there needs to be a dislike button...

I got notified via email of Sunbae's comment because I commented here previously and returned because I thought he/she had replied to my comment. I see you've deleted it, even though it contained no flames or sarcasm. I'd say that was very mature of you but that WOULD be sarcasm.

You sound very young so I'm going to assume this is someone else's bigotry that has been imprinted onto you. Life is too short to get worked up over something so minor. Gays aren't controversial anymore. The world has changed.

Laura wrote: "I got notified via email of Sunbae's comment because I commented here previously and returned because I thought he/she had replied to my comment. I see you've deleted it, even though it contained n..."

I am sorry I deleted your previous comment. I regret that. Everyone should be allowed to state their own opinion. I was immature and I apologize. It's also true, I am young. But not young enough to know my own opinions. Their are reasons believe what I believe, and it is my own personal choice to believe them. If that makes sense. But I have to disagree about homosexuality not being a controversial topic, it truly is. I don't mean to sound like I hate homosexuals, I don't. I respect them as people. I do not degrade them, and I'm sorry if my review made it sound that way. I will edit that. I don't want to fight with you. But just know that we all have our opinions, even I, the hypocrite who deleted your comment. Again, I apologize.

Sunbae wrote: "there needs to be a dislike button..."

I am sorry my review offended you. I went back and looked at it and realized how much of a jerk I ended up sounding like. I edited it and tried to make it as unoffensive as possible. I hope you can forgive me for having sounded so rude. Just know that my review was based on my own personal opinion and that I am not trying to push my opinion on you. Once again I apologize.

When you talk about homosexuality as a "controversial" topic you nearly had me in stitches. But then I realized that no, people in the US Bible Belt or Saudi Arabia maybe aren't as open-minded as my fellow Europeans. Same sex marriage has been allowed in my country for more than fifteen years and did that bring about the apocalypse? No, it didn't. It made people who wanted to marry the ones they love happy and it didn't influence anyone else's marriage in any way. More people get married, it's no big deal.

I'm sorry, but as a heterosexual I am severely offended that someone would take their time and bash a book just because they don't condone the topic. Do you read thrillers, and does that mean you're in support of violence? Do you read stuff written by atheists, and if so, does it make you an atheist?

It's sad to read that you are so young yet so judgmental of the world around you. I hope that when you grow as a person and get to experience life with all its positives and negatives you'll find yourself more understanding of people you don't know the first thing about. You sound like someone who'd bash a book because you found out that the characters are black. Nobody chooses what they are born as, and it saddens me to see people happily make life even harder on others even though their own lives are absolutely not affected in any way by the people they oppose. Don't you have anything else to spend your time on? Like, try to make the world a better place and volunteer with charities instead of wasting your breath on hate?

I completely agree with you Becca. I had real high hopes for this one but had to stop reading. I admire your courage to speak out on your beliefs knowing you'ld probably get slammed for it

Becca, thank you for your honest review of the book. Being uncomfortable reading books in which the main character has homosexual leanings does not make you a bad person or a bigot. It just means you have different tastes, and your opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

Sarah wrote: "Becca, thank you for your honest review of the book. Being uncomfortable reading books in which the main character has homosexual leanings does not make you a bad person or a bigot. It just means y..."

Thank you so much for that. It is nice to know that I am not hated for my opinions. My beliefs are my beliefs and it is nice to know that there is someone out there who respects that :)

Karen wrote: "I completely agree with you Becca. I had real high hopes for this one but had to stop reading. I admire your courage to speak out on your beliefs knowing you'ld probably get slammed for it"

Thank you for commenting. It's nice to see support rather than hate for a change. I find it a bit funny though that I am being told not to "hate" but then I am being hated on by the commentor themselves :/ thanks for being the first to bring about a change in comment here :)

Annis wrote: "When you talk about homosexuality as a "controversial" topic you nearly had me in stitches. But then I realized that no, people in the US Bible Belt or Saudi Arabia maybe aren't as open-minded as m..."

I feel like no matter how I state my opinion, it will still come across as hate. I don't hate the people that are homosexual. I don't support homosexuality. How should I put this? Do you eat meat? If yes, then what if your best friend is a vegetarian? Ok, then you don't agree with being a vegetarian but that doesn't mean you hate your friend who happens to be a vegetarian. And I realize that another thing is that what I believe is completely different from what you believe. So there is absolutely no way I can debate with you on the same level. And I don't think that what I write as a review is a waste of time. If that was the case then I would think that you are wasting your time by reading my review then possibly my profile, then my other comments, then actually posting a comment about my review. Now according to you, that would be a waste of time. But to me it's not. I am defending my belief and you are as well, so thank you for your insight. I'm sorry that i offended you and I'm sorry if I'm making no sense. It's been a long day.

