I ended up on this. http://www.fictionpress.com/s/1906813/1/
So, now I'm wondering what y'all think about sexuality in (fan)fiction. I personally think there are different ways of writing sexuality. Some writers go absolutely insane with pornographic descriptions, with other it is sweet and nice, and then there are some talented writers that manage to describe it without being explicit if you get what I mean.
For me, sexuality in (fan)fiction, is definitely one of the things that attract me, even though it doesn't necessarily mean I don't read anything else.
Some writers make it really vulgar, of course, but in general I don't think it should be seen as a sin to read or write about sexuality.
Back in the days when anyone LGBT was being murdered because he/she admitted to not fall in love with someone of the opposite gender, many teens ended up not understanding what was going on in bed. I mean, I'm happy to live in this generation when most talk more free about it all and teens are made aware what the consequences of sex are, unlike back then.
Wut.
Lust is a perfectly natural aspect of human nature, and erotic fiction and pornography are simply ways for people to live out their fantasies without harming anyone. If anything, I'd say that repressing it like that has better odds of leading to bad stuff down the line - just look at what happened to Dave Sim.
As with Jack Thompson, some people need to learn the difference between fantasy and reality.
Unless, y'know, we're talking about Agony in Pink. Then there's no excuse.
I find it amusing. The people who write tasteful stuff are often the more in tune with their sexuality and sex life.
However, seeing as the vast majority of people who write lemons and all the other erotic fiction haven't actually a clue about sex, some of the stuff they write is funny as hell.
For example, I read one fic, where every woman wanted the main character to do them in every hole they could find. And I'm thinking, what on earth? Now, it would be mildly amusing if it were a crack-fic, but the guy (obviously male as otherwise they'd realise that it would never happen) is putting so much effort in it's just sad... and hilarious to actually read as he has no idea.
It's really stupid though, that sex often ruins a perfectly good fanfic. For example, you can read one where they end up taking 20 chapters before one sexual mention, with absolutely amazing ideas and sub-plot, then boom! - sex scene happens and immediately the quality is sub-poor or sexual puns are submitted into every second line.
I guess it depends on where it is in a fic aswell. Personally from writing, I do like to start it up a little and make hints that it's what happened, but I rarely go into detail (My fic 'Domination' aside.)
If you're going for something like a relationship that's building throughout the fic, then it's a hurdle that's bound to happen eventually, so if it's well written, can enhance. Though if it's just out of nowhere and just there for the sake of being there then it can get a bit meh.
I completely agree with Iaculus.
I stopped reading that passage halfway through. If it's not harming anyone, I don't see how it can be so wrong.
For the record, I grumble about 90% of fanfics being written by horny teenagers with minimal knowledge of basic anatomy as much as anyone else. It's not their sexuality I find sinful and wrong, though, so much as their casual butchering of the language and the medium.
Well-written, well-characterised stories are well-written, well-characterised stories, regardless of their content. I once played a game in which a basic strategy was to set an enemy on fire, let them jump in a lake to put themselves out, and then hit them with a massive electric shock, but does that make me a giggling mass-murderer in real life? Hell, no.
Oh, and I was unsurprised to note that two out of three of those excerpts were from the Epistles. Let's face it, people, Paul had some serious hang-ups.
I read the link and I think maybe it was a bit too one-sided on the religious part of it, and didn't quite make it easy to read for those who aren't believers. So no wonder there were some reviews which didn't agree with the text.
@Bola: I also read your review. Although Digigirl02 (the author of text) was talking more about physical sex than the writing and reading of it, I think she was saying that we should not fall into the temptation of having lustful thoughts and thinking of sex in the wrong way, that is, as a thing without 'love' and is all about pleasure. With the countless (fan)fiction out there with sex in them, it is possible that too many young adults are getting the wrong idea about sex because of the way it's depicted in stories.
Of course 'lust' or desire is there for a good reason, so that two people can be attracted to each other and make babies; which is, on one hand, the biological purpose fulfilled. God did say in the bible he wanted us to multiply and spread out on the Earth.
BUT on the other hand, which was what Digigirl02 was going on about mostly, God doesn't stand for adultery or immoral sex, including sex before marriage. When people do those things, they have committed sin, as those actions are unclean/unholy to God. And writing or reading about it excessively is like you're committing that sin in your heart and mind: you're filled with lust even though you're not 'doing it' physically. Figuratively speaking, you're 'doing it' by reading and writing so much about sex.
It's more the spiritual than the physical part of it that's a problem, in this case.
Was never that keen on thoughtcrime, to be honest - always felt a bit 1984-ish. It's actions that apply, in my opinion.
Besides, the notion of 'young adults' getting moral instruction from lemony fanfic is... decidedly odd. To be fair, though, let's not forget that the Song of Solomon was basically flat-out porn, and look at how the book that's in ended up.
Who knows - My Immortal might end up as the next gospel. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I never have explicit sex in my fics, preferring the 'James Bond method' of turning the camera away at the last minute. On the other hand, I am fond of alternative pairings, and my characters are often involved in multiple polyamorous pairings or fetishistic relationships.
Tl;Dr
But yeah...
I don't think sex in fanfiction, or for that matter, fiction in general is a bad thing, like was said above - as long as it's not horrifically badly done.
Now I'm not a relegious person, and to be perfectly honest, I don't see what is wrong with going out and having sex for pleasure, but what I do disagree with is going out and having sex with every person you come across in life. I like the emotional bond, but just because me and my ex were intimate, didn't necessarily mean we were ONLY doing it because we loved each other, there has to be a balance in life.
Now I do agree with the statement that some people just take it far to far. Lemons can be well written, but then there are the ones that are so obviously written by horny teenagers who don't have a clue what they're talking about, and to be perfectly honest, it can ruin a perfectly good fic, yes.
However, if it's a story where the characters gradually build up to it, or on the contrary, even if they jump straight into bed together, as long as it's well thought through, and the after effects are ALSO thought through, then really I don't actually see a problem with it.
I have no idea what I just typed. Tl;Dr, it's probably crap =]
Marlowe Quote Alert:
'Stipendium peccati mors est ... Si peccasse negamus, fallimur, et nulla est in nobis veritas. Why, then, belike we must sin and so consequently die. Ay, we must die an everlasting death.'
I share Faustus' opinion on this.
Which one?
Last I checked, him changing his mind was a pretty big plot point.
The first, naturally. This is personal interpretation, but he seemed to be proven right- note that he was not forgiven. If he had followed another path, he would have been just as regretful. One could argue that he is already in hell from the start of the play, which would tally quite well with the section I quoted. I would also say that God is compared to him at one point (the scene with the horse-courser), which I think is evidence of the atheism that pervades the play. Marlowe's message appears, to me, at least, to be 'do what you must for your own satisfaction, because either way you'll suffer'.
Or, better:
'You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.'
@Bola
I have seen that "fic" before, It is ridiculous to say the least, I'll come to agree with everyone else here saying that as long as it is well written there is no problem with it.
I do write[and read] about a lesbian canon couple, nearly all my stories are romances, so of course they will end up in bed with one way or another. then not all my stories include lemons. Only when i feel that it adds in the story. if the plot is about how these two meet, having some hardship etc and finally after a lot of hardship they get together, then a Lemon is well appreciated.
also is the author's choice of how far they want to take it.
On the other hand when the plot is not centered in their romance, even though they end up in bed, the lemon can be avoided, the author can give hints of the start of lovemaking etc, and then let it to the imagination. that also works when the characters having sex for second or third+ times in one story in different chapters. you write the Lemon first, then you have it more soft, poetic, etc and leave some things to the imagination.
It's all about writing skills and not the actual plot/couple etc.
Just read that link.
Lol what a douche that girl is. Not just for the rant against people who read erotica, but also for the fact that she felt the need to mislead people to get them to read it.
I don't need to be saved - and if I rot in hell, I'll do it happily.
I think the whole argument is rendered invalid when you point out, as Iaculus did in no.8, that the bible is FULL of sex and violence- by the good guys. As he or she pointed out, has anyone read Song of Solomon? The whole thing is about some sexy Shulamite girl and her body. King David watched Batsheba bathing, had an affair with her, then orchaestrated her husbands death. And he was forgiven, coincidently. So the bible is full of sexual shennaigans, yet are all Christians running around having sex? I think its deeply unfair to force people to listen to your beliefs (the author falsly led people into reading her fic- so she also has commited the sin of lying), to do so in an arena where they cannot argue back (the author could have, should have, put that issue on to a forum. Instead with a fic she can have her say, be guaranteed that people will read, then totally ignore any reviews anyway. Her belief and condemnation stands alone). What gets me also is that soem reviews say she is defending her faith. No, defending your faith is when someone accuses it of something, and you stand up for yourself (which is obviously commendable) self righteously condeming people in an unfair, condescending and faux humble tone is not defending her faith. It's starting a debate than running away before anyone can say anything back. Not commendable and pathetic. I don't think all the Christians who died for the faith by really defending or by being killed by people who did not agree with them are really having their sacrifices honoured by Christians like her.
@moonphase9: I wish I could say it like you just did. Well said.
@moonphase9: It's not the fact she's defending her religion - I think that's an admirable trait. Truly, we need more people with that attitude, being able to stand up for your beliefs, if we hope to survive in this political climate. It's more the fact she then preaches on about how this is wrong and immoral.
I don't understand what the big deal is. I mean, the Greek male nobles and philosophers were practically all bisexual or homosexual, and history never says anything of it. For thousands of years, humanity has been like this, and I doubt anyone will ever change it. Why it's such a big deal that it's wrong according to people who came five hundred years after the "Son of God" means we cannot do anything except think of sex as procreation and nothing more is a mystery to everyone which they all ignore.
It's only the immoral sex (homosexual, bisexual, incest relationships) that the bible says is wrong. God actually wants us to enjoy sex. But not to do it promisciously (not sure if that's the right spelling) and carelessly. This can extend to what kind of marriage you have too.
>>18 the ancient greeks were a lot of things that nowadays civilizations don't even think of being.
ancient greeks [or better ancient Hellenics] had no taboo on the subject of sex. even the most perverted lemon writers would blush if they would read Aristophanes. I great amount of Sappho's writing were burned by Christians. because they contained lesbian love. along with other ancient literature that contained homosexuality.
please note that Ancient Hellenics were too few and loved war too much, so they have nothing in common with Neo-greeks.
Roman, Egyptian, Ottoman empires plus 400 years under Turkish occupancy there is no ancient Hellenic blood/DNA left.
Does the Bible actually have anything much on lesbian relationships? The downsides, that is - Ruth and Naomi totally had a thing going on.
All the prohibitions seem to relate to guys, though there might be summat from Paul. There usually is.
Also, curious fact - according to Leviticus, marrying your brother's ex-wife counts as incest. Who knew?
>>19 eeyop i found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
If I am not wrong Sodom and Gomorrah was about prostitution more than anything else, I might be wrong.
also that wiki page says that Sodomy is about Anal and Oral sex plus zoophilia[a.k.a: bestiality]
if we let Zoophilia to the side. Almost ALL straight couples practice Oral and Anal sex [as homosexual couples do too]
so the immorality goes to everyone not only homosexuals.
actually the only sex that is not immoral is the Missionary position.
okay i don't know how this got on to bible talk but God created sex. God is love and he created us in his image to love.sex is not immoral. However saying that sex was designed to be the ultimate expression of love between a man and a women deeply commited to each other and bound by marriage. it specifically says in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, that doesn't mean gays are evil or anything, it just mean thier actions are against Gods laws. Truly tho we can't help who we fall in love with and i think God the creator of love would understand that.
Anyways sex can be good in a fanfic and is the natural progression of a loving, meaningful and commited relationship. why shouldn't we write about the pinical expression of love in our stories.
@22- Wasn't that Henry VIII's excuse for divorcing Catherine of Aragon?
Well, I have recently written a piece of Sappho, and from the moment it has been beta-read, it is going online. I didn't think for a second while writing about how bad it could be or how bad others could feel about it. I think everyone should write what he or she likes and feel free to find others who like the same, whether it includes sexuality or not. As SeraEris already stated, back in the times of the Ancient Greeks/Hellenics, people were more open about things like that. Because of Christianity and other religions that didn't accept it, all of that was being seen and portrayed as bad, dirty and whatever. People are slowly sobering up, but I'm almost sure that even though that modernity is coming along, religions will still hang in some people in the end and even though I think everyone will be more open about it in about ten years and later, I don't think it'll ever be the same as in Greek times. Religions and history have left their scars upon the world.
On the plus side, women aren't seen as basic breeding machines anymore, and slavery's been outlawed.
Seriously, the Hellenic city-states were patriarchal like whoa. Gay guys may have had it fine, but lesbians got clamped down on hard.
>>27 that is true for Athens only, where women were nothing but a tools.
