You keep saying he's "blatantly homophobic". That doesn't fit the actual things he said. It was an explanation why same-sex marriages wouldn't fit with his vision of the game i.e. medieval times marriage for the purpose of creating and raising an heir.
If you're gonna keep spouting that claim, maybe be more specific.
That's ahistorcally not true at all. For the aristocracy, Yes there was a small aspect of 'family line' that was expected of even lgb persons, but they always had a side relationship that wasn't just business, such as concubines, or their same sex lover. It's also a Modernist invention to label same sex activity as "gay" or "out". Men well into the 1700s frequently engaged in same sex liaisons.
Primarily marriages were about:
were two other primary, superseding reasons. For women, especially, it could be a death sentence to not marry. It's partly why Single Female Matriarchs were far more warlike than their male counterparts.
For examples:
James I was known to prefer male courtiers such as Esmé Stewart, Robert Carr and most famously George Villiers . James actually publicly acknowledged his love for George Villiers
"I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George."
Al-Amin (787-813) was a caliph of the Abbasid Empire who was almost certainly homosexual. He went as far as to have his female concubines (some Abbasid caliphs did not marry) cut their hair and dress as men in order to lead a more appropriate sex life and beget an heir. The Abbasids usually married, but not always, and were notoriously polygamous
In Rome, being accused of being a bottom in a male/male relationship, was an insult. To a Roman, being the penetrated showed a lack of integrity. Passive Roman homosexuals were called Cinadeus. And to be called that was an insult. of Caesar, it was stated "He was every woman's Man, but every Man's boy"
Edward II of England (r. 1307-1327) was at least bi-sexual. His sexual proclivities seemed to range across gender, but he definitely gave his male favorites much more attention and favor than he ever did women (including his wife). While he doesn't fit your stipulation of publicly avowing homosexuality (in so far as the surviving historical record documents), he seemed to be rather open in his actions, and the historical record indicates that a wide range of people during the time knew that he engaged in homosexual activity.
The first young man that he was enamored with was the knight from Gascony, Piers Gaveston. His relationship to the king was a grave embarrassment to the Lords of the realm. Gaveston was unceremoniously killed on a darkened path by hired thugs.
The most important favorite of Edward was Hugh Despenser the Younger. Despenser used his favored status to climb the ranks of the government and become its de facto leader. He used his power to collect land and money. Eventually, after Edward is imprisoned by his wife and her lover Mortimer, Despenser was brutally and publicly executed. People thronged to watch him hung, castrated, disemboweled, and his heart burnt (all while he was still conscious). In fact, the Queen and Mortimer sat on a platform feasting as they watched.
Later, after abdicating the throne and leaving it to his son Edward III, Edward II would die under mysterious circumstances while imprisoned. The most popular story has it that he was killed by having a white hot fire poker shoved up his ass. History is some weird shit
King William II of England never married and was well-known along the court to have had sex with men
The point being acceptance, and prohibitions of same sex m/m activities varied across all times, cultures, and places. Look at the Catholic church for a prime example.
There's a lot of evidence of this. Exhibit number one is the Liber Gomorrhianus of Peter Damian published in the mid 11th century (the Book of Gomorrah). Peter Damian was a very influential member of inner papal circles during the period known now as the 11th century Gregorian Reforms, a period which saw a lot of Papal and clerical energy directed at reforming what was viewed as the lax morals and heresies of clergy including simony, lay investiture and clerical marriage. This was part of the same movement which led to schisms and conflict between papacy and monarchs, particularly with the investiture conflict with the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, starting with Henry IV.
Liber Gomorrhianus is not alone in identifying sex among clergy, it was preceded in the 10th century by Regino of Prüm's De synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesiasticis and earlier in the 11th century by Burchard of Worms' massive Decretum. However, where Regio and Burchard identify sex among clergy as sinful and prescribe penance for it, Damian is viewed as an outright obsessive attack. Damian was an advocate of deeply ascetic clerical practice.
The full English translation can be read here:
For background see:
