Can Steve Hays produce solid research for the contrary assertion? Or is his statement drawn mostly or solely from "certain knowledge" gleaned from only a fleeting acquaintance with the subject matter? Perhaps because all the so-called "gay" activists claim Michelangelo as their own, Steve accepts this without doing any research himself (as a way to run down the Catholic Church - and its art -: one of his favorite pastimes)?
Be careful what you ask for!
I have more than one source of information. But to simplify matters, I ran the question by a friend of mine in the Yale art dept., who has a doctorate in art history from that same institution.
After sifting through various lines of evidence which he either regards as irrelevant or highly ambiguous, he builds to his own assessment by saying:
“Pronouns indicating the masculine object of some of this supposedly Platonic love were changed to feminine by M's heirs when they collated and published some of his writings. This certainly appears to be an attempt either to cover up evidence (if he was gay) or to make his detractors' task more difficult (if he was not)”;
Adding that, “Michelangelo was never strongly associated with persistent heterosexual relationships, and left no trail of courtly love poems aimed at women…It would hardly be shocking to discover a homosexual in Florence, much less in its effete courtly class”;
And concluding that “whatever evidence is left after one weeds out the folly still suggests--not definitively, but on balance-- that Michelangelo was most likely homosexual in tendency and in intermittent practice.”
So, to answer his question with a question: “Can Armstrong produce solid research for the contrary assertion (that Michaelangelo wasn’t homosexual)? Or is his statement gleaned from Google scholarship? Perhaps because all the so-called "Anticatholic" activists, Dave defends Michaelangelo without doing any research himself (as a way to exculpate the Catholic Church at any cost).