth century. It's simplistic to assign modern terms to historical figures. Think of all the trouble we have determining if Jefferson would be a Republican or a Democrat?
This debate is going to be greatly damaging to us, historically and socially, because it will be used as just another tool by both the moronic gay rights movement and the moronic family values movement. It is just more proof that both sides have more in common then they'll admit. Sully says that "homosexuality is heterosexuality with the genders reversed" or whatever. Another of his endless stream of conservative-gay-glibness. How is this possible? First of all, if the genders were reversed, then it would still be heterosexual since the man would be a woman and the woman a man, right? It would totally just be Nayiri's subway trip. But that aside, why must homosexuality be just like heterosexuality? Is that what we want? I don't think so. I don't think that's what straight people want either. Nothing constructive, much less progressive, will come out of the haphazard reduction of gender and sex to "love." Yes there are emotions to homosexuality -- but all healthy relationships exhibit love. Sexuality isn't easy to understand. That's why it's really fucking hot and not totally boringcakes.
And no really, thank you Ross.