On Renarin and Rlain

[Ewery1]

Really curious to hear people’s thoughts on Brandon’s article from today, especially those who reacted negatively to the subject matter he discussed in this blog post: https://www.brandonsanderson.com/blogs/blog/on-renarin-and-rlain

[Shaukan-son-Hasweth he/him]

I always find it very odd how people accuse any depiction of gay people as indoctrination or a try to make something political.

If there were no gay people on Roshar, it would actually be because someone removed a part of the human experience from the Rosharans. It would have be taken as a sign that there is something diffrent about them from our humanity, just like the weird hair genetics.

Gay people exist. And always have. No matter what people think about us, we have always been here. 

There would be no statments against homosexuality in religious texts if we weren't around back then. 

And so gay people also exist on Roshar. 

This is true for all marginalised people.

Not matter how much people try to condem the inclusion of us as unnecessary, not including us would actually be the active political choice.

[AquaRegia he/him]

Quote

"Others of you out there may be confused why this post is even necessary, since the fact that gay people exist indicates that merely including them, and their lives, in stories shouldn’t be controversial." - Brandon Sanderson

That's me.  I'm straight, I accept gay people exist, and rust and ruin it's 2025 - how can that still be surprising to anyone?  Just like I'm white, but I don't get mad when the stories I like have brown people in them.  Representation in media matters.  I think Brandon has done an admirable job of learning about many different kinds of human experience and including them in his stories.  Always perfect?  No, but nobody is. He's trying.

I find it hilarious when people talk about "indoctrination" or "shoving it our faces"... as if cis/het romance hasn't been shoved in our face for 1000+ years.  A gay person in a novel is just as likely to "turn you gay" as a black person in a novel is to turn you black.

[Treamayne]

11 hours ago, Ewery1 said:

Really curious to hear people’s thoughts on Brandon’s article from today, especially those who reacted negatively to the subject matter he discussed in this blog post: https://www.brandonsanderson.com/blogs/blog/on-renarin-and-rlain

I'm happy that he tries. I'm happy he researches.

I don't like that he should feel he needs to make this kind of post, but I am certainly happy he makes these posts anyway.

[Ewery1]

Yeah, I really appreciated the example he pointed to of the book he read as a kid that included a gay protagonist. To me that really demonstrates the impact that representative can have - it was clearly formative for him.

[Isilel]

19 hours ago, Ewery1 said:

Really curious to hear people’s thoughts on Brandon’s article from today,

 

What article are you referring to? Was there something in addition to the blog post? And yes, it is sad that representation is an issue that needs to be explained and justified.

[Nitpicking]

Quote

"Others of you out there may be confused why this post is even necessary, since the fact that gay people exist indicates that merely including them, and their lives, in stories shouldn’t be controversial." - Brandon Sanderson

It feels weird to me, like @AquaRegia says, that this needs to be explained. I'm old, but I don't get annoyed when young people exist in stories.

[Argenti he/him]

On 1/12/2025 at 10:16 AM, Ewery1 said:

Really curious to hear people’s thoughts on Brandon’s article from today, especially those who reacted negatively to the subject matter he discussed in this blog post: https://www.brandonsanderson.com/blogs/blog/on-renarin-and-rlain

It's certainly sad that he needs to explain his reasoning behind gay people existing, but alas, it's not surprising that he does feel that he needs to try to explain himself. The LDS church isn't notorious for loving LGBTQIA+ topics, and has done much to prevent rights and protections of the LGBTQIA+ from expanding. I'm gay, but I don't love romance, and representation like that in stormlight, where being gay isn't the sole personality trait, matters.

I'll also say that you probably won't find anyone who takes issue with Renarin and Rlain on the Shard: at least not openly. I don't doubt there are people out there who take issue with it, but reddit or Twitter may have easier finds.

Edited January 14, 2025 by Argenti

[Ewery1]

1 hour ago, Argenti said:

It's certainly sad that he needs to explain his reasoning behind gay people existing, but alas, it's not surprising that he does feel that he needs to try to explain himself. The LDS church isn't notorious for loving LGBTQIA+ topics, and has done much to prevent rights and protections of the LGBTQIA+ from expanding. I'm gay, but I don't love romance, and representation like that in stormlight, where being gay isn't the sole personality trait, matters.

I'll also say that you probably won't find anyone who takes issue with Renarin and Rlain on the Shard: at least not openly. I don't doubt there are people out there who take issue with it, but reddit or Twitter may have easier finds.

Hmm I’ve seen it on the Shard before. It was couched behind excuses & justifications, but I’ve definitely seen it.

I see what you mean though, this probably isn’t the right forum to really get people’s opinions. I’m gay as well, and a writer too, so I often find myself wondering about what makes media effective and ineffective at impacting people. Not a very scientific way to get that answer, but I was curious nonetheless.

[Treamayne]

1 hour ago, Argenti said:

It's certainly sad that he needs to explain his reasoning behind gay people existing, but alas, it's not surprising that he does feel that he needs to try to explain himself.

1 minute ago, Ewery1 said:

Hmm I’ve seen it on the Shard before. It was couched behind excuses & justifications, but I’ve definitely seen it.

On a Tangential note, have any of you read Seven Kennings Trilogy (Kevin Hearne, Book 1: A Plague of Giants)?

OT:

Spoiler

I think it's one of the better inclusive series recently, mostly because people are treated as people. Deomgraphics and all those other lines that are too often used to separate "us vs them" are treated as just descriptors (not including the Big Bad - religious militant invader sect). Skin, race, birth, wealth, gender identity, romantic preference - all of it is just a descriptor, neither more nor less important than any other facet of the whole person. Bad people are bad because they are bad, not because they are <demographic>. Likewise, good people are good because they are good (also not because they are <demographic>).

