Alexander wasn't gay

bible history.com ^ | Craig Johnson

[R. Scott]

What can be said is that there is positive proof of Alexander's heterosexual activity: offspring.

Offspring only shows that he wasn’t 100% homosexual. In the Greek writings I haven’t encountered any assertion that anyone would be accepted as 100% homosexual. Warriors were needed, and homosexuals don’t reproduce well.
What others and I have been referring to is bisexuality. Bisexuals often have offspring.

[Caipirabob]

Most likely true, but now he'll be remember as a horrible movie.

[FoxPro]

We know very little about Aleander, let alone who he had fun with.

[LexBaird]

Offspring only shows that he wasn’t 100% homosexual.

You use the old "lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack" argument. While true, insofar as that goes, it does not prove the positive assertion that he ever participated in homosexual activity.

For example, I could claim that Alexander was a cannibal. You could counterclaim that he never ate human flesh, but there is no evidence possible to prove this negative, short of a totally trustworthy account of every meal Alexander ever ate: an impossible standard of proof.

But, as I am the one putting it forth, it is not for you to negate my argument, but for me to support it. Likewise, it is up to the pro-homosexual theorists to support their positive assertion, or they remain only speculations, mere fantasies no more valid than one of cannibalism. It is possible, through one point of evidence, to prove a positive; it is impossible to absolutely prove a negative.

To date, neither you nor anyone else has offered a single proof that Alexander was anything but 100% heterosexual. All the available evidence indicates nothing else. Until such a proof is produced, the homosexual theory holds no more credibility than the cannibalism theory.

[ArrogantBustard]

Heck, even Troy is better than this.

Yikes. "Troy" sucked. Not as bad as the truly egregious "Helen of Troy", but that still leaves room for major league suckage.

[R. Scott]

You use the old "lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack" argument. While true, insofar as that goes, it does not prove the positive assertion that he ever participated in homosexual activity.

It also can not be proven that he was not bisexual, so why is there the big flap? What difference does it make? History has recorded Alexander and most Greeks of the period as practicing bisexuality. It’s a bit late to rewrite it.

[Mr. Lucky]

History has recorded Alexander and most Greeks of the period as practicing homosexuals

History has done no such thing.

Do you have any contemporary source you can cite to back up this claim?.

[Mr. Lucky]

Homosexuals should have read bisexuality, but the point remains the same.

[Servant of the 9]

This is another piece of misdirection based on the premise that alexander was not gay in the modern sense.

No, he wasn't 'gay' but that has no bearing on what the Greeks of all cities considered a normal bit of buggery among army buddies. That was considered a usual part of a heterosexual life.

It is a Victorian concept to conflate that with true homosexuality.

As late as WWI Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty defined the traditions of the British Navy as "Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash".

SO9

[Servant of the 9]

DON'T freakin ask, DON'T freakin tell, an DON'T freakin thow it in my face!

Nope, wouldn't want any reality or honesty poking through the delusional fantasy world you live in.

SO9

[Junior]

Alexander clearly distained his father ...

The word is "disdained." If the author cannot get something as simple as spelling correct, why should I consider anything else he might say?

[LexBaird]

History has recorded Alexander and most Greeks of the period as practicing bisexuality. It’s a bit late to rewrite it.

History has done no such thing, and no, "most Greeks" did not. Homosexualist revisionists are the ones actively rewriting history, through just such unsupported assumptions as you continue to make. If you are going to make such statements, be prepared to DOCUMENT your claim.

My advice is to automatically disbelieve anything put out by these agenda historians until they produce rigorous proof of whatever they write. This goes for the Afrocentrist, Historical Feminists, Multicultural Deconstructivists, or any other school of pseudo-pop "scholarship" currently in vogue. It is as much rubbish as the Victorian "Pinnacle of History" viewpoint it proposes to supplant.

[VOA]

A deep friendship is not necessarily bi-sexual although most homosexuals interpret
any close friendship as homosexual and prove their point by claiming that the
denials of same are proof of it.

This "every same-sex friendship" is a gay relationship is something I've heard from
about half of the gay co-workers I've known.

I manage to keep civil working relationships with these folks, but most
of them seem to see everything (and every-body) in terms of nothing but sex.

[longtermmemmory]

There is no such evidence other than in the deluded minds of homoadvocates mistranslating the meaning of Greek words and pushing their own agenda for the last 50 years.

It was NEVER accepted. Athens, for example, had strict anti-soddomy laws. Get caught and you die. There was no acceptance of the behavior in modern or ancient terms.

[R. Scott]

A contemporary source to back up a claim about what was written millennia ago?

[Mr. Lucky]

No. A source contemporary with the life of Alexander.

(In the study of history, a "contemporary" source always refers to one contemporary with the occurrence of events being reported upon)

[R. Scott]

A source contemporary with the life of Alexander.

Plutarch (46 – 120 AD) wasn’t exactly contemporary with Alexander (356 – 323 BC), but we don’t have a lot surviving from Alexander’s contemporaries. Plutarch did cite some of his sources, but those sources are no longer available.
If you read Plutarch’s The Lives of the Nobel Grecians and Romans you will find that after Alexander defeated Darius, one of his lieutenants – Philoxenus – wrote to tell him that Theodorus, a Tarentine had two boys of great beauty to sell. Hagnon also sent word that he would buy a Corinthian youth named Crobylus as a present for him. Alexander was offended by the offer, but the reason for offense was not given. That two men close to Alexander would make the offer indicates that bisexuality was not uncommon and they must have thought that the offers would be appreciated. They would not have insulted their commander – who held the power of life or death over his subordinates. It has been several years since I’ve read the book, but I picked it up again last night. I have not yet finished, but intend to today.

[Siamese Princess]

"And yet, despite his prowess upon the field of battle, it was said that Alexander was verily good with colours, always sharply turned out and that he was appreciative of the arts."

A metrosexual world conqueror.

[Siamese Princess]

The problem --and I have to phrase this very carefully -- is that they're not making movies for grown ups anymore. Every movie caters to someone with the IQ of a not terribly bright 16 year old.

Movie attendees are largely drawn from two groups: (1) Unmarried teenagers and 20-somethings (predominately male); and (2) adults accompanying children. Everyone else waits for the DVDs. Contemporary films are most definitely dumbed down -- compare the LOTR films (dumbed down with more in common with Dungeons and Dragons) with the books they were allegedly made from.

[durasell]

I was thinking more along the terms of Wings of Desire...