Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt.
- Thread starter mghani
- Start date
attackfighter
Emperor
There's no evidence to suggest that Alexander the Great was gay. None at all. It's simply modern day "liberal" revisionism - Westerners wish to portray their cultural forerunners as being hedonists in order to endorse their own life styles.
It's disgusting really, the way mass media has been used not as a way to spread knowledge, but rather as a means for sinful Westerners to assauge their guilty consciousness' through what amounts to little more than propoganda. If you asked the average American, he'd tell you that the Romans were drunken sex fiends, who sat around all day eating grapes and aborting babies.
Truly we are a disgrace to our great legacy. Unworthy children who've inherited technology far too advanced for puny minds and culture to appreciate. The truth is, Idiocracy didn't take place in the future... it's taking place today.
Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling. Please do not make homophobic comments here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
It's disgusting really, the way mass media has been used not as a way to spread knowledge, but rather as a means for sinful Westerners to assauge their guilty consciousness' through what amounts to little more than propoganda. If you asked the average American, he'd tell you that the Romans were drunken sex fiends, who sat around all day eating grapes and aborting babies.
Truly we are a disgrace to our great legacy. Unworthy children who've inherited technology far too advanced for puny minds and culture to appreciate. The truth is, Idiocracy didn't take place in the future... it's taking place today.
Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling. Please do not make homophobic comments here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Huayna Capac357
Deity
I disagree. If you look, for example, at how rulers treated defeated people, I'd say that we are living in by far the most moral age of all time. Until really recently, rulers thought that merely enslaving their defeated was merciful. Saying we are the heirs to a moral legacy that we have recently shrugged off seems a bit backwards to me.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
OK, so while I do not endorse at all the way you wrote your post, I do think there is some truth in the matter that some historians are rewriting history to fit their own ethical and political beliefs, some of whom are in fact ascribing sexual beliefs to people for whom no evidence of such exists. In truth, I'm completely bewildered by those who suggest that every character in all of Shakespeare's plays are repressed homosexuals; which somehow excuses the villains, or lionizes homosexuality with the protagonists.
However, Alexander the Great is not a good example of this, since he was not any sort of beacon of moral purity to begin with. He was a ruthless conqueror. I'm not going to be offended if somebody in the near future publishes a thesis suggesting he was a gentigamist™ sadomasochist, even if it's ridiculous. Furthermore, he's not a good example of this because even though no ancient sources specify that he had a relationship with Hephaestion, that would have been somewhat normal for his culture. Furthermore furthermore, the Romans did force concubinage on people and also execute their unwanted babies, so I can't really endorse them as a beacon of moral purity that is being corrupted by modern historians either.
I may have something different to say if you were to bring up people like St. Sebastian or Abraham Lincoln.
attackfighter
Emperor
Alexander wasn't ruthless at all. His only war crime was the destruction of Persepolis and even that can be excused as a symbolic act of retribution for what the Persians did 100 years before to Athens. And again I'll repeat that there's no evidence to suggest he was gay.
The Romans aborted children, however that's an unimportant aspect of their society. So is the fact that they had orgies and indulged themselves in music and wine. These are all relatively small and irrelevant aspects of Roman society, and yet they're prominently portrayed in every piece of media that deals with Roman history.
Western society focuses only on the details that it finds appealing. You won't find a single History channel documentary that makes light of Roman work ethic, patrioticism or lawfulness. Those aspects or Roman society clash with that of modern day Western society and so they're swept under the rug. In the eyes of an American, the Romans were chronic masturbators who flew off their balconeys after the first man or woman to pass, eager to indulge their lust. In the eyes of an American that aforementioned assumption is enough to permit him to do the same.
History does not exist as a means to learn from our forerunners, no, it exists as a means to green light the moral decay that sapiens have been steadily undergoing since their departure from tribal society. Alexander is now a gay Hitler. The Romans were depraved hedonists with a taste for roast fetus. America by comparison is a beacon of morality and not anything like Sodom and Gomorrah. No siree, everything about modern society is fine and peachy, the man on the television says so!
Yes, you're absolutely right about America being the greatest moral champion in history. I'm sure all that stuff about them firebombing hundreds of thousands of Japs and Germans, installing genocidal dictators in Latin America, drenching Vietnam with agent orange, gunning down sheepherders in Afghanistan, bombing infrastructure and consequentially sentencing 800'000 civilians to their deaths in Iraq, and economically exploiting the third world through loans, Mosanto and other means is totally all lies made up by freedom hating communists. HEIL OBAMA!!!!
Moderator Action: Infacted for trolling. Again. Please take the extreme political diatribes somewhere else (i.e. somewhere other than this site).
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
LightSpectra
me autem minui
"The Romans aborted children, however that's an unimportant aspect of their society"? Are you trying to get me to not take you seriously? Would they only be an immoral society if they had large celebrations of their pedocides?
Apparently America's historical crimes are awful (which I agree with), but you're okey dokey with sweeping under the rug things that the ancient Greeks and Romans did because they had an overwhelmingly awesome "work ethic, patrioticism or lawfulness". Do you even know what the word "ethics" means?
Apparently America's historical crimes are awful (which I agree with), but you're okey dokey with sweeping under the rug things that the ancient Greeks and Romans did because they had an overwhelmingly awesome "work ethic, patrioticism or lawfulness". Do you even know what the word "ethics" means?
attackfighter
Emperor
If it hinders someone's ability to grow and/or reproduce then it's, practically speaking, immoral.
I never said Rome was the epitome of morality.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
That's not what the word immoral means, especially in the context of virtue ethics.
Then what are you complaining about, and why can't it make more sense?
Alexander the Great was certainly not gay, for a couple reasons. One, peope in the ancient world didn't think of themselves as being gay or straight. Second, if he did have homosexual relationships he also had heterosexual ones so that would make him bisexual.
As for the first sentence in your post, I'll make a correction to that. There's no evidence to prove that Alexander was gay but there's some evidence to suggest it.
You're using your own "moral" standards to change history to how you see fit so you're not really any better than those you are criticizing.
attackfighter
Emperor
attackfighter
Emperor
Are you an Easterner or something? Yes, all Western historians are gay and they're twisting history to make everyone gay
Actually I'm talking about society in general twisting history, not individuals.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
The end of all actions is the happiness of the agent, which is a completion of the human being. Since that requires the person to be fulfilled (which is to say, to "flourish" the best he possibly can), any action that makes the agent a worse person (because it interrupts a good habit, or the making of a good habit, with excess or deficiency) is immoral.
Killing people in lieu of taking care of them is an action of extreme vice, and therefore is deeply immoral.
attackfighter
Emperor
THis is a good definition, however I fail to see how it conflicts with my partial definition.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Because you think homosexual actions are immoral, but institutionalized abortions isn't because that's "an unimportant aspect of [ancient Rome's] society," as if the former is much worse.
Aren't you doing the same thing? You don't give any evidence about attitudes towards homosexuality in ancient Greece and you don't mention anything about Alexander the Great's relationships.
attackfighter
Emperor
I never said that abortion wasn't immoral, in fact I've been saying the opposite. Modern society uses the precedence of Roman abortion to justify themselves in doing the same. It's immoral when both societies do it.
The problem is that the decadent West cherry picks these comparisons. If a modern Westerner was to compare his physical condition with that of an Ancient Roman's, he'd find that he was an obese slob in elephant pants by contrast. That is why the Westerner does not compare himself in that regard. And that is why the West's perspective on history is a complete joke/nightmare.
I wasn't the one who made the unfounded claim that Alexander was gay, therefore I have no obligation to substanciate my refutation. If the poster who originally made the claim backed it up with evidence, then yes I'd be obligated to do the same. However he has not and so my curt dismissal is all that's required.
I've made no contradictory claims in regards to ancient Greece's attitudes towards homosexuality, and so there's really no need for citation on anyone's part.
If you actually read my posts you would see that historians do no claim that he was gay but say it's likely he had homosexual relations. You seem to think this is just an example of the "decadent West" choosing to portray Alexander the Great as gay for whatever reasons and offer no evidence to back this up. This despite that many historians have held this opinion even in the 1950s and before, long before homosexuality was widely accepted in Western culture.
Bear in mind that I am not specifically saying that Alexander had any homosexual relations because that is not known but I'm saying it seems at least likely and you're saying otherwise and claiming that it's only the bias of a pro-gay culture that suggests it which is ridiculous.
If you want to offer no sources beyond your own narrow minded opinions go ahead but don't expect people to take you seriously.
Bear in mind that I am not specifically saying that Alexander had any homosexual relations because that is not known but I'm saying it seems at least likely and you're saying otherwise and claiming that it's only the bias of a pro-gay culture that suggests it which is ridiculous.
If you want to offer no sources beyond your own narrow minded opinions go ahead but don't expect people to take you seriously.
attackfighter
Emperor
Again, I'm not talking about individual historians warping history, but rather society as a whole. There's no proof that Alexander was gay, yet it's essentially accepted as gospel in Western society. The opening post to this very thread is testament to that:
Similar threads