From the Author's Essay:

Quote

So how does this trilogy represent a road less traveled?

Well, in terms of its structure, it might actually be unique. I don’t want to say definitively that it is, because maybe I’ve missed that someone else has already done it, but so far as I know, this is the first epic fantasy told through twenty-two first-person points of view. It jumps around in time as well, so that’s fun.

Twenty of the points of view come to us courtesy of a bard, who can magically take on the physical appearance and voice of others, and he does this to weave a tale for a live audience over the course of fifty-four days, involving a war against giants and wraiths and including extraordinary animals, spies, love (all kinds), a revolution against a monarchy, and lots of cheese and mustard.

The points of view feature the young, middle-aged, and seniors from a variety of backgrounds and identities. We’re not just hearing from political leaders or great warriors, either: we’re hearing from a language scholar, a lovelorn courier, an unhoused girl who slept on a muddy riverbank, and more. It was my attempt to update the experience of Homer sharing The Iliad and The Odyssey for a modern prose audience—could I give readers the chance to experience an epic in that way?

And, at least in my opinion, it does all of that without ever feeling preachy.

Sorry for the tangent.

[Ookla she/her]

1 hour ago, Argenti said:

It's certainly sad that he needs to explain his reasoning behind gay people existing, but alas, it's not surprising that he does feel that he needs to try to explain himself. The LDS church isn't notorious for loving LGBTQIA+ topics, and has done much to prevent rights and protections of the LGBTQIA+ from expanding. I'm gay, but I don't love romance, and representation like that in stormlight, where being gay isn't the sole personality trait, matters.

I'll also say that you probably won't find anyone who takes issue with Renarin and Rlain on the Shard: at least not openly. I don't doubt there are people out there who take issue with it, but reddit or Twitter may have easier finds.

You are correct, you probably won't find anyone who openly takes issue with Rlainarin here--I am one who takes mild issue with it because I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who takes a more traditional view on things than Brandon does, but in the spirit of kindness and keeping the 17th Shard a positive place, I try not to bring it up. I'm terrible at being tactful about such things, and the overall spirit of positivity here as compared to Reddit or other social media sites is what convinced me to get an account in the first place. I want to contribute to the spirit of positivity on the 17th Shard, and in most cases, getting involved in a discussion of controversial topics will undermine my efforts in that direction because when I get excited about something (whether that's positive excitement or negative excitement), I lose my ability to speak kindly/tactfully for the duration of the excitement. I may not interpret the teachings of my church the same way Brandon does, but that doesn't give me an excuse to be rude or disrespectful toward others, and I know myself well enough to guess that I would eventually fall to that point if caught in an extended, controversial debate, so I try to stay out of it.

Furthermore, I rather like y'all, whether I agree with your opinions all the time or not (and not just on this topic), and I don't want to cause any hurt, so if at any point I don't feel confident that I can state my opinion clearly and kindly, standing up for myself while allowing others to have their own opinions, I usually write up a post to get my thoughts off my chest, then delete it all and sit back to observe how the discussion goes without me. I actually considered replying to this topic earlier today, and I wrote a post up with my opinions, but it didn't feel like it fit with the flow of the conversation, so I deleted it. I really appreciate @Argenti giving me a small opening to insert my opinion, because I think it's allowed me to be a bit more levelheaded and kind than I would have been if I'd just butted into the conversation. (Also, I'll have you know that I've spent nearly an hour on this post, writing things out, editing them down again, and adding bits and thoughts here and there to try and round things out properly. That's how challenging tact is for me. When communicating with people like this, I usually have all the finesse of a T-Rex in a small glassware shop when it comes to controversial discussions; I'm hoping this post will come across as the equivalent of a draft horse in a small glassware shop.) Ultimately, I'm here to nerd out about books, not get into long, involved political debates or pointless arguments about whose opinion is correct when we don't actually know each other and it really doesn't matter that much.

For my full opinion on the Rlainarin relationship: As someone who takes mild issue with Rlainarin, what actually made their romance readable for me is that Brandon didn't try to shoehorn it in to check some kind of "representation check-box." He crafted those characters thoughtfully from the start, so when the romance came it didn't feel out-of-the-blue "This character is gay now" like I've felt reading other books (it's a strange phenomenon; usually a pre-established side character turns out to be gay suddenly in Book 2 of a series, and you read it and get mental whiplash because you'd flagged a totally different romance for that character based on the dynamics in Book 1. That's my indicator for "this is a check-box book; figuratively throw it across the room.") Rather, Rlainarin felt like it was meant to be from the start, even though I hadn't noticed it coming in the previous four books (mainly due to a lack of POV chapters from those two characters). Did I agree with it morally/relligiously? No. Could I set that aside and enjoy the story anyway? Yes, indeed, and I think it speaks a lot to Brandon's skill as an author that I was able to do that in this case.

All right, I'm basically done chatting. I would like some feedback, though; since I'm practicing this tactfulness thing, I'd love to know if you all think I've succeeded or not, or if I should keep myself out of any further discussions of controversial political issues.

[lilmage99 She/Her]

Brandon's Post legit made me cry 

It's so heartwarming to see an author not in the LGBTQIA+ Community making a real effort to include all types of people in his stories. And not because he wants to pander, but because he wants to understand and reflect upon how it feels to be someone different than himself. I think he does a wonderful job at it as well. 

