The House of Hades
discussion
NICO… YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT O.o
Well, every fool has his paradise.
Chaya wrote: "I am saying that being gay is OK."Oh, phew, I read that the wrong way. I agree.
Brown wrote: "Paintbrush (Nyx) wrote: "http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736...
Srsly, bro?"
...Seriously, though you're ironically the most close-minded person on t..."
Actually Brown, I think that this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, having hardly budged in your opinions since you joined the thread. And while sexuality is not wholly determined at birth, it is still outside people's control. And in regard to romance, both in the HoO and in real life, if you never try at first, how will you know what to look for? Your perceived "fanfic romance," is actually the route for the majority of fiction. Whether it should be or not is another question, I'll give you that. But Fifty Shades, if half of what I've heard/read about it is true, is nothing like what you lumped it with, going into abuse territory. In HoO, since Rick is against epilogues, you might be able to fantasize that couples break up and turn the lovey-dovey-ness on its head. And WND is an EXTREMELY far right wing site. There is nothing inherently wrong with selfishness when in moderation.
Some people really need to grow up and stop being so judgmental. It's a great thing that Rick Riordan had the guts to include a gay character in a children's book. It's a topic that too many people shy away from discussing In front of children and all that does is confuse those kids, because whether parents talk about this at home or not, children are bound to hear it anyway, either from school, or somewhere else. Besides, in the end, this book is Riordan's, not anyone else's. It's his imagination and his characters, and he is in complete liberty to decide the personalities, actions, and sexual orientation of each of his characters. And the readers are in complete liberty to decide whether they want to read this book or not, no one is going to shove this book in your face and force you to read it. And both parents and readers should have figured out by how, that as the characters in this book grow more mature, so do the problems that they face, from the size and strength of the monsters they have to battle, to their own personal battles and inner struggles. A book about a bunch of teenagers isn't going to be the same as a book about a group of twelve year olds. So again I say "bravo Rick Riordan! Well done!"
Matthew wrote: "Chaya wrote: "I am saying that being gay is OK."
Oh, phew, I read that the wrong way. I agree.
Brown wrote: "Paintbrush (Nyx) wrote: "http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736......"
I read people's arguments, consider them and respond.
That is not close-minded, it is plain not agreeing.
Close-minded is posting lyrics of pop songs in response to sincere, thought out arguments.
You attack the site, and don't address the content. Do you think there IS a gay gene? Can you counter any of those points?
Unlike other self-indulgent acts, it's actually perverting what is supposed to be the most selfLESS act.
And yes, "straight" people who abuse sex are NOT less guilty of this.
There are plenty of successful marriages where neither partner got any "practice." You can learn what to look for without feeling like you have to have a significant other.
This obsession with romance and dating in highschool is for the most part just harmful.
The mentality produces things like 50 Shades of Gray, and fanfiction. Some things are more obviously shallow than others, but it starts here.
Oh, phew, I read that the wrong way. I agree.
Brown wrote: "Paintbrush (Nyx) wrote: "http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736......"
I read people's arguments, consider them and respond.
That is not close-minded, it is plain not agreeing.
Close-minded is posting lyrics of pop songs in response to sincere, thought out arguments.
You attack the site, and don't address the content. Do you think there IS a gay gene? Can you counter any of those points?
Unlike other self-indulgent acts, it's actually perverting what is supposed to be the most selfLESS act.
And yes, "straight" people who abuse sex are NOT less guilty of this.
There are plenty of successful marriages where neither partner got any "practice." You can learn what to look for without feeling like you have to have a significant other.
This obsession with romance and dating in highschool is for the most part just harmful.
The mentality produces things like 50 Shades of Gray, and fanfiction. Some things are more obviously shallow than others, but it starts here.
Cielo wrote: "Some people really need to grow up and stop being so judgmental. It's a great thing that Rick Riordan had the guts to include a gay character in a children's book. It's a topic that too many people..."
In your own words, what does judgmental mean?
In your own words, what does judgmental mean?
Brown wrote: "Cielo wrote: "Some people really need to grow up and stop being so judgmental. It's a great thing that Rick Riordan had the guts to include a gay character in a children's book. It's a topic that t..."What I mean is that some people on this site seem to think that Riordan just commited some huge sin for even hinting that one of his characters is gay. Someone earlier at the top of this thread mentioned that it was wrong of him, almost like a betrayal to the readers and parents of the readers. All I'm trying to say is that the author has a right to make his story whatever he wants it to be. I guess judgmental was the wrong word to use in this situation, you're right. More close minded, I guess, for not accepting the fact that Riordan has a right to express his own opinions into his books, and if other people take offense in this, they don't have to continue reading hid series if they don't want to.
Cielo wrote: "Brown wrote: "Cielo wrote: "Some people really need to grow up and stop being so judgmental. It's a great thing that Rick Riordan had the guts to include a gay character in a children's book. It's ..."
I don't think they take offense at his right to express ideas, rather than with the idea itself. They see it as harmful. Ask them why, don't call them names or write them off because of it.
I don't think they take offense at his right to express ideas, rather than with the idea itself. They see it as harmful. Ask them why, don't call them names or write them off because of it.
Can we have a roll call for ages?I'm reading some comments and to me, it seems the person is 10 or younger.....
I'm 13, almost 14.And I know what it's like to be around gay people. Two (maybe three) of my uncles are gay. And you know, it's just something they have to deal with and get through. It's hard on everybody.
@Shahdia: I think that @Brown is just saying that all the names and technicality that comes with the attraction is shallow. Like, I certainly don't like it when people throw the terms like ADHD and cancer around, because it just makes things kinda...weird. I don't like it when people say, "Oh, that's so gay!" when something weird happens because seriously? It doesn't even make sense.
@Brown: Not all books with romance are "shallow", as you put it. The Matched series? Pretty deep, actually. And it's not inappropriate, which is the word I think you're looking for. There are some fanfictions that are actually really good and don't do any of the bad stuff.
I want to clarify this, because I think some people are saying to opposite. Who you are attracted to is not really decided by you. Your mind is simply attracted to them. Maybe you don't like it. But that's the way it is. It's the way you are. You say you can't be born with it, but I believe that everything you are is already set in stone when you come out of the womb. Everything that will happen to you is already decided, and you can't change fate. I know I said I wouldn't bring religion into this, but right now it seems appropriate.
www.lds.org
"The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and behavior. While maintaining that feelings and inclinations toward the same sex are not inherently sinful, engaging in homosexual behavior is in conflict with the “doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture … that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”
Because the Church believes that the sacred powers of procreation are “to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife … any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family.” Accordingly, the Church favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, “protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not remove Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.”"
Elder Dallin H. Oaks says on the matter:
"We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.
Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.
Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and “lifestyle” we engraft upon them.
Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. The contrast between freedom and agency can be illustrated in the context of a hypothetical progression from feelings to thoughts to behavior to addiction. This progression can be seen on a variety of matters, such as gambling and the use of tobacco and alcohol.
Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure” (2 Cor. 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.
In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only “free according to the flesh” [2 Ne. 2:27]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose."
So it's not like we were "born that way," but our Heavenly Father decided that it would be a struggle some of us would face to make us stronger and to test our faith.
I just felt like I had to share that, so don't attack me for bringing some of my religious leaders' words to the table.
Thanks.
26
Everyone's older than me:(
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "I'm 13, almost 14.
And I know what it's like to be around gay people. Two (maybe three) of my uncles are gay. And you know, it's just something they have to deal with and get through. It's hard on..."
This sums up everything I've been trying to say. Thank you.
I agree with the Church completely on this one.
I was also just trying to make the point that sometimes we take insignificant feelings too seriously, and blow them out of proportion.
That can be the case with much of teen romance, or labeling ourselves after them, etc.
THAT'S what I was trying to say is shallow.
(If anyone was wondering my age, I'm the same as Percy).
And I know what it's like to be around gay people. Two (maybe three) of my uncles are gay. And you know, it's just something they have to deal with and get through. It's hard on..."
This sums up everything I've been trying to say. Thank you.
I agree with the Church completely on this one.
I was also just trying to make the point that sometimes we take insignificant feelings too seriously, and blow them out of proportion.
That can be the case with much of teen romance, or labeling ourselves after them, etc.
THAT'S what I was trying to say is shallow.
(If anyone was wondering my age, I'm the same as Percy).
GAH everyone's older than me!!!! A-hem. Thank you, Brown. For explaining;) I get confused easily. And song lyrics make me even more confused sometimes.
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "GAH everyone's older than me!!!!
A-hem. Thank you, Brown. For explaining;) I get confused easily. And song lyrics make me even more confused sometimes."
The sad thing is, nobody will ever give us a point.
I guarantee they're not going to even acknowledge ANY of that.
Someone is going to repeat, "no judging" and bring us back to square one again just like always.
These are unbelievably close-minded people we're dealing with here. The irony kills me.
A-hem. Thank you, Brown. For explaining;) I get confused easily. And song lyrics make me even more confused sometimes."
The sad thing is, nobody will ever give us a point.
I guarantee they're not going to even acknowledge ANY of that.
Someone is going to repeat, "no judging" and bring us back to square one again just like always.
These are unbelievably close-minded people we're dealing with here. The irony kills me.
Notice how they all magically stopped replying?
It's too overwhelming for them to really engage in any real constructive back and forth valid arguments. They can only dismiss and ignore.
Hence the popular phrase, "haters gonna hate."
We're not encouraged to stand up for our beliefs when they get challenged anymore. It's pathetic. I'm sure Lucius Malfoy would be proud of you all, weasels.
It's too overwhelming for them to really engage in any real constructive back and forth valid arguments. They can only dismiss and ignore.
Hence the popular phrase, "haters gonna hate."
We're not encouraged to stand up for our beliefs when they get challenged anymore. It's pathetic. I'm sure Lucius Malfoy would be proud of you all, weasels.
Brown wrote: "Notice how they all magically stopped replying?It's too overwhelming for them to really engage in any real constructive back and forth valid arguments. They can only dismiss and ignore.
Hence th..."
Your popularity just went to new heights -_-
Suppose people got too tired of reading the same perspectives ? Suppose they have homework? Suppose we're all hating school ( and lunch) right now? Some people have urgent priorities y'know
Blogger wrote: "Brown wrote: "Notice how they all magically stopped replying?
It's too overwhelming for them to really engage in any real constructive back and forth valid arguments. They can only dismiss and ign..."
Then why are you all here, to chime in only when it suits you? That's kind of unproductive.
It's too overwhelming for them to really engage in any real constructive back and forth valid arguments. They can only dismiss and ign..."
Then why are you all here, to chime in only when it suits you? That's kind of unproductive.
Brown wrote: "Notice how they all magically stopped replying?It's too overwhelming for them to really engage in any real constructive back and forth valid arguments. They can only dismiss and ignore.
Hence th..."
Okay, Brown, calm down. I can't help but notice that you're a little tense and may explode. Just calm down, okay? I mean, I've been really busy. Others probably have also. It's no big deal.
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Brown wrote: "Notice how they all magically stopped replying?
It's too overwhelming for them to really engage in any real constructive back and forth valid arguments. They can only dismiss and ign..."
Don't make this about me.
That's the whole point. That nobody will stick to the point.
It's too overwhelming for them to really engage in any real constructive back and forth valid arguments. They can only dismiss and ign..."
Don't make this about me.
That's the whole point. That nobody will stick to the point.
I'm not supposed to write my age.
ITS HERMIONE >:DWe all know you're in your 20's.... maybe not... you used the timeturner so much that your actually older, hence why you can't state your age
warning: this is super super super long. like always.wow. you people are getting heated up in here. i check back here every month or so now (usually in the middle of the night (procrastination is ruining my life)), and wow.
Also, the reason I'm not constantly on this thread because I am currently stressing the fuck out about college apps. And life stuff. You know, the works. Can't wait to be a second semester senior. Also I'm pretty sure a LOT of people have better things to do than lurk on this thread all the time.
And Brown, hello again.
I'm just going to state my view points again, even though we already debated many of these matters back in the summer. Maybe this will fill up your need for someone to address certain points. However, I may not reply for weeks simply because you know. Other stuff.
I'm going to try to be as respectful as I can, because I do respect you as a person, even though I wholeheartedly disagree with 80% of your views. (Also, I come from a very liberal environment, while you seem to be more right-wing). Though you might dislike that I'm labeling you like that, so...maybe not.
Also, this doesn't really have to do with House of Hades. It has more to do with the blanket statements Brown has been talking about such as society's view on sex, etc. Just a few of my opinions.
A) In my opinion, education is the most important, whether it's sex-education or hands on experience (and yes, I literally mean hands on in certain cases). A lot of the problems you have with the romanticizing of romance (hah) and sex actually can be fixed with simple education about these matters. People tend to romanticize things they don't fully understand or know about, which causes some of the more ridiculous and potentially harmful things you sometimes see in media. Like Fifty Shades of Grey/Gray (?) which from what I have heard is more harmful not because of the excessive, badly written sex, but the lack of education the author had about BDSM, what an phyically / emotionally abusive relationship actually is, which causes people to romanticize harmful, incorrect concepts and see it as sexy or alluring or romantically angsty and brooding...you get the gist.
B) I still do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong with having sex / engaging in sexual actions (as long as it is consensual), even when it isn't to someone you think you may spend the rest of your life with. I have full autonomy of my body, and I will treat my body as I see fit. Maybe you think it's perverted and selfish and that I'm being indoctrinated by the media, but get this: surprisingly, I don't think sex is the most important thing in life. I don't think sex is dirty if done casually. But I respect a person who isn't comfortable with casual sex, and vice versa. I actually like the mindset that is generally becoming more accepted that people can do what they want now without being as shamed (key word: as) (of course, there's still an immense amount of slut shaming going on, which is a whole another topic that I could go on and on about). But it isn't as bad as the older days where women were taught to fear their bodies and told to be abstinent till marriage, which I believe is very harmful if it isn't wholeheartedly the individual's own, unbiased choice. Imo, a lot of of the stigma that has to do with sex and related things are social constructs imposed on people, which are really hard to let go of considering the fact that these constructs have been around for pretty much...forever.
TL;DR: I am basically all for taking charge of your own sexuality. Empowerment for the win. No one should control someone's sexuality but themselves (man or woman) because in the end, it is THEIR choice. And even if it you think it's the wrong choice, it's not your place to decide for other people. (and no Brown, I am not saying you have tried, in case you take offense at that. It's a general statement)
Anyways slightly off topic -- for things such as abstinence till marriage or things along that line, I think you would find this article interesting. http://www.xojane.com/sex/true-love-w...
C) Just because I have this opinion does not mean I'm telling everyone to go out and have sex and be promiscuous. That's entirely their choice. I just don't see the value in condemning it as immoral. Or shallow, because sometimes, shallowness is what humans need. Not everything has to be super deep and meaningful and a sign from the universe (this is different from having meaning in life, which is important). Sometimes, it isn't what you NEED in that moment in time, and when you actually need it, you can go find it. Because face it, many teenagers and young adults are restless and aren't mature enough / ready for / don't need super intense, meaningful romantic relationships, which is totally okay. That doesn't mean you should be abstinent, because that oftentimes can just make things worse.
D) As for the being born gay thing: in simple terms, I believe people are born gay. Of course, it's a lot more complicated than the dichotomy of born gay/choose to be gay, as nature VS. nurture or a combination of both are factors also. And biology and genetics have a lot more layers than "DNA = LAW". Genes IN DNA can be turned on and off depending on the situations a person is in as they grow up, which has to do with NURTURE. And there are also combinations of genes that work together to express a trait. Because of this, there are also many unexpressed traits many people can potentially have, but don't, as in some cases, there is a time period where certain things are determined for life (such as when you're young, etc.) Some of these apply, some of these don't. But I read your article, and that's what I find incorrect about it. When people say that they were born gay, I highly doubt they mean that they have some sort of all-determining, all-powerful gay gene. Anyways, it's probably a lot more complicated than what I just said, but yeah. This is the kind of stuff you should know if you have ever taken an AP Biology class in high school, it isn't exactly unknown.
And even if they aren't born gay, they DEFINITELY do NOT choose to be gay (or anything else). If that were true, first of all, why would they choose to embark on a lifestyle that is extremely frowned down upon by half or more of the human population, and may cause people to verbally and physically harass them to the point of suicide? Why would they choose something that causes many people to think of them to be undeserving of the inalienable human rights everyone else has?
You can't wake up one day and be like "today I think I'm gonna choose to be straight / gay / bi / pan / etc." If it were that easy, then try it. Try to choose to be genuinely gay, which I doubt you can. Furthermore, I don't recall ever consciously choosing to be straight -- have you? And if it is a subconscious choice -- A) you can't exactly control that and B) no one should have to suppress who they are because of someone else's totally separate idea of a moral compass (if it doesn't hurt someone). The point is -- it isn't a conscious choice, and that is the only sort of choice that someone really, intentionally, deliberately chooses.
Also (referencing that article that about being gay being choice), wtf is the homosexual agenda?????? I have never met a LGBT person that has ever said that everyone should be gay. Or anything remotely close to that. As far as I can tell, they just want the same rights that everyone else has. Honestly. Treating it as a political movement only and nothing else often causes people (who might do it for this very reason) to become detached from the fact that there are actual human beings involved, who have their own lives. Honestly, calling it a homosexual agenda desensitizes people from actually genuinely thinking about it, dismissing it as a fad or a fashion, which is imo just so sosososo dumb.
E) I simply do not agree that whenever you have sex, you should be doing it for babies. I am very pro-contraception and all that jazz. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have sex for yourself and your partner for the sake of sex. Even if they're two horny teenagers fumbling in the backseat of a car. Sorry. I will never budge on this fact. There is no holy script that is like "sex can only be used to have babies and basically u cannot do anything 4 urself ever u must be selfless in every area of ur life!!!111" (okay im exaggerating). But why is there a stigma against loving yourself and doing things for yourself? I get it the stigma against greed and excessive selfishness, but doing things for YOURSELF to be HAPPY or CONTENT or PROUD of an accomplishment never hurt anyone. There is nothing wrong with doing things for yourself as long as you also give as much as you take.
Basically, Brown, imo you may choose to do whatever in terms of your own, personal beliefs about sex, but that doesn't make you right or morally superior to anyone, just because you don't condone /your/ idea of "perverted sex". Because a lot of time, you act very morally superior, even if it's unintentional. Which comes across condescending.
Also, for anyone who actually read this gigantic block of text -- if anyone is remotely interested in things about sexuality and sexual education and the like, I highly encourage people to watch Laci Green's videos on Youtube. Super informative.
Brown, hopefully this will give you stuff to discuss about for a few days. Though I'm pretty sure we already talking about a lot of it but whatever. Have fun. See you in a few weeks or months. Or days. Or never. I don't know, honestly.
and for anyone who cares, i'm 16. turning 17 in October.
hahah ah ha h that was long. this is what i do at 3 AM when i'm avoiding homework. like always. what is sleep tbh
also ffs, can people stop bringing in god or religion into a thread about books that have to do with greek gods?im going to say this for the nth time -- these many people who hate that a gay person got representation in this book, why have you suddenly only cared about the morality of the series once a gay person had a cameo (certainly not shoving anything down anyones throats -- it lasted less than a chapter) but haven't protested when murder, rape (like the gods actions, not explicit in the story), bestiality, abusive relationships, cheating, bullying and the like have been mentioned? according to you people, are those things not worse than the EXISTENCE of a character that is not straight? nice to see where your priorities lie.
also, your own lifestyle (e.g your religion) is your own choice. complaining about the lifestyle of lgbt+ people on the basis of your own lifestyle that not everyone shares is hypocritical and ironic.
religion is definitely a choice.
your sexual orientation or gender identity is not.
you can choose to not read a book such as this one yourself and to personally disagree, but to deliberately try to take away representation or rights for underrepresented minorities because of your PERSONAL LIFESTYLE CHOICE makes me seriously wonder about your own moral views.
a lot of people complain that lgbt people are shoving their lifestyle down your throats, but isn't trying to make everyone else adhere to your god / beliefs (which is your lifestyle) shoving your lifestyle down other people's throats a lot more? especially when people disregard lgbt people's RIGHTS AS EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS due to what they call a lifestyle. irony everywhere. puking irony.
(this is off topic) especially when christianity (in the usa, especially) is in most cases, the majority, and a lot of the time, whenever someone debates with them, they claim oppression of being a christian despite the fact that (in the usa, idk about other countries), i'm pretty sure that there a total number of 0 atheists in congress. plus, let's not forget the fact that many atheists are denied positions of power due to their atheism. heads up -- just because someone may not agree with your view does not mean you are oppressed. it means they do not agree.
i am definitely not saying every religious person is like this (sorry if this seems overwhelmingly accusatory to those who have done nothing wrong), as there are many respectful ones out there, but to those who have expressed such views on this thread, you know who you are.
anyways back to nico. this is also only addressed to those people who have a problem with nico solely because of his sexual orientation. there are other problems that people may have that apply to nico that have nothing to do with his sexual orientation, and to the people who have concerns about those other problems, this thing is not addressed towards you.
now im really done typing long posts on this thread for a little while at least.
have fun. if anyone successfully read these 2 huge posts, kudos for that.
Cecerose wrote: "also ffs, can people stop bringing in god or religion into a thread about books that have to do with greek gods?im going to say this for the nth time -- these many people who hate that a gay pers..."
THANK YOU!
