On Renarin and Rlain

[AquaRegia he/him]

2 hours ago, Argenti said:

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.

Wouldn't this require me to read (fluently) in ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic, or whatever?

[Argenti he/him]

1 hour ago, AquaRegia said:

Wouldn't this require me to read (fluently) in ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic, or whatever?

No. If there's a passage that interests you, look it up, read about it. Other people have translated it, and will likely explain their rational for doing it, even better if they have sources. Read a couple different thought processes, and figure out what you think it really meant. The translations aren't impartial, neither is any church: find a medium that you enjoy.

Everything is an interpretation: including my own. That is why I when I said my interpretation, I used uncertain terms. I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, but if those arguments make sense, i'll agree with them. Google is a a wonderful thing for information fact checking, you just have to let it work with you.

 

Edited January 16, 2025 by Argenti
SPAG

[Ookla she/her]

6 hours ago, Argenti said:

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.

Thank you! That's good to know. I still figure I'd better stick with what my church has said, but having the actual Biblical sources and interpretations is pretty interesting to be sure.

Overall, I just want to say thank you to everyone for being so patient with me and being willing to have this discussion; from my standpoint it's been really good to have a chance to actually get to know what you all think about these things a bit better. I have a lot to think about, so thank you for that.

[Geoffray]

Just coming to this thread to say thanks for all participant (@ookla and @AquaRegia in particular). I find it really interresting. So thanks, it will nourish my thinking!

[Ewery1]

5 hours ago, Geoffray said:

Just coming to this thread to say thanks for all participant (@ookla and @AquaRegia in particular). I find it really interresting. So thanks, it will nourish my thinking!

Yeah I’m in agreement! This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for.

It’s interesting - as a gay person myself, in my adulthood I have surrounded myself only with people who would not blink when I kiss my boyfriend. I think it’s pretty clear why that’s the case, my time in the closet as a child was full of the darkest, most horrible moments in my life. It's a time I never, ever want to relive. But, because of that, I rarely interact with people who don’t support gay rights anymore.

I think it's so valuable to interact with and get the viewpoints of people you disagree with. But on the internet it is really rare to find places to have substantive conversations about these sorts of things, usually it's just blatant and disgusting homophobia that brings me right back to those dark times. So thanks all for comporting yourselves in a thoughtful and respectful way!

[AquaRegia he/him]

5 hours ago, Geoffray said:

Just coming to this thread to say thanks for all participant (@ookla and @AquaRegia in particular). I find it really interresting. So thanks, it will nourish my thinking!

Thank YOU for your kind words, and for being part of the discussion!  If it encourages even one person to more thoughtfully consider how their beliefs affect others, it's well worth the effort.

I notice (with little surprise) that no answer has been forthcoming to my earlier question: "what's different about THIS PARTICULAR Old Testament rule?"  I'll rephrase it.

Why are Christians, in general, OK with ignoring so many OT biblical commands - no tattoos on your skin, no dual-fiber clothing, the requirement that a man marry (and impregnate) his brother's widow, etc - but hold on so fiercely to this one about male homosexuality?  (I also note, the bible has nothing to say about FEMALE homosexuality, so I infer lesbians are fine   )  Is there some reason why this one Leviticus verse should be taken any more seriously than all of the others?  Plus, my understanding is that Jesus himself became the "new covenant", breaking the holy covenant described in the Old Testament.  If true, none of those rules should be relevant anymore.  Jesus never said one word about gay love.

Different question: if you don't agree with the last paragraph, I have no problem with you saying "my religion forbids me from doing X."  But why on god's green earth does anyone think it's OK to say "my religion forbids EVERYONE from doing X", especially people who don't follow that religion?  Muslims don't eat bacon.  Should we pass a law against bacon?

I hope that I have not gone too far; I don't want to be seen as attacking anyone's specific religious precepts.  I support religious freedom, and I'm happy millions of people find joy and peace in their faith.  I simply hope people who choose to can consider my questions as ways to examine their own beliefs... I'm not looking for a fight, nor do I feel that this is an "argument" that someone needs to "win".  But these honestly are some issues about religious thinking that have never made sense to me.

[Returned he/him]

4 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

Why are Christians, in general, OK with ignoring so many OT biblical commands - no tattoos on your skin, no dual-fiber clothing, the requirement that a man marry (and impregnate) his brother's widow, etc - but hold on so fiercely to this one about male homosexuality?  (I also note, the bible has nothing to say about FEMALE homosexuality, so I infer lesbians are fine   )  Is there some reason why this one Leviticus verse should be taken any more seriously than all of the others?  Plus, my understanding is that Jesus himself became the "new covenant", breaking the holy covenant described in the Old Testament.  If true, none of those rules should be relevant anymore.  Jesus never said one word about gay love.

