Sistine Chapel homoerotic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems like anti-Catholic sentiments are becoming increasingly irrelevant and bizarre.
 
It is anachronistic to talk about somebody being “gay” back in the 15th/16th century.
Yes, but given that the period correct term would be something based on the act, and be something like “sodomite” . . . it wouldn’t go over well . . .

I’ve always been amused by the lists of alleged “gay historical figures”. The reasonings, in all but a few cases, see to be applications of modern or ancient stereotypes. (“Well, he was Greek, so therefore . . .” [or Roman] . . )
 
Last edited:
Interesting, but this was getting off topic… Please send me a message, since your profile is hidden 🙂
 
I am aware that Catholics are no longer specifically persecuted in the UK, but it’s just not a culture in which I think I would like to live. Believe me, I have enough issues with American culture, so this is not your typical “America is the greatest country in the world” type of comment. In fact, the UK and the US have a lot of the same problems (as I see it as a Catholic of fairly traditional views), e.g. abortion, state-funded contraception, same-sex marriage/civil partnerships, and in general a liberal/progressive/“woke” culture, taking down statues, renaming things, no-platforming etc. Additionally, the UK, despite the reforms introduced by Thatcher/Major/Blair (Thatcher’s greatest legacy, as she herself said), still retains features of the socialist society created by the Attlee government after the war. You also have very strict gun control over there. I appreciate that you are actually Irish, but I think Ireland also has strict gun control anyway.
Yes, but given that the period correct term would be something based on the act, and be something like “sodomite” . . . it wouldn’t go over well . . .
I think it would be deliberately provocative to say “sodomite”, although the term was, historically used. I think “homosexual” is a perfectly good, neutral term. It also has the benefit of encompassing all same-sex attracted people, not necessarily those who engaged in same-sex acts.
I’ve always been amused by the lists of alleged “gay historical figures”. The reasonings, in all but a few cases, see to be applications of modern or ancient stereotypes.
Such lists often include the likes of Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello, Botticelli, Caravaggio, Queen Christina of Sweden, King James VI and I, Cardinal Carafa, Cardinal Antonio Barberini the Younger, the Cardinal Duke of York, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Nero, Hadrian, and Sappho. More speculative candidates sometimes include Joan of Arc, Shakespeare, and Florence Nightingale. It’s all somewhat ridiculous. Some of these probably experienced same-sex attraction and some probably engaged in same-sex acts, while others pursued a kind of intense friendship between people of the same sex which was specific to their culture. We can be sure that none of them would have comprehended to concept of “LGBTQQI”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top