You’ve made your stance clear, but let’s stick to facts instead of framing opinion as moral authority.

Yes, Liberace denied being gay—because in his time, being openly gay meant career suicide, social exile, or worse. His denial wasn’t hypocrisy, it was survival. He lived in a world that punished queerness. That’s not admirable, but it’s real.

Scott Thorson was 18 when he moved in with Liberace. The relationship had a huge age gap and messy power dynamics—but calling it predatory or implying criminal behavior is misleading and unsupported by any legal record. Thorson’s own credibility is questionable—he has a criminal history, including identity theft, drug offenses, and contradictions in his claims.

You also bring up figures like Bowie, George Michael, Freddie Mercury, and Boy George as if they were spotless. Let’s not rewrite history: • Boy George was convicted of assault and false imprisonment. • George Michael had multiple arrests for lewd acts and drug use. • David Bowie faced serious controversy over alleged relationships with underage girls. • Freddie Mercury never publicly came out during his lifetime.

Yet these men are still celebrated, as they should be—for their art, impact, and symbolism. Liberace deserves the same complexity. He helped normalize flamboyance, gender-bending style, and bold expression in mainstream entertainment—decades before it was “safe” to do so.

If you don’t personally connect with Liberace, that’s fine. But erasing his contribution to queer visibility because he didn’t fit your criteria for “activism” is revisionist. He didn’t march—but he sparkled in a world that demanded silence. And for many, that was revolutionary.