Gay Pride ad a new 'equality gap'?

dj it was not illegal to stand up for gay rights. How else did the 1967 Act get on the statute book? Nor was it illegal for him to make his house a haven for gay men, had he so chosen. It was the practice of homosexuality that was illegal. Not being homosexual.

Ha! A dissident to my theory!!

or 'of'

Except that I have made it emphatically clear that I do not think the NT was right to try to make its volunteers where this lanyard, but I do think that local authorities should be able to requisition properties that have been empty for a prolonged period.

Oh, and I also voted remain!

I pointed out on another thread, those who think that the NT volunteers should have toed the line and adhered to the rigid diktat of the NT have very similar views to the posters who believe that requisitioning vacant property by the State to house the homeless is a good idea.

I am not criticising, merely pondering the correlation between the two ideas.

I suppose, because I voted Remain, I am exempt from criticism

He was the last in his direct line. His brother died in the war and he was childless. Choosing to leave your home to the NT rather than another family member, is no indication on how close he was to them. Other members of the family may have been only too glad he didn't leave it to them and he may well have consulted them before doing so. Nobody knows.

Trisher, nobody has suggested that the story should not be told, merely that it should not have been told the in the way the NT chose to do it.

Grumppa I entirely agree with you. I notice that those that voted 'leave were more likely than any other group to think this way and, as we know everyone over 65 voted 'leave' the figures disapproving of homosexuality will go down rapidly as we all keel over and are put to bed with a shovel.

In the era in which he lived coming to terms with his sexuality must have caused him some anguish. He loved and was beloved by his grandchildren but had to accept that he would never have a family life and children of his own. Because of the law any man he loved would have to be hidden away. He would always have lived with fear of being exposed, ridiculed, rejected, imprisoned, committed to a mental institution.
He could have become a bitter and angry man or a recluse. But he swallowed what must have been a bitter pill, "why me?" .and lived a generous and successful life. For that I think we should honour him. But I don't think that's really possible unless we know the circumstances of his life and what his struggles would have been. I wish the volunteers could have shown an equal spirit.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\i


In what seems like an attempt to demonstrate their open-mindedness, which doesn't extend to their volunteers...

Generally speaking, however, I don't think a person's sexuality is the main part of who they are.
That is what I was trying to say too, Starlady. He was a much respected public figure, Lord Lieutenant I believe and obviously beloved of all his god-children too. His - anyone's - sexuality is part of who he or they are but in his case the NT has made it the main part of who he is and it is not.

What real proof is there? Have lovers come forward with photographs ? if he kept his sexuality private

I'm not maligning Boleyn trisher which was why I referred to her supposed misdemeanors. My point is any discussion regarding their private lives can be regarded as being of historical importance because it impacted on their lives and in Boleyn's case her death.

I very much doubt Elizabeth the 1st would ever have seriously been said to have been a man bearing in mind that at that time a King was preferable to a Queen.

There is no proof of the affairs Anne Boleyn was accused of Smileless2012 so arguably you are maligning her by suggesting she had them. Elisabeth 1 has been said to have been a man, linked with several men and said to have had a child. All stories about their sexuality for which there is little or no evidence, yet people are happy to repeat them. But someone for whom there is real proof of their sexuality can't be talked about- isn't that double standards?

Good points, Smileless!

But some people might think it's still important to let people see that a gay person could also be a "pillar of... society." There's still some anti-gay prejudice out there, sadly, so NT might have thought it was important to show this.

Generally speaking, however, I don't think a person's sexuality is the main part of who they are. For some, it may be a major part, but for others, not so much.

I'm torn about the lanyards situation, Imperfect. I can see where those dealing with the public may be asked to show that they accept a broad spectrum of people. Otoh, it's kind of ironic, as if those who have some doubts about the "gay pride" movement have to be "kept in the closet!"

Meanwhile, I'm so sorry for the hurt you went through at the hands of your xh. You would probably have been just as hurt if he left you for another woman, though, maybe more. (((Hugs)))

Yes he could have campaigned within the law, and he could have welcomed gays discreetly. Perhaps he did!

He couldn't, grumppa. It was illegal.

Why is someone being gay a story? Unless their sexual preference had some significant role in their lives, what they achieved, what they stood for or that they were mistreated for the relationships they had, where's the story?

This man was a poet, squire and considered to be a pillar of Norfolk society. What significance does his gayness have? It doesn't. It makes no difference to those viewing his former home that he was gay.

Anne Bolyen was executed for her supposed extra marital affairs and for supposedly speaking of the death of the King which was treason. Elizabeth the 1st, the 'virgin queen', well it's obvious why any details of her private life can be regarded as being of historical importance.

He was gay; a 3 word story.

The survey to which you provided a link at 1514, durhamjen, makes depressing if not surprising reading. But I cannot see why it demonstrates that the "story of Felbrigg should be told in full".

If K-C had taken some kind of public stand for gay rights, or had provided a haven for gays at Felbrigg Hall, that would be relevant and interesting, but he didn't.

It's a dual argument Smileless2012 firstly that the story should be told because the stories of gay people need to be told. And to counter the argument that he wouldn't have wanted it, stories about people in history are just that and no-one can exercise control over them when you are dead.

I would say I don't support red poppies because of the links between the British Legion and arms dealing and withdraw myself from any activity that required me to wear one. I would do it quietly without making a huge issue of it.

Some posters feel that they are so young, or 'young at heart' that they feel they can label anybody else 'an old fart'.... It makes me laugh.

If you worked for the NT and they tried to make you wear red poppies ( rather than white) then all on here would be on your side about it.

I expect that you and durhamjen don't wear red poppies ( I may be wrong on that, but seem to remember it from when we had a poppy thread.)

trisher you are missing the point in every post. Nobody should have to support anything by wearing an overt symbol of anything full stop.

So what exactly is your argument trisher? This is the first time you've supported the publicity of this man's sexual preferences because it could be regarded as being of historical importance, as with the intimate details of the lives of Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth the 1st.

Your argument has up till now been based on the importance of all, regardless of their sexual preferences to be accepted, which of course they should be.

I wonder if Anne Boleyn or Elizabeth 1 would like all the stories and conjecture there has been about their sex lives? Or doesn't that matter, because it was long ago, because they were women or for some other obscure reason. They are dead, he is dead. No one knows what they might have thought and stories will be told about them. That's the nature of the thing it's called HISTORY. It's what the NT does.

My brother is gay, so are our neighbours. It's important to them that their stories are heard and what's more important is that they choose whether or not their stories are told.