[scottos]

Brandon is awesome. W&T is awesome and the post he made is great, but it is kind of sad he had to write the post in the first place.

Just an observation on some of the backlash, it's interesting to me that folks will put down a book for a portrayal of a non-toxic G rated romantic relationship, but not bat an eye at graphic war, murder, death, and violence. Murder by a protagonist is just fine to be entertained by (enter Kelsier), but I draw the line when it comes to hand holding and a kiss. 

[Returned he/him]

There are a lot of people that fundamentally don't like this kind of relationship, will always be shocked at encountering it in a story, will always demand an explanation, and will never be satisfied by any explanation because they for some reason don't like the relationship. A lot of people are less hardened about it, even if they come from contexts that are, and for those people the post might be helpful and worthwhile. Every idea is a realization at some point, everything a person knows they had to learn somehow. "Time ripens all things; no [one] is born wise." I don't know that the post itself is necessary, exactly, but if it helps the next batch of people who don't understand things in the ways we'd prefer then it's all to the good.

I think that for all besides the most dedicated opponents/proponents it is largely an unmarked category issue coupled with variable plot relevance. Such people never pause to consider a romance like Adolin's and Shallan's because it's a default category that they expect. But they really notice anything else being present, often interpreting it as tokenism or "making a statement". Sometimes they may even be right in those interpretations (Sarkuin, perhaps, maybe Drehy though I don't feel that way), but most of the shock comes from narrowness of expectation and having to confront it for reasons tangential to the plot. Renarin's relationship with Rlain isn't tangential to the story which, for me, offsets how much of his on-screen representation thus far seems focused on it, but I can imagine a reader feeling confused about the (for them) sudden emphasis. Hopefully the blog post can clarify things for them until their initial shock over the marked category fades.

[AquaRegia he/him]

Ookla, You did a fine job of being tactful and respectful.  All that time invested was worth it LOL

I certainly agree that there are some works in media where attempts at showing diversity have come across as clumsy or heavy-handed... but not all writers/showrunners/directors are equally skilled.  A badly implemented story may be a bad implementation, rather than a bad story.  Plus, as @Returned correctly points out, frequently the negative reactions people have to those attempts, when carefully examined, really just boil down to "this is different from what I'm accustomed to and I don't like it."  Heteronormative romance is NEVER a problem in media, even when it includes abduction/Stockholm Syndrome (Beauty and the Beast), species mixing (The Little Mermaid), an actual literal child in a adult body (Poor Things or Big), or a host of other awful examples from the past, oh, 1,000 years of literature.  But two young adult men (malen) in a healthy, respectful, trusting relationship?  SICK!

16 hours ago, Ookla said:

I am one who takes mild issue with it because I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who takes a more traditional view on things than Brandon does

I'm fascinated by this and I'd love to have a discussion about it.  Perhaps this forum isn't the place for said discussion; if so, I'd be happy to take it to private messages.  Or perhaps there is another topic/subforum where such a discussion (necessarily inclusive of individual religious and cultural beliefs) would be more appropriate.

Or, maybe this topic IS the perfect place for it.  I welcome the thoughts of the mod staff.

[Ookla she/her]

4 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

Ookla, You did a fine job of being tactful and respectful.  All that time invested was worth it LOL

I certainly agree that there are some works in media where attempts at showing diversity have come across as clumsy or heavy-handed... but not all writers/showrunners/directors are equally skilled.  A badly implemented story may be a bad implementation, rather than a bad story.  Plus, as @Returned correctly points out, frequently the negative reactions people have to those attempts, when carefully examined, really just boil down to "this is different from what I'm accustomed to and I don't like it."  Heteronormative romance is NEVER a problem in media, even when it includes abduction/Stockholm Syndrome (Beauty and the Beast), species mixing (The Little Mermaid), an actual literal child in a adult body (Poor Things or Big), or a host of other awful examples from the past, oh, 1,000 years of literature.  But two young adult men (malen) in a healthy, respectful, trusting relationship?  SICK!

I'm fascinated by this and I'd love to have a discussion about it.  Perhaps this forum isn't the place for said discussion; if so, I'd be happy to take it to private messages.  Or perhaps there is another topic/subforum where such a discussion (necessarily inclusive of individual religious and cultural beliefs) would be more appropriate.

Or, maybe this topic IS the perfect place for it.  I welcome the thoughts of the mod staff.

Well, thank you. It's been a long journey of growth for me (I used to be far more intolerant, before I learned that things that don't directly affect my life are none of my business, really), so I'm glad it's paid off. As for a discussion (whether here or in a DM), I'm totally open to that. I'd love to hear your perspective and try to understand your way of thinking better, and I'd love to be able to share mine.

[Ewery1]

2 hours ago, Ookla said:

Well, thank you. It's been a long journey of growth for me (I used to be far more intolerant, before I learned that things that don't directly affect my life are none of my business, really), so I'm glad it's paid off. As for a discussion (whether here or in a DM), I'm totally open to that. I'd love to hear your perspective and try to understand your way of thinking better, and I'd love to be able to share mine.

Haha I’d be interested to learn both of your perspectives - would here be a fine forum? Or a 3 way DM (is that possible)?

[Shaukan-son-Hasweth he/him]

On 1/14/2025 at 5:54 AM, Ookla said:

All right, I'm basically done chatting. I would like some feedback, though; since I'm practicing this tactfulness thing, I'd love to know if you all think I've succeeded or not, or if I should keep myself out of any further discussions of controversial political issues.

