Contributions of the Queers

In response to a poster suggesting that queers don't make any contributions to "man."

Famous Gays and Lesbians in History

Sappho (600 B.C.) Greek Poetess
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher
Plato (427-347 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher
Alexander The Great (356-323 B.C.) Macedonian King and Military Leader
Wu (140-87 B.C.) Chinese Emperor
Hadrian (76-138 A.D.) Roman Emperor
Richard the Lion Hearted (1157-1199) English King and Crusader
Edward II (1254-1327) English King
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) Italian Renaissance Artist, Teacher, Scientist and Inventor
Michelangelo (1475-1564) Italian Renaissance Artist and Sculptor
Montezuma II (1480-1520) Aztec Emperor
Julius III (1487-1555) Catholic Pope
Ieyasu Tokugawa (1542-1616) Japanese Shogun and founder of the Edo Shogunate
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) British Statesman and Writer
Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593) English dramatist and poet
Christina (1626-1689) Swedish Queen
Peter the Great (1672-1725) Russian Czar
Frederick the Great (1712-1786) Prussian King and Military Leader
Madame de Stael (1766-1817) French Writer and Intellectual
Lord Byron (1788-1824) British Poet
Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875) Danish Poet and Writer
Margaret Fuller (1810-1850) Euro-American Writer and Journalist
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) Euro-American Philosopher, Naturalist, and Peace Activist
Walt Whitman (1819-1892) Euro-American Poet
Herman Melville (1819-1891) Euro-American Writer
Chief Crazy Horse (Tashunca witco) (1849-1877) Oglala Sioux Chief
Peter I. Tchaikovsky (1840-1893) Russian Composer
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Irish Writer and Dramatist
Dame Ethel Smyth (1858-1944) British Composer, Writer, and Activist
Marcel Proust (1871-1922) French Writer
Sergei Diaghileff (1872-1929) Russian Ballet Impresario
Vita Sackville-West (1892-1962) British Writer
Vaslav Nijinsky (1890-1950) Russian Ballet Dancer
Edward Carpenter (1844-1929) British Author and Gay Rights Pioneer
Willa Cather (1873-1947) Euro-American Writer and Critic
Colette (1873-1954) French Writer and Actress
W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) British Writer and Dramatist
Alice B. Toklas (1877-1967) Euro-American Writer; Stein's Domestic Partner
Gertrude Stein (1874-1946) Euro-American Writer and Art Collector; Toklas' Domestic Partner
Bessie Smith (1894-1937) African-American Blues Singer and Entertainer
E.M. Forster (1879-1970) British Writer
Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) British Writer and Publisher
Ernst Rohm (1887-1933) German Nazi and SA Leader
T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) (1888-1935) British Soldier
Jean Cocteau (1889-1963) French Writer and Filmmaker
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) British Economist and Nobel Prize Winner
Cole Porter (1893-1964) Euro-American Composer
Bayard Rustin (1910-87) African-American Civil Rights, Labor Rights, & Peace Activist/Leader
Alan Turing (1912-1954) British Mathematician and Computer Scientist
James Baldwin (1924-1987) African-American Writer and Civil Rights Activist
Truman Capote (1924-1984) Euro-American Author
Tennessee Williams (1914-1983) Euro-American Dramatist
Marguerite Yourcenar (1903-1987) Belgian-American Writer
Federico Garcia Lorca (1894-1936) Spanish Poet and Dramatist
Christopher Isherwood (1904-1986) British Author
W.H. Auden (1907-1973) British Poet and Writer
Harvey Milk (1930-1978) Euro-American Politician
Audre Lorde (1934-1992) African-American Writer and Activist
Billie Jean King (1943 - ) Euro-American Tennis Champion and Activist
Martina Navratilova (1956- ) Czechoslovakian-American Tennis Champion and Activist
Andy Warhol (1930-1987) Euro-American Pop Artist
Frieda Kahlo (1907-1954) Mexican Artist and Activist
Gore Vidal (1925- ) Euro-American Writer
Rudolf Nureyev (1938-1993) Russian dancer
Freddie Mercury (1946-1991) British Singer/songwriter/musician
Elton John (1947 - ) British Singer/songwriter/musican
Nathan Lane (1956 - ) Euro-American Actor
Ellen Degeneres (1958 - ) Euro-American Comedian/actor
k. d. lang (1961 - ) Canadian Singer/songwriter