Sappho was from the island of Lesvos, [that's why homosexual women are called Lesbians]
ancients actually made love for many reasons, sex was an act of respect the most, and it wasn't labeled as heterosexual or homosexual, it was just sex.
that's is basically the difference between them and the present world. :)
The thiasoi of Sappho and her ilk were a very temporary social institution, though, and an oddity even in their time. Once the Hellenic patriarchy caught up, there was no saving them.
sex was never ment to be seen as bad and dirty but loveing and pure. however i agree in a fan fic its totally up to author in fantasy fiction you can make your characters do whatever it just can degrade the story in certain peoples eyes if the sex is "bad"
perhaps i should have put without love instead of "bad". but then again it depends what story and if the character needs a traumatic experiance etc etc...
I read some sexual fics. Not a lot, however, because some are just downright disgusting and far too explicit that could even make a porn flick look good.
I use sexuality in a different way with my stories, if I use it at all. I don't like the down and dirty, but there are ways to get it across without saying one thing about it :D
The stories I used it on were a first time try. I guess I didn't do too bad lol
>>29 where did you read that info? I couldn't find it, is there a link? please share because now I'm curious.
>>21 The bible is mainly partiarchal so that's why males pronouns and nouns are often used in laws and descriptions. Basically females are also included in the laws (at least they should be otherwise it'd be unfair).
>>23 Huh, I didn't really know that those actions are sinful even to heterosexual couples.Well, I've never read in the bible about sexual positions as sinful, but it doesn't give full account details, so...
Funnily enough, last Sunday the sermon in my church was talking about sexual sin. She said that God wouldn't have been so unfair to forbid homosexuality if it were natural. Since it isn't, in the bible, God forbid it and made it a law. I don't pretend to understand homosexuals or what they go through; they must be more confused about themselves than other people. In my mind I just can't understand how they're attracted to the same sex, other than because they just are. But I do know that it isn't natural to begin, not only bcause of the bible but because throughout history and culture there is a lot of contraversy in it and made taboo mostly.
>>34
eeyop
sex is sex as long as it doesn't produce a new life it is sinful. so straight couples who practice sex only for pleasure and they use anti-pregnancy stuff then they are as much sinful as homosexuals who are having sex.
don't forget that god condemned Adam and Eve and threw them from heaven because they had sex. later he forgave them because they produced a child. but he didn't took them back to heaven.
also there is a thin line between god's words and what was written by men in a book. also Christianity come from South-west Asian countries that were very strict communities in a lot of fields. don't forget that the same ppl separated men and women in the churches / temples.
even though god showed with adam and eve that there is no difference.
I don't know how many priestesses does Catholic church has [I know that it has] but in eastern orthodox church women are not allow to be priestesses.
as for homosexual, I can't be in their mind but my gay friends saying that are not confused about themselves in the slightest.
Actually its just a theory (for want of a better word) that sex was the reason Adam and Eve were evicted.
Another line of Christian thought is that Adam and Eve, through eating the forbidden fruit, were demanding autonomy. Also in Genesis one of the commandments was to 'fill the earth' and by fill, I'm pretty sure he meant babies. So God knew what sex would result in.
>>35 Wait, God created sex; why would he create Eve for Adam then, if not for this purpose? She was meant to 'complete' Adam as a friend, helper and partner, for God wanted Adam to take care of the earth he had created, and he gave him Eve to help him do that - also to multiply the human race.
Plus, Adam and Eve got rejected out of the garden of Eden because Eve disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the tree of wisdom, tempted by the snake i.e Satan, and consequently Eve gave Adam the fruit she ate.
Sex outside of marriage is supposed to be a sin. So even though married couples have sex, but do not want a child, they shouldn't be doing anything wrong, except if they take things that alter their biology in order to prevent pregnancy. I don't think external contraceptives like a condom is negative because it's not changing couples' bodies, and it helps protect against STIs.
I have a friend who believes in God but is homosexual. I talked to him and he seems confused and torn. He said he didn't ask to be like this either, and I really sympathise for him.
>>37
you are confusing me, isn't lust one of the 7 deadly sins?
you'll tell me they love each other, but allow me to say that is not always love when it comes to sex.
yes two people who are in love they will have sex engulfed with love but without lust there is no sexual arousal.
>don't think external contraceptives like a condom is negative because it's not changing couples' bodies
for the same reasons homosexual sex is not a sin.[I know you talked for married couples by god, but I'll try to make a point]
actually since homosexual couples ALSO share endless and undying love they are the same as heterosexual couples.
that's what I am trying to say.
-nods- I can ensure you that true love between two women or men is possible. I personally rather be happy with a woman than unhappy with a man. Not necessarily because I don't like men, because I actually do, since I am bi. Just because everyone is different and I have fallen for that person, not for his/her sex. And I personally think that since everyone kicks on the 'multiply yourself' rule, that is why people started seeing homosexuality as wrong.
Sin was not introduced before Eve got tempted by Satan into eating that apple. There was no lust, in that Adam and Eve only wanted to have sex and didn't love each other. They were made for each other. There should be attraction, but not of the lust kind.
On your second point, I understand what you mean (about sharing love). But the difference in the kind of partners involved still divides hetero and homo relationships on moral/cultural grounds.
>>40 actually we are turning back to the same thing. since Christianity came ppl started making taboo out of a lot of thing.
>>33 From Wikipedia (original source: Oxford Classical Dictionary):
"In addition to being a poet, Sappho was the head of what was known as a thiasos. Thiasoi were communities of women in which Greek women could receive a limited form of education. Critically, however, girls in these communities also experienced homosexual love, sometimes for their mistresses (Sappho writes of her love for various students of hers) and sometimes for each other. As the polis evolved, however, marriage came to be an integral instrument for the organization of the culture, and women were confined to their houses; the thiasoi were no more. Girls were taught from their infancies that it was their duty and destiny in life to give their love to the men who would one day be their husbands. Female homosexuality had no place within the constraints of this new social organization."
>>34 That's a hell of an assertion, that homosexuality is wrong due to the historical treatment of it. What's your opinion on, say, slavery? Are black people unclean or inferior because we Europeans haven't treated them very well?
There are a couple of reasons why homosexuality may have been historically discouraged... and even then, we've seen that such discouragement was far from universal. In addition to the Greeks and Romans, the Egyptians were very gay-friendly, and also more consistently laid-back about lesbianism (though their rather odd identifiers of what qualified someone as male or female might have had something to do with that). Later on, the Moors of southern Spain were similarly relaxed, and that's just a few examples from Europe alone.
First off, the high infant mortality rate until relatively recently made producing lots of babies very important. Second, anal sex (note that a particular number of prohibitions are against male homosexuality) has a particularly high chance of transmitting STDs. Modern condoms have redressed the balance there, but before we had those... well, you see what I'm getting at. Incidentally, lesbian sex is pretty much the cleanest possible. You'll note that a lot of stuff in Leviticus was based on health and wellbeing. Don't commit incest. Don't eat seafood. Don't drink from water an animal's died in. With that in mind, the prohibitions against sodomy make a whole lot more sense.
>>41 You mean Judaism. Christianity was just a spin-off, adapted from prior teachings - the name itself means 'followers of Christ'. They have many similarities or flat-out identical bits, of course, but that's not because Christianity came up with them.
>>43 well technically yes it's Judaism but Christianity was the one who spread all those things to a lot more ppl in the world.
>>42 hmm that's interesting in Sappho's wikipage has that
>The 3rd century philosopher Maximus of Tyre wrote that Sappho was "small and dark" and that her relationships to her female friends were similar to those of Socrates:
> What else could one call the love of the Lesbian woman than the Socratic art of love? For they seem to me to have practised love after their own fashion, she the love of women, he of men. For they said they loved many, and were captivated by all things beautiful. What Alcibiades and Charmides and Phaedrus were to him, Gyrinna and Atthis and Anactoria were to the her ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sappho
that's why I still find it quite interesting as a fact.
>>44 The taboos themselves, though, existed for a wee bit longer.
@42
ugh, posted on accident (I'm so stupid) anyway, Iaculus, I really liked your comment (no.42) I noticed that the Hebrew scriptures had a lost of rules, and they seemed to be for hygeine purposes and so whilst completly logical at the time, do not matter so much anymore (and therefore many Christians do not need to follow them.)
I respect the Bible and Christianity, and I think some of the ideas of chastity are good, but some of the rules (namely, the anti-homosexuality) I just do not understand. It seems cruel that God would make something enjoyable but then ban it.
To me homosexuality seems very different to other sins such as thievery or murder; those things harm other people. I can't see what is so damaging about homosexuality. I mean, I get the whole 'populating the Earth' bit, but the Earth is pretty full and there is more than enough hetrosexual people. We're hardly going to go extinct are we?
>We're hardly going to go extinct are we?
if human race is going to extinct[lol] it will be because we are destroying the planet, not because of different sexualities.
also homosexual make babies as well, maybe not with the traditional way but they do nonetheless.
>>48 Just as we're no longer so likely to drop dead from eating seafood - which reminds me, I really need to grab that olives-and-anchovies pizza I was planning on getting.
Medicine marches on.
Thank you.
@Bola- You're welcome.
Can I simply ask Iaculus a question? I write Gay M rated fanfics that are in no way overly horny or disturbing. I am female and what you would call a teenager, however if you were old enough yourself to realise that my name also being the name of a popular 80s band that was firstly known as the invaders,is not so 'childish' as your stereotyping us as. I agree some of the teenage fics I've read are complete and utter rubbish but you cannot say this applys to the majority. Do you have a problem with me? Even if it makes people happy by favouriting me and reviewing saying my story is sweet?
((I'm sorry if this post offended anyone at all))
I dont really mind reading gay fics, of either gender, as long as they are good. Even some of the worse written ones I'll still read if they have an alright plot. But I've got to say, that some things that are written and posted on the net, are too much info to be classified as good. In my opinion it is perfectly alright to write hetro/homosexual fics, as long as they are not too blunt or horrifyingly vivid.
Well, do you butcher the language? Do you employ minimal research and have a poor grasp of basic anatomy? If not, you don't qualify for the sorts of stories that irritate me.
A lot of such stories are written by horny teenagers, but that does not mean that a lot of teenagers write those sorts of stories, if you follow.
@Madness- Firstly, wow. You managed to be offended by IACULUS. That's one hell of a feat.
Secondly, what on Earth has your taste in music got to do with ANYTHING? I am quite curious. If I name myself 'Mozart', do I automatically become a musical genius?
Thirdly, the majority IS bad. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. Call this prosaic knowledge, if you will.
I do agree that the majority of Explicit/Non-explicit sex scenes are poorly written. I don't claim to be an expert on anything, I know a little something about anatomy and physical experience, but either way I don't think anyone can write the perfect sex scene - someone is always going to view it as stupid and wrong, because everyone is different.
However I do have objections to Lemons where the person clearly has no concept of anatomy. I once read one written by a 13-year-old, just to see how they had gone about it, and I'm not even going to go into how they described the girls clitoris...
It was ghastly.
If I find it, I might link. Not likely though, I hope it has been burned from the site and the world.
Back to the original question, aside from the whole morality thing:
Well, when I first started reading fanfiction, it was all about the lemons. But now, it's more the build-up; I often scroll right past the actual sex, just speed-reading.
Welll if you're a hardcore Yaoi writer i'm not stopping ya'll writing your super hot porno
Jus sayin x3
It's all fangirl/boi - ism.
Ido enjoy stories that have more than one chapter with sexual themes in them, makes a good long read and you cna see how an author will change how theiy write certain things and where they cut out parts they seem unnesesary.
In all, it depends if you're writing for the "omgz drooollzz" or the critial writing.
>>42 To your question Iaculus: I make that kind of general assertion that homosexuality (and others not hetero) is wrong because of the way it's been treated negatively through history, and it continues to be of sensitive subject today, though more tolerated. Sorry if that offended anybody, I don't mean to. How about if I put it this way: If homosexuality IS all right and fine, that it really isn't a big deal, then why in some societies around the world has it been looked at as wrong and unnatural? Why was there such shock and disapproval of it? I can't help but then think that homosexuality must not be right, thinking about other societies responded to it. Plus the bible.
...Actually I didn't answer your question there, was just explaining my reasoning for my other post. I'll answer now: This issue of racism is different from the issue of homosexuality. The former stems from appearances and nationality, and mainly targets coloured people. The latter can include a range of cultures and people, and it's more to do with the act of having sex with the same sex that's the focus. Racism is prejudice against a different race for the colour of their skin, which is unfair and wrong.
So no, black people were never and aren't inferior at all.
>>48 @moonphase9 It's not about if it's hurting people for being homosexual, but that it's immoral sex, which is wrong; stated in the bible. Quote: "It seems cruel that God would make something enjoyable but then ban it." - God made sex between opposite sexes; he didn't make homosexuality in the beginning. Otherwise it'd probably be Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve. There was no intention of confusing and misleading us in that area; and that'd not be right because he is supposed to be a fair and caring god.