Different question: if you don't agree with the last paragraph, I have no problem with you saying "my religion forbids me from doing X."  But why on god's green earth does anyone think it's OK to say "my religion forbids EVERYONE from doing X", especially people who don't follow that religion?  Muslims don't eat bacon.  Should we pass a law against bacon?

I hope that I have not gone too far; I don't want to be seen as attacking anyone's specific religious precepts.  I support religious freedom, and I'm happy millions of people find joy and peace in their faith.  I simply hope people who choose to can consider my questions as ways to examine their own beliefs... I'm not looking for a fight, nor do I feel that this is an "argument" that someone needs to "win".  But these honestly are some issues about religious thinking that have never made sense to me.

Regarding the new covenant: my understanding is that Jesus was explicit that not one word of the old law (from Moses) would change as a result of his new teachings. I think the common translation is "not one jot or one tittle will pass away from the law". The new covenant is a thing, supplanting the old, but it in no way removes any of the old laws which (per the scripture) remain as relevant as they ever were for the faithful. I imagine that's a big part of why the Bible still includes the Old Testament at all. Not that it necessarily matters here, as detailed below.

As for why it's OK to ignore parts of biblical commands, the stock answer is that it isn't. People are nowhere near perfect and most (in my observation) lack the study, reflection, and conviction to do a particularly good job of following their religions' requirements (or moral and ethical requirements, for the non-religious-- this is not a religion problem, it's a human problem). That doesn't mean that they are insincere, necessarily (though that could also produce similar results), but they are often... unskilled as adherents to their faith. I struggled to think of an appropriate word, but all the ones I tested besides "unskilled" sounded to me to be pretty harsh and accusatory. Most faithful I'm people I'm familiar with are aware of this, and they are at least trying to work on it.

While I agree that there is something specific about which obligations people deem worthy of following (why fixate on this thing rather than others? There is almost certainly some reason) it will never be persuasive to tell people they're doing a poor and incomplete job of living their faith, so why not do a poor and incomplete job that is more convenient/comfortable for others? Another way of saying it might be, the answer to that observation is maybe to not get a tattoo rather than to ignore yet another (perceived) obligation. Many religious people are likely to hear that as "you're a bad [follower of your religion], so why not be a little bit worse still at it, to my benefit?".

Finally, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why one person might believe another person's freedom to do something should be constrained. We all do this, and we all think that our rationales are good even if we later change our minds. But I truly believe that the issue on this particular subject is not as related to religious beliefs as many claim, and for that reason I'm not going to dignify the arguments I've come across for why it should be the case here by repeating them. I'll let any proponents of those arguments speak for themselves, if they care to.

In my own experience those arguments are often disingenuous and consequently they aren't even wrong (by which I mean they aren't relevant or coherent enough to rise to the level of being incorrect), which is why arguing against them is generally not productive. That's not to say that there aren't people who are sincere and honest in their belief that homosexuality is wrong and cannot be supported-- there are many who truly believe that they are fulfilling their duties in opposing it. But that's kind of the issue: the core position is a divine edict, and therefore doesn't need examination and very possibly cannot be examined, so the only choices are to obey or to be fundamentally wrong. In cases where the true opposition isn't actually religious (but religion is claimed as the reason anyways) the position is similarly arbitrary.

Edited January 16, 2025 by Returned

[AquaRegia he/him]

35 minutes ago, Returned said:

In my own experience those arguments are often disingenuous and consequently they aren't even wrong (by which I mean they aren't relevant or coherent enough to rise to the level of being incorrect), which is why arguing against them is generally not productive... the core position is a divine edict, and therefore doesn't need examination and very possibly cannot be examined, so the only choices are to obey or to be fundamentally wrong.

Wow.  I do not believe I have ever heard the issue framed quite so succinctly.  Definitely food for thought.  Thank you for this.

37 minutes ago, Returned said:

there are plenty of legitimate reasons why one person might believe another person's freedom to do something should be constrained. We all do this

Yes.  But in my mind (and I believe many others'), there is a very simple test any constraint of freedom needs to pass: "is the action harming anyone?"  This is a legal standard in the US: in order to win a court case, you must "prove harm".  Obviously, the various definitions of "harm" can be argued/litigated endlessly; there are certainly gray areas there.  But can we not agree that a loving relationship (or even casual sex) between consenting adults - regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender - can't be harming anyone else...?