And if that's not enough, here's oh, an alphabetical listing of possibly a few hundred or so (and if you want to spend your time counting them just to prove me wrong, you have WAY too much time on your hands!!)


At 15:39, Blogger dorsano said...


At 18:18, Blogger dorsano said...

We could have done without Proust :) - OK, I didn't really mean that - but just think how much lighter the reading load for French Lit students would be if Marcel had devoted his life to raising a family.

At 00:04, Blogger dorsano said...

For anyone who thinks a lawyer is cheaper than a wedding

At 00:13, Blogger dorsano said...

The Abramoff-Scanlon School of Sleaze



via Amanda.

The money and power behind the "conservative" movement since the 1970's

At 01:42, Blogger dorsano said...

Fighting to Protect Freedoms They are Denied

And yet that same country still refuses to acknowledge them or to give them the basic liberty and rights provided to the rest of society - liberty and rights they are fighting and dying to protect. That's the irony. And it's wrong. It's immoral. It's unjust.

And it will change.

At 10:38, Blogger lovin' it said...

If this was posted in response to my comments, all I can say is "so what?"

Of course gay people participate in society. Of course some of them become famous, or even do great things (like lead the third crusade).

But even if I did accept at face value the claim that all these people were gay without any supporting evidence, I still fail to see how this becomes an argument for gay marriage. What's the connection? Enlighten me, if you could be so obliged.


At 17:23, Blogger dorsano said...

Enlighten me

Sir Francis Bacon could. The enlightenment gave us this:


If the pursuit of Happiness doesn't include "marriage" - you'll have to enlighten me.

At 19:16, Blogger Tonito Bandito said...

Callie, add yourself and me to this list. I think we contribute plenty to "Mankind".

At 19:29, Blogger dorsano said...

It looks like Virgina's going to elect a Democratic governor - a state Bush won by 9% only two years ago.

I'll believe that this country's "conservative" the day "conservatives" stop using liberal rhetoric like "No Child Left Behind" and "Clean Skies" and "Healthy Forests"

to sell their libertarian brand of "conservatism".

At 05:27, Blogger lovin' it said...

Dorsano - LOL! So, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really means the right to abortion, pornagraphy, and gay marriage? You really think that's what he meant when he wrote those lines? Not much of a student of history, are you?

At 11:51, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Dorsano & Tonito-

You gentlemen are the BEST!!! You RAWK!!!

Let's see, we also forgot to add Mark Bingham to our list, one of the heros of Flight 93 on that fateful 9/11, that kept his plane from potentially slamming into a government building, is also a gay man.

I'm sure by saving countless lives he made no contribution to "man."

I'm sure only those that squirt out babies or the semen in the effort to make babies make a contribution.

Yet, this contribution can come in the form of the next Son of Sam or Ted Bundy. Contributions don't always come from what develops between your legs. Sometimes it's from between your ears, from the pen in your hand, from the words from your mouth, and from the love in your heart.

I contribute through my love to another human being and add value to this world and to the lives of the people I meet through my deeds and words.

I can't make anyone see that I deserve anything, just by being me, and especially when someone refuses to see the validity of my life. Simply because I don't want to marry a man and have his baby, this makes me less valid is some people's eyes and those are minds I'll never change, no matter what is said or what proof is given. It's conversations like that which are not worth continuing.

They will also NEVER see or if they see NEVER care that they deny another person their "pursuit of happiness." A pursuit which does not harm another. However, if you turn the tables and demanded a popular vote on issues that would affect or impact their personal lives, it would be terribly discriminatory and unfair of us to vote on their personal lives.

