NICO… YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT O.o Showing 4,451-4,500 of 4,817

[[deleted user]]

The heterosexual couples who act like it's just a game are being equally as shallow. Romance has been turned into an end instead of a means. NOBODY deserves to believe that's true. Period.

It's hateful or at best misguided to tell them otherwise. They deserve better.

[Dora]

Curlygirly wrote: "I did not see it coming at all! Nico has always been my favorite character and him "coming out" in the book series doesn't change my opinions about him at all. I am happy that Rick wrote a happier ..."

People like you are the reason I still smile even though cancer exists.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Dora]

Brown wrote: "The heterosexual couples who act like it's just a game are being equally as shallow. Romance has been turned into an end instead of a means. NOBODY deserves to believe that's true. Period.

It's ha..."

True, homsexuals are probably being just as selfish as heterosexuals. But you don't see people lashing out on heteros, do you?
And unless you have felt true love without looking at the fact that your love interest has boobs instead of a flat chest, you really cannot hope to comment on the topic of "love". I can't either. But what I can say about love that I know first-hand of, is that you can never stop your heart from loving who it wants to love. Because hearts see through the soul, not through the organs. PERIOD PERIOD

[[deleted user]]

Dora wrote: "Brown wrote: "The heterosexual couples who act like it's just a game are being equally as shallow. Romance has been turned into an end instead of a means. NOBODY deserves to believe that's true. Pe..."

Love is NOT a feeling. Love is a choice to be selfless toward someone despite changing emotion. That said, it's our responsibility to make good choices independent of how we feel. Not to glorify the fluffy part and ignore what romantic love leads to. Sought for itself romance is shallow.

And two wrongs don't make a right. This is true whether the couples are gay or straight. This is not lashing, hating or bullying. It's disagreeing. That was very dishonest. Is concern, misguided or not, considered hatred? This is a goodreads discussion. There is no shame in discussion. There is however, shame in cowardice of examining our beliefs under the guise of "to each their own." (Or to shut others down with this tired straw man).

I sincerely believe the majority of suicides are committed because the gay persons have been told over and over to glorify something insignificant. That is cruelty. Can you deny that our culture over-values romance and sex? This is only more fruit of that mindset. Do you believe the corny couples in Rick Riordan's stories are ideal and realistic?

[Kevin]

Dora wrote: "without looking at the fact that your love interest has boobs instead of a flat chest,..."

Funny thing... Brown is a girl....

[Jesse]

I had read the complete five books of the Percy Jackson series three times before reading the House of Hades book. Never once did I ever imagine Nico would be gay. I have since then read the same series twice and still cannot find a point in all five of those books that suggested to me that he was gay.

[Dora]

Brown wrote: "Dora wrote: "Brown wrote: "The heterosexual couples who act like it's just a game are being equally as shallow. Romance has been turned into an end instead of a means. NOBODY deserves to believe th..."
Ok fair enough; that's your personal opinion on love. I think differently on that field and I don't want to argue that my logic on love is better or more improved than someone else's. We each have our versions of love. I can't change your mind and you can't mine. I agree that society is prioritizing sex as love's main definition, but I do not agree that all love is like that, gay or straight. I understand your concepts, even if I don't believe in them. But please do not punish the books by reducing their title in public forums just because you do not agree on gay love. Other than that i agree to disagree

[[deleted user]]

Dora,
If love is whatever you want, I can NOT respect that.

Opinions are neutral. Beliefs are either true or false. Some beliefs are closer to the truth than others. To ignore that and refuse to look at an issue is the epitome of close-mindedness.

[[deleted user]]

Sharing our views and trying to get to a conclusion is not wrong! This insane close-minded attitude of shutting down others who want to talk about it is. "Agree to disagree" is a cop out line. It means "shut up." or "I'm too lazy to defend my beliefs."
I cannot respect your beliefs if you refuse to defend them.

[[deleted user]]

Whenever the conversation really gets interesting here, it always gets shut down by someone suddenly saying something meaningless and annoying like "agree to disagree," "tired of the hate" or "we shouldn't judge people" and we start back at square one. It's downright mean.