Okay. So some feedback from my side. Generally you did well phrasong your postion respektfully. I'm glad you will read these stories if they are well done. That's what it's for.

The thing with the ones that are done badly is, they are just done badly. There's so many weird straight plot lines that don't get picked apart as much.

 

I just want to say something about the tactfullness in general.

I don’t think having tact is enough to be honest. I don’t really care if people approve of homosexuality or similar issues. There is no real point in arguing with someones religious believes anyway. These believed don't come from a point of reasoning but a point of faith. Even non religious people have opinions based on faith not reason, we all do. They are often not easily changed.

Being tolerant and polite is one thing. But if it's only a front and in secret they vote our rights away is useless. I'd rather people be openly hostile then. What I want any person to understand is, that a society that is truly just and free, has to allow gay people to live freely and openly. 

A society that feels justified in discrimitating against us, can justify anything.

You have values and faith. But so do other people. Protect the world where everyone can live their own.

 

I have a question about the approach of american christians to works like Sandersons books.

I've noticed that it's a culture that is extremely sensitive and judgemental to LGBTQ issues and anything to overtly sexual in general. And having been raised christian as well, I do understand where these values come from.

What I don’t get is:

Books like the stormlight archive are so exzessively violent. It's constantly depicted in detail, sometimes to stories even revels a little in the gore.

Violence is not only depicted, it is, in certain instances even condoned. Stormlight as a series explicitly justifies the use of violence.

The devout Christians from my former comunity would condem the violence way more than any of the sexual aspects.

Sure both not seen as good. But it's pretty clear that killing someone, whatever the circumstances is wrong and a way bigger sin than homosexuality.

Also reading about violent things for enjoyment, would also not be seen as great.

 

Where doyou think that diffrence comes from?

[Returned he/him]

7 hours ago, Shaukan-son-Hasweth said:

I have a question about the approach of american christians to works like Sandersons books.

I've noticed that it's a culture that is extremely sensitive and judgemental to LGBTQ issues and anything to overtly sexual in general. And having been raised christian as well, I do understand where these values come from.

What I don’t get is:

Books like the stormlight archive are so exzessively violent. It's constantly depicted in detail, sometimes to stories even revels a little in the gore.

Violence is not only depicted, it is, in certain instances even condoned. Stormlight as a series explicitly justifies the use of violence.

The devout Christians from my former comunity would condem the violence way more than any of the sexual aspects.

Sure both not seen as good. But it's pretty clear that killing someone, whatever the circumstances is wrong and a way bigger sin than homosexuality.

Also reading about violent things for enjoyment, would also not be seen as great.

 

Where doyou think that diffrence comes from?

If you're looking for consistency I think you'll be disappointed. The easiest explanation is that a lot of people don't live up to their values (whether they are trying to or not), and often have not thought enough about the values they hold (or believe they hold) to even be able to engage with them meaningfully. A charitable interpretation is that they are developing towards their ideals but are not yet there. A less charitable interpretation is that they don't really hold the values that they claim, or that they simply don't care about living up to those values. I see both kinds of people, and in either case living up to moral standards can be very hard even if a person is clear on what they feel those standards are (which, again, most really aren't).

It's also been my observation that many (maybe most) people base their ethical decisions on what feels satisfying to them, especially in the moment, which is a poor way to pursue ethical and moral consistency. U.S. culture, even secular culture, leans pretty hard into the same thing. Religion provides an obvious façade for that behavior, and so people's attention gets drawn to that, but my observation is that nonreligious people aren't that different in how they approach which things they think should be tolerated versus those they think are intolerable.

So when there is a seeming contradiction a lot of people respond by shrugging at the big questions and doing what they think will feel immediately satisfying. You might be surprised at how few Christians really believe that lethal violence is fundamentally wrong in all cases-- it's not "pretty clear" to an awful lot of people, even if it is to you. There are so many situations where it feels necessary (like immediate self defense), and justifications that are deployed (if group X takes control of an area they will do all kinds of bad things, so sending military forces to fight and kill is the right thing to do), and theological examples that are less clear (the Bible, overall, is not exactly a tract opposing violence and contains quite a bit). A lot of things are depersonalized as well: a lot of people support the death penalty but I would bet that far fewer would be able to serve as an executioner. Christians, historically and at present in the U.S., are not fundamentally pacifists. Even so there is a huge world of media designed for people who feel like you describe, and that media is often far less violent than works that have broader appeal. You're simply less likely to happen across those things without specifically looking for them, because the lack of broad appeal means they don't occupy the same place in the culture.

And, as above, even if people are convinced that nonviolence is right that doesn't mean that those same people are prepared to live in a manner that is consistent with that view. People fail to live up to their values every single day. They may make up justifications for the specifics (Kaladin was forced to be violent, for some reason, so he didn't have the freedom to choose the good thing and avoid the bad thing; nothing forced Renarin to actively pursue a relationship with Rlain and so he did the bad thing of his own free will, which is bad), but honestly I don't think that most people deserve that credit. I find that prejudices are usually not quite rational enough to be valid for a person to hold, and so such "reasoning" isn't something that you can engage with. When a person's whole moral justification is that something "feels right" to them, even when it contradicts their stated values, there isn't much more to understand from any line of reasoning.

Edited January 15, 2025 by Returned

[Ookla she/her]

6 hours ago, Shaukan-son-Hasweth said:

Okay. So some feedback from my side. Generally you did well phrasong your postion respektfully. I'm glad you will read these stories if they are well done. That's what it's for.

The thing with the ones that are done badly is, they are just done badly. There's so many weird straight plot lines that don't get picked apart as much.