[Ewery1]

1 hour ago, Returned said:

Regarding the new covenant: my understanding is that Jesus was explicit that not one word of the old law (from Moses) would change as a result of his new teachings. I think the common translation is "not one jot or one tittle will pass away from the law". The new covenant is a thing, supplanting the old, but it in no way removes any of the old laws which (per the scripture) remain as relevant as they ever were for the faithful. I imagine that's a big part of why the Bible still includes the Old Testament at all. Not that it necessarily matters here, as detailed below.

As for why it's OK to ignore parts of biblical commands, the stock answer is that it isn't. People are nowhere near perfect and most (in my observation) lack the study, reflection, and conviction to do a particularly good job of following their religions' requirements (or moral and ethical requirements, for the non-religious-- this is not a religion problem, it's a human problem). That doesn't mean that they are insincere, necessarily (though that could also produce similar results), but they are often... unskilled as adherents to their faith. I struggled to think of an appropriate word, but all the ones I tested besides "unskilled" sounded to me to be pretty harsh and accusatory. Most faithful I'm people I'm familiar with are aware of this, and they are at least trying to work on it.

While I agree that there is something specific about which obligations people deem worthy of following (why fixate on this thing rather than others? There is almost certainly some reason) it will never be persuasive to tell people they're doing a poor and incomplete job of living their faith, so why not do a poor and incomplete job that is more convenient/comfortable for others? Another way of saying it might be, the answer to that observation is maybe to not get a tattoo rather than to ignore yet another (perceived) obligation. Many religious people are likely to hear that as "you're a bad [follower of your religion], so why not be a little bit worse still at it, to my benefit?".

Finally, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why one person might believe another person's freedom to do something should be constrained. We all do this, and we all think that our rationales are good even if we later change our minds. But I truly believe that the issue on this particular subject is not as related to religious beliefs as many claim, and for that reason I'm not going to dignify the arguments I've come across for why it should be the case here by repeating them. I'll let any proponents of those arguments speak for themselves, if they care to.

In my own experience those arguments are often disingenuous and consequently they aren't even wrong (by which I mean they aren't relevant or coherent enough to rise to the level of being incorrect), which is why arguing against them is generally not productive. That's not to say that there aren't people who are sincere and honest in their belief that homosexuality is wrong and cannot be supported-- there are many who truly believe that they are fulfilling their duties in opposing it. But that's kind of the issue: the core position is a divine edict, and therefore doesn't need examination and very possibly cannot be examined, so the only choices are to obey or to be fundamentally wrong. In cases where the true opposition isn't actually religious (but religion is claimed as the reason anyways) the position is similarly arbitrary.

Hmm in my view these dichotomies that you present as not as generalized to religion as they are made out to be - but are rather a feature of Christianity. The concept of what even separates religion from other philosophies/ways of living is a very Western/Abrahamic construction and is historically relatively recent. In China, for example, there is the three teaching model of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, which can all be considered religions in their own right, but also chafe against that categorization for various reasons. At times one may be more or less dominant but they are often seen to govern different parts of life. Another piece here is that Christianity is a particular orthodox religion, meaning that the ideas & the scripture are particularly important. Meanwhile, other religions like Islam are more orthopractic, meaning the rituals and doing-focused aspects are more important, as opposed to the actual scripture itself.

I bring this up because I don’t think this system of failing to meeting obligations or live up to their ideals is a feature of religion, and nor do I believe that Christians who do not take their religion wholesale are bad people/bad at religion because they do not find every teaching to be useful to their lives. Some of the most devout people I know are ones who have a very personal relationship with the scripture and have arrived at interpretations that allow for things that others would not, or take issue with aspects other people take for granted.

I know that Christianity is especially relevant here given Brandon’s personal beliefs and the composition of his audience, but I feel that it’s useful to take a step back when categorizing religion writ-large.

Edited January 16, 2025 by Ewery1

[reisleK she/her]

On 1/15/2025 at 12:40 AM, Ewery1 said:

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)?

Me three (4 way DM or forum? Dunno)

[Returned he/him]

19 hours ago, Ewery1 said:

Hmm in my view these dichotomies that you present as not as generalized to religion as they are made out to be - but are rather a feature of Christianity.

Christianity features heavily here because that's the most vocal group (as far as I am aware) that agitates against relationships like Renarin and Rlain in popular fiction. I also tried to be explicit that I don't view the issue of imperfectly following religious obligations as a religious failing as much as a human one which happens to present in a religious context. There are also secular opponents of homosexual relationships which suffer from similar problems. I think I'm missing your point on the rest-- are you suggesting that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism do not have any dictates regarding what is right or wrong to do, or that followers of those can be more or less successful in fulfilling what is required of them?

