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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
Yeah straight men have sex with eunuchs all the time.
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".
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.
Projection! Projection!your belief is gospel and anything contrary is heresy.