That said, some measure of writing talent is required to ensure that the intended audience IS drooling, rather than, say, doubled over with laughter, or crawling out of the nearest window whilst calling the nearest church to schedule an exorcism.
Sounds like firelilly's going for the infamous 'uncanny valley', where somebody looks mostly human but subtly... wrong, somehow. Classic example: your average clown, or Victoria Beckham. It's difficult to convey in words - one option would be not to simply say that somebody's unattractive, but that they are, in fact, rather beautiful... in the sort of otherworldly, unnatural manner that makes people's skin crawl to look at them.
Bear in mind, though, that this goes beyond mere unattractiveness - absolutely everyone's going to be creeped out by it at first, including any given Designated Love Interest (TM), presenting a clear impediment to their relationship. Imagine making out with a living statue (Twilight fans at the back, stop squealing), and you'll see where I'm going with this.
As a more general note on the story, there are a couple of bits that run contrary to the established setting. First off, the implication that the main character might be able to manipulate two or more elements, even if she can't at the moment. In-show, that's the exclusive territory of the Avatar, and they don't slip past the radar that easily. Second, red hair does not indicate firebending talent, for the simple and obvious reason that there are no redheads in the entire freakin' series. Seems like a classic case of the setting reshaping itself to accommodate the main character's speshulness.
Um sorry about the music rant thing (habit) I was just stating my point that all teenagers shouldn't be grouped into a stupid category because there is a lot of things that people just dont get! And usually Iaculus doesn't annoy me or offend me i just wanted to state what I believe and not come accross too... young(?) whilst saying so.
I cannot judge about the type of language I use and that is why I like getting reviews from people that have constructive criticism to give me. In the past though I guess that my first M rated fic needs different adjectives but come on I'm not that bad- I don't mention ridiculous sizes or anything!
Judge for yourselves; http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1918055/NatandTilz
@61
That argument doesn't convince me.God made Adam and Eve for the purpose of filling the earth. Well, that's been done now. lLots of the old rules in the first testatment are no longer followed because they don't need to be. I don't see the purpose in banning homosexual sex when it does no harm.
Its not like sexual deviance; such as pedophilia or rape or beastiality, which is looked down upon almost universally. those things are non-consensual and cause pain and suffering.
Also, some older cultures where fine with homosexuality; the Greeks, apparently the Native Americans, the Chinese have lots of old pictures depicting male on male love.And lots of old cutltures disliked really odd things. That doesn't mean we have to pay attention to them.
>>61 @eeyop
which cultures through the history do you mean?
except Judaism, Islam and Christianity cultures?[which are kind of the same thing]
all cultures based in those religion have the taboos and find sexual act and homosexuality immoral. Adam and Eve are not the start of humanity, Homo-Sapiens is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
also other cultures have nothing against homosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_sexuality
this actually is a great source and explains everything
@Eeyop- What, exactly, is the moral difference between racism and homophobia? You do not 'choose' your sexuality any more than you choose your race. Do you think that a gay person wakes up one day and thinks 'I know, I'm going to be GAY!'? Do you honestly believe that gay people choose to suffer the persecution and abuse that they face? I agree that homosexuality is not the norm, as there are far fewer gay than straight people, but to say that it is unnatural flies in the face of plain old fashioned common sense.
Eeyop, how would you feel, reading this thread, if you were gay?
In addition to what has been posted here, to claim that homosexuality is unnatural because the first two people on Earth were not (assuming you're a Biblical literalist - creation versus evolution is a whole 'nother kettle of fish I don't want to get into here) is decidedly fallacious. Two people are not an adequate sample size.
Are there hair colours, heights, or qualities of eyesight that are unnatural because Adam or Eve did not possess them? Was Adam constantly growing and shrinking, or shaded between white and brown like a Rocky Road ice-cream? Is platonic friendship between people unnatural, because the express purpose of there being two humans in the beginning was to make babies? Homosexuality's a pretty arbitrary delineation of unnaturalness, I'd say.
Another useful link on homosexuality - 'Sexual Orientation and Adolescents', by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1827
Incidentally, I've noted that by the way some people here are using the word 'homosexual', they may not know exactly what it means. It refers to an attraction to members of the same sex, whether you happen to be male or female, just as 'heterosexual' means an attraction to members of the opposite sex.
I surely feel very disappointed, and I'm merely bi. I couldn't have said it better than ... in previous thread (67). You do not choose to be gay, you only choose how you want to handle it. You can be open about it. You can lie about your sexuality for the rest of your life and be unhappy. You can end your life because of the convictions of people like you. Do you think that our son isn't supposed to be with our family, then? Do you think that our boy is going to be unhappy because of having two mommies instead of a mommy and a daddy? Do you think he's going to the most unhappy child, that he thinks his parents are abnormal? Do you think I'm for instance abnormal for falling in love with someone who respects me and is unintentionally from the same gender? Do you think I'm abnormal to go and run from a man who mentally abused and harrased me and to have found my trust with someone who suddenly respected me and my boundaries and was kind and gentle but not a man? According to you, I should have remained with the man I loved - the only one I ever loved - and take all the blows to me and my unborn child, because of the sake of being normal? I didn't, and I don't regret it.
To everyone: I'm speaking in accordance with the bible and what I've been taught, basically. All the things I've said are not totally my words. It's just from what I know and my agreement with it. I can't deny the bible on what it says, I must believe in it. That doesn't mean I don't care about how same-sex couples feel and what they go through dealing with their relationships; like I said, I don't pretend to know that. It's just difficult to understand the logic of same-sex, or bi-, relationships. Biologically, what is the purpose of such relationships? Why are people of the same sex attracted to each other? Is it primarily the personality, character, and spirit they are attracted to, not directly the physical side of things?
A few certain of you here ask the similar questions again. My answers are talking about morality, not if an act of this kind harms others.
>>70 eeyop if you follow the book and accept it and go according it, then is your choice to do and by choosing to do so, it is automatically turns into your opinion to the subject.
as for why ppl are attracted to the same-sex ppl.
Why are you attractive to the opposite sex? it is only physical? it is only to make babies?
when you find the answer to that question in your self then you'll understand what homosexuals are thinking.
I'll use again the help of my dictionary
>immoral:adjective 1.(of people and their behaviour) not considered to be good or honest by most people. 2. not following accepted standards of sexual behaviour: an immoral act / life / person. Ç. They were charged with living off immoral earnings (= money earned by working as a prostitute).
why homosexuals are labeled as such is beyond my imagination.
@Bola how pregnancy goes? did you two give birth yet?
Eeyop, if the 'morals' of something do not refer to whether or not it causes harm, what DO they refer to?
Also, you say that you do not necessarily agree with the Bible's view on homosexuality, but that you 'must' believe that it is right? Why? Having strong faith isn't about accepting everything, whether or not you agree that it is right, or whether or not you understand it. Having a strong faith means you ask questions- and your holy book provides answers that seem fundamentally right to you. Why don't you question? From the looks of things, you're split in two- your moral conscience tells you one thing, while the Bible/your preacher tells you another. I must ask you why you are so afraid to raise questions- do you have low self esteem? Do you think that you do not have the 'right'?
Eeyop, if the 'morals' of something do not refer to whether or not it causes harm, what DO they refer to?
Also, you say that you do not necessarily agree with the Bible's view on homosexuality, but that you 'must' believe that it is right? Why? Having strong faith isn't about accepting everything, whether or not you agree that it is right, or whether or not you understand it. Having a strong faith means you ask questions- and your holy book provides answers that seem fundamentally right to you. Why don't you question? From the looks of things, you're split in two- your moral conscience tells you one thing, while the Bible/your preacher tells you another. I must ask you why you are so afraid to raise questions- do you have low self esteem? Do you think that you do not have the 'right'?
Indeed. Last I checked, wilful ignorance was not part of the Ten Commandments.
To question is not in and of itself a sin - all it does is tell you what is already there. How you react to and deal with it is entirely up to you, but I've encountered few situations in which it does not help to ask around and be as well-informed as possible.
Or, to quote Alexander Pope:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
@eeyop1428 So you think homo's are confused? I wonder how you think about bi's? And why can't it be natural, cause they are of the same sex? Let me tell you it isn't confusing, it just happens, it's called love.
>>73 I guess the simple answer is that I'm a protestant christian, and the bible is the thing I go by in understanding the world and how to live. But I am my own person in mind; I sometimes do question the bible of some things that don't seem right to me. One of the most strongest themes of it is on what's right or wrong. And it just clearly says same-sex relationships are wrong, simply so. It's my belief; I can't reject it. What you do comes from mankind's world, and draws from ITS morals and reasoning. I'm not a part of that.
>>75 Now that's something I am hardly able to explain or begin to understand better. Love is too powerful an emotion. But I know there is pure love and other love existing for the wrong things. But it's each to his or her own on what or who they want to love.
Post 76 actually made me cry. Anyone else who cried has my respect.
This is what terrifies me about this site. If it's a microcosm, then it says one hell of a lot about humanity. For anyone who doesn't understand why this upsets me so much, but manages to get enraged when I'm harsh about certain fanfic, take a good, long look at your priorities.
I used to wonder about how ampitheatres, genocide, witch-hunting, slavery etc happened and continued. Now I think I get it.
(Also, Iaculus- a while ago you said that you saw religion as a magnifying glass. This might show why I disagree on that; it can work that way for those who are less vulnerable, but look at what happens to the others.)
>>76 "What you do comes from mankind's world, and draws from ITS morals and reasoning. I'm not a part of that."
Huh, so this old laptop of mine has transdimensional capabilities? Those folks at Toshiba really do think of everything.
Regardless of where you choose to draw your moral convictions from, you are a part of this world, and your every decision affects it. With that in mind, some research into how reality actually functions might be useful.
>>78 Never said what it magnified, did I? Believe me, this sort of head-in-the-sand conservatism is hardly unique to religious matters - it's just that it tends to be there where it reaches its nadir.
@eeyop1428 So you're saying, or your bible, that when two people of the same sex fall in love with each other it isn't pure love? Yes love is a powerfull emotion and when two people love each other so much and happen to be of the same sex what is so wrong about that? Because the bible says it's wrong? Oh and you want to know what makes them fall in love with each other, to quote a dear friend of mine 'I fell in love with him because he is so gentle' mind you he has a great ass too SIGHS.
>>76 The thing that angers me about this statement, is the fact that people in this world who condemn same-sex realtionships, are essentially just creating problems, that in the world we live in today, we really don't need.
So on that note, I put this decision to you, if the love between two men, or two women, is not pure, then clearly you are stating the following:
Two men, or two women should not be able to have and raise and child that they will love with all their hearts, but a man and a woman can have children, perhaps a child that they do not want, a child they might hurt - just because that is morally correct, according to the Bible.
I don't dispute your relegion, and I respect that you believe in that, but honestly, the way you have just put it is disturbing to me. Love in unconditional, you can't help who gets in the way - like me. I still love my ex, I can't help that, it's just the way it is, but some day I may fall in love with a woman.
Heck I could fall in love with someone with 3 arms, does that make me morally incorrect - just because it's different?
@RayRay Couldn't have said it any better.
@eeyop1428 Why do you keep hiding behind your bible and your relegion? I respect it, don't get me wrong. But what about your own thoughts, why do you keep following what it says in the bible and that you have to act like it says in the book? That God can't be wrong? And let's be honest in this day and age, things have changed a lot humans have changed. And you're not going to tell me that in those days, I mean in the days of Jesus and God that there weren't any same sex relationships, but those same people still believed in what Jesus preached. Because I think same sex and relegion can go hand in hand.
We here in Belgium have a new arch bishop (hope I spelled it right) he is a personal friend of the pope, and he says that something is wrong in the brain of any homo or lesbian, that they are abnormal. I know of some friends who right now having a hard time with this, cause they don't know what to do. They are gay and christians and are starting to loose their faith, jsut because of what this man is preaching about gay people. Don't tell me that isn't wrong?
Well said, RayRay. -hugs- And I guess she/he does actually mean just that. As I already said a few posts earlier, according to eeyop1428, I should have kept taking the abuse of my ex-boyfriend instead of being happy with my wife and child.
I understand and respect everyone's opinions, but I simply detest anyone who doesn't respect others'.
I haven't read the Bible in a very long time, so feel free to contradict me, but I don't think it literally says 'Thou that fancies the very same gender as yours, shall burn in Hell.'
@Bola - how is the pregnancy going? I hope everything is well with the baby =]
I haven't read the Bible at all, I can't read something that tells me I'm wrong to feel things. I've known that I'm bi since I turned 8, which is young, but I think that just goes to show that you can't help who you are, I've always been attracted to Men AND Women, but I didn't have the guts to admit it until this year, and I'm 19 now.
I hid it for 11 years because of people who turn around and say horrible things - I was already bullied as a child, and I didn't want to add to my problems.
Now I don't care. I am who I am and I'm damn well proud of it.
And @AnneOfTheIsland...
Well said - or rather, well linked.