 

I just want to say something about the tactfullness in general.

I don’t think having tact is enough to be honest. I don’t really care if people approve of homosexuality or similar issues. There is no real point in arguing with someones religious believes anyway. These believed don't come from a point of reasoning but a point of faith. Even non religious people have opinions based on faith not reason, we all do. They are often not easily changed.

Being tolerant and polite is one thing. But if it's only a front and in secret they vote our rights away is useless. I'd rather people be openly hostile then. What I want any person to understand is, that a society that is truly just and free, has to allow gay people to live freely and openly. 

A society that feels justified in discrimitating against us, can justify anything.

You have values and faith. But so do other people. Protect the world where everyone can live their own.

 

I have a question about the approach of american christians to works like Sandersons books.

I've noticed that it's a culture that is extremely sensitive and judgemental to LGBTQ issues and anything to overtly sexual in general. And having been raised christian as well, I do understand where these values come from.

What I don’t get is:

Books like the stormlight archive are so exzessively violent. It's constantly depicted in detail, sometimes to stories even revels a little in the gore.

Violence is not only depicted, it is, in certain instances even condoned. Stormlight as a series explicitly justifies the use of violence.

The devout Christians from my former comunity would condem the violence way more than any of the sexual aspects.

Sure both not seen as good. But it's pretty clear that killing someone, whatever the circumstances is wrong and a way bigger sin than homosexuality.

Also reading about violent things for enjoyment, would also not be seen as great.

 

Where doyou think that diffrence comes from?

WHERE I'M AT:

You make a lot of good points, and while I can't say I'm 100% convinced to change my voting strategy (to be totally honest and authentic to where I'm at), I'm definitely going to have to stop and consider. You're absolutely right; a society that claims to be just and free should respect people's agency, while maintaining reasonable limits on what a person can and can't do (such as infringing on another person's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which was, as I recall, a phrasing placed into the US Constitution as a compromise between the slave states, who would have said "property" to continue slavery, and the non-slave states, who would also have said "property," except that they didn't want slavery to continue indefinitely). So you can't kill someone, you can't kidnap someone or restrict their ability to make choices, and you can't break into their house and steal their stuff, which I feel like covers a pretty good majority of crimes. From a secular standpoint, you're totally right. People should be free to marry whomever they'd like. (I'll get to the religious standpoint, which is where I really disagree with Sanderson, later.)

When it comes to the tactfulness point, I really am trying to express the way I honestly feel and be totally authentic to who I am and where I'm at, but I want to do so kindly (to avoid the "couched behind excuses and justifications" issue @Ewery1 mentioned). Being rude, even if the rudeness is accidental, is a great way to stop discussion and start an argument, so I want to avoid that. I legitimately want (or legitimately want to legitimately want, I'm not sure how close I am yet) to get a better understanding of y'all's perspective, and I can't do that if I'm shutting you down before we even get started.

MY THOUGHTS ON THE DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENT AND SEXUAL CONTENT:

When it comes to the difference between the way violent content and sexual content are perceived in books (and media in general), @Returned makes some good points, but I think there's another side to it as well; Returned mentioned that there's a lot of justification that goes on, and I think they're exactly right. In general, violence is easier to justify. "The Germans are slaughtering Jews! This is a big deal!" or "Pearl Harbor just got attacked! This is the last straw; we need to go to war!" That's the sort of propaganda that happened in America around World War 2, and a lot of men from my church enlisted in the army to serve their country. Now, looking back, there are some people who question if America entering the world wars was really necessary--if we hadn't joined the first, the war probably would have petered out because each side was at a stalemate--soldiers were fighting and dying, but neither Allies nor Axis were really making any progress. Through the use of propaganda, America found excuses to join the war and utterly demolished the Axis (Source: "World War One" and "World War Two" by Richard J. Maybury--great history books, easy to read because they're written for teens, and well-researched information.). Had we not joined WWI, then we wouldn't have set a precedent that would encourage us to join WWII, and we may have been able to stay out of it all. For America, was war really necessary at that point? No; we weren't in danger. But we justified the violence and joined in anyway.

When it comes to sexual content, I think the issue a lot of people of my religion run into is that, even with the "condoned situations" in my church (heterosexually, within the bounds of marriage), sexual topics in general are pretty taboo. When we run into violence in books, it's easy to justify because we so often justify it in real life: "Oh, the bad guys are a problem, we need to fight them off." When we run into sexual content in books (that is more extensive than hand-holding and kissing, basically), we're not used to sexual topics being discussed in that way, and our first instinct is something to the effect of, "Ooh, icky!" Even though, objectively, violence is indeed much worse when you really think about it, because in killing another person, you cut off their opportunity to continue learning and growing here on Earth. In fact, in my church, murder is considered one of the worst sins a person can commit for that very reason, with sexual sin falling a short distance behind (which is probably where the taboo comes from).

MY CONCLUSION:

When it comes to LGBTQIA+ issues in general, I stand with my church for the way I will live and the way I will teach and encourage my children to live, even if I agree that government should allow people their agency and freedom to choose who they want to marry (I can imagine how frustrated I would be if there was a law preventing me from legally marrying my fiancé). No matter what you believe about the state of someone's soul, in all objectivity and practicality for everyday life, religion is inherently optional--living the laws the government has set forth is not. Government has a responsibility to enforce its laws, while churches only have the ability to enforce their tenets to the point of excommunicating someone--and if you're leaving a church or being excommunicated from it, chances are you know exactly why that is and were already somewhat prepared for the consequences.