All of the negative comments about Nico's sexuality sicken me. Several people on this thread seem to believe that people consciously choose to be an lgbt individual. Really. Just... really? It seems to me like you've never even talked to an lgbt individual, because otherwise you'd know that no one chooses to hate themselves, or be treated as an inferior human being simply because of who they love. Then there are the people ranting about how this subject matter shouldn't be in books read by a children. First of all, the Heroes of Olympus series is geared to an older crowd than the original series, and, more importantly,these books are based on greek mythology, where sexuality is notoriously lax. If you don't want your kids reading about gay people (because it may infect them with the gay virus and all), don't give them a book based on myths where every other person is gay or bisexual. And, of course, there's the fact that kids most likely already know what gay is. You have to be at least nine or ten to read a 500 page book, and if you're ten and don't know that some boys like boys, you've probably been living under a rock. It's a fact of life that people keep thinking is an option- but, surprisingly enough, lgbt people aren't unicorns. They exist, and at some point your child will meet an lgbt person, whether you like it or not.
Then there are the people ranting about how thirteen years can't possibly know they're gay. And to that I say, why the hell not? Most people know they're straight by the age of six or seven. While it may take a bit longer (mostly because many lgbt kids have been taught that it's wrong to like someone of the same sex), most lgbt kids know their sexuality by thirteen, and sometimes earlier. Why are straight kids allowed to know and be who they are, but gay kids aren't?
And then there are the people hiding behind their religion so that them being hateful and narrow minded is automatically okay (at least according to them). I'm a Christian, and I can tell you for a fact that Jesus says to love all of his children equally, so why not do that? (Also, the bible says not to eat sea food, wear mixed fabrics, or come out of your hut during your period, and nobody has a problem skipping those.)
Then there are the wonderful individuals ranting about how narrow minded people who believe in equal rights for gays are. I come from Texas, a place you may recognize as the breeding grounds for assholes who think being gay is equivalent to giving satan a lapdance (just a heads up, we hate those people too), so I know narrow minded. Narrow minded is parents shipping their kids away to "pray away the gay" camps and grown men using queer as a slur because the idea of a man liking a man is so inherently wrong to them that they can't keep their freaking prejudiced mouths shut when not a damn person wants to hear it. Narrow minded people are the reasons an lgbt person can feel so sad, lonely, and ashamed that all they want to do is simply cease to exist. Narrrow minded is the reason the lgbt suicide rate is four times as high as their straight counter parts'.
I wish the people who are treating the Nico, a fictional character, like the scum of the literary world, could see the pain they cause real people.
Cecerose wrote: "warning: this is super super super long. like always.
wow. you people are getting heated up in here. i check back here every month or so now (usually in the middle of the night (procrastination is..."
Thank you. I DO appreciate you taking the time to respond. Thank you.
It's 100% fine with me if you take your time (I only take issue with those who refuse to address anything with more than "we're all equal, no judging" over and over).
"why would they choose to embark on a lifestyle that is extremely frowned down upon by half or more of the human population?" Well, I can think of a few reasons. I'm not saying this is true in all cases, but there are definitely people out there who like the idea of being some sort of rebel... or yes, outcast, because they think it makes them special.
I'm talking about teenagers who post those memes on facebook ("like the moon, she always had to hide part of herself away" yes, someone I know literally posted that about themself). There are people who think it's fun to make themself into victims. I've seen it countless times. There are also those who blame others for their misery, and I strongly believe that "bullies" have less to do with as many suicides as we seem to believe these days.
The sympathy tactic really isn't going to work on me here, because I've seen this "hate" for what it is.
I've NEVER witnessed someone being beaten, murdered, or spat on for being gay (speaking about the average day in America, not some dictatorship that everyone on this thread already would agree has problems... likely not specifically with gay people). "Bullying" is a blanket term that includes having different beliefs on the issue. Stating that you believe gay marriage is immoral is often labeled as bullying (THAT I've seen happen countless times to people who I happen to know are the kindest, least bully-like people).
Most Christians (I don't know about westbro baptists or a few other minority hate groups that robbed the title) are NOT the hateful, judgmental freaks of the protestant reformation who burned witches that you paint them as. While there might be a few select cases (can't name any right now myself), that society unjustly focuses on, we need to stop portraying them as such. It's dishonest. And it's all just part of the overly politically correct "a million contradictory facts can be true, just never diagree with anyone" attitude that's creeping up into everything now.
No, I don't believe in bullying gay people. It's strange that I even have to say that. If you think that it's hateful to disagree with their lifestyle, than you'll just have to call me hateful. It's not my fault the definition got changed.
No, I didn't wake up one day and decide I was straight. I'm NOT straight. I'm not straight or gay or asexual or bi. I'm nothing. I make my own choices, and don't let feelings dictate my life. Yes, feelings would still exist. BUT I would only allow them to play a role if the circumstances were appropriate.
Regardless of how or why we have certain feelings, we have to realize that feelings themselves are not essentially good, or healthy, or must be acted on. Ever.
You said, it's alright as long as it's not hurting anyone. I agree. The main disagreement here is whether or not gay relationships are harmful.
I believe it does hurt them. I think it's ordered toward hurting them.
Sex isn't about making babies. It's about completely giving yourself to someone. Part of that is being open to new life (whether it happens or not). Part of that is yes, doing it out of choice and for pleasure. Nobody deserves to be told it's something any less than sacred.
Now as far as that "only being my belief:"
Maybe so.
Talk to me about it then, and why you think it's wrong or right. However, do NOT ever tell somebody to wrinkle up a part of their conscience. Instead, help them to reform their conscience.
Yes, it's ALWAYS someone's choice.
Right now, I'm talking about whether or not it's the right choice. The fact that it's a choice is irrelevant.