19 hours ago, Ewery1 said:

Another piece here is that Christianity is a particular orthodox religion, meaning that the ideas & the scripture are particularly important. Meanwhile, other religions like Islam are more orthopractic, meaning the rituals and doing-focused aspects are more important, as opposed to the actual scripture itself.

I'm not sure I quite follow this either. Islam famously is centered on the absolute inerrancy of its central text, and the prescribed and proscribed behaviors come from that text as a result. I think it is unarguable that there are regimes which claim the mantle of Islam and which very strongly enforce things that they believe are prohibited by their sacred text. To my knowledge homosexuality is not more accepted in, say Saudi Arabia or Iran than it is in the U.S.-- rather the opposite. And the "doing-focused aspects" of Islam in those places (as they relate to homosexuality) certainly don't strike me as less severe. I think that maybe I am misunderstanding what you're saying, and I'm definitely not an expert in world religions so I would not be surprised to find gaps in my knowledge which are relevant to this topic and many others.

19 hours ago, Ewery1 said:

I bring this up because I don’t think this system of failing to meeting obligations or live up to their ideals is a feature of religion, and nor do I believe that Christians who do not take their religion wholesale are bad people/bad at religion because they do not find every teaching to be useful to their lives. Some of the most devout people I know are ones who have a very personal relationship with the scripture and have arrived at interpretations that allow for things that others would not, or take issue with aspects other people take for granted.

I don't understand your basis for this as a response, maybe you can clarify? I'm not suggesting that anyone is a bad person (I really try to avoid making such judgements, with varying success), but a divine command is not based in "being useful to your life"-- if your religion clearly and explicitly obligates you to do certain things, those things are useful to your life because god has told you to live in that manner (or you have a similar spiritual/cosmic duty to do so). If a person's faith includes divinely decreed obligations, what scope does an individual have to override those? The same applies if your religion requires some things and forbids others for any reason. There are Buddhists who believe in radical nonviolence, taking great care not to step on insects and filtering water so as not to consume any microorganisms (to the degree that's possible). But there are also violent Buddhist nationalists who engage in ethnic cleansing against non-Buddhists. Would you suggest that people in either group are equally living up to what their (nominally the same) religion requires?

This goes back to my "a religion is not a buffet" argument. If your religion contains a divine precept that you are not ever allowed to eat the flesh of swine, I don't see any way that you could be permitted to eat bacon-- you are prohibited from it, and it's pretty clear and specific. If you decide to eat bacon anyways because you like it, you are doing that part of your religion "wrong", and it seems difficult to me to claim that you are a devout believer and follower of the religion when you just ignore something pretty clear-cut due to a personal preference. Other areas might have more space for interpretation: could you eat broth made from fully-cleaned pork bones? Maybe, I don't know. I don't care about it either way (it's not my rule), but by the standards of this contrived-for-example religion itself the bacon-eater isn't doing the religion as well as they could, and that failure may or may not be serious and may or may not reflect on their status as a follower of that religion.

I 100% agree that many, perhaps most, religious precepts are not so clear. Interpretation of religious matters is incredibly important, and that's the main reason that I suggest humility, thoughtfulness, and caution in making those interpretations, especially when the answers have implications for other people. I think it's broadly not appropriate for an outsider to tell a believer what some specific aspect of their faith means, but I don't think that personal preference, comfort, or convenience is a valid basis for determining right or wrong in any case and certainly not to override an otherwise accepted/clearly stated divine command. If a person is pretty sure that their religion is true and that it commands something, but they find that command uncomfortable, it's an odd stance to say "god said it but got that one wrong, though the rest is right because god said it".

  

19 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

Obviously, the various definitions of "harm" can be argued/litigated endlessly; there are certainly gray areas there.  But can we not agree that a loving relationship (or even casual sex) between consenting adults - regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender - can't be harming anyone else...?

Apparently, we (at the broadest level) cannot. I don't agree with the definitions of harm that are advanced in opposing same-sex relationships, I don't agree with the arguments presented to reify that opposition, and I at least sometimes doubt the honesty of those presenting those arguments. But there is a non-trivial group (in both in number of people and in cultural influence) which fundamentally rejects the core position you've stated and will never agree to it.

Edited January 17, 2025 by Returned

[Geoffray]

My 2 cents on the OT and NT (from a french boy who have been in private school and had catechism until high school):

First, please note, that've been educated in a private school, but not in a religious home. My parents are not religious, they let's me choose.