Hate the sin, not the sinner, right?

Yeah, I get what you mean by that, but that doesn't mean I endorse the attitude. I am generally really tolerant of people's beliefs and opinions UNLESS they infringe on other people's fundamental human rights. That's the fundamental meaning of tolerance - it's not only about freedom of speech like so many others seem to think. See, opinions aren't just abstract concepts floating in the air without influencing society in any way. Just like misogyny (hatred of women) and the patriarchal system made it impossible for a woman to vote until 1920 in the US, the religious notions of who everybody else should fall in love with have caused an age-old oppression which lead and still leads to isolation, bullying/extreme intimidation, suicide, family alienation, pressure to hide your natural instincts, living a complete lie and deceiving those around you for your own sake. It used to be labeled as a "disease" to be homosexual until the '70s. It's this attitude that made it possible to persecute and torture/kill gay men and women in the past. In the Middle East for example this is still the case. If you don't "agree" with somebody's natural state, you probably believe they have a choice. A choice to succumb to oppression or to follow their own path, maybe. But as long as it's still a widespread idea that something about homesexuality or transsexuality is in any way voluntary or wrong, they'll never be free to do whatever the hell they want, which is something you on the other hand are privileged enough to do. Who are you to endorse taking away these rights from others? Would you have liked us women to have stayed in a completely inferior position in society, having men think we weren't capable of rational, logical thought and good intelligence?

How far humankind still needs to go until it actually deserves that name...

Ugh, we have another one.

I wonder about you calling homosexuality a "lifestyle". Do you think they can change being in love with another guy/girl?

Like Annis, I find it sometimes hard to believe other countries aren't as open minded as we Europeans are.

Becca, that's not a review of a book!! You've given Jane Eagland one star, reduced her overall rating, and you haven't even read the book! I'm disappointed that Goodreads even allowed you to write all that bigoted nonsense. If you'd written that you couldn't read a book because the heroine was black, your comments would never get on here. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

Joanne, even though I kind of agree with you (at least the first part of your comment), I am finding it rather offending that you made a sock-puppet account just so you could bash this review anonymously.

I think it's perfectly fair to post a "did not finish" book review as long as you make it clear that you didn't finish the book because you didn't enjoy it. I think saying "I didn't finish this book because of (insert reason here)" can still be a helpful review.

I also don't think not wanting to read about a certain type of character automatically means you are a horrible person. I don't like to read books with male main characters because I don't relate to them as well. I probably have read maybe 5 books in the last 5 years with a male main character and I avoid books with male main characters unless I'm very interested in the story.

The point is we all have certain types of stories that are just not enjoyable to us. I think it's unfair to bash someone for not enjoying a certain type of storyline. What if someone just wanted to read male/female romances because that's what they relate to? Would they also be a horrible person?

I don't mind Becca writing this review, but I do think she shouldn't have given this a rating. Like she said herself, this isn't a bad book. In my opinion this book doesn't deserve a 1-star rating just because she doesn't like gay people.

Becca, I want to thank you for your frank and honest review. I wish I had read it before I checked the book out of the library... I agree with you on many points and applaud your bravery for standing up for your believes.

I completely agree with Rebecca. I also don't like reading books with male main characters because I simply don't relate to them or their love interests (women). I also probably won't read the book now for two reasons. One, although I have plenty of lesbian friends and I fully support gay marriage/rights, I really have no interest in reading a book with a female love interest. Two, I thought she was actually insane, like with multiple personality disorder or something, not a lesbian. Being gay is not a mental illness :-(

Megan wrote: "I completely agree with Rebecca. I also don't like reading books with male main characters because I simply don't relate to them or their love interests (women). I also probably won't read the book..."

If you don't read the book for that reason, I completely understand. Haha, and nope, being gay is definitely not an mental illness :D

Oh my, who would dare to read a book with a narrative of someone you don't agree with, because then of course you might learn about the struggles of others, and possibly learn something about intolerance. How dare anyone step outside the realm of conservativism, because then you might catch a horrible curse of homosexuality or see them as human beings. Who in their right mind would ever want such a thing?

Wow this review saddened me so much.

I don't see why everyone is upset. I have nothing against gays or homosexuality, but I don't like reading books where the love interest is of the same sex as the main character. I can't relate well to the story or the relationship. I picked up this book (willing to give it a try), but the relationship wasn't working, and I'm not a fan of the writing style. The plot line was also severely lacking, in my opinion.

I find it odd that people are jumping all over her, while also trying to support the right of other people. This is called a logical fallacy. In other words, your argument is invalid. You cannot try and say that she has no right to speak her opinion and lifestyle, while also saying that homosexuals should have the right to their own opinions and lifestyle. That's just...dumb.

