I know the greeks and chinese where pretty tolerant of homosexuals, but was this always the case and how did it change throughout history

I'm interested in the short and long term effects if anyone cares to speculate.

EDIT: Title should have been a question, not statement :(

(This might not be the best place to post this question in, but I'm giving it a shot. I've also posted this in r/architecture.)

I just spent a week or so in Istanbul, and some of the zillions of interesting things I saw there were old churches that had since been converted to mosques.

Since the axial alignment of the churches (typically east-west, in my understanding) did not "match" the alignment of the mihrab (to Mecca, more or less southeast from Istanbul) the mihrab was always noticeably off-axis (versus purpose-built mosques in which the mihrab is usually on-axis.)

Since the conversion of churches/cathedrals to mosques was fairly widespread, I was wondering if anyone knew of any converted churches/cathedrals in which the mihrab was not off-axis and fit in (more) seamlessly to the original layout, i.e. was on one of the two major axes in most churches.

One thought I had was maybe there were some churches that were due east/west/north/south of Mecca, so when the conversion took place the mihrab was placed along a primary axis of the original structure.

But this is sort of a tricky thing to google, I've discovered, so I thought I'd try here first.

Thanks for any help, and feel free to point me in a better direction if this question doesn't fit here.

or "Can we expect to see 50 Shades of Grey in AP literature classes in 100 years?"

Edit: Some responses have asked what I mean by trashy. I used trashy to describe a book that, in its time, was considered by the public and/or critics as being low-brow or uncultured entertainment. However, I'd be interested to hear about books that were not highly regarded for other reasons too.

I've read that the scramble for Africa was in part an attempt by Bismark to focus territorial aggression of European countries off-continent. Were tensions that high, such as to the degree of pre WW I, or was that just Bismark's attempt to distract European powers while he consolidated his German Empire?

Was it the amount of people? The weapons? Technology? Tactics?

I kind of understand some of the politics and propaganda involved in the US, but how does a relatively harmless plant, that a very large amount of people would/do grow and use, and that has huge economic potential become basicly outlawed world wide? What prevented such a potentially lucrative world market from existing for so long?

I know the bomb was first developed to be used on Germany so I'm guessing there were some preliminary plans made for this situation.

From my admittedly uneducated viewpoint, it would seem to be fairly easy to step onto a ship as one person, and step off as another. Or even easier, to move to a new town and begin identifying themselves by a new name. Was it that easy? Was this common?

On the other side of things, for people being sought, what methods were used to track down someone who had attempted to disappear?

It seems weird to me that this word exists, yet there's no single word for other seemingly arbitrary periods of time, like two days, or three weeks, or two months for example.

And by the way, are etymology questions acceptable here? It's a kind of history, right?

Is it true that escaped Nazi's had anything to do with his execution?

I ask this because this is actually happening right now and would like to know if there is any historical precedent. I cant imagine how this wouldn't create a blackhole effect where most all of "manipulated monies" flow in a mostly unidirectional path into the "sound currency".

This question was inspired by Col. Peter Mansoor's AMA today, specifically his comment that "The U.S. military might wish to refight the Normandy invasion and the drive across France and Germany in 1944 and 1945, but this kind of war is unlikely in the foreseeable future. As much as Americans might not like the type of wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11, they are closer to the future of war than World War II."

I'll try to ask my question in a way that encourages experts to share their knowledge: what are the different kinds of insurgencies and counter-insurgencies? have other countries successfully prosecuted counter-insurgency wars, and how?

Wouldn't it have made the surrender of Japan much surer if the bomb would've succesfully gone off in Tokyo where, I assume, much more people lived?

Or am I sounding like a complete idiot now?

Ok, I get it, Gavin Menzies is full of shit. But is there any useful information in this book or will I walk away with wrong ideas about basically everything? How is his depiction of Ming China? Chinese naval technology? The biographies of the mariners?

I'm comfortable that German actions precipitated the war--giving a free hand to Austria, invading neutral Belgium, etc.--but what did Germany seek to accomplish? Continental or colonial territorial acquisition? Impose its political will on the European system? Or was it viewed as a preventative war against future French and Russian opposition? I assume there was some combination of all of the above, as well as others I'm not considering.

I'm not exactly sure how Dan Carlin and the Hardcore History podcast is received around here but I'm curious about something he mentioned in an episode about Germanic tribes entitled "Thor's Angels."

In describing some Germanic groups he mentioned that they would have large areas surrounding their land where there were no living things other than trees. The larger the dead zone, the more powerful the tribe. How much truth is there to this idea?