I am first and foremost a layman (a laic person) and an agnostic. But I believe in religious freedom as long as it's personal and doesn't encroach on my freedom. And from a personal point of view, I must admit that I really like the “character” (if I may say so) of Jesus. The first rebel in a way ^^!

Having finished this introduction, from what I remember of my catechism classes, Jesus updated the ancient sacred texts a little and allowed greater “freedom” in his religious practice. And above all, the New Testament changes from the angry, vengeful god of the Old Testament to a more understanding, “forgiving” god. For me, this is one of the answers to why it's easier not to follow the Old Testament.

I really hope I haven't offended or insulted anyone. It's not easy to write about such a complex subject in a language that isn't my own (as indicated in my sig, i'm a french speaker).

But thanks again for this discussion, it's part of why I love the internet ^^!!!

 

[Mattel]

7 hours ago, Geoffray said:

Having finished this introduction, from what I remember of my catechism classes, Jesus updated the ancient sacred texts a little and allowed greater “freedom” in his religious practice. And above all, the New Testament changes from the angry, vengeful god of the Old Testament to a more understanding, “forgiving” god. For me, this is one of the answers to why it's easier not to follow the Old Testament.

While I understand that it is easy to make a mistake when talking a religion that you personally don't follow, I do want to make it clear that God did not "change" from being angry and vengeful to being understanding. My knowledge of the Bible is weak, but as a Christian I can say that if God is angry it is righteous anger and he does not get Angry often because he loves so strongly, and also God never changes. He is the same as he has ever been and ever will be. The attitude and how he shows up towards us might change because of how we are acting, but however God acts and decides to do must be the right thing. 

Just wanted to make that a little clear, but I don't blame you for getting something wrong since it isn't like "your religion," if I can say that.

[Geoffray]

Thanks for this précisions !!

It was always my impression that there was a "retcon" so to speak. It was a mistake on my part. Thanks!

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

I feel like people need to broaden their horizons and be more interested in understanding those who are different from them. If two guys kissing is going to set people off, then I can only suggest that they be subject to exposure therapy in the form of the works of Yukio Mishima or William S Burroughs so that they can at least have a sense of what is worth of leaving an impression. Rlain and Renarin are a kinda cute, with their mutual social awkwardness, but they are the kind of boring, safe, queerness that the need to garner moral sympathy during the AIDS crisis made the mainstream of the movement. The are honestly too pure and good to be satisfying representation for me, even if I see it as well intentioned.

Let me suppose something that might shock some people: In art, representation is either pointless or harmful; expression is what is meaningful. It is well and good that all human minds contain multitudes, every merciful god and every wrathful asura can be housed in a single mind. What thus has meaning is the expression of those parts of the self which are able to see the intimate beauty of those with whom having children is impossible. Feeling this is a threat to the structuring of society in a way that makes an endless chain of "uses" out of the world and everything thing in it, you might hear Aristotle inventing God somewhere in that, and thus priests will threaten you for it.

[Mattel]

I'll toss my two cents in (for real this time).

I think everyone seems to roughly fall into five different categories.

1. You are totally fine with queer content and highly encourage it, and perhaps are represented by Rlain and Renarin.

2. You are okay with it, and don't personally have strong feelings about it.

3. You don't know enough to have an opinion, or just don't have strong feelings about it in general.

4. You have semi-strong feelings against queer content and relationships, but aren't super strong in your conviction.

5. You are strongly against queer content and queer relationships and are vocal about it.

 

No judgement in these, simply what I have picked up.

So I would put myself in like a 4.5.

The reason I do this is because there are pretty much two main thought processes, and it's the reason chats like these (i.e. How do you feel about inter-species...) tend to get a lot of activity. 

Thought Process #1: It is fine and not morally wrong.

Thought Process #2: It is not fine and is morally wrong.

So it comes down to morality. Do you believe that it is morally wrong or not? 

On 3/28/2025 at 2:52 AM, ParaTulip said:

I feel like people need to broaden their horizons and be more interested in understanding those who are different from them.

So when I hear stuff like this (and I'm not taking any shots at you), then what I am hearing is: "You should be more loving and understanding of people who are different than you who make a morally wrong choice." I personally believe that sex attraction is not morally right, but I do not believe that being attracted to and possibly in a relationship with someone of the same sex makes you any less human. You are still human. I just see it as a wrong choice. It's as simple as that.

But on the flip side some people don't, and that is another choice that is up to them. 

