Gay Knights, Transvt and Tolerance the Hamar episo of Ulrich's Frendienst: Kalamazoo, 2010
Contents:
- TEMPLARS AND SODOMY – WERE THE KNIGHTS REALLY GAY?
- GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010 GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010 GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010 GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010 GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010
TEMPLARS AND SODOMY – WERE THE KNIGHTS REALLY GAY?
Tony McMahon vtigat whether the Knights Templar were gay as has often been alleged bee sodomy was mentned at their trials * homosexuality among knights *
One er got que irate when I sisted you uldn’t classify the Templars as a medieval LGBT anisatn – though that’s not to say some of the knights weren’t gay.
If you were gay the Middle Ag, then jog a brotherhood of some scriptn was a good way to avoid that faiar and annoyg qutn at fay gathergs:. ” In this later perd, we see a newfound homophobic ristance to the re that, the reactn’s vrl, speaks to the role this re uld really play for men mtg themselv to each other: The Patriarch’s words acknowledge the realy that no matter s tentn, the re enabled the space for sexual timaci between men.
GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010 GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010 GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010 GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010 GAY KNIGHTS, TRANSVT AND TOLERANCE THE HAMAR EPISO OF ULRICH'S FRENDIENST: KALAMAZOO, 2010
It's popularly known that the Knights Templar were charged unr the pretext of hery, but the list of charg also clus sodomy - was there proof of homosexualy among the Templars, or was this an unfound accatn ma for polil or propaganda reasons, to explo popular stigma?