[cindy]

LMAO what brown

she isn't saying love is whatever she wants, she's saying that she personally does not agree with you and has her own beliefs (which you should respect), and she recognizes that you probably don't agree and that is totally fine!! as you have been arguing / discussing this exact topic for what, nearly a year now (or more), it is safe to assume that you will not budge in your beliefs (and no one is trying to change your opinion, simply trying to communicate their own. unfortunately, you don't seem to respect a lot of the people that do and often patronize down at a lot of them. just my observations). and as you can see, she is not going to try to enforce her beliefs on anyone, unlike what you keep throwing at everyone's face. you try to hide it by claiming you just want to discuss and but you're the one bringing it back to square one, as you quite blatantly always come back to the same topic -- your personal belief about love. that's all it is -- a belief. you are not more right than other people. and okay, honestly, you're getting kind of pretentious, to assume that your view of love is some kind of righteous, ubiquitous definition of love, or "closer" to what the true epitome of love is.

she's not shutting it down-- in fact, you're the one literally calling her statement "meaningless" and "annoying" and even "downright mean". no offense, but that isn't going to make her more open to talking with you, given the content of your posts. did she say anything offensive? no. getting into an arbitrary argument / debate just because YOU apparently have an insatiable need for one and when other people don't see the need to carry on the conversation because they do not see a need in getting into an argument over a ultimately insignificant thread on goodreads is totally okay. if they do not want to waste minutes on a post, then let them do that.

agreeing to disagree is literally her respecting that you have a totally valid opinion, but she doesn't agree with it, and that's fine! but your personal offense at this statement shows how you can't seem to accept that some people simply feel differently than you. and then, from dora's perfectly innocent statement, you tell her that you cannot respect her beliefs. seriously?

it's great that you're so passionate about this, brown, but it's been a year on this forum, and that was kind of rude.

she literally said "I think differently on that field and I don't want to argue that my logic on love is better or more improved than someone else's. We each have our versions of love", which perfectly hits the nail on its head.

also how is this thread at 100 posts now l m a o

actually the better question is: why did i even come back to see whats up?

sigh

[[deleted user]]

You assume I'm being "patronizing" and "rude" because I disagree with you. I'm not the one who says "LMAO" in the beginning of my comments. I just want to have a normal discussion. You purposely insert some kind of stereotypical stuck up tone into my comments because you see what you want to see. Or you really just think I don't have a right to have this view or something.

I'm not saying she's rude for the reason that she won't accept my view. It's rude to refuse to address any point and actually explain your own to have a legitimate back and forth.

Sure, this discussion has been on and off for a year. I still haven't had a reasonable argument with anyone for more than maybe 5 comments in a row.

(how long has dora even been in this discussion? A day or two?)

All beliefs are NOT equal! You think what I'm saying is "therefore all my points are right and you're always wrong." Not at all!! The point is DISCUSSION IS IMPORTANT. We ALL have the responsibility to be able to defend our beliefs, otherwise we are just fooling ourselves.

Nobody HAS to comment on this thread. But to pop in just to basically say shut up in so many different phrases? What's even the point?

I'm sorry you accept a thousand contradictory beliefs as true just because it's the politically correct thing to do. I believe in truth. Perhaps my particular take on what is true isn't right. How will I ever know if I never talk to people and be content to only look at my own views on anything? I'm not here because I enjoy repeating myself. i'm BEGGING to hear your ideas and you REFUSE to stand up for them over and over.
If you're asking me to "respect" a belief just for the reason that it's a belief, I can't do that. Is the belief wrong or right? Beliefs are true or false, not neutral and equal!
I've seen some token rants about "equality" and "not judging" here and there but none of you ever really go in depth and address the real concerns. What do you expect me to conclude?

[cindy]

Brown wrote: "You assume I'm being "patronizing" and "rude" because I disagree with you. I'm not the one who says "LMAO" in the beginning of my comments. I just want to have a normal discussion. You purposely in..."

No, I said you COME ACROSS (not that you ARE) patronizing in many of your comments. You are ASSUMING that I say this because I DISAGREE with you. This is so ironic. I'm not "trying to see what I want to see". Have you ever thought that, maybe, just maybe, I'm saying this because you ARE acting supremely self-righteous? Obviously, you don't seem to think you are and it was not your intention, but after a year of reiterating and insisting on your belief with barely any regard to half of the comments directed at you other than that they are "immature", I think my point that you're acting condescending at times is completely valid and not at all a stretch.

I've literally disagreed with tons of people, and I've never assumed that they were automatically stuck up or patronizing. But just because YOU refuse to accept that your constant complaining that no one is good enough to have "a real discussion" with you (what makes you even entitled to to have one bc only you want one?) and shrugging off other peoples words as "meaningless" simply because they're not formatting their words in a way you deem acceptable IS patronizing. No one has to have a lengthy discussion with you if they don't choose to. You can complain about it, but you shouldn't act like it should be an EXPECTED social act.

Maybe Dora doesn't see the need to waste her time explaining herself to someone who obviously will not accept her view? You say you want to listen to people's views but from what I see, you never have so far (and you're probably going to say that no one's view is good enough for you to accept -- which is condescending. and then you're going to pounce on me for ASSUMING what you would say. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) Apparently, no one is up to your standards of a "reasonable argument". Sorry, not everyone has such a sophisticated worldview as yours.

A lot of what she said are things I've said a YEAR ago (in blocks of text I might add) and you always revert back to your original point. It's not going to make a difference. You'll find someone else to discuss with (and lookie, that's what I'm doing right now!!!) Poor Dora (and any other person on this thread) doesn't have to be held to an unsaid agreement / commitment to debate with you simply because she commented on a tiny thread on Goodreads.

You've had a years worth of discussion about the SAME EXACT THING. This thread will always be cyclical because no new person is going to read 100 pages and see what has already be said, and will inevitably repeat old points. Then you're going to be repeating the same thing for another few months, or years.

It's not refusing to stand up -- it's literally that they are confident in their own beliefs and they don't need to explain or validate themselves constantly on the internet to be sure of their own beliefs -- they're secure enough in their own beliefs that they don't see the need to reiterate to everyone constantly. Or that's how I see it.

I said "LMAO" NOT because i'm literally "laughing my ass off", but because I'm a teenager, and I use it frequently online. Seriously?

[[deleted user]]

I'm sick of arguing ABOUT arguing. That's all I know.

[cindy]

Brown wrote: "I'm sick of arguing ABOUT arguing. That's all I know."

the irony is strong

gg

[[deleted user]]

Willing to answer any questions yet?

[[deleted user]]

I see you're online and not doing anything important...

[cindy]

actually, i'm supposed to be planning / registering for my fall semester classes

lmao i always seem to come here when i'm procrastinating

so what's up?

for now, if you want, i'll talk to you about brief questions (emphasis on BRIEF) but i legitly don't have the time to answer hella lengthy questions

[[deleted user]]

Sure, I'm just tired of how most people pop in to say shut up and run off after they threw an ax in a perfectly good conversation for no reason. Thank you for your time, I do appreciate it.

Can I ask what is uniquely selfless about romantic relationships that aren't open to having a family? Things that aren't borrowed from other types of love, besides being unnecessarily physical or based on pleasure?

[cindy]

Being intimate in a romantic or sexual way often breeds an insane amount of trust and of course, intimacy, that you may not be able to get from friendships or really anything else. The vulnerability you can get from completely trusting your partner to see and experience (lmao this sounds cheesy af) parts of you that no one else (like your friends and family) is usually pretty unique to romantic relationships. It's the trust in knowing that you and your partner are able to physically and emotionally expose yourself that can often differentiate from or even exceed friendships.

Of course, there is physical pleasure that can be gained as well, but I don't necessarily see it as the end goal of the relationship, but a nice supplement. It isn't necessarily required -- it's a choice other people choose to make, mutually, and hopefully out of respect for one another. I simply don't think that having any pleasure is selfish at all -- if it is, do you not watch movies, read books, listen to music, or do anything else that is purely for yourself? Pleasure is not inherently sinful -- it's the intentions behind it. If you're using someone else for pleasure while not having any feelings for them and the other person isn't aware of this -- yes, that is selfish. If the other person is doing the same thing, as long as it's a mutual understanding, it's still technically selfish, but nothing so worrisome that I would feel the need to step in. Eventually, they'll probably find better people to be with who they actually care about, and the previous relationship may help them have first hand experience on what NOT to look for in a partner.

As long as no one is getting hurt, I just say to let them do what they want with their bodies as long as they're not like, having excessive PDA. Then they need to chill and get a room.

On the other hand, in actual relationships built out of romantic feelings, there is the expectation that your partner will reciprocate and "give as much as they take". If it isn't equal, it isn't a healthy relationship. I personally think that caring for your SO and offering advice and support and a physical understanding is pretty selfless. The trust in being committed to one another exclusively, knowing that they are the only person who knows you in this romantic kind of way is pretty selfless.

Also, romantic love is simply a different kind of love than platonic love. Both are equally as important to lead a fulfilling life, but imo, on opposite sides of the spectrum. It's not a dichotomy, and for certain friends, you can exist on an uncertain plane somewhere in the middle. However, romantic love is not simply just friendship with physical pleasure. That's a friends with benefits relationship, not romantic love. Of course, you can still be best friends with your SO, but it's still definitely on the romantic spectrum.

haha i don't know if im making sense and ive probably repeated myself tons of times but im tired and rambly so idc

man, it's hard to really put in words unless you've felt it. then you just know, cheesy as that sounds and simply being a friend isn't going to fulfill either one of you and it will just end up as a perpetually unsatisfactory and draining relationship

Of course, it's your own decision -- if you personally do not want to partake in physical / sexual affection with your SO, that's also perfectly fine. Some people express their feelings in different ways.

WOW this is long i talk too much this was not meant to be this long hahah fuck

[[deleted user]]

But if the goal is to give somebody else pleasure and their goal is to give you pleasure and you both get pleasure out of giving each other pleasure, isn't the ultimate goal still pleasure?

It's just a circle.

Where is the fruit in that?

Pleasure isn't wrong. It's just not a meaningful goal in a relationship compared to the sacrfice of raising a family. Doesn't it seem like romance would be the starting point for something bigger instead of something to be sought for itself?

Yeah, you support each other, but not in a way that's really necessary in itself. Otherwise it would be horrible to be single.

(long comments are fine, XD Thanks again for talking)

[cindy]

But that's the thing -- pleasure in a HEALTHY relationship is NOT the end goal, just a nice supplement. It goes both ways -- it can detract or add to a relationship. Detract -- by becoming fixated on only physical pleasure at the cost of emotional / mental growth. Add -- an opportunity to get to know eachother (in certain ways) and learn little quirks and whatnot about the other person. It depends on the individuals involved and how they approach their relationship. And like you said, it's not required, but it's ok to mutually agree to partake in it.

If pleasure by itself the end goal, you're doing it wrong. Its about helping one another build emotionally and mentally, offering support and the commitment in exclusively agreeing to be in each others life, out of feelings of a romantic basis. In the end, you're just happy to be in one another's company, yes, like a friendship but the dynamic itself is different.

[[deleted user]]

You just said that in the end you're just happy with each other's company.

You're just doing it to be happy. That's what I'm saying. There's really no other reason for it. The question is why it that important? Not even talking about the morality, how can you compare it to a relationship based on family? It's purely indulgent.

[[deleted user]]

The selfless part is the same as it would be in friendship. How is it necessary to be physical? You LIKE it, and enjoy it. But the necessity?

[cindy]

I think a romantic relationship even without the expectations of raising a family can be perfectly meaningful. Would you rather live life never ever experiencing romance or experiencing it once, even for a short period of time? I don't know about you, personally, I would choose the latter option. In fact, wouldn't seeking romance solely because of a need to start a family, in a way, be neglective towards your partner? In this regard, you becoming fixated on the future / long term goals that may or may not ever materialize instead of focusing on the person you're with.

Also, as teenagers, it's hardly reasonable to be only dating to find your ~true love~. Seeking romance by itself is already hard enough as it is, let alone trying to find worthwhile relationships. But that doesn't make it futile -- if anything, learning these kind of things, hands on, is in my opinion, a formative experience, especially at our age. The short term of happiness you gain (and the frustrations and tears ofc) are still things I wouldn't give up if the other person is worth it. It adds another layer to your identity and experiences as a human being, ya feel? Of course, it should in no way be the ultimate goal -- right now, we should be more worried about our academic lives (I'm assuming you're in college or going to college next year?), our careers and our own independent lives.

This doesn't diminish the importance of romance per se, but there should be a healthy balance between your career and your relationships. To only fixate on the potential family a SO can bring may also get in the way of any career choices you or your SO choose to make. I think overall, it's a lot more nuanced, to dive within the complexities of you and your partners goals in each aspect of your life, if that makes sense.

[cindy]

Again, it's NOT necessary to be physical. It's a personal choice. Thats literally it.

[cindy]

What's wrong with being happy? Personally, my end goal would be to be happy, because in the end, this is MY life and I will love it for myself.

This is random, but I feel like you have a St. John from Jane Eyre way of looking at these things -- forsaking personal / emotional satisfaction for what you think is your duty. LOL sorry I had to add that in there bc I'm having ap lit flashbacks

[[deleted user]]

No, it should be about both. Not one or the other.
I know a lot of happy couples who have never dated anyone else for "practice" and their marriages are probably the most stable I've seen. But they don't make it all about the romance itself either.
Romance is good. It's how a relationship starts. But again, what is important about it if it doesn't lead to anything? Relationships without goals outside the fact that they're relationships are the ones that tend to fall apart. The reason being that they're built on the sand.

[[deleted user]]

I'm asking what's important, not if it's their choice or if it's acceptable or moral. Just, why should I respect two teenagers who agreed to hold hands and kiss the same way I respect a man and woman who are willing to raise children together? Why?

[[deleted user]]

And I'm in no way saying that a couple raising children are supposed to be any less happy than the couples who don't.

[cindy]

That's what I said - a healthy balance.

yes, i've repeated it multiple times. its not just about romance, it's about your personal growth, your respective end goals, your happiness and the fulfillment you get, etc.

okay, the problem with citing ONE person or couple as evidence as the be all end all model of romances is that it's an individual, isolated case. i never said never dating would never allow you to find happiness with another person, i said that dating is ONE pathway to find it, not the only one. obviously, there are a myriad of ways in which you can form a stable relationship.

that's the thing -- just because it may or may not fall apart isn't what's important. it's about making a conscious choice to make a commitment to one another and respecting one another. there's no guarantee for anything -- how do you know when you start the relationship whether it will stay or all apart? you don't. some happen to to find the "one" the first time they date, some don't. you don't know when it's "built on sand" until you actually GO THROUGH with the relationship. people rarely look at one another and be like, "oh, ok, i will date this person for "practice"." people go into the relationship because they like each other and want to see if they can successfully be in each other lives and help bring fulfillment to both of them. they don't know if it will work out from the beginning. like the example you cited, they got lucky and found a perfect balance the first time they tried. unfortunately, that's pretty rare overall.

ook well..

a) you should respect them because they're fellow human beings and individuals with their own lives and complexities? you should respect that their relationship is their business and that they should be allowed to live it the way they want without other people judging them? they deserve the respect of basic human beings? you don't have to praise or exalt their presence, but if they haven't given you a reason to disrespect them so unless the personally hurt you in some way, i'm not sure what the fuss is...

b) you should respect that the two teenagers are willing to prioritize a person in such a way and (hopefully) respect each other. you should respect that they are willing to try out things unknown to them, like everything else in life? i'm not really sure what you want me to tell you here.

whether they understand the commitment is a totally different matter. but this is all a process i call: life. you can try and fail, you can try and succeed, or you can never try at all. take a pick.

[Dora]

Brown wrote: "Whenever the conversation really gets interesting here, it always gets shut down by someone suddenly saying something meaningless and annoying like "agree to disagree," "tired of the hate" or "we s..."

Ok first of all: Chill. Second: I could go on and on about my beliefs, Im not the type to leave them out just cuz Im lazy or losing so no need to create assumptions on what kind of person I am cuz lets face it you know nothing about me. And tbh I dont care if u do or do not respect my beliefs cuz well theyre mine i dont expect someone who is fighting so passionetly to bitter my definition of love with your version of "truth" or "belief" or "opinion". U believe what you want and if ure gonna be stubborn about it I rlly dont have time to sit here till I convince you cuz thats what ure asking of me. I have my own version of stuff and u have ur own its cool, but it is NOT cool when u say its an act of cowardice to call truce. Whatever we conclude on will not change anything, ull still hate homos and Ill still accept them end of story.

Ps. Sometimes using simple words to get your point across is way easier than using 1000 sophisticated words and getting nowhere with a conversation with another adult (maturely so at least)

[Kevin]

The walls of text are back i see....

[[deleted user]]

I hate homos?

I just thought since you have time to write long comments about how we have different beliefs maybe you could explain the actual belief...

I guess you're more comfortable repeating politically correct lies you got from the media over and over.
(Anyone who disagrees with you fears and hates you! All beliefs are equal! Anyone who challenges you is a bully!) Shameless...

[[deleted user]]

Cecerose, I think we agree more than we realize, because you hit the nail on the head when you described what a relationship should be about.

I think we start to disagree when it comes to what is actually fulfilling.

The reason I don't see teenagers as ever being in a meaningful one is because they're simply incapable of everything yet. Which is why it seems like a pure indulgence and nothing more (if they obviously know they're not ready for marriage yet).

The same with a gay couple. They're not capable of having sex to create and have a family. Any other form of helping each other grow can be done with friendship. Romance is just added for indulgence.

Essentially the only difference is how they "feel" about each other. But does that make their physical displays of affection necessary if they can't even have it for the reason it actually exists? (for procreation AND closeness, not one or the other). No. That is an over value of sex for it's own sake, and they don't deserve to be told it's important or "who they are." That is glorifying the means and throwing out the end. We're worth more than that, and I think it's actually cruel and materialistic to say this is normal and important. (In any case).

It's also an under value of our relationships toward each other as friends who should build each other up. We always have to have "something more." Romance is a basis for family, not a delight that exists for no reason. Romance is not what fulfills us.

