Was Winston Churchill secretly GAY?

[Vikrant]

It is better to play stupid than be stupid. Not that any of that relates to me

You are both, so, yeah, it does, and Gandee liked group sex.

It seems like I have hit a white supremacist nerve there Welcome to my thread. Make sure to take your medicine first. You will need it.

What supremacist nerve? Halifax was a drug addict, and the Indian soldiery was magnificent in WWII. You hate that WC is so esteemed and Gandhi is being forgotten. None of which has anything to do with good or evil.

There are more statues of Gandhi around the world than Churchill. I do not hate Churchill. Hate is for losers like yourself.

Vik, you started a loser thread, which makes you a loser. WC was a winner and always will be.

He certainly has won your heart I am not stopping you from masturbating while thinking about Churchill but don't disrupt a serious discussion.

 

[Flopper]

A very loaded question indeed.

---

Churchill acquired a reputation as a misogynist who could be notoriously rude to women
He seemed relaxed in company of homosexuals and regarded their (illegal) activities as a subject for good-natured ribaldry
He married Clementine Hozier which is usually regarded as a love-match but reality seems cold-blooded
He became very close to Minister of Information Brendan Bracken and private secretary Edward Marsh


Read more: Winston Churchill may secretly have been GAY Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Does anyone really care?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, homosexuality was not unknown among WC's class, but no charges were ever proven, whereas Gandhi's diverse sexuality is well know to all educated folks of his time.

And the fact that WC's strict heterosexuality and Gandhi's "play me like punch board" sexuality does not undermine either man's importance in history.

500 years from now, WC will be known as the savior of civilization and Gandhi as the savior of human dignity.

 

[Vikrant]

Yes, homosexuality was not unknown among WC's class, but no charges were ever proven, whereas Gandhi's diverse sexuality is well know to all educated folks of his time.

This thread is not about Gandhi. This thread is about Churchill. Even an idiot like you should understand the concept of focused discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, homosexuality was not unknown among WC's class, but no charges were ever proven, whereas Gandhi's diverse sexuality is well know to all educated folks of his time.

This thread is not about Gandhi. This thread is about Churchill. Even an idiot like you should understand the concept of focused discussion.

I understand the focus of unwarranted flaming. Your opinion of Churchill is irrelevant.

 

[Vikrant]

Yes, homosexuality was not unknown among WC's class, but no charges were ever proven, whereas Gandhi's diverse sexuality is well know to all educated folks of his time.

This thread is not about Gandhi. This thread is about Churchill. Even an idiot like you should understand the concept of focused discussion.

I understand the focus of unwarranted flaming. Your opinion of Churchill is irrelevant.

You cannot defend Churchill so you are attacking Gandhi, a saint. That is not the way to discuss things. Defend Churchill on his own merits if you can without dragging Gandhi into this thread. Now, if your urge to bad mouth Gandhi is really strong then start a thread on him. I am pretty sure some of your fellow bigots will join you. Stop derailing this thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, homosexuality was not unknown among WC's class, but no charges were ever proven, whereas Gandhi's diverse sexuality is well know to all educated folks of his time.

This thread is not about Gandhi. This thread is about Churchill. Even an idiot like you should understand the concept of focused discussion.

I understand the focus of unwarranted flaming. Your opinion of Churchill is irrelevant.

You cannot defend Churchill so you are attacking Gandhi, a saint. That is not the way to discuss things. Defend Churchill on his own merits if you can without dragging Gandhi into this thread. Now, if your urge to bad mouth Gandhi is really strong then start a thread on him. I am pretty sure some of your fellow bigots will join you. Stop derailing this thread.

You have made an assertion. You have no proof. Thus you are flaming.

Gandhi is used as a mirror that shows your silliness in attacking Churchill. He was not a homosexual; all you can do is make a silly assertion.

 

[Vikrant]

Yes, homosexuality was not unknown among WC's class, but no charges were ever proven, whereas Gandhi's diverse sexuality is well know to all educated folks of his time.

This thread is not about Gandhi. This thread is about Churchill. Even an idiot like you should understand the concept of focused discussion.

I understand the focus of unwarranted flaming. Your opinion of Churchill is irrelevant.

