Alexander the Great, gay or not?

I perhaps misled. I am a listener here. I look forward to the discussion re your posts, buddha, and I generally appreciate points by posters you disagree with, though I remain open to surprise. but my post was sardonic.

I agree with anyone who says just listening or being sardonic is passive. and certainly people like myself who speak up once in a while with some fractionally emotional statement, however dry, don't add to talk but are disruptive.

Not all of us are 'together' as arguers, indeed there is a wide range. I am all for folks who can both argue and learn. Am inching into arguing myself but I don't do it well yet. So I stand watching, and posting every so often.

No you did not. I knew you wouldn't like my contentions, the moment I realised you were a woman. But one can 'look forward' to opposition views too. I do. So don't feel guilty, although I admire the 'protective' instinct your post reveals.

My own mother would agree with you 100%, but I don't love her less for that.

Not that I don't like support. But I am not expecting any. The men, even when they suffer are rendered voiceless. For a long time to come, I have prepared myself to go alone. But I have enough experience and knowledge to back me up. I know I have to contend with the vested interest groups which are basically heteroseuxals and homosexuals. Women though a vested interest group (at least some of them) will generally keep away, for all this is news to them.

But again, truth does not need support. It can stand on its own. It's lie that needs to be propped. And like on other boards, people are going to have a hard time contending my points.

However, I do admire your willingness to listen, and your compose in the face of possible provocation. But any kind of reaction, from different people, will add to my experience and will be very useful. So, I look forward to your emotive fireballs.

Anyway, I wouldn't want to lose the thread that I have initiated, which some people would very much hope. So back to the points that I have raised.

I would hafta say, Budda, that your thesis strikes me as inconsistent with archaeology, history, psychology, and biology ... but then, thats just my take, as yours is yours. I've never gone much for contrarian theories of humankind's development. If that sorta thing entertains you, go ahead and enjoy.

I could add 'sociology' to timber's list, but that's my oponion only, and as timber said: "go ahead and enjoy".

See? Now you're being opressive again!

You forgot 'religion'......!

No - I left it out deliberately :wink:

Don't hide behind social institutions.......



If you've had your laugh, let's get down to the discussion.

It is easy to laugh, hiding behind socially accepted positions. But why don't you take me apart point by point, using logic. Afterall, something as funny as this should not be difficult to prove wrong.


All of these human institutions are mere puppets in the hands of those in power. We all know how it works. It took 200 years for 'science' to accept that there is widespread evidence of male-male sex in the wild. And it was almost forced to accept that. It has consistently suppressed all information on such incidences in the wild --- and this is documented. The first person to report widespread female-female sex amongst Macaques monkeys was laughed out by the authorities. The discovery channel when talking about animal sexuality still pretends as if the animal world is heterosexual --- absolutely no mention of sex or courtship between same-sex.

That Christian missionaries have destroyed several archaelogical and other historical evidences that did not meet their view of this world is not hidden from anyone. Many of the culprits were accredited scientists. The human institution of science has taken after its predecessor 'religion' where what is presented as 'fact' is what those in power give their stamp to.

The Christian/ heterosexual science was more interested in proving that masturbation leads to blindness and insanity. That circumcision was a healthy process. And that so-called 'homosexuality' was a mental disorder. They had to eat their words. But not before so-called 'homosexuals' became politically powerful and forced them to. therefore, 'Science' (including archeaolgoy, biology, sociology and what have you) is not about the truth. It's about power.

So, you see! 'Science' is not infallible, and mere non-validity by these institutions is not reason enough to write something off.

But I'm relying mostly on what has been given the 'stamp' (although hesitatingly) by arhaeology, biology, and what have you. But where I don't agree with it, I will give evidences for my reason of disagreement. And I'm relying most of all on empirical evidence, because that is the most reliable.

Whatever I have asserted has been drawn from 10 years of work experience (groundwork) and careful research. The conclusions are all based on what 'your' scientific institutions have already 'accepted' as 'facts'. So I can answer most of your queries regarding this, citing 'authoritative' researches whereever required.

However, I may add that I'm an honest seeker of truth, and if I'm proved wrong either totally or partly, I would not hesitate to change that part of my assertion. I would give more value to empirical evidence than to established scientific theories.

If you quote me, please quote me correctly and only that what I said/wrote.

Thank you.

That is a clever way to avoid a discussion.

There is only one truth, for me, for you and for everybody else. We should all be prepared to accept the truth whether it suits us or not (that includes me!). If I'm on the wrong track, a discussion with knowledgable people like you guys should help me correct myself. What is the point in wasting our time here if we can't go back any wiser?

If you are so sure of your position then I'd be truly obliged if you can correct me, and I request, point by point.

But if you are not sure of your position, then the same applies to you and it's your duty, if you are honest, to explore the points I have enumerated. How can you just throw something away that the other has so honestly and painstakingly created without examining it, and not let it affect your conscience?

understanding 'homosexuality'
Homosexuality is the negative form of male-male bonds --- the marginalised, feminised and minoritised version. It is the remanant that reamains when you submit the society to specific artificial processess whereby the natural tendency of men to bond with men (including sexual/ emotional bonds) is suppressed in the mainstream community and allowed only in third sex/ third gender circles.

This process was certainly unimagniable in the times of Alexander. In fact homosexuality happens only in modern heterosexual societies --- and is a direct result of heterosexualisation. In other words it is one of the innumerable harmful waste products that the heterosexualisation of a society produces.

In fact, it is wrong to use the word homosexuality for sexual attraction between two masculine/ straight/ regular men. For all practical terms, homosexuality refers to the sexual attraction of a meterosexual/ transgendered man for another meterosexual/ transexual man or even for straight men.

Therefore it is wrong to even suggest that Alexander was ‘gay’ because he loved men.

This is Not Fair How You Can Know Reallity ,
Remember That All Successfull People in World History Was Only Heterosexuall (STRAIGHT "MAN TO WOMEN") ....... HOMOSEXUALLITY IS SHITTY HELL THING ........ Homosexuallity being Taboo

Gays Sex Had TABOO of All ERA's

EVERYSUCCESSFULL PEOPLE IN WORLD HISTORY WAS HETEROSEXUALL "NOTGAY" (STRAIGHT)

HOMOSEXUALLTY /GAYS ARE SHITTY RUBBISH THING IN THE WORLD

ITS MAKE WORLD HELL