[Dora]

We are discussing about our opinions on homosexuality as well as our beliefs, I don't think it is very mature to start commenting on personality or behavior topics other than what we are discussing about. You obviously do not agree with me or my opinions. That's that. I do not see the point of eternally commenting and getting into this little battlefield we've created if it means just writing about our thoughts on a forum that isn't focused on homosexuality views. In the previous comments I have told you that even if I don't agree with you, I still nodded for you to hold on your opinion, whereas you twisted my notion into the pretext of "not truly believing in my own opinions and running". Frankly, I seriously don't have time to convince you of anything since things are getting busy in life beyond the comment board. You keep your ideals and I keep mine cuz Im tired of trying to convince you of my beliefs and you trying to relay your beliefs on me. It's just not worth both our times. Call this whatever you want. I'm done with trying to make you think like me. So please, stop trying to make me think like you.

[cindy]

Brown wrote: "Cecerose, I think we agree more than we realize, because you hit the nail on the head when you described what a relationship should be about.

I think we start to disagree when it comes to what is ..."

Okay, there is definitely an overvalue of sex in the mainstream media -- however, I don't see it as some all controlling bastion that is ruining people's lives. I actually think that there are upsides and downsides.

Some benefits are that
A) It allows people to be more comfortable with their sexualities instead of shying away from them (which unlike you, I think is a good thing, as they are a natural part of ourselves that is 100% okay to express)

B) Body shaming, while still rampant in modern day society, is slowly being put in the spotlight as a bad thing and imo it helps create a more welcoming community that is becoming more aware of the complete absurdity of the slut shaming culture atm

C) Basically, I think it is helping the current and future generations become (EVENTUALLY!!) more tolerant of people of different backgrounds which I realize is a bit off topic but I say this because you seem to have a lot of disdain for the "politically correct" media

(lmao a LOT of media is not politically correct though tbh.....have you seen the tragedy that is fox news...)

Some downsides are that
A) Yes, it does come across that sex is "life" or whatever (OKKAY technically it is bc sex can lead to procreation LOL but disregard that) when teenagers shouldn't necessarily be obsessed and completely preoccupied with sex if it detracts from more important things

Also, I actually appreciate a lot of politically correct media because, AGAIN, it overall does help create more tolerance for minorities and other problems. I am an Asian-american teenage girl -- trust me, I can certainly see the benefits of it.

Also Brown, that is more of a philosophical question, and as you know, in philosophy, a lot of the time, there is no correct answer. It's about the individual and their own views and lifestyle. In YOUR opinion, friendship is enough. Good for you. In many other opinions (including my own), again, I view friendship / platonic love as the complete opposite in the spectrum of love so the two aren't comparable in the issues of what can help fulfill a human being.

Gay people deserve their own rights to marry because A) equality (sorry I know you're tired of hearing this but it still stands, even if you don't like it) -- yes, to treat them as anything other than human beings with their own inalienable rights because you think it is impossible for them to procreate (lmao it isn't. there are methods now) is discrimination.

B) They can start a family -- adoption, in vitro fertilization, etc. Wouldn't you say that the responsibility of taking care of a family is just as important (if not more) than the ability to make one? I know plenty of parents who have children and are completely neglectful of them (and vice versa). I also know plenty of families based on adopted children / etc that are loving, respectful, and kind. It's NOT about whether they can MAKE A FAMILY though the traditional way of sexual intercourse. It's about the responsibility of being able to take care of one, whether they are related to you or not. And love between the two people (whether straight, gay, etc) is what motivates people to start a family, whatever form it may take.

(don't even try to argue that gay people are harmful to "traditional family values" or whatever because they are not and I won't dignify that with an answer)

C) Because while your own PERSONAL view of life says it isn't necessary, you are not them. who are you to tell them that what they may deem important is not? Everybody leads independent lives and form different values -- and not everyone shares yours. If you choose to never extend your love beyond friendship, fine. That is a PERSONAL CHOICE. But to tell other people that? That is a no no.

And again, I mentioned more that romance can lead to a completely different kind of interaction / intimacy than friendships. Romance isn't just friendship + kissing / etc + (in your opinion) ability to procreate.

Also, I still think you are missing something important -- you say you should only chase after "romance" if it leads to something more (in your opinion, the something useful / meaningful is a family). However, usually, that is what everyone does. They embark on it to see if it will breed anything useful BUT they have 0 way of knowing what exactly will happen. Literally there is no way. Just because it may fall flat doesn't mean it didn't start off with the two people trying to make it work in the end.

I'm gonna be responding a lot less frequently (if at all) because I'm gonna be traveling for the next month or so.

Sorry I typed this really fast in an airport so sorry for the typos / repeating things

[cindy]

Kevin wrote: "The walls of text are back i see...."

kevin pls

[Kevin]

cecerosey plz

[[deleted user]]

Two non-romantic partners could adopt.
I know a mother and her older daughter who were considering adopting kids. You do not need to be in a romantic relationship. Again, you are making romance too big of a priority.

