Since this response demonstrates a pure desire to wage (verbal) war I will only try to explain my remarks one time, and hope for a bit more open minded attitude to read them instead of jumping to own assumptions:

1. For several of the people mentioned in the article, it is relatively common knowledge what their (in some cases alleged) sexual preference was; it wasn't actually hidden, let alone lied about or whatever. In most cases it was just not considered relevant enough to emphasise it

2. Some may have been persecuted but certainly not their entire life.

3. IF people are persecuted, then that mere fact is sufficient to object to it, the link with being famous or "accompilshing things against those odds" is a side street, not the main road.

4. Something not being put in the spotlight because it has no relevance for the matter at hand, i.e. assessing their accomplishments, is something totally different from censoring. It's the same as not necessarily highlighting someone is ginger-hared, or left-handed, or short, or bald. There are many things that are not emphasied when discussing someone famous. Why should their (sometimes assumed or alleged) sexuality be pushed to centre stage?

5. "Silenced" assumes purposeful absence of communication. Why do you have the wisdom of all the world to be sure that this was the purpose? You seem to project your (own?) experience on all the cases. Perhaps well intentioned but thereby not necessarily true.

6. It seems strikingly odd that yelling at someone they are conservative just because they look at the whle thing from more perspectives is the first impulse. I'm probably lesse conservative than you are and surely than you assume. Trying to look at arguments from more than one rigid perspective has no (political) colour.

Best to you.