On that note, I believe it's different from other self-indulgent acts because it's taking what is supposed to be the most selfLESS act. It's not a neutral, meaningless indulgence like eating ice cream or playing video games. Putting genitals together in an act that can potentially CREATE NEW HUMAN LIFE is a little different.
Contraception is a cheap, unreliable way of attempting to make it something less. It's not an argument for how it's actually natural and reasonable to have casual sex. That is actually a harmful mindset, because we shouldn't be
underestimating the value (and emotional impact, among other things) that sex has on people.
We need practice, you say? Practice for what? Having a family? Then how are there many successful families in which neither partner got any "practice?" It's simply not true. In fact, it takes away more than anything else. I've seen it.
I'm thinking that what you call "social constructs that have been around forever" are something you might be underestimating. Couldn't it very well be that truth has a way of sticking around?
An interesting fact I've learned is that no matter what, if someone disagrees with you they WILL nearly always come off as self-righteous or condescending.
Just for the record, I don't believe in any way, shape or form that I'm "morally superior" to anybody.
I'm standing alone here, but I'm no more self-righteous in my beliefs than you. I'm just another teenager who happens to be trying to express a different set of beliefs. Neither are more self-righteous than the other. Thanks.
wow. you people are getting heated up in here. i check back here every month or so now (usually in the middle of the night (procrastination is..."
Thank you. I DO appreciate you taking the time to respond. Thank you.
It's 100% fine with me if you take your time (I only take issue with those who refuse to address anything with more than "we're all equal, no judging" over and over).
"why would they choose to embark on a lifestyle that is extremely frowned down upon by half or more of the human population?" Well, I can think of a few reasons. I'm not saying this is true in all cases, but there are definitely people out there who like the idea of being some sort of rebel... or yes, outcast, because they think it makes them special.
I'm talking about teenagers who post those memes on facebook ("like the moon, she always had to hide part of herself away" yes, someone I know literally posted that about themself). There are people who think it's fun to make themself into victims. I've seen it countless times. There are also those who blame others for their misery, and I strongly believe that "bullies" have less to do with as many suicides as we seem to believe these days.
The sympathy tactic really isn't going to work on me here, because I've seen this "hate" for what it is.
I've NEVER witnessed someone being beaten, murdered, or spat on for being gay (speaking about the average day in America, not some dictatorship that everyone on this thread already would agree has problems... likely not specifically with gay people). "Bullying" is a blanket term that includes having different beliefs on the issue. Stating that you believe gay marriage is immoral is often labeled as bullying (THAT I've seen happen countless times to people who I happen to know are the kindest, least bully-like people).
Most Christians (I don't know about westbro baptists or a few other minority hate groups that robbed the title) are NOT the hateful, judgmental freaks of the protestant reformation who burned witches that you paint them as. While there might be a few select cases (can't name any right now myself), that society unjustly focuses on, we need to stop portraying them as such. It's dishonest. And it's all just part of the overly politically correct "a million contradictory facts can be true, just never diagree with anyone" attitude that's creeping up into everything now.
No, I don't believe in bullying gay people. It's strange that I even have to say that. If you think that it's hateful to disagree with their lifestyle, than you'll just have to call me hateful. It's not my fault the definition got changed.
No, I didn't wake up one day and decide I was straight. I'm NOT straight. I'm not straight or gay or asexual or bi. I'm nothing. I make my own choices, and don't let feelings dictate my life. Yes, feelings would still exist. BUT I would only allow them to play a role if the circumstances were appropriate.
Regardless of how or why we have certain feelings, we have to realize that feelings themselves are not essentially good, or healthy, or must be acted on. Ever.
You said, it's alright as long as it's not hurting anyone. I agree. The main disagreement here is whether or not gay relationships are harmful.
I believe it does hurt them. I think it's ordered toward hurting them.
Sex isn't about making babies. It's about completely giving yourself to someone. Part of that is being open to new life (whether it happens or not). Part of that is yes, doing it out of choice and for pleasure. Nobody deserves to be told it's something any less than sacred.
Now as far as that "only being my belief:"
Maybe so.
Talk to me about it then, and why you think it's wrong or right. However, do NOT ever tell somebody to wrinkle up a part of their conscience. Instead, help them to reform their conscience.
Yes, it's ALWAYS someone's choice.
Right now, I'm talking about whether or not it's the right choice. The fact that it's a choice is irrelevant.
On that note, I believe it's different from other self-indulgent acts because it's taking what is supposed to be the most selfLESS act. It's not a neutral, meaningless indulgence like eating ice cream or playing video games. Putting genitals together in an act that can potentially CREATE NEW HUMAN LIFE is a little different.
Contraception is a cheap, unreliable way of attempting to make it something less. It's not an argument for how it's actually natural and reasonable to have casual sex. That is actually a harmful mindset, because we shouldn't be
underestimating the value (and emotional impact, among other things) that sex has on people.
We need practice, you say? Practice for what? Having a family? Then how are there many successful families in which neither partner got any "practice?" It's simply not true. In fact, it takes away more than anything else. I've seen it.
I'm thinking that what you call "social constructs that have been around forever" are something you might be underestimating. Couldn't it very well be that truth has a way of sticking around?
An interesting fact I've learned is that no matter what, if someone disagrees with you they WILL nearly always come off as self-righteous or condescending.
Just for the record, I don't believe in any way, shape or form that I'm "morally superior" to anybody.
I'm standing alone here, but I'm no more self-righteous in my beliefs than you. I'm just another teenager who happens to be trying to express a different set of beliefs. Neither are more self-righteous than the other. Thanks.