But all this is on an organizational level. On an individual basis, I think every person has a responsibility to care about and have compassion towards others, no matter their belief, and I don't think we have a right to interfere with each others' lives (except for our own children, but that's a different discussion entirely). So, on an individual basis, I don't think any of us have a right to judge anyone else, and that, really, is what I think the main issue here is. One side looks at the other and sees something alien, and judges, and doesn't want to get any closer, and the other side looks at the first and feels excluded and misunderstood. I agree that that is an issue, and that needs to change.

 

Again, I'd love feedback. Does my perspective make sense? Do you notice any errors in my logic and reasoning? Does my conclusion seem like a fair middle ground between the two sides of this debate? And, most importantly, have I continued to succeed in expressing myself kindly?

[Returned he/him]

I think you're still doing a very good job in conducting yourself here.

I'm curious about the lines you've drawn between religious and civic duties, though. I think that many would suggest that religion is not optional for those who believe. Believing in a religion often involves strong implications about the structure and nature of reality as well as a dominant and inherently correct source for moral and ethical considerations, and many religions have duties beyond the internal and personal. They are not generally buffets where a person is permitted to take the parts they like and ignore the rest. That is separate from walking away from a religious institution (something like "I don't believe that the official church is operating correctly given what the religion teaches"), but religions don't generally consider heresy to be valid (by definition).

If God appeared to you, personally and in a manner which allays all possible doubts about the reality of the experience, and told you that your view on X was wrong and that you should instead adopt a view which was unpalatable to you, would you not feel that your duty would be to correct your position even if it were hard to do? Would a reasonable response to that event be to say "I think [some specific, other religion] fits me better, so I'm going to head over to that one, goodbye"? The idea that religion is optional strikes me as a very worldly and secular view (not necessarily wrong, but not something that the faithful of many religions can really engage with); that can only be true for people who are fundamentally unbelievers.

Government, on the other hand, seems far more malleable to me. We can probably agree that a government has an obligation to enforce its laws, but what those laws are is entirely an arbitrary decision that government can make. People then have options like moving to somewhere with different laws, trying to change what those laws are, or declining to obey, but there is a lot more optionality to these than a divine decree establishing concepts of right and wrong throughout all of reality. It's possible to break a law without anyone ever knowing, while defying a deity's command is probably less escapable. Further, for millennia there has been a lot of debate about what duty a person has to follow a "bad" law while the duty to follow a divine commandment is usually considered to be absolute.

For my part I think that we're always going to be imperfect in our understanding of morality and ethics, and that as a result we should be humble, open, and always questioning things and thinking about the topic. Society has to concern itself with practicalities, like finding a way for people with fundamentally incompatible views to live together, but that is not as true of the people who make up those societies. Seeking a middle ground is doomed to fail when one group feels that any compromise is intolerable, and in such a case why should another group compromise something they value just to not get anything from them?

That's really where subjects like the Renarin-Rlain romance draw controversy. Taking them at their word, there are groups who feel that normalizing same-sex romantic relationships via media in popular culture directly harms them specifically because it presents those relationships as acceptable and normal. As I posted above, I think that taking those groups at their word gives them far too much credit, but their position is not different even if we agree that their actual reasoning is nonsense. They are not interested in compromise or any middle ground and will not be swayed, and at least some of them will use any possible tool to oppose anything short of their favored position (like laws banning such content, social pressure to make it hard to publish or buy books that feature it, and more).

I respect your position and am glad that you have arrived at a tolerant and respectful place, but I don't think that a stance which says "it's OK, but it's not really that OK" is tenable given the reality of the opposition and the religious basis for at least some of your reasoning. (I am not terribly familiar with LDS or related faiths, so please take that last bit with more than a grain of salt). I think of your stance more like a point along the way than a conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong, and in any case "live and let live" is a great approach in the face of uncertainty, and it's hard to think of a better personal approach than compassion, tolerance, and non-judgement.

Edited January 15, 2025 by Returned

[AquaRegia he/him]

6 minutes ago, Returned said:

I think of your stance more like a point along the way than a conclusion.

This right here.  It's taken me a long time (I'll be 58 in a few weeks) to learn this lesson: how I feel about something today is not the same way I felt last year, or ten years ago.  Ergo, my opinions may continue to change.  Intelligent people change their views in light of new facts.  If we all try to remember that we are humble travelers in this life, learning and changing as we grow, we greatly reduce the chance of hurting each other.  I'm with Sir Terry Pratchett - "evil starts when you treat other people like objects."  Hurting others is the only real sin.

I've never been able to accept a religious viewpoint.  We know religious history goes back around 30,000 years, more or less; thousands of cultures, over thousands of years, have had "gods" that told them what to believe and how to behave.  All of them said people who follow OTHER gods are wrong.  Many of them say people who follow other gods are heretics, or infidels, or sinners, and that they need to be taught the "correct" way, sometimes violently.  The idea that, of all the millions of gods that have been worshiped over the centuries, the one *I* believe in is the REAL one, is preposterous to me.  I'm happy to accept I live in a country (the US) that guarantees freedom of religion, as long as that includes freedom FROM religion as well.  I get along fine with my religious family and neighbors, I just don't share their beliefs.  I'm not an atheist; there may be a higher power, but I'm confident it's not described by any existing limited human religion.  I do believe that many religions are making an honest effort to "know" the true nature of divinity, but they invariably fall short when doctrine and dogma develop.  I accept that many people get useful benefits, both in terms of mental health and social behavior, from their religious beliefs.