As for any other "methods" it's not the two partners creating the life together... maybe one, but they steal an egg or a sperm from someone else... There's not a magic thing that works out the way you're making it sound. No, they are not capable of creating life together, period.


I'm not saying anything about a traditional family right now, because the point isn't who is RAISING the kids. It's who has the ability to create them. That's what makes romance necessary. It is literally the only unique thing about it. The *creation* of life.

Raising kids is a noble thing, and if we create the life we should have the intention of raising them to the best of our ability.
It is unfortunate if the parents are selfish or unable for some reason. But it's not an excuse that it "doesn't matter anyway."
Or that whoever else does this has to be in a "romantic" relationship.


Saying you necessarily *need* to be in a romantic relationship with someone because it helps you grow as a person or support each other is utterly untrue.

Of course ideally the person you want to marry is someone who supports you. But it's not the support itself you need to seek out for no reason. That's the classic misconception that gets shoved at us. Nobody *needs* that; it is merely a nice thing that you like.

Leading us back to that, in the end, we ARE just making it about their pleasure.
(The point isn't that pleasure is wrong. Trying to compare it to relationships based on other things is)
No relationship based on pleasure is equivalent to one based on sacrifice! The only sacrifices they can make for each other are the same you can make if you have a strong friendship.
In its own way, it IS selfish. Nothing comes from it, but a circle. Giving pleasure and getting it.

Creation of life is the only unique thing. It's the only real thing. Otherwise you're just playing a game. The point is, that's not serious or important.
It doesn't define you, ever. It's not the same. It's not equal.
And there is no other magic thing that justifies saying it is.
It has to steal from the meaning of friendship. It has to steal kids from others. By itself, it is totally fruitless.
There is no comparison.

[[deleted user]]

I understand about your trip. Take your time :)
(I'm gonna go somewhere soon too, actually)

Btw no matter how much we disagree, I'm really thankful to have this conversation. I'm not taking anything personally or saying anything to be hostile, if I ever sound that way for some reason take it with a grain of salt. I try to never take anything personally in stuff like this. I like talking about why we believe something or not, and I like learning the reasons others disagree.
So thanks again for taking the time to write so much. I appreciate it a lot.

[[deleted user]]

I think love is stupid. I hate it

[TheDragonWriter]

Brenna wrote: "I'm so disappointed! The biggest problem that I have with this move in his books is that his target audience is children. Parent's buy these books for their children because they know that they ar..."

You know what, Brenna? I'm disappointed too. I'm disappointed that people can be so hateful to a person who thinks that just because an important subject is brought up that it is automatically "not kid friendly." Nearly all kids old enough to read these will already know about homosexuality. I started reading these books in second grade and I already understood enough about homosexuality to, had it been out, pick up this book and read it and understand, no, not just understand but actually appreciate, what was happening in the book. And I still had not met a person who was homosexual when I was in second grade. So Brenna, you and your friend should remember this. You wouldn't make a problem because Hazel had to face racism in the book from way back in the 1920's and the fact that it was an important topic that came up meant that no child should ever read the book. Some children WILL face racism, so you would probably say that if a child who may have been racist to another child understood what the other child was going through, they would not be racist toward the child and there we are--a step closer to a better world. So then, some people are going to be homophobic. Like you. There are going to be children who are homosexual. They are still human and they deserve to be treated like they are. So if the same child (who is taught to be racist and homophobic) reads this series, discovers that african americans and homosexuals are real people and that they are believing the wrong thing, and changes their ways, then the world will e a better and safer place for EVERYONE, not just people who are scared of things that are different. For example, there were really people who were afraid of computers because they were different. Obviously you would think you are not one of those people. But you are. You're afraid of what's different, like you might be scared of someone with green skin or glowing hair--or a war veteran with a missing limb who nearly lost their life to defend you, or a person born with a genetic skin disease or other disfiguration. There is a reason that people don't like discrimination. That is because--listen to this--DISCRIMINATION IS WRONG. There are people who would say, "Brenna, you are a girl. You're not good enough to be part of our club or group or company or whatever, because you're not a man." Naturally, you would say, "Well, that makes no sense!" or "That's not right!" and you would defend your rights...wouldn't you? Or would you let yourself get stepped on? Well now imagine every time you start to argue your point, someone else comes along and shouts over you, "Oh my god, you're a woman! You can't think anything worth thinking!" or some other stupid thing. That's what you're doing, except with slightly different language. "I probably won't read a book by him [Rick Roirdan] again [because there was a gay character in his book]." DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW STUPID THAT IS!?!?
Let's use some perspective here. Imagine you have a younger sibling, whatever gender you want. It doesn't matter. You love your sibling. They're the best sibling you ever had and they practically worship you. They do whatever you ask with only minimal whining and they're a super sweet, nice kid. However, one day the kid hears you say/sees you type some of this. Later, your younger sibling turns out to be homosexual. What then? You could have LED YOUR OWN BROTHER OR SISTER to commit suicide because they thought there was something wrong with THEM, and all for what? Because you're scared. You don't seem to understand how important it is that people that they realize that they are not diseased, and that there is nothing wrong with them for not being straight.