Cecerose wrote: "also ffs, can people stop bringing in god or religion into a thread about books that have to do with greek gods?
im going to say this for the nth time -- these many people who hate that a gay pers..."
I have no idea why people keep bringing up God and religion.
I sure never did.
But I think the reason we don't talk about the stuff that the greek gods in the book did is because it's more obscure (or never portrayed as acceptable).
As for Nico, it goes deeper than just "who he is" but the mindset behind it in the first place.
im going to say this for the nth time -- these many people who hate that a gay pers..."
I have no idea why people keep bringing up God and religion.
I sure never did.
But I think the reason we don't talk about the stuff that the greek gods in the book did is because it's more obscure (or never portrayed as acceptable).
As for Nico, it goes deeper than just "who he is" but the mindset behind it in the first place.
Natalie wrote: "All of the negative comments about Nico's sexuality sicken me. Several people on this thread seem to believe that people consciously choose to be an lgbt individual. Really. Just... really? It seem..."
Have you ever read the Bible in context? Just curious. (Watch me get blamed for bringing it up now :P)
Love is to will the good of the beloved, not let them do whatever they want, for the record.
Have you ever read the Bible in context? Just curious. (Watch me get blamed for bringing it up now :P)
Love is to will the good of the beloved, not let them do whatever they want, for the record.
Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "All of the negative comments about Nico's sexuality sicken me. Several people on this thread seem to believe that people consciously choose to be an lgbt individual. Really. Just......"I've never read the whole thing, but I've read passages in context, yeah. Why do you ask?
You implied that the Bible saying not to eat sea food, wear mixed fabrics, or come out of your hut during your period was to be taken in the same context as what it says about being gay.
It's not.
It's not.
Brown wrote: "You implied that the Bible saying not to eat sea food, wear mixed fabrics, or come out of your hut during your period was to be taken in the same context as what it says about being gay.It's not."
What I'm trying to say is that religion is not an excuse to treat others as inferior people, regardless of their religion or sexuality. If you don't personally agree with homosexuality, that's your opinion and if you believe that personally, fine. It's your life.
Brown wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "Brown wrote: "Notice how they all magically stopped replying?It's too overwhelming for them to really engage in any real constructive back and forth valid argumen..."
You don't need to call people names.
Cece is back with her walls of text <3
I read the King James Version of the Bible, along with the Book of Mormon. (Yes, I'm Mormon. Watch me get attacked now.) No where in those books does it say that you shouldn't eat seafood, wear mixed fabrics, or "come out of your hut during your period." (? That is the silliest thing I've ever heard...) It says not to commit adultery though.
**Just a warning to all those atheists out there--since we are now getting into religion and what's moral, I am bringing up my beliefs. Because they are a part of me and I need to step in now.**
Adultery is the sin next to murder. Adultery means someone having an affair with someone they are not married to. Therefore, I count premarital sex as adultery. Because you are not married to that person, now are you? No. You're not. That's why it's called "premarital."
"Sometimes people try to convince themselves that sexual relations outside of marriage are acceptable if the participants love one another. This is not true. Breaking the law of chastity and encouraging someone else to do so is not an expression of love. People who love each other will never endanger one another's happiness and safety in exchange for temporary personal pleasure." --lds.org, "Chastity."
"Merely refraining from sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not sufficient in the Lord's standard of personal purity. The Lord requires a high moral standard of His disciples, including complete fidelity to one's spouse in thought and conduct. In the Sermon on the Mount, He said: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). In the latter days He has said, “Thou shalt not . . . commit adultery, . . . nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). And He has reemphasized the principle He taught in the Sermon on the Mount: “He that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear” (D&C 63:16). These warnings apply to all people, whether they are married or single."
Sex outside of marriage is WRONG. It's immoral. Some people now are saying that there is no such thing as "moral" and "immoral." But they won't argue that there isn't right and wrong. That is hypocrisy. Moral=right. Immoral=wrong. I could easily say "Bullying is wrong" and also "Bullying is immoral" and it would still have the same meaning.
Sex was created to bring other humans into the world. It was also created to bring husband and wife closer together. It is literally the most selfless act ever--IF USED CORRECTLY. If it is abused and lusted after, it is no longer selfless. It is the opposite. It is WRONG. And it can cause even more problems.
1) Premarital sex does not equal happiness. Happiness is living morally clean, being faithful to the one who you are married to, and doing all you can to keep your standards. Premarital sex causes feelings of bitterness, selfishness, and guilt. It is not happiness.
2) Premarital sex can cause serious illnesses. If you did not know this before, clearly you did not pay attention when your parents were talking to you about the matter, or you turned off your ears during Health Class. It's common sense. You can get sick from premarital sex, it's as simple as that.
3) You are at risk of getting pregnant. Which can lead to abortion. Which is another serious sin. Which causes pain and sadness.
Need I say more?
Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "I read the King James Version of the Bible, along with the Book of Mormon. (Yes, I'm Mormon. Watch me get attacked now.) No where in those books does it say that you shouldn't eat seafood, wear mix..."I'm going to be totally honest with you, I haven't read from the bible in a while. I'm a bit rusty, but I do know a couple things- it actually does say some pretty outrageous things about women (and periods, unfortunately), and that Jesus never said anything about gay people. So, there's that.
Secondly, I totally respect your opinion about premarital sex, but I honestly don't understand how it's relevant. This thread is about Nico's sexuality, and about gay rights in general, so religion is definitely part of that, but it isn't all of it. I'm absolutely not trying to attack you or give you crap, I just honestly want to know the correlation, please.
