Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

I'm wondering because1) it's just so weird, that letter he supposedly wrote to Buckingham, first invoking God and calling him wife, it's just too too weird.2) Besides why on earth would he leave such evidence around for his enemies to find?3) It contradicts too much else that is known about him. He had a reputation as a true Christian. Kings generally don't mind being all kinds of sinners if they really are, but he seemed to be a genuine believer. And enemies love to smear such people.4) The whole idea was concocted after his death and most of it in our time. Nobody ever accused him of homosexuality in his own time which they certainly would have in that age.Yet again, I can't disprove the claims, they just don't convince me.

That's another big fat lie. James asserted the divine right of kings as antidote to the Pope's claim to be boss over kings as well as everybody else. And he was hardly the great tyrant you make him out to be. abe: He even advised the people against doing any kind of violence against the Catholics who had tried to kill him. /abeEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

deleted original post. I thought it was a positive contribution to the discussion but apparently it wasn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

4) The whole idea was concocted after his death and most of it in our time. Nobody ever accused him of homosexuality in his own time which they certainly would have in that age.

---

Did you not read the article on Buckingham that you cited ? [9] refers to: Bergeron, David M. (2002). "Writing King James's Sexuality". In Fischlin, Fortier. Royal Subjects: Essays on the Writings of James VI and I. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. p348[10] refers to: Ruigh, Robert E. (1971). The Parliament of 1624: Politics and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.p77

Yes I read it.

Then why did you claim that there were no contemporary allegations of a homosexual relationship, when the article says otherwise ?

Because you find it weird it cannot be? Seems quite rational for him to talk to the person he loves this way. Views of same sex relationships were different back then. This was before victorian prudishness. Also, he was an authoritarian despot. He didn't care what people thought. He had a reputation as an amoral despot. No. You just want this to be. He was a known homosexual in his time.In 1623 Thophile de Viau (1590- 1626) wrote obscene poem "Au marquis du Boukinquan,".Apollo with his songs
Debauched young Hyacinthus
Just as Corydon fucked Amyntas,
So Caesar did not spurn boys.One man fucks Monsieur le Grand de Bellegarde [a friend of Viau],
Another fucks the Comte de Tonnerre.
And it is well known that the King of England
Fucks the Duke of Buckingham.Gaudiani, Claire Lynn (1981). The Cabaret poetry of Thophile de Viau: Texts and Traditions page 104
SourceAny more evidence you want to ignore?

That's 17th Century oppressive dictators for you, they sound weird. It wouldn't be the first time a powerful person has communicated in secret in such a way his enemies can exploit that leaves evidence, especially when the only way he could communicate with a person he said he loved, was through letters. Maybe he thought he was powerful enough that he could ignore or kill any enemies that tried to make a deal out of it. People with such reputations can and do get involved in scandals, sometimes involving sex. Believers can still sin and can do so while thinking they are in God's graces. There are a number of reports that comment on the scandalous or inappropriate nature of the relationship. But if such letters were written by Obama I'm sure you'd find them very persuasive, right?

I don't believe Bergeron, he's a little too eager to celebrate "homoerotic desire" and anybody who "creatively" reinterprets a historical figure is suspect to me, as said in this article on BergeronBut the article goes on to comment that James' letters had been previously read as homoerotic but not with such approval: However, homoerotic is one thing, actual homosexual activity is another.

You really are 'full of yourself' as my grandma used to say.. But I'm sure Phat will be releaved. Or not.

Because it was said somewhere. And I've come to distrust everything written about the man that accuses him of homosexuality. But the contemporary claim didn't quite accuse him of homosexuality anyway, just of unseemly behavior..

I have NO clue how anything I said shows me to be "full of myself" but if that's how you read that post I decided to delete it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't believe Bergeron, he's a little too eager to celebrate "homoerotic desire" and anybody who "creatively" reinterprets a historical figure is suspect to me, as said in this article on Bergeron

---

Since he's only cited as a secondary source for a contemporary letter, I think you can trust him on that.

quote:

---

However, homoerotic is one thing, actual homosexual activity is another.

---

But the letters are evidence of a homosexual relationship.But this is really besides the point. Why say that there were no contemporary conclusions so soon after seeing evidence to the contrary ? You don't have to answer directly, but you really ought to think about it and try to do better.

Again; how is saying "You can buy anything but a wedding cake" different than saying "You can buy anything in the store except at the white counter" or "You can ride anywhere on the bus as long as you don't sit in the front with the white folk"?How does a cake validate a marriage?Any answers Faith?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Where's the "evidence of homosexual relationship" in those letters?