So to use this statement again as a useful relevant example (and again, I am not taking shots at you, simply just you gave such a good sentence to use as an example): I feel like people need to broaden their horizons and be more interested in understanding those who are different from them. *Now I am about to use another example, and I want to make it clear right now that I am not saying these two things that I am comparing are on any similar level* I think that people should be more understanding of murderers, instead of blankly condemning them and thinking they are terrible people. (To be clear, I think that murderers deserve some form of punishment; I have complicated feelings about the death penalty but that is defffffffinitely a topic for another day. I do not agree with the statement I just made.) To me, these are similar statements in their inherent argument. Murdering people to me is wrong, and so is same sex attraction, identifying with a different gender than you were born, etc. While I view murdering as much more wrong, queerness to me is also wrong, just of a less serious extent. 

So I think if you are going to ask any question or make any demand about how people should regard this topic, maybe ask the person you are talking with and yourself this: What ideal/value/moral am I/you using to justify my/your opinion?

Edited March 31, 2025 by Mattel

[Entr0pic He/him]

I’ll throw my opinion into this thread, although i don’t have much else to add. 

I, personally, like that Brandon has included Renarin and Rlain’s relationship (partly because I’m part of the LGBTQIA+ group). I believe that this has been said in this thread before, but no matter if you like it or not, we exist. To exclude gay characters is frankly unrealistic, especially in a society that does not have the same histories and stigmas that ours does. I heavily dislike it when people try and quash any form of representation for us. You don’t have to like us, but isn’t condemning us to hell silently enough? Do you have to do it out loud? I go to a catholic school, and being told everyday that “you’re going to hell and here’s why” really sucks for my mental health. You have freedom to believe anything you want; i don’t have the will nor right to stop you. But extent us a courtesy and condemn us in private, or at least not as blatantly. For the record, i don’t hate people of Abrahamic faiths. I have multiple Islamic friends, and i know plenty of good, respectful, and nice Catholics, and I’ve met many really cool people who are members of LDS on this site, including many of the people on this thread. I do have a problem with people telling me that I’m wrong and a sinner for the heinous crime of being attracted to men. For those of us that do take that stance, i want you to place yourself in my shoes. How would you feel, if you were surrounded by people who make you feel like utter crap for existing, making you feel like you need to suppress who you are because it’s inherently wrong. (Sorry that this kind of devolved into a rant. Again, i don’t hate all people who believe in Abrahamic faiths. I have faith that the most of you all are nice, respectful, and lovely people. My critiques are targeted towards people who want to quash out LGBTQIA+ representation & the notion of it entirely. I apologize if i came off that way. Please tell me if i overstepped here. I don’t want to be a hypocrite, but i feel strongly about this topic) 

But, on a related note, I’m more happy in Renarin’s portrayal of autism. As an autistic person, i like that they aren’t very explicitly autistic. When a characters are written as specifically autistic, they always come off as the author saying “hey guys, look! Here’s an autistic person! I’m such a good person, right?,” while writing the most stereotypical version of autism that there can be (such stereotypical versions of autism do exist, but they aren’t as common as everyone thinks). But Brandon does a good job of writing autism as just a facet of their personality. I’m not entirely defined by my autism, it’s just a part of me. Renarin, aswell isn’t defined by his autism. Renarin comes off as Brandon saying “hey, i want to include some representation”, and not as someone who wants good favor. I feel the same way about steris. 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2025 by Entr0pic

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

10 hours ago, Mattel said:

So when I hear stuff like this (and I'm not taking any shots at you), then what I am hearing is: "You should be more loving and understanding of people who are different than you who make a morally wrong choice." I personally believe that sex attraction is not morally right, but I do not believe that being attracted to and possibly in a relationship with someone of the same sex makes you any less human. You are still human. I just see it as a wrong choice. It's as simple as that.

No, you have misheard:

I am denouncing your morality as false for the reason that it is the fruit of the same tree as sexism, racism, and slavery.

I think you should understand the most vile people you can imagine. Study the writings of rapists like de Sades, converse with child murderers like [pick a living US president], and imagine why you could become Hitler himself under his circumstances. 

They are as human as you. If you cannot do these things, you are at risk of becoming like those you hate without knowing why. If you understand those people from their example, you have a chance to realize when you are on that path and thus you can depart it.

10 hours ago, Mattel said:

So I think if you are going to ask any question or make any demand about how people should regard this topic, maybe ask the person you are talking with and yourself this: What ideal/value/moral am I/you using to justify my/your opinion?

What kinds of ideal/value/moral do you find acceptable? I simply state what I know as truth yet seems to be unstated in as clear and bold terms as I can. I don't think my ideas come from such sources, but instead from my experiences in life and my efforts to study the shape of society. I am a materialist in the way of Georges Bataille.

If you want, though I am an atheist, I can make an argument which appeals to the book of Genesis. I imagine you use a notion of God to justify your position, since secular homophobia is rare.