You cannot defend Churchill so you are attacking Gandhi, a saint. That is not the way to discuss things. Defend Churchill on his own merits if you can without dragging Gandhi into this thread. Now, if your urge to bad mouth Gandhi is really strong then start a thread on him. I am pretty sure some of your fellow bigots will join you. Stop derailing this thread.

You have made an assertion. You have no proof. Thus you are flaming.

Gandhi is used as a mirror that shows your silliness in attacking Churchill. He was not a homosexual; all you can do is make a silly assertion.

You lack ability to think rationally. I simply cited a British source which is based on the work of Michael Bloch, a noted British historian. Only an idiot like you would consider that attacking Churchill. This is a discussion forum. What we are attempting to do is called discussion not attacking. You need to garner some perspective.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The source is not corroborated with critical evidence. Thus we objectively cannot have a real discussion about the subject. What we can do is note that the literature on WC overwhelming discounts your assertion.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, homosexuality was not unknown among WC's class, but no charges were ever proven, whereas Gandhi's diverse sexuality is well know to all educated folks of his time.

This thread is not about Gandhi. This thread is about Churchill. Even an idiot like you should understand the concept of focused discussion.

I understand the focus of unwarranted flaming. Your opinion of Churchill is irrelevant.

You cannot defend Churchill so you are attacking Gandhi, a saint. That is not the way to discuss things. Defend Churchill on his own merits if you can without dragging Gandhi into this thread. Now, if your urge to bad mouth Gandhi is really strong then start a thread on him. I am pretty sure some of your fellow bigots will join you. Stop derailing this thread.

If Church were gay, I doubt he would used these words in his communication to Lloyd George. “You might as well legalize sodomy as recognize the Bolsheviks.”

Winston Churchill s Choice Words for Obama s Gay Pride Month

 

[PredFan]

Why do we care if he was gay or not?

 

[Flopper]

Why do we care if he was gay or not?

We don't, just idle speculation.

 

[PredFan]

Why do we care if he was gay or not?

We don't, just idle speculation.

Hmmm...seems an odd thing to speculate on.

 

[Flopper]

Why do we care if he was gay or not?

We don't, just idle speculation.

Hmmm...seems an odd thing to speculate on.

People love to speculate about important people.

 

[MaryL]

Why ask this question? I think gays secretly want to just be straight. Like blind or deaf or handicapped people don't want to be afflicted with a deficit. Was Harvey Milk secretly heterosexual? Why ask questions like this?

 

[pismoe]

thing is the Winston was a great man , soldier , leader , warrior , writer English American with a bit of Cherokee and some of the rabble want to knock him down , see mrobama . Anyway , the rabble say lets do speculation that he was homosexual . And thanks , I didn't know that - mahatma - was homo so justa bit of info , so thanks for it . Also , Winston was a great White man , gotta knock him down if possible . See Winstons book , 'the River Wars' and his thought on 'muslims' .

 

[Flopper]

Why ask this question? I think gays secretly want to just be straight. Like blind or deaf or handicapped people don't want to be afflicted with a deficit. Was Harvey Milk secretly heterosexual? Why ask questions like this?

I think my son who is gay, probably wishes he weren't because of some of the pain he endued in his teen years.

 

[Vikrant]

Yes, homosexuality was not unknown among WC's class, but no charges were ever proven, whereas Gandhi's diverse sexuality is well know to all educated folks of his time.

This thread is not about Gandhi. This thread is about Churchill. Even an idiot like you should understand the concept of focused discussion.

I understand the focus of unwarranted flaming. Your opinion of Churchill is irrelevant.

You cannot defend Churchill so you are attacking Gandhi, a saint. That is not the way to discuss things. Defend Churchill on his own merits if you can without dragging Gandhi into this thread. Now, if your urge to bad mouth Gandhi is really strong then start a thread on him. I am pretty sure some of your fellow bigots will join you. Stop derailing this thread.

If Church were gay, I doubt he would used these words in his communication to Lloyd George. “You might as well legalize sodomy as recognize the Bolsheviks.”

Winston Churchill s Choice Words for Obama s Gay Pride Month

Churchill was accused of gross immorality aka homosexuality. Also, he had an affair with Ivor Novello, a musician.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why do we care if he was gay or not?

Because Vikrant wants to date Churchill's corpse.

 

[pismoe]

well I heard that 'mahatma' was a homosexual so why not try to diminish a great man like Winston Churchill to his level .