>>84 Not precisely sure what point you were intending to get across with that (could be a memetic mutation, for all I know), but that's not exactly what Leviticus 18:22 says. A more accurate translation would be:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is unclean."
The original text used the word 'shequets', or 'abomination', but I say 'unclean' because it was the same word generally used in Leviticus to refer to matters of religious hygiene. Among other things described as 'shequets' are foods like pork and shellfish, as well as animals that died of natural causes. Incidents of blasphemy and the like, on the other hand, are described as 'to'ebah'.
Another curious fact is that both Leviticus 18 and 20, the only references to homosexuality outside Paul's Epistles (and let's not forget here, guys, that Paul endorsed slavery - see Philemon for more), are filed under prohibitions against incest. What this means is uncertain, though as I suggested earlier, this may add further credence to homosexuality (or, at a base minimum, male/male intercourse) being outlawed for health reasons.
@Iaculus- I don't think it is "'head in the sand' conservatism", though. I think it's a case of 'a higher authority told me this, and I am nothing in comparison to this higher authority, so I will trust its judgement because it is so much better than I am.'
I'm confused at why people are raging at Eeyop. Can't you see that that makes the problem worse?
Eeyop, if I may ask, who convinced you that your own opinions were of little worth? How did you reach the point where you now use your Bible to make your decisions, because you're afraid to make them yourself? Is it a way of thinking you've always grown up with? This may be rather personal, but did you do badly at school? Because that can destroy self-esteem, and, more importantly, nuture the desire to seek solace in the words of someone who seems better in some way (more intelligent etc). Followers flock to those who show them kindness. But some leaders don't necessarily want their followers to think for themselves.
Yay, religion talk! It's like being on a Comment page on Youtube!... But with less swearing and racism.
Anyway, I'm not religious, I'm more or less agnostic. I went to to a Church of England school and that put me right off.
For me, christianity is far from the best religion. They are always trying to convert you, which I believe is insulting to those who are intitled to their own beliefs. For example, the Christian God encourages Christians to convert non-believers, where Allah of the Islam religion tells his followers to respect all religions, as does Buddha, and I think Hindu Gods do as well. I'm not insulting anyone human, I'm just saying that God is a very arrogant man, and because of his 'Do not worship false idols' tosh he has caused a lot of bloodshed.
Not hating on anyone here, just making a point :)
a) Wrong thread, buddy.
b) Islam also contains the 'do not worship false idols' clause.
c) There definitely isn't an ongoing religion-based conflict between Hindus and Muslims anywhere in the world. Definitely.
>>88 The principle remains the same, though - a surrender to a perceived higher authority, whether that be tradition, conventional scientific wisdom or, yes, religion, coupled with a steadfast refusal to accept or even acknowledge alternate persopectives. I imagine it's a very reassuring mindset. Pity it's so harmful in anything as mutable as, say, real life.
>>89 Religions tend to be conversion-happy. Those that aren't don't tend to survive long. At least none of the mainstream religions are as institutionally awful about it as, say, Scientology. The average Scientologist recruiting officer is like a cross between a cult leader and a loan shark, with an army of lawyers backing them up. If you see one... avoid.
@Iaculus- But this isn't a case where a person is saying 'I don't really know either way about this, so I'll go with this view'; this is a case of 'I disagree with this, but who am I to disagree? It's my flawed nature that makes me want to disagree. Repress! Repress!' They're going AGAINST the way they would be naturally, and that's why it's not a mirror.
You're right that it's a harmful mindset, but the people with the mindset are victims too. You're right that it's reassuring, but I can't see it as a willful thing; I see it as someone's will being constantly undermined and broken until they turn to something that seems to offer an answer. But something that offers some good isn't always right.
It's the difference between leaders and followers.
Just noticed I wrote 'mirror' instead of 'magnifying glass'. How odd.
>>94 The repression is what I was referring to as well. Tradition of all sorts can have a remarkable impact, you know - I realise I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but check out some of the arguments for slavery. Likewise, check how stifling an isolated, backwoods settlement can get, or the vicious drive towards uniformity in Fifties suburbia. As mentioned, though, it usually takes a certain religious flavouring to really push it to extremes... though not always.
I agree that it's dangerous to both those with and without - that's why I didn't specify.
@Iaculus- While I agree with everything you say on tradition, I think that the link between that and the 'religion as a magnifying glass' vs 'religion in this instance forcing repression' argument is tenuous at best. People naturally repress their morals? I know that religions generally just exacerbate problems that already exist in society (people'll always find something to ruin) rather than creating new ones, but looking at the micro rather than the macro, it seems as though they can be worse, damaging what worked. If I've completely missed your point here, btw, please say; this feels a little like two entirely different arguments.
Oh, and fair enough on your last point; making an assumption like that was my failing.
>>79 I am a part of this world, but I ultimately do not belong to it. My destination is heaven.
>>80 yes actually I do. Sorry , but I can't change the bible. It's only because those who haven't known God will thus fall into such relationships. So they justify it with their emotions, which some of the time blinds them to facts or to think about what they are doing more thoroughly. Love makes people do things, bad or good.
>>81 Or maybe it's the other way round with who's causing problems? Who knows, but there are many other problems which we don't need on our plates either. Do you agree that humans are sinful and that most immoralities and crime come from them?
You would be talking about 'romantic' love, not an all-consuming love for everything and everyone. They're both different kinds of love. Quote: 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy. Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude; It is not self-seeking, nor easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongdoing. It does not delight in evil, But rejoices in the truth." ---...'rejoices in the truth' >> rejoices in what the bible says.
>>82 I'm not 'hiding', I am supporting the bible. The bible has existed for ages; it has so much info about life, how do you know if it's wrong about relationships for sure? It may not be too detailed about things in so many words, but it still carries the main general points about them.
Humans may have changed scientifically, biologically, and mentally over the years, but their nature has not. We're still deceiving, conniving and selfish, even if we don't want to admit it. We can even deceive ourselves with our ideologies and laws that are made up to suit our ways. The bible does not follow the world. That's why you reject it, because it doesn't agree with you. And you don't like to be wrong. Sorry that I have to say it that way.
>>83 I never said that you should stay with your abusive boyfriend, that should be your choice, not mine. You decided to go with a woman instead. The bible doesn't literally say that, but its inferred message does.
>>88 '3-dots', nobody said my opinions were of little worth as you assume. I am self-confident in myself in the ways of reasoning and thinking power. But do remember that a human's way of thinking is not the same as God's way of thinking. Yes, I am looking to the bible as if I had no good thoughts of my own, so I must use it as my only source of info. And actually, in a way that is the case. My knowledge alone is not enough by far; the bible is truth. Do you remember we discussed the plausibility of the bible in the other thread? You agreed that there is evidence of its content's truth around the world. So I trust the bible, even if it might say something that doesn't quite make sense. That's the point of faith.
Plus I was introduced to Christianity when I was around 7 years old, so I grew up with it. You might think then that I was impressionable and just went along with it and am still doing that. But I've developed a more independent mind since then, and I can assure you I think about what the bible says, a lot - so I'm not really mindlessly following it, but rather with a critical and knowing mind about things.
That sounds like I'm boasting but I'm not.
And of reality; aren't we all surrounded by things that tend to warp our sense of reality? Look at the advertisements, movies, and soaps. They're all not a real depiction of life, but overblowing its 'realities'; the state of our world. You can interpret the connotations the media shows for yourselves.
Can anybody answer what real life is? Our culture for one thing is constructed by us, made-up with our sense of 'reality'. The world as we know it is not completely 'real'. You only reject the bible because it doesn't go with our sense of 'real', or our way of thinking about certain things. The bible speaks of a higher world than ours.
@eeyop1428 'The bible does not follow the world. That's why you reject it, because it doesn't agree with you. And you don't like to be wrong.'
No I reject the bible because I don't believe in it. I don't believe that we come from Adam and Eve, sorry if I offended anyone with this statement. I believe in science and it states that we are desendence from the ape, and that the dinosaurs were the first creatures to roam this world and not Adam and Eve.
Eeyop, for the last time, I believe that SOME of the Bible's content is accurate. Not ALL, by far.
I agree that nobody can know what reality is, in the same way that we cannot know what existence is. That doesn't excuse ignoring the moral conscience. People on this board said words to the effect of, 'How can you SAY that, Eeyop?'
To which you replied (paraphrased), 'This isn't what I personally think, it's what the Bible says and if it disagrees with me, it knows best, but don't be upset with me, because it's not what I think.'
You can't have it both ways. Either accept responsibilty, or reject certain ideas.
You say you are critical, but you don't do your own research. You say you are not impressionable, but your preacher uses an analogy to explain the moral justification for something, and you accept that.
I believe that doing anything to another person that makes them want to cry is fundamentally wrong. (Making them mad is a different matter, heh) I use that as my moral compass.
Ah yes, the Corinthians, I am familiar with that passage yes, but something that I notice about this - is that it does not specify anywhere in this passage that "Love should only be between a man and a woman".
The fact that you can justify a child being treated cruelly, just because his/her parents are heterosexual - and that is what is apparently right? - disgusts me more than I can begin to express. How good a person does that make you. Your God is supposed to love everyone equally yes? So how can you justify a child being beaten - that generally goes against everything that I've ever been taught, and I went to a Catholic school.
Then again, I wouldn't expect anyone who hides behind the bible to be compassionate enough to answer that question with their own thoughts, try answering with what you think, not with what the bible thinks. You seem to take the bible literally, and you said your destination is heaven - let me tell you, with an attitude like that, I would honestly be very surprised.
@Eeyop please read what you just wrote
>Love makes people do things, bad or good.
>Quote: 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy. Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude; It is not self-seeking, nor easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongdoing. It does not delight in evil, But rejoices in the truth."
>'rejoices in the truth' >> rejoices in what the bible says.
one of the biggest sins of Christians all these centuries is the thing that they believe THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE.
I would say it is okay as long as the book you try to understand is straightforward but bible is not. bible is full of metaphoric meanings.
Also as long as your only source of information is a single book, then sorry but you can't say that:
>I'm critical and knowing mind about things.
because to know about things requires knowledge from multiple sides not just one.
Let's take the Bible literally and all try to walk on water like Jesus could.
@104, yes but Jesus was Gods son. It wasn't saying everyone could walk on water.
Don't you hate it when someone argues on your side in a debate, but says something so overwhelmingly stupid that you wish they would hurry up and defect?
@..., yep
>>98 Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Do you agree with this? Do you accede to this?
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Matthew 5:31-2 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."
Do you agree with this? Do you accede to this?
Ephesians 6:5-8 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free."
Do you agree with this? Do you accede to this?
Do you advocate a world where men who sleep with men and women who sleep with women should be put to death, along with women who attempt divorce due to spousal abuse? Do you advocate slavery, rape, or any of the other things advocated in the Old and New Testaments? Do you endorse all that, or do you accept that sometimes, the needs of the real world should be put before the Bible's teachings?
Apologies, Ellipsis, I'll get round to answering you eventually, but I regret to say that posts 98 and 99 took priority. I'm not devoid of berzerk buttons, you know.
Iaculus, I wouldn't respect you if you were.
I just receive an email about the removal of death penalty of Gay ppl in Uganda
there is a petition to sign
so who ever is interesting just sign
http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_rights_4/?cl=477651272&v=5391
@103: Thank you for saying it.^^
@RayRay: Absolutely - I've got some examples close to me of that fact and you are totally right. But again, such things had to be unheard of when the Bible was written, else they would have said it.
@Moooom: Hum, though I might not do it in the Channel, it's too cold - the Dead Sea would be better. /jk
Abiding by one book... well, problem is, the Bible had been written by several persons and sometimes might show contradictions - 'love each other' - but if you're a man, don't go with a man.
As for homosexuality, I might be totally wrong but it existed long before Christianism appeared. So if the Bible is supposed to reflect human relationships, it would have been taken into account, no?
But again, I'm an historian in training so I tend to believe scholars (Christians or not) who say that the Bible is not a historical source that you can use normally. Same goes for hagiography and everything though...
Back to topic, I personnally don't see anything wrong with sex in fanfictions - to be honest, there are poorly written stories but if there are people reading them and liking them... oh well. And those who don't write realistic situations would certainly grow up at some point - and would then be: My gawd, I wrote such cr*p before...
And sheesh, you see half naked people all the time - tv, internet, movies and so on. So, really... I might be exaggerating but the idea is pretty much the same.
... Wow. Some of these comments pretty accurately sum up just WHY I get so ticked off whenever someone uses the Bible as a defense for their illogical—often downright inane—arguments. "I don't say this, the Bible does and it must be true because the Bible says so!"
If the Bible said that everyone had to jump off a bridge at the age of 57 to avoid being a burden to the younger generations, tell me Eeyop, would you condone that, too?
(By the by, I don't intend to tear anyone's beliefs down—just their fallacious arguments—but I'm of the personal opinion that religion is the coward's way out of accepting that there are some things we simply do not know, and I don't apologize for that.)