After all, what would happen if we could vote on these amendments?

Your first spouse maintains all rights to your finances and property in the event of your adultery, not your 2nd spouse, 3rd spouse, 4th spouse, ad nauseum and any children begetted from your adulterous affair, whether it later becomes a marriage, will not be rewarded with medical coverage or financial gain-only children from your first marriage will have a right to this benefit.

If caught in an adulterous affair, you will be publicly lashed, forced to pay fines related to mental anguish to your spouse and your children, and then spend a year in jail for every year you cheated and/or for every affair you had.

If caught in an adulterous affair, you will lose unsupervised visitation rights with your children and visitations will only be allowed at the non-adulterous spouses discretion and can be revoked at any time.

I would personally enjoy voting on these. Turn about is fair play. Then again, I'm monogamous so these amendments wouldn't affect me even if I was married. I can see where a straight person can get off on someone else's pain. The whole "yeah, we'll teach them a lesson" mentality.

Hmmm, well, how sad that someone feels it necessary to spend their time trying to make someone else SO miserable!

At 14:19, Blogger lovin' it said...

Callie - That might be a bit harsh, but I definitely would support laws that make divorce more punative for the cheating spouse. Marriage vows are far too easily violated in this country.

When I enter into a contract, I can only break that contract at economic loss to myself. I can't just say "oh, sorry, I changed my mind." A contract binds me to it.

Marriage is the only exception. People often gives up career advancement, economic freedom, and make other personal sacrifices for the sake of a marriage. But if your spouse decides to walk out, no-fault divorce leaves you with no recourse. That is patently unfair.

In a just world, the cheating spouse should only be allowed out of the relationship on terms favorable to the faithful person. No-fault divorce is a travesty of justice.

See, we agree on some things. ;-)

Again, I've never said that a gay person has nothing of value to contribute to society. Of course you do. All I'm saying is that no other relationship, gay or straight, contributes the same benefits to society as a whole that marriage does.

At 14:40, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Whoa! Back up!

Go back and read your OWN words:

Two lesbians are contributing nothing to the civilization of men.

You've got your own words so twisted up trying to make an argument that you don't even know what you've said anymore!

On TOP of that, the VERY idea of categorically denying an entire group of citizens equal marriage rights based on your belief system systematically sets up by your definition one group of people that contributes to society (i.e. the straight married people) and those that cannot contribute (i.e. the gay couples). Not that they wouldn't want to contribute according to your vague definition of contribution, but that they can't because of your arbitrary whims.

Basically, you are saying, only marriage will allow you to contribute, but you can't get married so thus you can't contribute.

Do you have any awareness of how screwy your logic (if I DARE call it that) is?

At 14:46, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Oh, Dorsano, the thing about lawyers not being cheaper. True story:

My partner and I looked into setting up an estate plan a few months ago, mainly because I know my family will take my partner to court if I die.

It would cost us $2500 to set up an all-encompassing estate plan. Irony, it cost more for us than it did for straight couples (tell me that's not discrimination, huh?).

Anyway, I looked into what it would cost to run off to Canada to get hitched at a JOP (aside from the flight, etc.). Oh, only $100. I know in some places it can be as cheap as $25.

Please, that whole "you get the same thing through a lawyer" speech doesn't cut it with me. There was even a lawyer there and we asked directly. She said that the estate plan couldn't 100% protect you. Only being married on top of that would do it.

At 16:49, Blogger dorsano said...


You and I are discussing gay rights (or gay marriage if you will) not abortion or pornography or men who beat their wives or adolescent minds that can't frame a logical arugment.

I think he meant what he wrote - At the time, only white, land owning males were treated as full citizens - but the words inspired the woman's sufferage movement, the emancipation of the slaves, the black civil rights movement and will someday lead to same sex couples being treated equally under the law.

