yeah, Buchanan is probably the strongest contender for a former President who was secretly gay, but obviously we'll never know for sure. and if there was suddenly-discovered irrefutable evidence that he was, 1) it wouldn't change anything about contemporary views of homosexuality and 2) would anyone really want it to turn out that our first gay President was also one of the worst Presidents we've ever had?
WI: A former president turns out as gay
- Thread starter Alcsentre Calanice
- Start date
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
All I can really do at this point is shrug, because the bolded misses my point. It's not that the word didn't exist, but it's the social construction of homosexuality as we know it didn't exist. You can say that, from a modern standpoint, Buchan was gay because he was sexuality attracted to men, and yes to a degree you would be right to label him as a homosexual, but at the same time it ignores his contemporary standpoint in how he and his contemporaries may have viewed such attractions. And you can say that the ancient Greeks had economy, but if anything their considerations of sexuality compared to modern considerations would be a more apt comparison.
Linocln's relationship with a specific women was often strained, having what appears to be happier and more close relationships with other men, hence why his sexuality it often brought into question. And just because he had a family...
But to get back on track, with all this considered if a former President came out, or we were given verified proof, then things will get... uncomfortable. You'll likely see a lot of pushback, a lot of skirting around the issue, perhaps even attempts at suppression, but I think that, again, it depends on the President. You may even see the evidence embraced to the homophobic end of blaming the failures of that particular President for their 'gayness'. It would be an issue that would be interesting, but highly dependent.
Maybe we are considering the same problem from different angles (and thus come to different conclusions). You speak in favor of the social point of view, while I have a biological or genetic view of the issue. Sure the society of the 1850's and 1860's had other standards to label such relationships. But the genes and other physical predispositions influencing the sexual behaviour are the same as 170 years ago. So from a social point of view, he might not be homosexual, but from a biological point of view, he certainly was.
They had a very differen consideration, but there were some individuals in ancient history (Trajan and Hadrian for example) who very likely were attracted only to men and thus can, again only from a biological point of view, be described as homosexuals. But it's a bit unfair to say that the Greeks had no concept of homosexuality. In Plato's Symposium, Aristophanes speaks of men attracted to men, of women attracted to women and of men attracted to women. That's pretty close to modern classification.
Yes, my question referred to a respected president. If he was already unpopular before his outing, he isn't going to improve the situation of homosexuals considerably. So someone like Truman, Eisenhower or Reagan.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
Well, I suppose we should also consider how that President is outed. If it's an outing by a third party (or even the partner) and they deny it, I can imagine that most people would openly side with the President, even if they had their personal doubts, with later retrospective accounts treating the President the same way as Roy Cohn. If the President acknowledged or even went so far they were proud of it then the reaction would be more... I'm not sure how to describe it, but it'd be livelier, I suppose. Truman and Eisenhower, if they came out and said yes, they had relations with another man and weren't ashamed, may actually face some kind of impeachment (after all, they lived through the Lavender scare). Reagan... I suppose he'd get bad press and a negative reaction in the party, but it may be interesting to consider that such a move may bring gay rights into the limelight, perhaps even leading to an earlier decriminalisation in various states.
Harris Wofford!
He made Bill Clinton's shortlist. Have Bill Clinton (or an alternative Democratic nominee) pick Wofford as running mate in '92. If Wofford runs and wins in 2000 (he'd admittedly be 74) and, say, serves a term, and comes out later, you've got your "gay ex-president."
(TBF, Wofford in profiles last year said he did not label himself gay. But still, this comes close.)
He made Bill Clinton's shortlist. Have Bill Clinton (or an alternative Democratic nominee) pick Wofford as running mate in '92. If Wofford runs and wins in 2000 (he'd admittedly be 74) and, say, serves a term, and comes out later, you've got your "gay ex-president."
(TBF, Wofford in profiles last year said he did not label himself gay. But still, this comes close.)