Huayna Capac357
Deity
Just because you have male lovers and are male doesn't make you gay necessarily. It was an accepted practice back then, as they had no concept of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality.
Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt.
- Thread starter mghani
- Start date
attackfighter
Emperor
What you call it is irrelevant to what I'm discussing. Whether it's "gay", "homosexual" or "bisexual" is meaningless, as my argument isn't affected either way.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Yeah. It is relevant. Gay means exclusively homosexual. Bisexual means having both homosexual and heterosexual sexual experiences, with the percentage being about even-ish (basically anything more than about 90-10). Alexander, having children, was not gay. However, he did have homosexual relationships, and thus, he had both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Thus, if we would apply modern sexual terms on him, he'd be bisexual, though, as I just stated, they had no concept of homo/heterosexuality then.
attackfighter
Emperor
Your semantics are irrelevant because my argument remains unchallenged regardless of which term you use.
And again, if you're going to claim that Alexander had homosexual relationships you're going to have to provide proof. By making these claims without proof you're providing real life examples of what I'm talking about when I say that Western society distorts history to it's liking.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
There isn't any explicit evidence, but there is circumstantial evidence of it, and it wouldn't be uncommon or frowned upon then.
And it's not semantics. Gay people wouldn't want to be called bisexual, and bisexual people don't identify as gay.
And it's not semantics. Gay people wouldn't want to be called bisexual, and bisexual people don't identify as gay.
attackfighter
Emperor
If there's circumstantial evidence that Alexander was gay then there's circumstancial evidence that Obama is gay too. Furthermore there's circumstancial evidence that the moon landing was faked and that Bush did 9/11.
Your reasoning as to why it's not semantics in no way relates to whether or not it's semantics.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
The problem is that those things happened with the last few years. This is 2300 years ago. Circumstantial evidence is basically all we have from that long ago, especially concerning stuff considered as trivial as whether not a close relationship was sexual. And, once again, no one is saying Alexander was gay.
Yes, it's literally semantics, but it's not merely semantics. There is an actual difference and saying there isn't has actual significance, in that it's wrong.
attackfighter
Emperor
Alexander the Great was not a trivial character and there are accounts of his life that still exist to this day. Your "circumstancial evidence" is nothing more than speculation and it does not give the topic poster licence to present his tenuous theory as fact. Alexander was not gay: prove me wrong by citing facts not speculation.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
You're right; Alexander was not gay. He was what we would call bisexual, though, once again, the Greeks did not have such a concept. And I did not say he was trivial. I was saying that in that place and time, there was no concept of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality and it was not frowned upon to have a homosexual relationship. We know he had a close relationship with another man. We know he modeled himself after Achilles, who is said to have had a sexual relationship with another man, and that he and Hephaestion laid wreaths at the tombs of Achilles and Patroclus.
attackfighter
Emperor
Alexander and Hephaestion were close friends and comrades, there's no mention of them being lovers. Their participation in such activities as laying wreaths at the tombs of national heroes like Achilles by no means prove that either of them were gay. Furthermore Alexander "modelling" himself after Achilles could be interpreted in many ways; Achilles had far more traits than just his sexuality.
You're grasping at straws. At best these facts can vaguely allude to Alexander being gay. At worst they're not even related and you're twisting their meanings to support your premade conclusions.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,217
the only scandalous thing with Alexander was his partner was of his own age , it has been really widely reported that older men would take young boys and women of the time were only tolerated for the need to have young people to work the fields and war . Though as ı don't work with evidence , ı won't prove them with links . Does that make me unable to win this argument , in case there is an argument ? Not really important . And it won't change the fact that Alexander was active with a man of his age and choice .
Attackfighter, you seem to have a very large axe to grind. Everybody agrees that Alexander was not gay, but you seem to be so mortified at even the concept of him having homosexual relations that you've spent the last 30 posts spewing about Western culture and there being no proof of his sexuality. It would seem that you are the one with the agenda, not "modern liberal bias".
attackfighter
Emperor
Can I ask you, if your argument is so superior why do you have to make up so much false evidence to support it?
Notice how you think through the consensus. "Everybody" agrees with you, therefore your belief is gospel and anything contrary is heresy. Nevermind the fact that no one's actually provided evidence to disprove me, or that the conclusion you all individually came to just so happens to be the only viewpoint presented as legitimate by that whole Western liberal bias thing I've been talking about. No, nevermind all that, it's better close your eyes and cover your ears while mentally reciting the latest Oprah episode. Best to leave the thinking to John Stewart, after all.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
I have never watched Oprah in my life and can't stand Jon Stewart. Take that as you will.
Quite apart from the fact that I've never watched Oprah or Jon Stewart, due to the fairly important fact that I'm British, what is your point? Even you are saying that Alexander the Great was not gay, so I fail to see why you are trying to prove "us" wrong.
If the sexuality of Alexander the Great is off-topic, Plotinus, I think that this thread already ended two weeks ago!
If the sexuality of Alexander the Great is off-topic, Plotinus, I think that this thread already ended two weeks ago!
Similar threads