I'm sorry if that's not that's not the type of nation that makes you proud.

You must have run out of arguments.

At 16:55, Blogger dorsano said...

the thing about lawyers not being cheaper

I understand what you're saying Callie but I wasn't being literal. :)

One of Amanda's points is that there's still discrimination in law - a lawyer won't do much good.

At 16:55, Blogger RedStateExile said...


That's always the fall back argument when nothing is left.

Oh my God, happy, marrying queers will make everyone want to molest their kids, screw their dogs, and watch kiddie porn.

Bubble burst, that's been happening for eons and you can't say it only started when Mass approved of our relationships.

At 17:02, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Oh yeah, there is definitely discrimination in the law still. It was so weird, not that it has anything to do with discrimination in the law, but I was watching The Devil's Advocate the other day and Al Pacino (the devil) said to Keanu Reeves that basically law was their way in, not through govt or business, but law. Isn't it strange that we have so much emphasis and importance now on the SC? That one side is so determined to make it right wing and deny citizens control over their lives and bodies? It seemed like a very fitting statement for the times.

At 17:03, Blogger dorsano said...


the value of a dysfunctional heterosexual marriage > the value of a committed loving relationship of a same sex couple

= a twisted argument.

And that's not even taking into account a celibate priest's relationship with the Church and God.

At 17:03, Blogger dorsano said...

Callie, you've the patience of a saint - but then I suppose that it affects you more directly than it does.

At 17:43, Blogger RedStateExile said...


= a twisted argument.


That's a great point!!! I didn't even think about that!

At 18:00, Blogger dorsano said...

than it does me (I meant to say). :)

I know how you feel about the word "marriage", Callie but I think you can see the results of using that word in the votes on the Maine and Texas amendments.

That word was specifically chosen, as the prick's memo above admits, to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

It's a loaded word - primarily because of its association to religion in my opinion. A lot of people don't spend much time trying to decifer the "gay marriage" rhetoric - in fact, they don't spend much time getting up to speed on a lot of stuff they vote on - if they did, George Bush wouldn't be president.

They see "gay marriage" as the state forcing churches to marry homosexuals - which of course can't happen - there is too much precendent in the law that stregthens the first amendment.

But anything that seems like government infringement on Religion sets off warning bells in a great many people because it strikes at the roots of the nation - and since all your readers know so much about history I probably don't need to elaborate on that point.

At 18:44, Blogger RedStateExile said...


I think you are quite right on this. As you know though, the irony is that these people don't even want to recognize a relationship even by a different name that is similar to a marriage.

They even want to knock out civil unions as a possibility.

Like the amendment in Ohio, the Texas amendment says "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

So, what happens to common-law marriages? A straight woman wasn't going to be protected from domestic violence from her long-term, live-in boyfriend because they weren't married. This occured after the Ohio amendment.

I believe eventually the courts ruled the relationship should be recognized. Nice, a shack-up gets more recognition than gay couples that want to commit to each other.

But isn't that the nature of the stupid, assinine argument?

Let's rule this way on one day in this state, then tomorrow we'll rule another way in another state. Then we'll try to set it all in stone without even thinking about the consequences with amendments.

I guess I need to get some good research and arguments together though. I have a conference to present at in April on "Politicizing the Personal."

At 19:07, Blogger dorsano said...

Yea - that's why it's important to get the equal rights amendments on the table.

But don't get too caught up with the activists floating the amendments. They are different than the people voting on them.

For example, Dover has a new school board. :)


At 20:08, Blogger Karen said...

excellent post, and excellent blog. Musta forgotted to bookmark you - can't wait to read your other stuff!!

How's the wedding planning? Still going for Dec 30? 10th anniversary for Kirk and me, too, same as you if I remember correctly.

At 06:03, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Hey Karen!!! Awww, honey, you remembered! Well, unfortunately, money is tight (thanks to the economy we can't seem to get ahead) so it will have to be put off. We don't know until when. Who knows?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home