Edited March 31, 2025 by ParaTulip
corrected some minor errors in letters.

[AsherCrane]

For me personally, I can't quite put myself on Mattel's scale because I do have strong convictions about gay relationships, but I'm also not overly vocal about it (unless asked, like this particular thread did). I understand that most people believe strongly enough in whatever conviction that trying to argue or debate them is an exercise in futility.

Having said that, I do get why Renarin and Rlain were in the book. Gay people exist, and it's fair to say a fictional world would not be as human without them. I won't say I need them to be main characters, but I'm also not biased toward that, so of course I would.

I knew there would be gay romance in the book, so as with anything else I don't want to read too much of, it was a matter of thresholds to me. With little enough, I'd still have bought it. With some more, I still finished it. (I didn't buy it, but Renarin and Rlain were very much not the only reason for that by a long road.) And if there was enough to make me uncomfortable enough, I'd have put it down and been done with the series. It didn't reach that, so I intend to continue the series.

Edited March 31, 2025 by AsherCrane
Misc grammar

[therunner he/him]

On 3/31/2025 at 2:34 AM, Mattel said:

I'll toss my two cents in (for real this time).

I think everyone seems to roughly fall into five different categories.

1. You are totally fine with queer content and highly encourage it, and perhaps are represented by Rlain and Renarin.

2. You are okay with it, and don't personally have strong feelings about it.

3. You don't know enough to have an opinion, or just don't have strong feelings about it in general.

4. You have semi-strong feelings against queer content and relationships, but aren't super strong in your conviction.

5. You are strongly against queer content and queer relationships and are vocal about it.

I'd put myself in 2 then, I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't be there. It is the same as Shallan-Adolin, or Navani-Dalinar romance, it's just another romance.

Quote

Thought Process #1: It is fine and not morally wrong.

Thought Process #2: It is not fine and is morally wrong.

So it comes down to morality. Do you believe that it is morally wrong or not? 

On what basis do you believe that thought?

Because if you are fine with other romance, but not this one, then that is quite simply bigoted viewpoint.

Quote

. *Now I am about to use another example, and I want to make it clear right now that I am not saying these two things that I am comparing are on any similar level* I think that people should be more understanding of murderers, instead of blankly condemning them and thinking they are terrible people. (To be clear, I think that murderers deserve some form of punishment; I have complicated feelings about the death penalty but that is defffffffinitely a topic for another day. I do not agree with the statement I just made.) To me, these are similar statements in their inherent argument. Murdering people to me is wrong, and so is same sex attraction, identifying with a different gender than you were born, etc. While I view murdering as much more wrong, queerness to me is also wrong, just of a less serious extent.

That is gigantically large false equivalency, and not in the magnitude of wrongness.

Murder is considered wrong basically universally (meaning in-group murder, outside of ritualized sanctioned killings), and the reasoning is quite simple by murdering someone you take away their right to anything, you violate their personal integrity in the largest way possible.

What does someone else being in same-sex relationship take away? I.e. why is it wrong? Just feeling something is wrong does not necessarily make it so (and conversely of course).

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

15 hours ago, AsherCrane said:

For me personally, I can't quite put myself on Mattel's scale because I do have strong convictions about gay relationships, but I'm also not overly vocal about it (unless asked, like this particular thread did). I understand that most people believe strongly enough in whatever conviction that trying to argue or debate them is an exercise in futility.

I actually am the type to enjoy the clash of convictions. I think there is nothing more worthy an expenditure of time than the sounding of idols by using one's own as the hammer to test another. We are all capable of being superiors to Abraham in this way, taking the blows to even our final idol in a hope it will prove itself living and true but accepting we will be without a scapegoat for our wrongs should it fail.

Spoiler

That's how I read Twilight of the Idols anyway. To me, extant religions are best understood by philologists. Imagine Tolkien and Nietzsche affirming each other.

 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

6 hours ago, therunner said:

That is gigantically large false equivalency, and not in the magnitude of wrongness.

Murder is considered wrong basically universally (meaning in-group murder, outside of ritualized sanctioned killings), and the reasoning is quite simple by murdering someone you take away their right to anything, you violate their personal integrity in the largest way possible.

I think you are mislead to not see the earnest comparison. Murder is wrong because it is defined as the wrongful killing of another person. There is a different notion, homicide, which is distinct from murder. It is thus possible to see in someone's comparison of relationships of two people of the same gender or sex the same notion that there is a rightful and a wrongful conduct of physical intimacy, and they have adopted some ethos which says homosexuality is innately wrong.

