Talk:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

Please Delete This

Please delete this article, there is not a shred of evidence to support the claims of these opportunist "scholars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.192.111 (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. TroubledSenior (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well. The evidence for him being anything other than straight is scant at best, and it seems even this article passively admits that much. The existence of this entire article is quite undue. However, it is unlikely that it will be deleted anytime soon, so the best thing to do is to add well sourced and well written info about him being straight. Along with that, statements that are undue and fringe should be shortened or deleted. At the same time it is important to mention some people's contentions that he was not straight as this article does deal with his sexuality...even though the vast, vast majority of historians agree that he was straight. This article should not exist, but it does, so it should be written with clarity and well sourced facts. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.111.63 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This is by nature an article of speculation, and everything in it is properly sourced. The bitter attitudes are troubling indicators of a lack of impartiality on the part of their protesters. 2601:1C2:200:FC0:F036:1FC8:50EC:E7BE (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree there's no reliable proof that he was gay and most of this is just pulling at strings.Zyxrq (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we live in a world in which many people will have heard the rumor that Lincoln was gay. They need some place to hear what's true and what's just gossip. Why not Wikipedia? Wikipedia not having this page will not make the claims go away.

I agree that this page should be 'cleaned' somewhat. Delete mere verbiage and speculation. State what the claims are and reply with facts.

By the way, the thing most often pointed to is a remark made by William Greene, so perhaps that ought to be addressed. 67.243.220.61 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Grasping at straws

This article really seems to be working from almost nothing that’s not debunked within it. Is this claim really notable enough to spend a whole article saying there’s essentially no evidence? DemonDays64 (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to point to the passages that come to forthright conclusions of "debunking." It is mostly an article of quoting the speculations of various scholars and their own opinions. That there are so many opinions on the topic seems to prove its worth of discussion, and the article doesn't even make much mention of the content of Lincoln and Speed's correspondence. Someone of Lincoln's esteem writing poetry that reflects on homosexuality without malice seems itself quite noteworthy for the era. Yoyofsho16 (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC) How so? Lincoln rather famously advocated "malice towards none."

Lincoln was not a malicious person 216.164.249.213 (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

Googleguy007, the mainstream view is against the idea that Lincoln was anything other than heterosexual. Giving equal validity to the mainstream view and to the minority view in the lead creates a false balance. Also, please follow the WP:BRD cycle. Antiok 1pie (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could provide a source showing that Lincoln being strictly heterosexual is the mainstream view of historians who have looked into that aspect of his life? I think that your edits are widely good either way and my prmary issue (the article reading like a refutation of the theory) has been settled, but I would like to be able to cite the "mainstream historians" line. All the best Googleguy007 (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree with recent edits by Googleguy007 (see this diff [1]), which I interpret as trying to breathe more life into the very-fringe speculation about whether Lincoln was gay. My undo has been reverted twice by GG7, so I come here to discuss.

In the first paragraph of their edits, I find it a worse edit to change the identification of the "evidence" that Lincoln was gay (sharing a bed with a man as was common at the time; and a poem he wrote that referenced two men getting married which is essentially a schoolyard homophobic taunt), and change that specific reference to "potential evidence." Let's disclose the actual "evidence" up front, which can be briefly done, instead of suggesting through ambiguity that there's some actual evidence.

In the next paragraph, a similar removal of detail has been done. E.g., the text stating "men sharing a bed was a once-common practice and that Lincoln was entirely public about it, that the poem which he wrote about two men being a married couple was satirical, written to embarrass someone against whom Lincoln held a grudge" has been changed to "various pieces of historical context explain the supposed evidece". Let's just state the "evidence."

I would note that as gay rights activist and historian Martin Duberman said when the 'men sharing a bed eureka!!' theory was first raised in 1995, it is "irresponsible to quickly label someone from the past 'gay' or 'lesbian' unless we have very concrete evidence of genital activity and probably a romantic connection -- and we almost never have that."[2] And we don't have anything close to that as "evidence" here. There's enough written about the subject to have an article, but the article needs to be clear that this is a highly fringe "theory" based on the silliest of evidence.

Personally I come at this issue out of fascination with the tendency of humans to affix fringe theories to super popular people. Super famous people are more likely to have stuff written about them maybe being gay because so much gets written about them. It is part of humans' innate nature of wanting to feel connected. And maybe Lincoln was gay or bisexual! There's just no real evidence of it. Thus, even The Hardy Boys article had a fight for a few years over whether they were gay.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Intro/Lead section contains a misleading paragraph

The intro contains a very misleading paragraph that reads as follows:

 Mainstream historians generally reject theories of Lincoln's homosexuality, noting that the historical context explains away the supposed evidence, that he had romantic ties with women, and that he had four children in an enduring marriage to a woman.

The main problems with the paragraph is that it assumes Lincoln was either Strickland gay/homosexual or straight and ignores the possibility hew was bisexual, which is the more common speculation about Lincoln seen these days anyways. If he was bisexual then he could have had romances, sex, and children with woman while still enjoying the company of men too, though maybe not at the same time. Second, it assumes that a gay man can’t have relation and children with a woman which has been disproven by the existence of so-called Lavender marriages, where gay men and women marry the opposite sex and even sometimes have children together in order cover up their sexuality. If Lincoln was either bisexual or in a Lavender marriage then the arguments by these mainstream historian against the “Lincoln was gay” still doesn’t prove Lincoln was 100% straight. As such, I bee bold and add a disclaimer to the section, regarding bisexuality possibility. - Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a valid possibility. On the other hand, since there isn't a historical source to support it, I suggest that we remove the speculation and simply rephrase the confusing claim that "mainstream historians hold that Lincoln wasn't homosexual" to "mainstream historians hold that Lincoln was heterosexual". It is more accurate and simple to focus on the positive claims which have evidence than this possibility which does not. ENordquist (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not clinical depression?

Why is it stated that in 1841 "Lincoln is believed to have suffered something approaching clinical depression"? (Italics mine.) All the evidence points to him having suffered clinical depression, not something approaching it. His friends so feared that he would commit suicide that they removed from him anything that could have been used to do so. He stated that he either had to die or get well, as he could not go on as he was. I can't imagine a worse depression. Perhaps the author shied away from stating that Lincoln suffered clinical depression due to the fact that there is still a stigma attached to those who have suffered from clinical depression. That's unfortunate, especially given that Lincoln himself stated that a predisposition to depression is "a misfortune, not a fault'. Jersey Jan (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)