I was not going to respond to this post (since modern terms and attitudes seem somewhat irrelevant) but I have decided some clarificaiton is needed as well as a reminder that, whatever your personal feelings, we need to maintain the respectful tone Pothos is known for, whether we are discussing ethnicity, religions, race, gender, orientation or what havew you..
.
What strikes me is that the posters who feel most uncomforable with the idea that Alexander may have been homosexual or bisexual is *really* a discomfort with the idea of sexual activity with men, since that seems to be the focus in some posts.. But such activity is not the sole definition of homosexuality, which leaves open many possibilities without excluding the potential for sexual relationships with men..
While it is true that, outside Bagoas, we have little absolute proof of sexual activity with males, this does not preclude a homosexual orientation, since homosexuality refers to either sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and/or *emotional* attachments between people of the same sex ( homo referring to "same" rather than "man"). In other words, a male or female homosexual does not *have* to participate in sexual activity with a person of the same gender in order to have a homosexual orientation. By the same token, there is nothing to prevent homosexual persons from engaging in heterosexual activity (as indeed, many do for cultural, personal, familial, religious and other reasons).
If we use only the source material to discuss Alexander's orientation, it seems clear that his *emotional* attachments were to males, while he fulfilled his cultural, political and familial requirements through heterosexual marriage when older.
In the end, his orientation does not diminish his accomplishments, nor affect them.
Regards,
Sikander
Your definition of 'homosexual' is alluring. I go with the dictionary.
You are talking like he was married after 50...
Alexander had a son and got married before 30. If he got married 5 years earlier would that make a diference about his sexuality? I know men who do not get married before their Phd is done, are they homosexuals too? He had a world to conquer for christs shake!
alexanthros wrote:I am as homophobic for not accepting that the facts are overwhelming as you are heterophobic for doing so in a matter that cant be proven and there are only speculations. How dare you? Who gave you the right to throw such adjectives on me?
Oh dear! Righteous indignation. Some of the tripe you have posted on this thread is lucky to see the light of day. Your entire line of argument (such as it is) is homophobic and laced with crudity.
For a last time: you have a problem with Alexander and his sexuality. You are the one who sees some deep seated need to have him portrayed as some Hellenic heterosexual gift to women.
You fail to understand anything that’s been written that does not agree with you. That is either the result of a lack of ability to understand or a lack of any will to do so. The latter would be the logical pick.
Enough. There is no point in any further engagement on the issue with you.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
You said: "Your definition of 'homosexual' is alluring. I go with the dictionary."
It is not "my" definition but one drawn from the psychological profiles of orientation. Chamber's Dictionary speaks of sexual attraction, but does not specify sexual activity. Orientation is more than the sex act itself. A focus on the physical act itself is but a portion of what the orientation entails, and is not necessary for a person to be oriented one way or the other.
You said: "You are talking like he was married after 50...
Alexander had a son and got married before 30. If he got married 5 years earlier would that make a diference about his sexuality? I know men who do not get married before their Phd is done, are they homosexuals too? "
Nothing that I said goes against the source materials. When a person marries is not relevant to their orientation; marriage itself is not relevant .Homosexual men and women can and do get married, in many cultures over the world, then and now, as demanded by their culture, religion and socio-political legal dictates.
Please re-read my post, as you seem to have misinterpreted it in many ways. .
alexanthros wrote:I am as homophobic for not accepting that the facts are overwhelming as you are heterophobic for doing so in a matter that cant be proven and there are only speculations. How dare you? Who gave you the right to throw such adjectives on me?
Oh dear! Righteous indignation. Some of the tripe you have posted on this thread is lucky to see the light of day. Your entire line of argument (such as it is) is homophobic and laced with crudity.
For a last time: you have a problem with Alexander and his sexuality. You are the one who sees some deep seated need to have him portrayed as some Hellenic heterosexual gift to women.
You fail to understand anything that’s been written that does not agree with you. That is either the result of a lack of ability to understand or a lack of any will to do so. The latter would be the logical pick.
Enough. There is no point in any further engagement on the issue with you.
Oh dear! Righteous indignation. Some of the tripe you have posted on this thread is lucky to see the light of day. Your entire line of argument (such as it is) is heterophobic and laced with crudity.
For a last time: you have a problem with Alexander and his sexuality. You are the one who sees some deep seated need to have him portrayed as some Hellenic homosexual gift to men.
You fail to understand anything that’s been written that does not agree with you. That is either the result of a lack of ability to understand or a lack of any will to do so. The latter would be the logical pick.
Enough. There is no point in any further engagement on the issue with you.
You said: "Your definition of 'homosexual' is alluring. I go with the dictionary."
It is not "my" definition but one drawn from the psychological profiles of orientation. Chamber's Dictionary speaks of sexual attraction, but does not specify sexual activity. Orientation is more than the sex act itself. A focus on the physical act itself is but a portion of what the orientation entails, and is not necessary for a person to be oriented one way or the other.
You said: "You are talking like he was married after 50...
Alexander had a son and got married before 30. If he got married 5 years earlier would that make a diference about his sexuality? I know men who do not get married before their Phd is done, are they homosexuals too? "
Nothing that I said goes against the source materials. When a person marries is not relevant to their orientation; marriage itself is not relevant .Homosexual men and women can and do get married, in many cultures over the world, then and now, as demanded by their culture, religion and socio-political legal dictates.
Please re-read my post, as you seem to have misinterpreted it in many ways. .
Regards,
Sikander
I guess i have to apologize. It is true that a guy whos virgin doesnt mean he has no orientation. So i have to agree on the attraction.
I would like to ask you why you made that clear. Is is because you are not sure that Alexander had never had sex with men, but was maybe attracted to them in some ways?
alexanthros wrote:I understand there must have been discussion on this subject in the past but it is really hard for me to find the right topic. You have more experience in that forum than me so maybe you could help me out. If not, maybe someone else could. If not, i am unlucky..
There's THIS thread on the sexuality debate. In it I give links to more threads on the subject, plus there's a discussion of source material.
I'm somewhat surprised that you're asking now for information on other discussions considering that you were one of the first people to post in the above thread.
Best regards,
Last edited by amyntoros on Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
alexanthros wrote:I understand there must have been discussion on this subject in the past but it is really hard for me to find the right topic. You have more experience in that forum than me so maybe you could help me out. If not, maybe someone else could. If not, i am unlucky..
There's THIS thread on the sexuality debate. In it I give links to more threads on the subject, plus there's a discussion of source material.
I'm somewhat surprised that you're asking now for information on other discussions considering that you were one of the first people to post in the above thread.
Best regards,
I am a new member of the forum and i have studied about Alexander more or less than others. From what i have read so far i have specific approaches on specific subjects. I was waiting for some response to what i have said but i observed that many were saying that this subject has been exhausted in past threads. Thats why i wanted the link, i want to know what was been said by the ones who are rightfully bored to talk on the same subject over and over again.
Thanks anyways
Amyntoros, the link does not open. Some corruption in the html or does the page no longer exist?
There is another possibility, my computer - or the site may be as tired of the subject as am I. In any case, there are children, in the real world, arguing in the lounge room that I must deal with...
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.
Paralus wrote:Amyntoros, the link does not open. Some corruption in the html or does the page no longer exist?
My mistake - I must have copied it incorrectly. (And I usually check the links but failed to do so this time!) Anyway, I've corrected it now. It's a thread we all know well ... ...