Also, most of you are begging the question. which again renders your argument invalid and meaningless.

She can post her opinion. Just as you can post yours. Just because she holds a different opinion then you, doesn't mean she can't write a review. Her opinion is hers, and yours is yours. Just because you hold a different opinion, doesn't make her wrong. It doesn't make her right, either. But still; just because you think differently, does not mean you have the right to bash her for not thinking the same. Opinions are not objective facts. It's however you think personally. You are neither right nor wrong. It's very arrogant to claim your opinion is right above all others...

An opinion on someone's sexuality isn't the same as one's favourite choice of ice cream. Your opinion is based on facts or logic and if your logic is flawed then chances are your opinion isn't right. We could argue about your opinion forever and even if we never reached a satisfactory conclusion your one could judge whose train of thought is better framed.

To say you do not support homosexual's lifestyle is a rather awkward statement. I would like to point out that it isn't exactly a choice they make...it's their way of being happy. And the question arises that if you do not support it are you not inherently endangering it as well? How can you expect other people to respect your opinion when you put yourself in a position to judge their "lifestyle"? Their way of living isn't hurting anyone so I fail to see how anyone else can judge it.

Reianna wrote: "I don't see why everyone is upset. I have nothing against gays or homosexuality, but I don't like reading books where the love interest is of the same sex as the main character. I can't relate well..."



It is arrogant to claim your opinion right over all others...but it is worse to voice an opinion that hurts the sentiments of other people especially when what they have done hurts no one.

There is a reason why people who make racist comments are in general criticised for their opinions. It's because since you are allowed to have your own opinion and voice it you are discouraged from having an opinion that is hurtful. Other people's opinions are judged mostly because each individual's opinion has an impact. Becca is allowed to voice her opinion, but she must also be ready to criticised for having such an opinion especially since it is a comment on other people's lifestyles which have in no way hurt anyone.

I understand, and agree with most of what you said. But where exactly do we draw the line? Can we have our own opinion as long as it's not offensive to others? Can others put restrictions on how we, personally, think? Now, if someone were to attack someone because of their homosexuality - that would be taking it too far. That would no longer be a thought, but a harmful action. But if someone is just against gay marriage in general, is it wrong of them to say so? I thought Becca expressed her opinions in a mature way and was nothing but nice about it. Is it wrong of her to do so? But yes, I agree, for her to take a stand for what she believes and say this, she must also be ready for criticism. I just felt like people were being too hard and just attacking her personally, and not trying to make a valid point in their argument, or to point out a flaw in hers. Instead, they were rude and immature.

In response to your first comment, no one should judge anyone. As Becca made very clear, she has nothing against gay people. She doesn't think of them as any less of a person and doesn't mind being around them. She just disagrees with one of their life choices, and doesn't like to read about it. I fail to see anything wrong with that.

All in all, I didn't mean to start any kind of a debate. As stated above, I just felt as if people were jumping all over her. I would have no problem if they commented about how they support gay marriage, that they disagree with her...etc. It's only when they attack the person, that I have a problem. If that makes sense? I would have done the same if she were supporting homosexuality, and everyone was bashing her for that, ya'know?

One last thing: opinions aren't objective. Though you can base some of what you think on fact, it can't ever be truly objective. For example, if I were to say; "two plus two is four." This isn't an opinion, it's a fact based on logic and mathematics. If I were to say; "I believe in evolution and am an Atheist." Or: "I believe in God and am a Christian." It would be an opinion. Though you can support both sides with facts and logic, there is a choice one has to make. Neither side is provable beyond all doubt. I hope that makes sense... Opinions are not simply whether we prefer chocolate or vanilla, but almost all of our choices and beliefs.

Some people support homosexuality. They have facts and logic to support their side. Some people do not support homosexuality. They have facts and logic to support their side. There is an element of opinion, choice and personal beliefs. I don't believe anyone can truly say that one side is objectively, inherently, factually and logically right - and the other side completely and utterly wrong. Now, both sides can debate and support whatever they want. But when one person is being insulted for what they believe (on either side), it's wrong. Because, as I said, at that point your opinion is no longer a thought or belief, it's a harmful action.

No hard feelings and I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I just felt the above comment required a response. (:

Thanks for the reply. I agree with most of what you said. It is okay to criticise but personally attacking her isn't right.

But I still don't understand what one could find wrong with same sex marriage. It is simply another way of living. How can we not support their life style? And what do you mean anyway when you say you do not support it? Are you saying it's wrong and actively trying to stop them from having the right to marry? Or are you simply dissaproving and not taking part in trying to make it legal?

Exactly.