6 hours ago, therunner said:

What does someone else being in same-sex relationship take away? I.e. why is it wrong? Just feeling something is wrong does not necessarily make it so (and conversely of course).

I think asking about taking away is too much of an imposition of a frame. The morality of utility has plenty of flaws, and so you might be better to not assume it is reasonable to other people when talking to them.

I want to be clear that I agree with your position, people should be accepting of queer relationships. However,  I have seen these kinds of arguments before. I have felt that they are flawed on a deep level, and I am hoping this discussion will be a place where less flawed arguments might be forged.

[therunner he/him]

4 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

I want to be clear that I agree with your position, people should be accepting of queer relationships. However,  I have seen these kinds of arguments before. I have felt that they are flawed on a deep level, and I am hoping this discussion will be a place where less flawed arguments might be forged.

I sincerely doubt any discussion will be less flawed, likely none of the people engaging with it are philosophers or moral scholars, so we will simply re-tread already existing argument.

4 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

I think asking about taking away is too much of an imposition of a frame. The morality of utility has plenty of flaws, and so you might be better to not assume it is reasonable to other people when talking to them.

You cannot have morality without imposition of some frame. Some are more arbitrary than others, but all moral approaches come down to some choice of frame.

4 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

 Murder is wrong because it is defined as the wrongful killing of another person.

That is a circular definition, you are saying murder is wrong because it is wrong.

4 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

I think you are mislead to not see the earnest comparison.

I am not mislead, I simply don't see the comparison as valid in any way, shape or form.

I could see analogy with e.g. polygamy, as that is also violation of sexual norms between adults. But murder is altogether different category (as I note, it is nearly universal taboo, whereas same sex relationships are not).

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

19 hours ago, therunner said:

That is a circular definition, you are saying murder is wrong because it is wrong.

I am not saying this. Society says this. Murder is wrong when a killing is found to be wrong. Perversion or sexual immorality is wrong only when intimacy is found to be wrong. Right and wrong exist outside the acts of killing or loving a human being. If we do try to explain our own perspectives on when a killing is wrong, then all we say when we say murder is wrong is that wrongful acts are wrong.

19 hours ago, therunner said:

You cannot have morality without imposition of some frame. Some are more arbitrary than others, but all moral approaches come down to some choice of frame.

Then what is yours? Mine is simple enough: Morality is just the aesthetics of prideful priests. I desire a beautiful world, and yet I know that my sense of what is beautiful is my own, and thus I do not seek a universal moral reasoning. Utilitarians disgust me as they suppose they can know the desires of others as a mass.

 

 

[therunner he/him]

3 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

I am not saying this. Society says this. Murder is wrong when a killing is found to be wrong. Perversion or sexual immorality is wrong only when intimacy is found to be wrong. Right and wrong exist outside the acts of killing or loving a human being. If we do try to explain our own perspectives on when a killing is wrong, then all we say when we say murder is wrong is that wrongful acts are wrong.

What are you even trying to say here?

All you are saying are circular definitions, things are wrong because they are wrong. Those are empty statements.

Question is, why do people consider those things to be wrong, not the mere fact that they consider them as such.
 

3 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Then what is yours?

Mine are roughly speaking care-based ethics, i.e. behaviours that promote healthy relationships and well-being of individuals, and their interdependance.
 

Quote

Mine is simple enough: Morality is just the aesthetics of prideful priests. I desire a beautiful world, and yet I know that my sense of what is beautiful is my own, and thus I do not seek a universal moral reasoning. Utilitarians disgust me as they suppose they can know the desires of others as a mass.

Everyone has morality, calling it 'aestethics of prideful priests' is myopic. Also, I would say that most people can agree that they desire 'beautiful' or 'good' world, the problem comes from the fact that what is 'beautiful' or 'good' changes from person to person. That does not preclude trying to find more universal moral reasoning. E.g. killing or betraying your kin is considered bad in basically every culture we know of, hence it is a (nearly) universal moral value. Homophobia by contrast, is not.

Understanding that your morality is not universal is healthy standpoint, however that does not mean that we have to embrace moral relativism, again some rules are...laughable I would say.

For example, having your left-hand as dominant was considered morally wrong/sinful for quite large part of history in Europe (not just there, but let's focus on just that area), and people were forcibly converted to right-handed.
Today, in most of the same countries, that is no longer the case, and in fact forcing left-handed person to use right hand would be likely considered as assault on them.

My question is, how is that different from trying to impose heteronormative behavior on homosexual person? If trying to forcibly change hand dominance is now recognized as bad, why is it not bad with sexuality?
 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2025 by therunner