I have no trouble with you practicing the religion of your choice, as long as it's not hurting anyone.  If you are burning "witches", or lynching black people, or blowing up "infidels" (and, yes, those were all done by religious people for religious reasons), your religion has crossed a simple line for me.  Disallowing a loving relationship between consenting adults seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what a loving god would want, and it's certainly hurtful.  Just ask them.

I honestly can't understand where the Christian "biblical" opposition to homosexuality comes from.  As far as I can tell, Jesus never said a single word about it.   Sure, it's mentioned explicitly in Leviticus, but the Old Testament is full of rules no modern Christian follows.  No planting two crops in the same field.  No wearing clothes made of two fibers. No tattoos. What's different about this one?

As others have said, I'm free to believe what I wish, but it's not up to me to decide how other people's behaviors measure up to my beliefs.  If I'm voting to restrict the rights of others, in cases where no one is being harmed, I'm working in favor of oppression, not love.  I'm free to say "I'm not allowed to do that," and I'm free to say "I don't like when you do that," but it's not OK for me to say "you aren't allowed to do that," except in cases where the goal is to prevent harm.

[Ookla she/her]

2 hours ago, Returned said:

I think you're still doing a very good job in conducting yourself here.

I'm curious about the lines you've drawn between religious and civic duties, though. I think that many would suggest that religion is not optional for those who believe. Believing in a religion often involves strong implications about the structure and nature of reality as well as a dominant and inherently correct source for moral and ethical considerations, and many religions have duties beyond the internal and personal. They are not generally buffets where a person is permitted to take the parts they like and ignore the rest. That is separate from walking away from a religious institution (something like "I don't believe that the official church is operating correctly given what the religion teaches"), but religions don't generally consider heresy to be valid (by definition).

If God appeared to you, personally and in a manner which allays all possible doubts about the reality of the experience, and told you that your view on X was wrong and that you should instead adopt a view which was unpalatable to you, would you not feel that your duty would be to correct your position even if it were hard to do? Would a reasonable response to that event be to say "I think [some specific, other religion] fits me better, so I'm going to head over to that one, goodbye"? The idea that religion is optional strikes me as a very worldly and secular view (not necessarily wrong, but not something that the faithful of many religions can really engage with); that can only be true for people who are fundamentally unbelievers.

Government, on the other hand, seems far more malleable to me. We can probably agree that a government has an obligation to enforce its laws, but what those laws are is entirely an arbitrary decision that government can make. People then have options like moving to somewhere with different laws, trying to change what those laws are, or declining to obey, but there is a lot more optionality to these than a divine decree establishing concepts of right and wrong throughout all of reality. It's possible to break a law without anyone ever knowing, while defying a deity's command is probably less escapable. Further, for millennia there has been a lot of debate about what duty a person has to follow a "bad" law while the duty to follow a divine commandment is usually considered to be absolute.

For my part I think that we're always going to be imperfect in our understanding of morality and ethics, and that as a result we should be humble, open, and always questioning things and thinking about the topic. Society has to concern itself with practicalities, like finding a way for people with fundamentally incompatible views to live together, but that is not as true of the people who make up those societies. Seeking a middle ground is doomed to fail when one group feels that any compromise is intolerable, and in such a case why should another group compromise something they value just to not get anything from them?

That's really where subjects like the Renarin-Rlain romance draw controversy. Taking them at their word, there are groups who feel that normalizing same-sex romantic relationships via media in popular culture directly harms them specifically because it presents those relationships as acceptable and normal. As I posted above, I think that taking those groups at their word gives them far too much credit, but their position is not different even if we agree that their actual reasoning is nonsense. They are not interested in compromise or any middle ground and will not be swayed, and at least some of them will use any possible tool to oppose anything short of their favored position (like laws banning such content, social pressure to make it hard to publish or buy books that feature it, and more).

I respect your position and am glad that you have arrived at a tolerant and respectful place, but I don't think that a stance which says "it's OK, but it's not really that OK" is tenable given the reality of the opposition and the religious basis for at least some of your reasoning. (I am not terribly familiar with LDS or related faiths, so please take that last bit with more than a grain of salt). I think of your stance more like a point along the way than a conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong, and in any case "live and let live" is a great approach in the face of uncertainty, and it's hard to think of a better personal approach than compassion, tolerance, and non-judgement.

You're right. I was trying to look at things from a secular perspective, because to any atheist, religion seems optional. But it's my opinion that, if you really, truly believe in a religion, you've got to accept everything that religion says unless you want to start your own that fits your beliefs better. You can't pick and choose what parts of a person you like in a relationship, and I think religion is the same. It's a difficult discussion to have, and I'm still trying to work out what I actually think and what the right answer is. Really, what I've landed on is that I'm not sure. I actually chose the word conclusion intentionally,  because using the word belief indicates to me that I've decided what I think. Conclusion, to me, says that, based on the available information and evidence I have, and the discussions we've had, here's what I've tried to combine together. Maybe not the absolute best choice of words, but it was the best option I could think of at the time.

Ultimately, the only thing I've reached is that I can make decisions for myself, but others' decisions are their own, so I can't condemn them for that. What the middle ground should be, I don't know.

1 hour ago, AquaRegia said:

This right here.  It's taken me a long time (I'll be 58 in a few weeks) to learn this lesson: how I feel about something today is not the same way I felt last year, or ten years ago.  Ergo, my opinions may continue to change.  Intelligent people change their views in light of new facts.  If we all try to remember that we are humble travelers in this life, learning and changing as we grow, we greatly reduce the chance of hurting each other.  I'm with Sir Terry Pratchett - "evil starts when you treat other people like objects."  Hurting others is the only real sin.