I, personally, don't find anything wrong with homosexuality or same-sex marriage. However, for those that do, it has to do with religion. I've met many people who disagree with homosexuality because of the Bible. They don't actively ridicule gay people or shun them or anything like that. It's more, "homosexuality is a sin, we do not support it and we do not support same-sex marraige. But we're no better than you are, we will not look down on you, and you are still a human that Jesus died for." sort of thing. You'd have to talk to someone that believes that to get a more in-depth look.

There are others that are just homo-phobes and make fun of gays and make their life miserable. Those are a completely different story, and just plain jerks.

I can understand people not wanting to read gay romance, if you had just left it at that I think this review would be fine. But really, it isn't in any way kind or unoffensive to say you "disagree" with "the gay lifestyle". Think whatever you want, but if you really care about not offending or hurting anyone here, well...
If you stopped reading because you don't enjoy gay romance, you can just say so and leave it at that. Anything more is unavoidably hurtful to say.

DON'T WORRY GURL, I GOTCHA COVERED:

http://i.imgur.com/rY2l0.png

Haha, Rainy, love it.

Should we have warnings on books with heterosexual relationships on it? It might gross out the gay person reading it!

Oh my gosh I agree with you on the whole homosexual thing so much!!!

To anyone who says that books should be warned because they have heterosexual characters? Really? People are reluntant to read homosexual books because it's out of the norm because it's not socially acceptable. You all have your own opinoins, but she stated hers. And we shouldn't be hating on her because she said her opinoin. So she's not comfortable with homosexuality. So what? Not everyone has to be just because it's becoming more and more common these days.

I do agree with you, Becca this book and any other book that have homosexual relationship should have a note or warning or whatever.

It would benefit these people who doesn't want to read about homosexual couple and these who wants to read lesbian or gay romance.

Anna wrote: "I do agree with you, Becca this book and any other book that have homosexual relationship should have a note or warning or whatever.

It would benefit these people who doesn't want to read about h..."

I agree with this.

Becca, I think the real problem here that people have with your review is that you perhaps took it a bit too far. What I mean to say is, you simply should have said you didn't finish the book because you could not relate to the character's romance. The fact that you brought your opinion on gay people's lifestyles into it is what is offending others. Maybe next time a simple "those not looking for a homosexual romance should not read this book" would suffice.

Megan wrote: "Becca, I think the real problem here that people have with your review is that you perhaps took it a bit too far. What I mean to say is, you simply should have said you didn't finish the book becau..."

So we have to water down our opinoins because it might offend some people? Freedom of speech.

Not at all. She would still be getting across the salient points, but in a way that wouldn't incite other people to rag on her. Simple conflict avoidance.

Megan wrote: "Not at all. She would still be getting across the salient points, but in a way that wouldn't incite other people to rag on her. Simple conflict avoidance."

I think she should be able to state her opinoin fully w/ out people bashing/flaming her. But this is just me.

Too bad that opinion deals with way more than just the book. She could say she doesn't like it because of the lesbian romance without putting down homosexual people and their "lifestyle".

Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to get across.

Since when does a review of a STORY marketed as FICTION get justified by using the reviewer's REAL-LIFE experience/beliefs as a literary standard? That's a bit crazy. I don't condone allowing wolves to dress up as little old ladies so they can go into the forest and eat innocent little girls, and therefore I give Little Red Riding Hood a one-star rating, even though it's a thought-provoking and entertaining FAIRYTALE? And BTW, if "homosexuality" is a "lifestyle," then so is "heterosexuality." Don't judge a book by your "lifestyle." And if by "lifestyle" what you mean is "abomination," then you ARE a homophobe. It's not really a show of courage to tell fellow-readers that you disapprove of their "lifestyle." Your disapproval is an insult to MY "beliefs." And I don't feel particularly brave or honest having to say it--just hurt that you should have a problem with who I am and feel the need to use a book review as a pretext for saying so.

The book doesn't emphasize her homosexuality that much. I love it because it shows a glimpse of the horrors that people had to face when they were committed - the unfairness of it all.
And these days, you'll find that if you pick up a young adult book, there's a high chance of it having at least one gay character. Like Mortal Instruments, two of the characters are gay, Harry Potter, Dumbledore is supposedly gay, The perks of being a wallflower and so forth. I can't even count the number of times I've picked up a book to read and been pleasantly surprised at finding a gay character in it. Recognition of gay people has become a part of mainstream culture now, and with kids being more open about it, you're more likely to to find gay relationships more in books.
I understand your frustration but this may be one of those things you have to come to terms with.

Yes, you're entitled to your own opinions. I may disagree with them, but I'm not going to jump down your throat about it.
However, you unjustly gave this review 1 star. A book rating should be based on the merits of a story's writing, plot, characters, and other various things, not your opinions on homosexuality.