>This illustrates my point: there are dramatic differences between
>calling someone "gay" and calling them a "sodomite". First of all, a
>man and a woman can commit sodomy. Second, sodomy refers to a specific
>sexual behavior, not a sexual "type" of person. Third, a person can be
>"gay" according to our modern definition and never engage in sodomy. I
>just don't see how a reasonable person can conflate the categories
>"sodomite" and "homosexual".
>
>
Remembering my parents' talk about aquaintances/friends who preferred
same-sex partners, I do not ever remember their equating that preference
with a sexual type of person. "Era curist" -- roughly translated "He was
an asser" -- was the idiomatic way to say he was a sodomite and, at
least for them, this was not a term of condemnation, but merely descriptive.
From my vast aquaintance with Western lit, I would say that the term "queer," such as we've known it since the seventies, is new. And to say, in that sense, that Michelango was queer is a misrepresentation.
Joanna