I've never been able to accept a religious viewpoint.  We know religious history goes back around 30,000 years, more or less; thousands of cultures, over thousands of years, have had "gods" that told them what to believe and how to behave.  All of them said people who follow OTHER gods are wrong.  Many of them say people who follow other gods are heretics, or infidels, or sinners, and that they need to be taught the "correct" way, sometimes violently.  The idea that, of all the millions of gods that have been worshiped over the centuries, the one *I* believe in is the REAL one, is preposterous to me.  I'm happy to accept I live in a country (the US) that guarantees freedom of religion, as long as that includes freedom FROM religion as well.  I get along fine with my religious family and neighbors, I just don't share their beliefs.  I'm not an atheist; there may be a higher power, but I'm confident it's not described by any existing limited human religion.  I do believe that many religions are making an honest effort to "know" the true nature of divinity, but they invariably fall short when doctrine and dogma develop.  I accept that many people get useful benefits, both in terms of mental health and social behavior, from their religious beliefs.

I have no trouble with you practicing the religion of your choice, as long as it's not hurting anyone.  If you are burning "witches", or lynching black people, or blowing up "infidels" (and, yes, those were all done by religious people for religious reasons), your religion has crossed a simple line for me.  Disallowing a loving relationship between consenting adults seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what a loving god would want, and it's certainly hurtful.  Just ask them.

I honestly can't understand where the Christian "biblical" opposition to homosexuality comes from.  As far as I can tell, Jesus never said a single word about it.   Sure, it's mentioned explicitly in Leviticus, but the Old Testament is full of rules no modern Christian follows.  No planting two crops in the same field.  No wearing clothes made of two fibers. No tattoos. What's different about this one?

As others have said, I'm free to believe what I wish, but it's not up to me to decide how other people's behaviors measure up to my beliefs.  If I'm voting to restrict the rights of others, in cases where no one is being harmed, I'm working in favor of oppression, not love.  I'm free to say "I'm not allowed to do that," and I'm free to say "I don't like when you do that," but it's not OK for me to say "you aren't allowed to do that," except in cases where the goal is to prevent harm.

I'm not sure where other Christian religions get their no-homosexuality rule from; in my religion, the biggest piece of evidence I use in creating that distinction for myself is "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Now, there are probably people who would look at that document and say, "That's a problem, because it's pushing traditional gender norms, oh no!" I look at it and say, "This is the way God has asked me to live, so this is the way I'm going to live." But I'm probably biased, because I don't mind the traditional gender norms and actively want to be a stay-at-home mom one day.

So, yeah. I guess my real conclusion so far is just that I don't know. I know what I believe, and I hear and understand what you guys are saying. I haven't figured out how those two things fit together.

[Argenti he/him]

1 hour ago, AquaRegia said:

I honestly can't understand where the Christian "biblical" opposition to homosexuality comes from.  As far as I can tell, Jesus never said a single word about it.   Sure, it's mentioned explicitly in Leviticus, but the Old Testament is full of rules no modern Christian follows.  No planting two crops in the same field.  No wearing clothes made of two fibers. No tattoos. What's different about this one?

 

34 minutes ago, Ookla said:

I'm not sure where other Christian religions get their no-homosexuality rule from; in my religion, the biggest piece of evidence I use in creating that distinction for myself is "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Now, there are probably people who would look at that document and say, "That's a problem, because it's pushing traditional gender norms, oh no!" I look at it and say, "This is the way God has asked me to live, so this is the way I'm going to live." But I'm probably biased, because I don't mind the traditional gender norms and actively want to be a stay-at-home mom one day.

 

Ohh I can help for this! It's mostly old testament.

Depends who you ask, most common is Leviticus, which is weird, for reasons you've already said.  Leviticus 18:22 reads "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (Side not on this. Some Biblical scholars believe this may have referred to the practice of Pederasty, which was a newly outlawed (By Rome) sexual relationship between a young boy and a older man. Rabbi might have wanted to warn their flock to not do it, and risk legal retribution) There's also Leviticus 20:13 that reads “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (An oxford study claims it may specifically be with a married man, which does change things"

Some people claim Genesis 9:20–27 ("Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked," which some people interpret as having sex with him? Ham was then cursed. But that doesn't make much sense honestly.)

Another one is Genesis 19:1-11, the destruction of Sodom where " Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.  They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with [male angels]... But the [the angels] inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.” (This feels more like, anti-rape than homosexuality honestly. I might be missing something here.)

There's also  Corinthians 6:9-10 which says "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men" (Supposedly, "men who have sex with men" is the Greek words Arsenokoitai, often translated as the "active person in homosexual sex" which is more "men who use their power to demand sex" and Malakoi, which is traditionally translated as the "passive" man, which, at least in other at the time Greek literature, refers to those who love women to much. Weird Greek thing, being effeminate as a male was trying to hard attract the ladies, which was a bad thing, something to do with "giving into passion." )

I encourage people who are very interested in using the bible for guidance to look into what is written in the bible, rather than a translation, which often strips nuance, and can be used to push an agenda, rather than a 100% faithful translation.

[AonSoo he/him]

I'm surprised he was planning this from WoK prime. It felt like a huge change to Renarin and Relains characters in WaT because there was almost nothing about it in earlier books but a large part of their POV's were about their feelings. When reading their POV's it kind of felt like a different character because all previous POV's were so different (that's not a bad thing though I would have liked this development to have come a little slower)