Natalie wrote: "Allison ~God's NOT dead~ wrote: "I read the King James Version of the Bible, along with the Book of Mormon. (Yes, I'm Mormon. Watch me get attacked now.) No where in those books does it say that yo..."
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "I don't see the point of mentioning premarital sex in a thread about Nico's sexuality either. Yes, I also believe that premarital sex is not a good thing, as my religion doesn't allow anything that..."Thank you! You just hit all the right points. Everybody's moral standards are different; one person's ideas of what's right and wrong doesn't govern everyone's life.
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "Natalie wrote: "❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "I don't see the point of mentioning premarital sex in a thread about Nico's sexuality either. Yes, I also believe that pr..."You're totally welcome. :) You are easily the most logical person on this thread.
Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "You implied that the Bible saying not to eat sea food, wear mixed fabrics, or come out of your hut during your period was to be taken in the same context as what it says about being g..."
Somethings backwards here.
Isn't it a little judgmental to continue spreading lies about Christians treating homosexual people differently, when they DON'T?
Disagreeing is not hating.
Somethings backwards here.
Isn't it a little judgmental to continue spreading lies about Christians treating homosexual people differently, when they DON'T?
Disagreeing is not hating.
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "I haven't read the Bible, so I'm probably wrong, but I think the bits about being gay in the Old Testament? Pretty sure that Christians believe that Jesus dying for your sins means that the rules o..."
It depends which rules and what the context was.
It depends which rules and what the context was.
Natalie wrote: "❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "I don't see the point of mentioning premarital sex in a thread about Nico's sexuality either. Yes, I also believe that premarital sex is ..."
Just because there are different ideas of moral standards, doesn't mean that some aren't closer to the TRUTH than others.
("Oh, so you think you're right about everything?" That's not my point here at all).
If the beliefs of say... ISIS or Nazis can be farther than the TRUTH than others... so can ours.
That's why it's important and GOOD to share beliefs with each other, and compare ideas. NOT to shut others out because "oh, there's no such thing as a real right and wrong anyway."
That's a very foolish attitude to have.
I say this regardless of whether my own beliefs are right or wrong.
Just because there are different ideas of moral standards, doesn't mean that some aren't closer to the TRUTH than others.
("Oh, so you think you're right about everything?" That's not my point here at all).
If the beliefs of say... ISIS or Nazis can be farther than the TRUTH than others... so can ours.
That's why it's important and GOOD to share beliefs with each other, and compare ideas. NOT to shut others out because "oh, there's no such thing as a real right and wrong anyway."
That's a very foolish attitude to have.
I say this regardless of whether my own beliefs are right or wrong.
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵒᶠ ᵐʸ ᶠᶫᵃʷˢ ❄ wrote: "Thank you, I wouldn't say I'm the most logical, but...I have a question for everyone: would you say that the right to get married is a basic human right?"
Of course. Getting married to someone you love is one of the most basic human rights.
Marriage, under the laws of nature, did exist before the Church. It existed from the time of Adam and Eve (the first 'marriage'). The sacrament of marriage was instituted by the Church. Some people do not believe in God, so the sacramental aspect of the marriage may be irrelevant to them. However, natural law still does not permit same sex marriage. Marriage is defined as union between a man and a woman. You would have to completely redefine this word, not only the man and woman part but the unity part. It is physically impossible. Redefining the word takes away from the meaning.
If you change the definition of a word, it takes away the meaning. I can say I am a tree, if I redefine tree but then anyone can say they are a tree...! That does not make them a tree.! A tree is a tree and a person is a person.
True love means to will the good of the beloved.
A homosexual person can have an abiding relationship with another homosexual without genital sexual expression. Indeed the deeper need of any human is for friendship rather than genital expression.
the nature -- the intrinsic nature -- of heterosexual union is procreative. Whether or not there is infertility due to defect or age, the conjugal act is ordered toward procreation. It is, of its very nature, different from every other sexual pairing. The ability to consummate (perform the conjugal act) is necessary for valid marriage. How can a gay couple achieve the marital act? They physically cannot consummate a marriage. In no way can their pairings be called "marriage".
In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will.
Passions are said to be voluntary, either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.
It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.
If you change the definition of a word, it takes away the meaning. I can say I am a tree, if I redefine tree but then anyone can say they are a tree...! That does not make them a tree.! A tree is a tree and a person is a person.
True love means to will the good of the beloved.
A homosexual person can have an abiding relationship with another homosexual without genital sexual expression. Indeed the deeper need of any human is for friendship rather than genital expression.
the nature -- the intrinsic nature -- of heterosexual union is procreative. Whether or not there is infertility due to defect or age, the conjugal act is ordered toward procreation. It is, of its very nature, different from every other sexual pairing. The ability to consummate (perform the conjugal act) is necessary for valid marriage. How can a gay couple achieve the marital act? They physically cannot consummate a marriage. In no way can their pairings be called "marriage".
In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will.
Passions are said to be voluntary, either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.
It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Last Olympian (other topics)
The Iliad (other topics)
The Blood of Olympus (other topics)
The Mark of Athena (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Sword of Summer (other topics)The Last Olympian (other topics)
The Iliad (other topics)
The Blood of Olympus (other topics)
The Mark of Athena (other topics)
More...
Srsly, bro?"
...Seriously, though you're ironically the most close-minded person on the thread.
Respond to the arguments, you coward.
Or do you just not know how to stand up for your skin-deep beliefs? Judging by the pop songs, I somehow doubt it...