Also, dropping this off for your consideration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ
Gee guys, I hope you're not wearing a 50% cotton shirt or anything.
... More accurately on topic, though, it's ridiculous to state that writing about sex is unclean or whatever. It's just... no. Why would you even say that. Logic, there is none.
>>113 @DuxAtrum
that vid was a total win, thanks for sharing ;)
sigh The Bible says a lot of things.
@113, whilst I respect your opinion of it being a cowards way out, I am meerly of the opinion it serves as life guidelines. I agree though, I just can't see why writing it is unclean.
Nah, I'm not religious, (Karma still likes to take several bites out my ass in spite of that) I tend to follow my own thoughts on things, but I guess the Bible can serve as answers when someone is indicisive on something, eg, a girl has two love interests, must she choose or can she have both? (The example is very poor, but hopefully you get the picture)
I don't like it when people blame the Bible for anything they do, or trying to justify their wrong-doings. I get the nasty feeling the link in c.1 are the writers attempts to deal with the fact they got hooked on fanporn.
I agree with セーラーエリスは刀の女ですか. I really found a very funny oh so true video related to that one, but it wouldn't be appropriate to put hete. It just surprises me how one thread undergoes so many changes and ends in a philosophical discussion.
>>117 Bola it was meant to be a philosophical discussion the moment "the book" brought out its claws ;)
Nice phraseology, SeraEris.
Also, moonphase—that's something to think about, innit? Perhaps all-too-often arrogance disguised as humility serves as yet another mask, this one for crucial self-doubt.
... I'm waxing poetic. So sorry; I'm functioning short on sleep.
>>119 thanks Dux
it is nice to hear that someone understands what I'm saying :)
Dux, I'm not sure if you know, but there's a thread about religion in general in the Pleasant Chat section (I believe it's called 'Let's Talk About GOD') so if you want to talk more generally, that's the place. If you can be bothered to read the whole thing, it may put this into context, as well as explain my one-word-wiki (you can see for yourself where I got so exasperated that I just wandered off for a while).
Sharingansupergirl- the problem is that the Bible DOES advocate things that are seen to be abhorrent today, as seen in this case. Note the quotes that Iaculus provided.
It's been a while since I've done Bible quotes, but as far as I remember, the ideas as said in the Bible were in line with those of the time. I can only suppose some of the sayings were put in place to protect people from being used or abused the best way they could in "those days". In the case of Matthew 5:31-2, I think an abusive partner does count as marital unfaithfulness... but how to get a certificate of divorce from a nasty bloke is probably the real problem, but there are loads of quotes which were meant to tackle that, such as "do to others as you would be done to". On that thought, it is likely anyone acting on what the Bible says, eg attacking gay people, takes the singluar quotes as rules and excuses to defend themselves. It is a problem, but now I'm heading towards extremists and the different branches of Christianity... so I'll shut up.
I've been busy for some time. I've not run away.
Where to start; how can I agree to abuse of children, or a literal killing of a man or woman if they're with the opposite sex in this day and age? >>102 I thought it was homosexual parents, not hetero that is a more likely reason why children might be treated cruelly? You confused me there. But no, I don't support that.
>>108 That first bible quote; that was written 2000 years ago. That sort of punishment doesn't happen to that crime anymore, but the main message is still there.
About the beating of a child, RayRay, of course God doesn't support. He will punish the person who does the beating in one way or another, like putting him/her in prison or something. But remember that he loves us so much that he gave us free will? He can't intervene forcefully otherwise that would contradict who he is; but he does care.
>>103 The kind of love I was talking about which make ppl do bad and good things, is human, romantic love. Not God's love.
I didn't give my personal meaning to the bible quote at the end; the bible is seen as truth, that's why I used the word 'bible', to give a clearer understanding of what I meant in the previous posts. And what I meant by 'a knowing mind', is that I THINK, not that I'm all-knowing; sorry about the confusion.
Back to >>108 Yes, I do agree with Ephesians, thanks.
No I don't advocate rape or slavery. Those are more accounts of them happening in the bible rather than support for them, when they're mentioned. Where does it say in it that rape is good, or okay?
>>112 When the bible says 'love each other' it means platonic love; friends and family. Not romantic love. Otherwise there'd be all sorts of acts going on with the latter kind.
>>113 Why would the bible tell me to jump off a cliff? That's like what a parent would ask to a child when they're following someone without thinking all the time.
You could also say that following the crowd is a 'coward's' way out. I'm not afraid to go against the grain.
>>116 I'm sorry, I wasn't using a self-rightous, highandmighty tone. I was trying to answer with a respectful and restrained tone. Also, how do you know if I'm 'faking' humility, or my own opinions; I wouldn't still be replying to you if my heart wasn't in it.
You all seem to think I don't have a mind of my own here. Well okay, You want to know what I think?: We all don't deserve to live if things like child abuse and worse go on every single day, and that we're scum; we can go to the very depths of depravity, we destroy our world and the life on it, and ourselves as a consequence. We sell out our soul for a handful of drugs. We're selfish and boastful when we're really not that great at all. We war against each other because of hate, prejudice, and lies. We're ignorant of real important problems in the world. We kill ourselves as well as save.
The advertisements and news talking about sick crimes and abused people will not stop. Can any of you accept or advocate those things? How is it so easy to live with these occurences daily? I'm sick of feeling unsafe and that the world is an ever-dangerous place every time the sun sets. That can't be normal; we're supposed to look out for each other, not target each other.
yes actually I do. Sorry , but I can't change the bible. It's only because those who haven't known God will thus fall into such relationships.
Uhm, didn’t you read what I wrote, they are gay and Christians so they believe in God.
So they justify it with their emotions, which some of the time blinds them to facts or to think about what they are doing more thoroughly.
Think about what they are doing? It’s called falling in love and usually that happens without thinking about it.
Facts? Love isn’t about facts, it’s about two people having feelings for each other, falling head over heels in love. So what if the two people doing the falling in love part are of the same sex?
Love makes people do things, bad or good.
So two people of the same sex falling in love is bad in your eyes? Sorry then I feel very sorry for you, because then you don’t know what true and pure love is. Because to you, and your bible, you can only have pure and true love when it is between two people of the opposite sex.
But to go back to the topic of the thread. I’m a slash writer by heart, so yes sexuality is always a part in all my stories. When I write a one shot, I usually go for the established relationship and write me a little hot and sensual slash fic, or preslash. When I’m writing a multichapter fic I go deeper into the story, into the relationship between two people and then its not all about sex. I absolutely love to read a good story with sex in it and yes being it het, if it’s a good story, or slash.
>>125 I think you've stumbled on a very important point here. We -as humans - think we deserve everything and everything we touch turns to shit.
So why - hypothetically of course - do you disagree with two people, law abiding citizens, who keep to themselves, are friendly, perhaps give to charities and are generally good people, being together just because they're of the same sex as each other. I am inclined to agree that homosexuality is not the way things were intended, purely for reproductive reasons...
But honestly... you'll find more happiness in a same sex marriage than in a 'normal' heterosexual marriage. Because homosexuals have to fight to be married - heterosexuals can get married whenever they want.
And if you're going to tell me that a marriage or partnership between two people who love eachother and are of the same sex, has less sanctity than Britney Spears' 72hour marriage...
Then I wash my hands of you.
>I thought it was homosexual parents, not hetero that is a more likely reason why children might be treated cruelly?
hmmm I think the follow video speaks for itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM
the little fella seems pretty happy to me...
>>130 Oh man now I remember that song. I loved it and my friends too. grins Oh yeah he is happy.
@eeyop1428 If you're going to watch that video you should also read the comments on that video. It's about how tollerant dutch people, like me, are towards gay mariages and adopting children by gay couples. Hope it makes you see and change your mind, what I'm doubting to be honest. This kid is happy, believe me and I know of a gay couple who have a baby girl, she is a cuty by the way, and talking about adopting another child. I'm so glad that here in Belgium and Holland, people are so openminded, wished more people where.
Precisely. In Belgium, we were second ones to introduce gay marriage in the world. We are pretty open about it, but I would say the difference between us and Holland is their religion. Holland's mainly protestant. We used to be very Catholic. Thank goodness that it doesn't really live with everyone anymore to visit church each week. It surprises me... how countries were Catholicism is the highest power... are the most against gay marriage and all of aforementioned things.
I rather think it's the behavior of parents that sometimes make children be treated cruelly instead of their sexual orientation. For example, everyone treated me pretty cruel when I was younger, because my father was an alcoholist and has strange hippie hair. And when I fight with anyone, me being bisexual and married to a woman is really the last thing anyone mentions. Anyone will rather attack me on physical appearances first, then behavior and other.
>>133 Bola it is not only Catholicism, look my country's views on the subject of Homosexuality.
>The former government of Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis New Democracy was opposed to same-sex marriage. While the New Democracy-led government has introduced legislation that offers several rights to unmarried couples, this explicitly includes only different sex couples, and it is the first time in the world that a civil union law has passed only for heterosexual couples. The National Human Rights Committee proposed a registry that would cover both same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual ones. And the Greek group OLKE announced its intention to sue Greek municipalities that refuse to marry gay couples. Although there is no official recognition of same-sex couples, a 1982 law that legalized civil marriage between "persons", without specifying gender, acted as a test-case for same sex marriage. On 3 June 2008, the mayor of Tilos, Anastasios Aliferis, married two homosexual couples, two lesbians and two gay men, citing the legal loophole. He was heavily criticized by clergymen of the Church of Greece, which in the past had also opposed the introduction of civil marriage. Justice Minister Sotirios Hatzigakis declared the Tilos marriages "invalid" and Supreme Court prosecutor Georgios Sanidas warned Mayor Aliferis of the legal repercussions of his "breach of duty", but he said he had "no intention of annulling the marriages".Nevertheless in May 2009 the marriage was officially annulled by the authorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Greece
for everyone's info, Greece is in EU since forever. also religiously the most of the ppl are Christian Eastern Orthodox.
Welp, Chapter 34 of the Doorstop is done and off for beta-ing, and I'm back in action. Humblest 'pologies for the delay.
>>97 'While I agree with everything you say on tradition, I think that the link between that and the 'religion as a magnifying glass' vs 'religion in this instance forcing repression' argument is tenuous at best. People naturally repress their morals? I know that religions generally just exacerbate problems that already exist in society (people'll always find something to ruin) rather than creating new ones, but looking at the micro rather than the macro, it seems as though they can be worse, damaging what worked. If I've completely missed your point here, btw, please say; this feels a little like two entirely different arguments.'
People do indeed suborn their morals to what they preceive to be something greater. Corporate culture. Crowd mentality. "I was just following orders". Stick your fingers in your ears nd leave it to the higher-ups to figure out. I'm sure you've seen it. Religion adds a spicy reward for whatever teaching you choose to draw from its texts, whether it be Matthew's oddly passive fanaticism, John's mysticism, or Luke's social conscience, spurring you to reach new heights in its pursuit.
Sure, the more unfortunate choices of teaching can damage what worked, but usually only in the sense of a particularly engrossing MMO turning someone with an addictive personality into a basement-dewlling wreck, or some poor soul getting caught in the crossfire of another's idiocy. At a certain level, things stat to spill over.
I'd go into Marxist theory here, but I'm not enough of a fan of the guy's work to trawl through a sea of jargon, economic inaccuracies, and sweeping generalisations to get to the occasional nugget of goodness dwelling within. Suffice it to say that his and his followers' writings on 'non-decision-making' provide a good demonstration of how that sort of unquestioning adherence works, and how prevalent it can be. Before they start getting paranoid and crazy and calling it a deliberate, invented tool of bourgeois oppression of the proletariat again, anyway.
>>123 Marital unfaithfulness is what it sounds like - carrying on with someone outside your marriage. Passive-aggressively turning your significant other into an emotional wreck or using them as your very own personal punching-bag may be against Christian theology, and a good way to end up in hell, but it's not grounds for your SO to dump you according to Matthew. Luke, while still problematic, is a bit more relaxed about it - there, you're just forbidden from remarrying once you up and run.
>>124 You don't advocate slavery... but you don't advocate slaves attempting to change their situation, either? How do you reconcile that? What was your take on the Civil Rights Movement, for a start?
Regarding the punishments, Matthew 5:17-19 has your answer. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (with a capital L - he's talking about the priestly law of Leviticus and the like) until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Sorry, but if you want to stick with the totality of the Bible's teachings, the stonings of gays and adulteresses stay.
That is why, as mentioned, you have a choice. If you assume that man cannot comprehend the will of God, it so follows that you must consider all the Bible's teachings of equal (and paramount) value. If you want to pick and choose to the slightest extent, you'll have to do some interpreting of intent.
>>125 By the teachings of the Bible, that's the state Jesus left us in, chief. All sins to that point forgiven, all debts erased. I'd expect a little more optimism. The world isn't gone yet, and if you compare now to, say, a century or two ago, I'd say we're making progress. Those tinpot dictatorships chewing each other up for a couple of shiny bits in the armpits of the world? That's how we used to be. Think about it.