So Brenna. Since you wear your metaphorical blinders 24/7, apparently, none of this has much of a chance of sinking in. But at least I tried. And remember this. We are disappointed in you. The straight, the gay, the trans, the queer, we're all disappointed in you except for the ones who are just like you. Don't be a robot. There may be hope for you yet: that all remains on your shoulders. I would wish you luck in changing but you would probably take that as a curse. I would wish you a good day, then, but I have seen ENTIRELY NOTHING ABOUT YOU that makes me think that you're a decent person who might even DESERVE to have a nice day, and for all I know you're out committing hate crimes as I write this. And if you are, then remember this too: I hope you get caught.

[Kevin]

I don't even read this thread anymore, the walls of text are ever increasing and the amount of fresh logic is ever dropping.

People are just spewing the same ideas over and over and over.

[[deleted user]]

TheDragonWriter,

That never changes hearts and never will, because it's not a matter of hate and fear.

But once again, you choose to dishonestly brush aside the real concerns. Please go back and read the recent posts on this discussion or stop hindering constructive conversation with propaganda.

Yes, we're burning people at the stake at this very moment.... You're very open minded...

[[deleted user]]

Agreed Kevin. (even though you're probably including me)
That was my point earlier... whenever we start getting somewhere, somebody busts in and starts it over. I just stick around to torture myself XP

I like long walls of text when they're legit back and forth, but not when they're random rants throwing everything off.

[Jamie]

If I am honest, I really didn't see this coming, at all, but boy, am I glad it has. Nico is a character many can respect, if not identify with. By choosing to make this character, who already has a tragic backstory, gay, Rick has chosen the easiest character in the series to sympathise with. By choosing Jason, arguably the most rule-based (almost conventional) character for Nico to unwillingly out himself to, he showed you don't have to be wacky or unconventional to help a friend.
I am glad that this is a book that parents will buy for children (I know others read it too) knowingly or unwittingly showing them mainstream media which doesn't make being gay this huge problem (good or bad). There is a shocking underrepresentation of the lgbtq+ community in literature, especially novels filed under young adults/children. I dare anybody to name a mainstream novel with a hero who is human and not cis-gender. Or one with a lesbian who's main struggle isn't her sexuality. What about bi characters? Sans Nico (who may be gay or bi or pan), I cannot think of any. And that's sad. Because when kids are struggling to understand why they keep being called a girl, even when they feel like a boy, or when they don't understand why that boy is so cute, they don't have anyone to identify with, and, whilst Nico is just one guy with a crush, he just might help somebody out.

[Kevin]

"Yawn"

[Jamie]

Kevin wrote: ""Yawn""

Yeah, but you don't have to read it if you find these sorts of comments boring do you?

[ReaderGuy]

Look, is it okay to have gay characters in books? Sure. Is it okay to have a gay character in a book focused on pre-teens? Debatable. I'm not sure 10 year old kids are really mature enough for that kind of stuff. And slipping your political views into a popular children's series is morally dubious.

My issue with it is largely that it just felt like a politically correct move. There was no real indication that Nico was gay in the original series and it just didn't make sense. It felt like it was just dumped in there because nowadays people feel the need to put an "obligatory gay character" in their books. JK Rowling (Dumbledore post publishing), City of Bones, now this, and a number of others, even a cartoon show, Legend of Kora. A lot of time it doesn't make much sense or accomplish anything other than being politically correct. The only people it seems to really make happy are rabid fan-girls

While gay teens might like it, it also make young kids who like Nico think that being gay is cool or some-such. Regardless of your personal beliefs on homosexuality, it's undeniable it a causes a huge deal of stress and identity issues for people who are gay. Kids are impressionable, and if reading a book with a gay character they idolized lead them to become gay or believe that they were gay, they would have a bunch of anxiety and stress they would otherwise not have.

I'm fine with gay characters in YA, but in something pre-teens will also read, I'm not really sure it's right. Same thing goes for books that focus totally or heavily on pairings and physical attraction between people, gay or otherwise. If it's YA it's fine, but I don't think it's really healthy for younger kids to be exposed to that.