You want to feel safe? I'd advise making a legitimate attempt to fix the world's issues, rather than washing your hands of it and saying that you are 'a part of this world, but ultimately do not belong to it'. If you want to treat this place as a testing ground of no intrinsic value beyond its status as a path to the afterlife, that's what you'll get.
Also, you're not quite right on the love business. What the Bible (or, at least, Corinthians) preaches is 'agape', love of humanity, which is distinct from 'storge', love of family. It's a small but important difference.
@Iaculus- CAPITALIST DOG!
... I kid, I kid. And I have missed ye, yes I have.
Anyway, it's true that most people are... pliable. And it seems to me that, once in a while, there's someone who uses this for good. And then someone else tries to push things back again (or maybe they have a different definition of 'good'). The interesting thing about the Bible is that both of these types of 'leaders' shout opposing messages from between the pages.
I'm not too strong on my knowledge of Marxism, either (well, I don't know anything much. Talk to me again in a few years time when I've educated myself a bit), so I've yet to come across that part of the ideology. I'll look it up and get back to you with my findings.
Anyway, more on-topic- how about we say that religion can magnify certain traits, but whether or not those are the ones you wanted magnifying (or the ones you expected it to magnify) is another matter entirely?
Oh, and kudos for saying what I cba to say (and phrasing it much better than I could).
@eeyop1428 Let me ask you this. What is worse?
Denying that your gay/lesbian, marying a woman/man and have children. Feeling miserable in your marriage and go commit adultery by going outside your marriage and find the one you really want to be with?
Or,
Being with the one you truly love, live very happy and just enjoy life?
To me and I know most people on this thread the answer is very clear. I'll hope you are able to see beyond the 'good book' and look into your heart what really matters, being happy, it doesn't matter with who you're happy.
>>136 Well, that's what I was saying in the first place regarding magnification. I believe the original was this: 'My perspective on religion is that it serves as a magnifier - all you get out of it is more of what you put in. A good person can become a saint, whilst a bad one can become a monster.'
Indeed, the four Gospels teach very different things. Mark, the oldest, is also the simplest - it's essentially just a case of 'Why Jesus was Awesome'. In fact, it could be quite accurately summarised as 'I think Jesus is a pretty cool guy. eh performs miracles and doesn't afraid of anything'. The entire thing is pretty much comprised of the Messiah doing cool things and mouthing off to the Establishment, without as much attention paid to what he preached FOR.
John, or 'Why Jesus was the Son of God', is the strangest of the four gospels - unabashedly mystical, with a focus on the nature of the miracles and the clear intention of creating a sense of religious awe at Jesus's actions. It does not even bother to provide much of a historical narrative, except to provide a rudimentary framework to its preachings. It also has some lovely, poetic turns of phrase, as one might expect.
Luke, or 'Why Jesus was a Nice Guy' is all about the compassion of Christ, and is the bit that such preachers as Martin Luther King and Trevor Huddleston chiefly drew from. It preaches tolerance, forgiveness, and the will to stand up for what is right, through parables such as the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. Despite its flaws (as mentioned above), it's probably my favourite of the gospels, though the author's clear political bent and the fact that it's based on rather less detailed earlier writings like Mark both suggest that Jesus may not have been quite like that in reality.
The newest gospel, Matthew, or 'Why Jesus was the Fulfiller of the Law', is the one that irritates me the most. Here, the effort seems to be to minimise Jesus's anti-authoritarian streak, and portray him as a staunch conservative who felt that the exuisting stuff didn't go far enough. This Jesus is most in-line with what eeyop mentions, preaching passive surrender to the cruelties of the world in order to save up points for the next life. My sole consolation is that as the youngest gospel, it's probably even less accurate than Luke.
... Aaand then there's the Saints' Epistles, which are a whole 'nother barrel of fish.
Ah, but with the magnifying business, I don't believe it's as simple as 'a good person gets better, a bad one gets worse'. I think that the traits religion can magnify are not the traits that were originally dominant, so that when you look at a person as a whole, it does not seem like a magnification until you delve more deeply into the psychology. The thing with the 'you get out what you put in' idea is that it suggests that the religious person has control over this, while I think that it's more of a subconscious process. At the risk of sounding like a crazed conspiracy theorist, it's more 'you get out what it sucks in without you noticing'.
Because I am well-aware of the toxic levels of fail in the above, let's use an analogy:
'Girl, naturally v. compassionate but a bit superstitious, likes cats. Holy text advocates kindness to all living creatures, except cats (with repeated warnings of hellfire for those who disobey). Girl finds that religion makes her even more compassionate- so she...
... loves cats even more.
2. Ant-frying magnifying glass
Girl, naturally v. compassionate, a bit superstitious, loves cats, blahdiblahblah, BUT this time, her superstition is the magnified trait, and her kindness towards cats stops. Girl ends up seeming like a completely different person, and one who kicks cats.
Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's the other. I think that you can achieve the first through willpower, though, while you need an outside influence for the second. So that's why I say that religion's more of a hindrance than a help.
Was that the worst analogy ever? Why YES, I do believe it WAS!
Oh well.
I would like to post another video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyTy9ns894M
the lyrics have few good things to say but what I want to point out is the blindfolds the artists wear, and the words that are on the blindfolds.
the inner meaning of the removal of those blindfolds is: how ppl keep their eyes close to so many things, and how they should start taking the blindfold off.
enjoy
>>141Wow. Yeah many people still don't want to see what is going on in the world.
>>142 quoting Fred Durst's last lines in the song:
>If there's enough room here for you and me. There's plenty of room for some humanity.
we are humans, but we lack of humanity even though it should be a fact in our lives.
sometimes animals actually bit as to that!
http://www.edicolaweb.net/nonsoloufo/sp_fot41.jpg
>On August 16, 1996, a three-year-old boy fell 18 feet into the gorilla enclosure at the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago. The child was lying unconscious when Binti Jua picked him up and protectively cradled him into her arms.
>>144 @ Moonphase,
umm well that's a way to destroy the whole meaning of this song...
>>144Well I know almost all the artist singing in that clip and I know of some who don't write songs about sex, drugs and money to sell to the kids. They are great artists and write great songs.
>>148 thanks for mention this abvamp!
I do respect almost all of these artists and I am also aware of their music and lyrics.
I'm inclined to agree with Moonphase. Cynicism might not be ideal, but most of the time it's better to be slightly cynical and take everything with a pinch of salt.
I don't see any of those celebs donating the millions that they get to helping people who suffer in everyday life. Singing about things is one thing, actually trying to do something is another thing completely. Some of them might donate little bit of money, but honestly, how many of them do you think would agree that they should give up all their money to a charity, because they earn more than they should.
Moonphase wasn't destroying the meaning of that song, she was merely stating the reality of it all.
It's easy to misunderstand a point when you're so convinced that you're right. Human condition unfortunately...
>>150
Bono is actually member of quite few non-profit organizations and donates a lot of his money, Alicia Keys is also a humanitarian, Christina Aguilera if I remember correctly she does donate to some organization for abused women, I don't remember about the rest of them but they also are known for giving here and there.
THAT.
My point wasn't that they don't give. More so that they don't do enough, and singing about it doesn't make them saints. Any idiot can pick up a microphone and sing about saving the world, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference unless you actually do something else about it.
And I guarentee that at least SOME of the celebs in that song will have done it for the publicity.
>>157 I might believe a little bit more in the power of music than others do.
@158- Mmhmm; the other day I walked past a bunch of black-clad teens playing something or other on their speakers, and moments later I was inexplicably lying in a bathtub, wrists slit, with my sight obscured by a curtain of freshly dyed black hair.
Goddamn MCR...
Or any community radio.
it's funny how some people here quote from the bible to back up their support for homosexuals. that's kind of contradictory in some way.
>>137 that's a bit of cliche sentimentalism there isn't it? that just makes it easier for people to love the same sex... or animals and objects. So if someone falls in love with a psychotic man/woman who is into drugs, that's okay?
Anyway, as a friend of mine once said, sometimes the one thing you truly want isn't what's right for you. so even though you may be in love with someone who seems really nice, he/she might not be the 'one'. it doens't matter if you're so in love, if it's with the same sex it's still immoral, which is what i think eeyop was trying to say.
here's some paraphrases from the bible, just because there were some before; so i use these to back my points: 1) the body is like the temple of God; part of Christ's body. it should be kept pure and clean, and without fault (as much as possible anyway). if you go to bed with a prostitute, u are joining your body with hers/his, like joining something clean with soemthing unclean.
2) animals have sex to procreate. but God gave humans the ability of self-control so that we will not give in to our urges all the time, like sex. that's why he said homosexual or bi relationships are forbidden.
3)God sees sex as a sacred thing, so we should keep it sacred and holy by not having it before marriage, or with someone of the same sex, as homosexuality is a perversion. which links up to the first point.
>>164, that is the weakest argument I have ever read.
What was being described in >>137 was mutual love i.e. respect and adoration. What you describe is ridiculous because there are so many other factors involved that do not count in a normal homosexual relationship:
If some one fell in love with a psychopath they wold not be able to have a normal relationship with them as psycopaths are unable to feel love for other people. It means that the person who has fallen for them probably has some serious mental issues and is probably masochistic.
As for loving a drug addict, again it is involves issues that normal homosexual couples do not have. Issues such as trying to get the person you love clean, battling the addiction together. Some couples make it, others don't.
In any case, they are very different from a homosexual relationship, which can be as loving and long term as a hetrosexual relationship. Saying some people are wife beaters, therefore marriage is unclean and we should all abstain makes more sense than that. Its absurd to compare homosexuals to drug addicts and psychos. The only reason you have done so is to try and 'prove' that homosexuality is unhealthy. However, the problems that can arise through those relationships do not happen in homosexual relationships (i.e. the chance of abuse, heart break or becoming a drug addict yourself.) WEAK ARGUMENT.
The three points you raise are also weak and prove nothing.
1) Which person is unclean in the homosexual relationship? A prostitute (especiaaly if off the streets) may have a sexual disease or something shrugs What natural uncleanliness (i.e. disease) is caused by same sex relations?
2) That makes no sense. Plenty of hetrosexuals have sex a lot. Plenty of homosexuals are quite prudent. Ridiculous- its not even an argument against homosexulity. Its an argument for not being a sex addict.
3) Why is same sex a perversion? Again, what is your proof that it makes people unwell or damges them in some way?
>>164 @kimkim62
your first mistake:
comparing homosexuality with bestiality is sick...homosexuals are adults who are both agree to be involved into such relationship, as heterosexual adults do. in the case of animals we are talking about "rape"! also other cases that considered as "rape" are pederasty/pedophilia and necrophilia. which are acts were one or more of the participants DO NOT agree to be involved in the act.
animals simply CAN'T talk, kids are too afraid or powerless to defend themselves, and dead are simply dead. do you get the point??
second mistake: You too try to explain bible.
>>164 So you're compare every gay/lesbian with a psychotic man/woman who is into drugs?
Mmhmm, I'll be sure to tell my friends, who aren't psychotic or on drugs.
And I'm so sick of reading that being with the same sex is immoral or a perversion. What is so immoral or pervert about love?
'God sees sex as a sacred thing, so we should keep it sacred and holy by not having it before marriage, or with someone of the same sex, as homosexuality is a perversion.'
So and gay/lesbians have sex all the time? Well I read somewhere that gay/lesbians have sex atleast twice a week.
I've been meaning to use this argument against the 'sex is just for men and women because they're designed to make kids together' idea for a while...
The male prostate is an erogenous zone that can only be accessed via the rectum. Women do not have an erogenous zone that is accessed this way. Clearly, then, men were designed by God to have anal sex.
The teleological argument works both ways.
sheesh, SOOOORY; didn't know u were so sensitive. you jumped to assumptions there moonphase, i wasn't comparing drug addicts to homosexuals, i was just using that as an example to what was said in post no. 137; that whoever you fall in love with is who you're happy with, so i ask what if the person who you fall in love with is someone with a bad condition, and if that then was okay, in considering post no. 137. It should've included those specific points you've just written then.
As for my first and third points, you wouldn't get it if I tried to explain it to you bcause ur so full of the what u think about it, so I won't bother. For my second point, there is self-control so that you won't give in to your urges to have sex with the same sex if you do (or the opposite sex); it's not prevent sex altogther, it's to prevent your desires or temptation getting the best of you. As there is so much promiscuity in the world (and in some cases, bestiality or whatever) I can say that people don't have such a strong ability to not do what their body wants in that area.
>> 169, let me get this straight, you won't answer what, exactly, is the evil caused by homosexulity because 'I won't understand because I'm so full of the what I think about it'???
First of all that sentence (amongst many) made little grammatical sense. Second, if you cannot explain the evil that homosexulity causes, then your second point is not valid. Why is it not valid? Because the lack of self control, whilst applicable to sexual assault (beastiality, rape, pedophilia) and promiscuity, it is not to homosexual relationships which, (like hetrosexual ones)can mean two people, having sex after making a vow and remaining with one another and not sleeping around. Weak argument.
Also, its not that people are sensitive. Read the points that they make. It's that your argument is easily ripped apart.
Why can't people just stop dragging in the bible and listen to their minds and hearts?
I respect every religion don't get me wrong, but I wrote this a few day ago in this thread.
'We here in Belgium have a new arch bishop (hope I spelled it right) he is a personal friend of the pope, and he says that something is wrong in the brain of any homo or lesbian, that they are abnormal. I know of some friends who right now having a hard time with this, cause they don't know what to do. They are gay and christians and are starting to loose their faith, just because of what this man is preaching about gay people. Don't tell me that isn't wrong?'
So anyone is going to explain to me what is good about this?
-raises hand- Truly happy to be immoral with all my heart, then.
I actually think it's rather unfair to go judge anyone on things that no one could possibly control.
Sure, we could try to suppress our true colors, but that's one of the reasons leading us to be deviant and leads us to find escape in substance use and delinquence.
It's comparable to judging someone on gender. We could chose to dress up differently than anticipated from our gender, but still... (mostly) we were born girls or boys without our preference being asked.
We cannot control being attracted to males or females either.
>>172 priests are suppose to spread gods words a.k.a: LOVE
but instead they spread hate against communities.
there is a priest in my country who is on TV like every other day, saying things against homosexuals the most but recently he made a really hateful and rasist preaching about the Africans who are around Athens.
he said amongst other things: "I was walking at the center of Athens and it was like the daylight was taking from me, with so much blackness around, my god help us to abolish the blackness."
>>173 I feel the argue to hug you tightly my dear Bola :hugs:
how is pregnancy going???
@abvamp: I agree. I immediately turn off my television when he's shown. I don't wanna have anything to do with someone who sees me as abnormal and retarded just because I came to love Nettie.
I'm not abnormal. I'm not reatarded. And I most definitely won't have anyone tell me so when I'm not.
Or maybe anyone agrees that I must be abnormal and not entirely aware of what I truly want?
:hugs Sera back tightly: -deep sighs- At this moment... we are... -sighs- not pregnant. We are surely going to try again in a couple of months, but for now it is just realy difficult.
Yeah, well, I haven't really met any priest or arch bisschop whose ideas seemed to stroke with mine even partially.
I wholeheartedly second Iaculus on that.
>>177 my dear Bola I am so sorry :/
for bringing the subject up and what had happened :hugs:
@Sera: that's okay. It kind of seemed bound to be said once, no, when around May still no baby was born. We're not giving up, though, regardless of whatever the rest of the world thinks.
looks like she/he will be having a better night's sleep than you then DuxAtrum hehe. And isn't that just starting an argument by calling her/him an idiot? Tis not good self-control there.
>>186
I would say putting psycho drug addicts and homosexulity together is starting an argument. What I can understand of DuxAtrum's reply, he or she will be laughing themselves to sleep tonight.
@Kimkim (aka Spark): 1. There isn't much in changing your name and posting on a thread you've already posted on, because can then all see that it's you. If you can't work out how, your stupidity is the terminal variety.
2. Calling someone a troll because they disagree with you/rip holes in your shabby excuse for an argument does not make them so. It just makes you look like an idiot.
3. I'm sure Dux will live...
@Kimkim (aka Spark): 1. There isn't much point in changing your name and posting on a thread you've already posted on, because can then all see that it's you. If you can't work out how, your stupidity is the terminal variety.
2. Calling someone a troll because they disagree with you/rip holes in your shabby excuse for an argument does not make them so. It just makes you look like an idiot.
3. I'm sure Dux will live...
er, I am a different person to kimkim -_o
Terminal stupidity it is! In more than one sense of the word 'terminal'...
ah right that explains it then. this is her sister ;p
>>192
kimkim62 : 2010-02-26 14:54 ID:Ok7plfvC
spark : 2010-02-26 16:48 ID:Ok7plfvC
actually "..." is right you are the same person, your ID betrays you!
yeah i know, but this is a different person using the same ID, k? or the same computer, whatever. I just changed the name. I'm leaving now anyway, so, no hard feelings? I didn't mean to start an argument, was simply adding a comment to what was said to my sister's. Bye.
sisterly love, that would make an awesome yuri/femme-slash incest kinky lemony fic :D
okay, since I am still here for some reason, I'll make this clear: I was tryin to protect her identity by doing that.
>>199
put it on DeviantArt, and they'll be pictures also!
>>202 but you managed to be the next subject on my fanfiction :D
I so love YURI :D
>>205
http://www.advancedanime.com/pictures/normal_souseiseki_suiseiseki.jpg
real anime sisters :D
@Kimkim- And you no longer care about protecting your fictitious sister's identity? Oh dear.
You're still on here because:
Every time you post on this thread, you embarrass yourself further. I suggest that you stop.
>>208 ray ray it's never too late, join too the sisterly yuriness idea of FF :P
>>210 lol Ray :D
in my latest story my fav yuri couple think they are sisters[and they learned that info after they had heat the sheets:P]
and I totally agree that gay guys are the hottest :D
and i mean real life guys not just FF guys. :P
and I so join your promotional ideals of freeness of sexuality :D
have you heard of "pegging?"...
>>212 when i came to holland for 10 days, with university, we stated at University of Dronten and the teacher who was with us all the time Yan, was such a hot guy, his boyfriend wasn't as hot as Yan but it was so cute observing them ^_^
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs226.snc1/7321_100477726638541_100000289417771_10950_7390653_n.jpg
here the guy on the front with the paper on his hands sitting on the steps is Yan :D [the one clad in jeans about him, it's me, back then with long hair ;s]
This is a funny comic about homosexuality. http://www.ep.tc/problems/28/index.html
Part 2 of the comic, with subjects on the homosexual lifestyle, aids and other diseases, homosexuality and the law and others. http://www.ep.tc/problems/30/index.html
The aids part scares me, plus the large number of gays who like sadomasochism in their sexual acts. Is that right to all here? (located by clicking on no. 31 at the top). The subject of abortion lastly sickens me.
>>214 & >>216 half the way of that so called "funny" comic i wanted to puke. lets get a thing straight here, homosexuality is not a trend or a lifestyle!
sadomaso can be found to all kind of couples.
also straight couples practice the same things with gay couple:
>>216 Your argument is so fucking unbelievably stupid and weak I would laugh at it pathetic stance if it did not want to make me vomit so badly. You base your homophobia off a COMIC that has no actual FACTS just a load of piss poor jokes? And then the 'sadomasochism scares me' bit? Are you taking the piss?? Are you actually taking the piss? I pray to God you are a troll, because if not, my hope in humanity has been lowered just a little more. Millions of straight people all over the world are in sxm!!!! What the hell! Have you lived in a box all your life? This is sad. So far the arguments against homosexulity have been an illiterate and her imaginary sister, and now someone who bases their views off a comic book posted on a site MOCKING said comic.
Un-fucking-believable.
I have never been so angry on this site before. Disgusting...
>>214>>216 Oh please, give me a break. It's obvious you don't know what is going on in the world, if you really think this is what happens in the gay comunity.
Why do I keep bothering, why do we all keep bothering? It's obvious they have their own opinion about gays/lesbians and stand by it, no matter what we say.
>>221 because they need to be challenged and challenged and challenged again, preferably with fact and logic (and even with some anger.)
I agree. I'm friends with someone who is bisexual. She only practises sadomasochism with guys - thus... heterosexual sex. She goes very far, much farther than I would have ever gone or will ever go with my wife. They have their vagina sewed shut without drugs and have the thread ripped out without drugs, too. It makes them feel some kick. Maybe that may scare you, since SM already does without further explanation. I however think you should fricking understand what you are talking about.
You think we for example asked to lose our baby just because we are both female and immoral? That we suffer any less than any heterosexual couple that's perfectly sinless and practises as little of SM as we?
You should understand before opening your waffle. I agree with moonphase. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion, but you DON'T put it like that without understanding what you are talking about.
If you had to take all the odd looks just because we walk together in town, not even holding hands - you would understand that anyoe LGTB has already trouble enough surviving, then trying to be happy, without anyone like you coming along!
>>222 Yeah you're right, but sometimes I'm getting so tired of ignorant people.
>>223 Oh odd looks. The looks my friend and I got when we where visiting the zoo in Antwerp. She is just a good friend who happens to be divorced and has two kids and my neighbor. I was thinking, those people think we're together and find it weird. I kinda felt what you most feel every time people give you odd looks, like we where the monkeys in the zoo. Mmhmm, hope this made sense, it's late.
All my life I have been Labeled as Lesbian because of my looks and androgynous behavior and ppl can be really cruel just to think about someone is gay let alone, know that they are gay.
I didn't expect much when I was at school from my fellow 16 year olds. but when when I went to university with ppl from ALL over my country I thought it would be different but guess what stupidity is they thought of me as :The biggest Lesbian: the world ever had, they didn't talk to me or sit near me like I had some kind of disease, and most importantly they didn't speak to my few friends either, because "they were friends of the lesbian". I never showed any kind of affection to women around me, but I hadn't a fucking boyfriend to show off either. when I took the fucking scholarship to go for Erasmus in Czech Republic, the most popular guy from my Uni was the other one who came with me in Czech with Erasmus too. We became friends and project partners too I opened up to him, and he told me all the BS our schoolmates were talking about me. When we came back after a semester, he decided to sit with me and be my project partner for out last semester and he had them telling him "why are you sitting with her, the lesbian" [I heard them with my own ears] He refused to listen to them for my own good and because his opinion counted to them, I gain a bit of popularity, that my achieves as a student never gave me.
and all that iN the THought that I might be gay!
>>225 Oh tell me about it. Not my whole life mind you, but I have a colleague who says I most be a lesbian, cause I'm not married and have no kids. So one day she asked me about it and all I said, if I was do you have a problem with that? She didn't answer, but till this day she gives me weird looks when I'm standing close to my other colleague I work closely with and is my best friend. And my birthday, everyone congratulated me and kissed me on the cheeks, she didn't. I talk openly about gays and lesbians because I was raised that way and everyone finds it normal except for her. Well so now I kinda ignore her and think she doesn't know any better.
>>226 the positive thing in your country is that the minority is the narrow minded ones :)
I go to an all girls school and the uniform is very distinctive. I'm told we're known as the 'Devonport Dykes'. I have no problem with gays and it kind of made ne laugh because the person who said it was within earshot of one of my teachers who actually is gay (we were at a bus stop near the entrance of the school. Needless to say, she was not impressed.
I mean, I think it's sad that people get so much stick for being homosexual, one of my best friends is Bisexual and it's not like any of our friends have any problems with it.
That said, I really dislike it when people boast about their sexual exploits. Especially at my age, which is thirteen by the way, I think that being groped in the back seat of a car by some acne-ridden, smelly, perverted teenage boy is hardly something to be proud of. In fanfiction I don't mind things like threesomes or slash or Heterosexual explicit scenes it's just you can really tell the difference between the older writers and the younger ones. (Even when you have literally no experience)It just ruins the story.
>>227 Yep, and I'm glad for that. I hear from friends how difficult it is in other countries to be gay, so I'm very happy I live in Belgium.
>>229 some of the worst things is when in some countries gay ppl are illegal and they either send them for Sex-change or death-penalty
Thank you, RayRay. It's kind of good, realizing that not only me and my wife seem to understand just how hard it is to have one teeny tiny baby when you aren't straight. 3 months until next treatment. Let's just hope we don't loose him or her before time again...
>>232 my dear bola
every parent straight or gay goes though the same happiness or hardship when they try to have a baby.
if these narrow minded full of ignorance who call themselves humans DO NOT understand that, they the probably should put their holy book to the side and re-check their intelligence!!
I think I LOVE SIR ELTON JOHN :D
I went for lunch and parents had the TV on, so some gossip like program has a priest there because of what Elton John said half a month ago.
>"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems." "Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel."
of course now he is accused as blasphemer but what all those priests who tend to use a very sharp tongue for gay ppl, are losing the inner meaning of what Sir Elton said.
the whole thing is here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/2859895/Elton-John-claims-Jesus-was-gay.html
>>235 Nice, I love him.
smirks He is acused as a blasphemer, but priests having sex with underage kids, pedeophilia (probably spelled wrong) is okay then? A priest here who is acused of the facts, is walking free now, can you believe it?
>>236 I do believe it because it happens, a lot.
that greek priest sent a letter to the Queen so she will take his title away, which is ridiculous!!!
and I am wonder: priests shouldn't they read their holy book and teach god's words in their churches instead of watching gossip programs on TV?
>>238 Sir Elton is most of all an incredible artist, also I totally agree with you that he doesn't need a title and all. BUT if they take away his title because of that it would be really sad.
well...I don't think he should have said Jesus was gay just because we do not know that, so saying such a thing is bound to cause anger and upset. I'm not saying that Christians have a right to be homophobic, just that making an unfounded remark like tht is going to cause a ruckus. Its like when black people insist that Jesus was black. I think what he did say which is very important, was that Jesus was compassionate, intelligent, passionate and a believer in the goodness of humanity. The way he treated prostitutes, to me, is a sign of how he sees 'sinners' or 'transgressive' lifestyles. I can't say what sexulity he was, if any, I can't say if he would advocate homosexuality, (hell, I can't even say if he definitly existed) but what I can say with some confidence is that Jesus would of happily spoken or eaten with such a person, not damned them or tried to harm or kill them in any way. Jesus is one of the best things from the bible...
I don't think they'll take his title. People would go mad...
>>240 I sure agree, but also we don't have the whole article so to read what he was saying etc.
I think Jesus was a figure who hadn't sexual desire, either homosexual or heterosexual.
I will say a few things here and I don't want to considered blasphemer because it is just a thought, of observing religion for years.
Jesus was the one who could be every person! he was the child, the parent, the man, the woman, the hard worker, the prostitute, the soldier, the victim, the heterosexual, the homosexual, the sinner, the saint, the friend, the teacher, the student, and so many more. he didn't just took the sins away from the ppl he was becoming them.
>>243 or pansexual :P
>>245
I love you when you hit the nail on the head :D
>>245
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Jesuszeffirelliportrait.jpg
because he might be an amazing actor and we all loved that movie but you know blond with blue eyes is a bit too much :D
>>245, oh I know. I never believed he was white with blue eyes and blond hair. But at the same time a lot of my family have pictures of Jesus looking African. He wasn't that either. I keep saying to them 'he was born in Jeruselem!! He was more than likely tawny skinned, with a beard, and curly, short black hair!!!!" Its just annoying when people ignore facts or just make things up. The bible never mentions Jesus's sexulity but yet everyone always trying to work it out and work out who he was in love with. Its irritating because it takes away from important issues about what the man said (or was said to say,) and instead turns it into a silly soap opera with no ending.
>>249 No ending? What was the ascension all about, then?
Or are they waiting for a series reboot with the Second Coming?
>>250, Jesus' sexuality and apparent aexual exploits is a soap opera that has no ending- because there is no proof and no one will ever know.
I don't know much about christianity apart from what I was taught. So take from this what you will. A person can be christian in name but not in nature.You get people who twist the teachings for there own cause against what the bible and then people who don't belive in church yet treat everyone the same.
I belive in god. I don't want to say homosexuality is wrong because I don't think it's right to judge and I want to make that clear to other people on this board who are being offensive about it. Your not being christian. Christian is to treat people the way you want to be treated yourself. Agree or not you turn the other cheek because thats how jesus told us. Unless a burning bush has spoken to you recently don't try and lead the way or interpte the bible. Just do what is right the ten commandments. Respect people.
People who are being offensive to religion in general. I don't know but going to church. Is important to me. It brings communitys together and if you remove the god aspect. It is just a bunch of people coming together to say "Hey isn't it great. Look how amazing the trees are. Love is so nice!" It gives people hope. I know it's ignorant but I would pefer a false hope and that someone , no matter what I've done, care's for me and no matter how bad things get. It'll be better soon. It joins people together so please try to be respectful. You may not belive it and feel wronged but two rights don't make a wrong. It too is offensive.
Sorry for the huge lecture but It's just how I feel.
>>254 @swiftswallow
allow me to bow in front of you and applaud with all my heart for what you just said THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
finally a person who IS religious and DOES understand the meaning of religion!!!
Thumbs up to you too Ray Ray ;)
Thumbs up to swiftswallow, RayRay and Sera.
Has anyone else noticed that yaoi (boy/boy slash) gets criticised waaay more than yuri (girl/girl slash) or ridiculous hetrosexual pairings?
I thought at first that it was probably because more yaoi stories are out there, but I think there are a lot of crazy hetro fics as well, but yaoi seems to get the full brunt. What do people think?
I think... well there isn't really any excuse for hating one more than another, but male homosexual relationships have always been criticised more, for a long, long time.
It's probably got more of a background, but if you think about it, how many men like to see girls getting it on? Lots of them. There really is something about yuri that gets men, whereas fewer people find yaoi attractive.
It's just a guess on my part, but it seems to point quite a lot to it. I dunno why men find girl on girl sexy, I'd love to know why but most will just reply "It just is"
Lol.
Well, thing is, lots of girls love seeing two guys together. However, that's often heavily criticised, but guys liking/finding it kinky that two girls together is pretty much accepted...
well Yaoi is sure has way more ffs than yuri, and also a lot of yaoi ffs have a bad name because of the quality of the fic and not the actual subject.
I like seeing two guys together, but I prefer reading well written stuff... contrary to that though I won't read yaoi on FF.net really, unless it's RemusSirius.
Watching it - sometimes is fun, but I think it's more of a thing I can only watch when it's characters. Not in Real life...
I think Yaoi gets a lot of crap, what with the warning and everything. I mean, you warn ppl for gay couples, but not straight? I've seen thousands of SLASH! Warnings, but no STRAIGHT! warnings. Personally, I don't read straight pairings that often, I prefer yaoi, but I hate it when I get messages saying, 'well you could've told us it was going to be gay'. WTF? I only just thought of it myself! So now, in my stories I put warnings for straight and slash pairings, is only fair.
Yuri isn't treated as bad because you don't get many stories where its a main thing, mostly background pairings. I'm Bisexual, so I read both yuri and yaoi and I like them! If any homophobic idiots want to critise my stories, let them! It just shows that they don't know what there talking about. I watch yaoi as well, mostly characters though, watching real ppl is too funny, especially when they get tans but there are missing patched where their underwear was :)
>>264
the only time i give warnings is when there is sex in the fic. I do write yuri in a canon yuri fandom, so it is simply unnecessary to mention that: "hey you know they are lesbians, you have been warned" i have seen it a couple of times though.
when i put one of my lesbian characters being young and curious and not completely sure about her sexuality and sort of had sex with a male friend of hers I gave a warning "it contains hetero lemon." only because it wasn't canon.
if it was just affection between them i wouldn't give any warning.
it doesn't matter what kind of sex the characters have, as long as it is sex there should be a warning. if the couple is not canon then someone can put a warning of the kind of sex, or simply put the characters' names and lemon and those who know the fandom would understand.
i completely agree with you that there shouldn't be difference in the warnings.
I think a large part of the reason is the amount of it and the OOCness of it. There is the obvious to many guys, male/male = yuck too. I'll be using Final Fantasy VII fanfiction as an example.
Skimming through fanfiction summaries, in some fandoms there seem to be more male/male fics, than male/female or female/female combined. I'd guess from summaries that a higher percentage of the male/male ones are also more about the physical side of a relationship, than the male/female ones. There seems to be a lot improbable situations to lead to smut, like 'Cloud gets locked in Sephiroth’s lab cell'. They exist in all relationship types, but it seems more common in yaoi fics. Another common problem is the 'no more propagation of the species' scenario, where suddenly every male is only interested in men and the females are usually asexual or fangirling over said m/m.
The 'OOCness side' could also come into play. It's difficult for me at least to suddenly imagine Cloud suddenly falling deeply in love/lust with Sephiroth, despite previously being seen attracted to females only, him killing one of those females and the hating him in general. This could possibly be why the improbably situations.
I will say though, I've seen an incredibly high amount of bad yaoi fics, but I have read a few that were great enough for me to just try ignore the relationship and sex parts. I've read very few yuri fics, as they seem rare (outside of the Mahou Shoujo Lyrical Nanoha section anyway, but Nanoha/Fate is implied and even in the omake manga - in a one-sided way).
To be fair, it can be argued that Cloud could be gay, or at least bisexual, as you can get the Gold Saucer date scene with Barret. I don't personally interpret it that way, but there's nothing wrong with another writer (who actually likes yaoi) doing so. Cloud/Sephiroth can only be pulled off by two types of writers, however:
Unfortunately, I have yet to read a Cloud/Sephiroth fic by a writer who falls into the second category, and I have yet to write a parody, except in the form of a short forum post.
These days, I rarely even bother to look at the 'just in' section for FF7 on fanfiction.net, because I know that all the summaries will be along the lines of, 'OMG, what will happen to Cloud when he has to work on a mission with his crush Sephy (who finds himself oddly attracted to Cloud for inexplicable- BUT SEXYYY- reasons)?!! Read to find out, and LEAVE A REVIEW KTHXBYE!!!!'. Instead, I wait for others to recommend.
>>267 It's been a while since I saw it, but if I remember correctly, it never seemed like much of a date, more like Barret tagging along.
One of the latter, for Cloud/Sephiroth would be interesting to read, as long as it wasn't graphic. It is difficult to find good FFVII fics though, or even recommendations for them. The only interesting one I've read recently is Minerva's Gift.
Given that you can also have Cloud play along with Don Corneo and try to kiss him (and his embarrassed reaction when Tifa and Aeris enter the room), I would still argue that it is a matter of interpretation. In Event Square, you can kiss male or female characters during the play. Anyway, as for the Cloud/Barret date scene- the fact that it can happen is canon. Your interpretation that Barret is 'tagging along' is just that, an interpretation. Also, Cloud follows Barret of his own free will- I seem to remember that both Tifa and Aeris had to push him along (at least at first).
I'm playing devil's advocate here; I don't personally believe that Cloud is gay, but my point is that you can't say that a character in someone's fic is OOC because their sexuality doesn't fit your interpretation of the source material. The fact is, there's canon both ways for Cloud.
There's already a thread on here about FF7 fiction, so you could try reading through that for recommendations. And I agree that a good Cloud/Sephiroth would be interesting.
Plus, like I say in 259, there are plenty of ridiculous hetrosexual pairings (lets ignore the mary sue ones...) but they don't get as much grief.There are good homosexual fics that people would immediatly write off as badly written teenage fantasy porn, which isn't always the case.
However, it's very true that some fandoms have a lot of homosexulity (which isn't bad) but they are written badly (which isn't good.)But the focus on yaoi, to me, seems unfair, considering how many bad types of fanfic there are.
Has anyone noticed that anime has more 'yaoi galore xD' type fics than other genre's? I have a theory on why but I'm interested in other people opinion...
>>270 I totally agree with what you say here.
about yaoi in anime fics.
well Anime/manga world is filled with homosexuality, mostly in the affection type of homosexuality, it becomes explicit in the hentai anime.
every regular anime there is has at least ONE homosexual couple or/and affection. when we jump into different kinds of anime then you choose on Yuri or Yaoi.
the most famos yaoi anime is Loveless, which have a yaoi affection & a yaoi couple + a very active yuri one.
yuri anime go even further to the point when there is not a single male character in the story, mostly in all-girls schools, sempai/kouhai affection with a lot of kissing and sometimes a "promising for more" scene, of the after the sex naked bodies scene like this one http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/amane--hikari-52144.jpg
@Moonphase,
I tend to write fics with crack pairings in mind. Not like I get some sick "hoi hoi!" grin about abusing canon, but I am bored of canon and there are always things which could be done with different characters in mind. I've written a homosexual one-shot with a crack pairing which was well-recieved by it's readers, but I agree that (head begins to inflate) it is quicker condemned gross porn if the writer writes it poorly.
It all goes down to how one person sells it, I guess. Hetro' have been the norm in society (man + woman = babies), and homo' are still, let's face it, quite new in the scale of things. (I support it all the way, but it wasn't exactly heard of a hundred years ago, say.) People without a lot of evidence still make judgements on works, and it's likely their opinions are enforced on hetro' because they've known it to happen (and be published in wider range of books) for longer. I don't make an awful lot of sense, but there are rubbish hetro scenes which are tolerated and rubbish homo scenes with are considered disgusting because it's more a recent thing. (Maybe.)
I've noticed this Yaoi galore in anime typed fics also. (Yet, there's LOADS of MerlinXArthur) I guess -providing you can make anything out from the above paragraph- it's because there are lots of yaoi moments in anime/manga (CCSakuras brother being gay, eg?) which has probably been around longer than, let's say, Torchwood.
>>273 don't let me start ranting about Sailor Moon english dub :P
yes the first yaoi could they turn the boy into a girl.
then there was Haruka and Michiru the cannon lesbian couple of the series that it was turned into cousins.
another gay male was turned into woman, and last season was never aired due to the transgenderism and lesbianism.
Lol, I didn't mean it's only recently homosexuality has come to exist, but rather as you put it "cultures were more against it than tolerant of it." And as you said, we're only just getting over these old fashioned ways. Westerners are becoming more open about it, but I suppose that some places have always been open about it.
>>276
I was actually ranting about Eng Dub :P
though there are some writers who follow the Dub stupidity in their fic
Because I'm very interested in this subject I have a link to wiki about the history of homosexuality bookmarked. It also says when it was decriminalized in some parts of the Western world. I find it very interesting.
