If you’ve read my review on Percy Jackson and the Olympians that I posted last week, you’ll realize that I have a lot to say about this series and its spinoffs. While the original series was really good and is easily one of my favorite YA reads of all time, The Heroes of Olympus was definitely the series that started Rick Riordan’s fall as an author. Written between 2010-2014, this series is more liberal than the original and seems to bring in more identity politics. While it wouldn’t be as bad as it is in subsequent series, you can definitely tell that there was a shift in the political spectrum at this point in the publishing world. Let’s get into it.
#1: The Lost Hero
The Lost Hero was one of the less interesting books in the series, but still managed to capture your attention and leave you wanting to read book 2. In this book, we meet three new characters that will help proopel the entire story foward. These three characters are Jason, Piper, and Leo and none of them are as good as the original trio of Percy, Annabeth, and Grover. While I liked Jason and if I were a demigod would happily follow the son of Zeus, the other two were somewhat…boring.
Leo felt like Rick Riordan was trying too hard to make a funny character and his backstory seemed more like it was there to provide shock value. Basically, Leo kinda seemed like Nico, but less angsty and brooding and more annoying. He has some funny scenes here and there, but I don’t understand the hype surrounding him from the fanbase (especially from the rabid Leo fangirls who are just scary). Most of his jokes are predictable and surround women (All-Da-Ladies-Luv-Leo) or food.
Piper is the flatest person in the trio and is there for plot convience and representation. Her character does get better as the series progresses, but in The Lost Hero, she isn’t very interesting. Rick Riordan also spent way too much time talking about the fact that she’s a Cherokee Indian from the reservation and thus faces racism from the other girls at her school (as shown in the scene where two girls were asking if she liked being back on “the res” in the begining of the book). While I realize that there is still racism in this world today towards people of Native American, Black, or Hispanic decent, it is nowhere near as bad as it was 50, 60, 70 years ago. While her heritage does affect the story a little bit moving fowards, I don’t think Rick Riordan should’ve put so much emhasis on it. Much of her character was lost, I think partially due to this.
Similar to Magnus Chase, the Annabeth and Thalia cameos in this book provide the best two characters thus far since we already know who they are and they don’t need much more character development.
My biggest problem with this book, however, was the plot twist of Jason being from the Roman camp. If you’re the type of person who knows a bit about the Greek and Romans from history, you should’ve been able to guess that the symbol on Jason’s arm was Roman (SPQR was kind-of their motto) and they had the same gods, though they had different names. That said, Percy being at the Roman camp seemed kind-of predictable too, given how that was the only thing that would make sense.
#2: The Son of Neptune
Percy is finally in this book and we have two more new characters, Hazel and Frank, who unlike Leo and Piper are actually well-written and have more character depth than the wading zone of a swimmming pool. The racial representation in this book wasn’t in your face all the time and actually made some sense in the larger text. Frank’s being Chinese instilled in him some of his values and good character traits such as his sense of honor while Hazel’s being black makes sense since she’s technically from 1940’s Louisianna.
Nico di Angelo also makes a big cameo appearance in this book and is established as Hazel’s big brother and this sets up her motivation in the next book. He is also the one who ties the two camps together and this will later add drama to the story because the others see him as somewhat shady for keeping both camps a secret from each other. Since he’s also the son of Hades, he also knows a bit about the main baddie of The Son of Neptune, Alcyoneus, which helps this new trio to be able to find and defeat him.
#3: The Mark of Athena
Percy and Annabeth – after being seperated for several months – finally get back together in this book and are as adorable as ever. On top of that, the main plot of the series starts getting interesting as the Romans and Greeks meet each other for the first time in centuries and old rivalries and tensions start again. We get Octavian being as slimy as ever (we just love to hate this character), and Reyna is painfully sad because she just got friendzoned by Percy.
While I really liked this book and it’s one of my favorite in the series, it is somewhat more adult than the original Percy Jackson books. I suppose this makes sense since the fanbase who read Percy Jackson when it first came out were more grown up by the time The Mark of Athena came out, but Rick Riordan could’ve gotten rid of some jokes. For example, the jokes about the rest of the Seven finding Percy and Annabeth in the stables and thinking that they had had sex could’ve been ommited. Some jokes also make Leo look even worse than I already think he is. During the scene where everyone’s relieved and flustered to have found Percy and Annabeth, Leo seems to find the idea of them doing the thing in the stables funny and normal.
Later in the story, Leo checks in on Piper, asking if she’s dressed and is peeping through his fingers. It’s a good thing she was still in her P.J.’s, but why’s that type of perverted behavior supposed to be funny and endearing to the reader? Why would Rick Riordan write that and then several years later write a blog post addressing sexual harrassment in the young adult publishing industry partially because he claims that his wife was sexually harrassed in the workplace and in her personal life ( https://rickriordan.com/2018/02/sexual-harassment-in-the-childrens-literature-industry/ )?
While I’m not the type of person to be clutching my pearls at the mention of sex or sexual activity in books, I do believe it is out of place when mentioned in a book for 8-12 year olds, especially when a character is essentially harrassing someone who’s supposed to be his friend. This is incredibly hypocritical on the part of Rick Riordan and really makes me question what else he thinks is appropriate. The fact that the entire Percy Jackson fandom also brushes over this is also very concerning. One YouTuber in the Percy Jackson niche even seemingly made fun of Rick Riordan for not making the stable scene explicit to get Christian parents to buy the book for their kids.
#4: The House of Hades
This was my favorite book in the series, but was also the most liberal book in the series. Percabeth is now in Tartarus trying to survive, everyone else is desperately trying to get to the House of Hades and deal a major blow to Gaea while also carrying the Athena Parthenos, Reyna is trying to find everyone, Octavian is planning an attack on Camp Half-Blood, and Nico is gay now? What?
While I will give kudos to Rick Riordan for not making Nico’s identity as painfully in your face as in later books, this is where I realized just how much the publishing industry will force authors to write what they (the publishers) want so they can push their agenda on kids. No where in the original Percy Jackson and the Olympians or other Heroes of Olympus books was there any indication that Nico was gay or had a crush on Percy. This was simply added in for “representation” of the LGBTQ+ community and shock value. As I pointed out in my post on Friday about how it seems that Nico had a crush on Annabeth not Percy, and thus I can say that Rick Riordan basically just retconned his character because Disney and the Teachers’/ Librarians’ Unions had an agenda to push, even as far back as 2013.
Something that I find interesting about this is that if you go to his About page on rickriordan.com, in his FAQ section, Rick makes the false claim that he has taught gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans students in his time as a middle and high school teacher. He says:
“I’ve been lucky enough to teach all sorts of students — fifth grade to twelfth grade, rich and poor, from numerous ethnic backgrounds, with diverse religious traditions and a variety of learning differences. I’ve also taught gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. Some self-identified as early as elementary school. Some came to terms with their sexual orientation later in high school. Most had a hard time during the middle grades, which are tough years for any child. All my middle school students enriched my classroom. They made me a better teacher and a better writer for children, and they all deserve my support.”
( You can find the whole thing here under “How did you decide on Nico’s character development (SPOILERS)” https://rickriordan.com/about/frequently-asked-questions/)
I say that this is a false claim because Rick Riordan was a school teacher for 15 years from the late 80’s to the early 2000’s (https://www.famousauthors.org/rick-riordan). During that time, many students weren’t openly gay, bi, or lesbian. Trans was rarely ever heard of. If they were part of the LGBTQ+ spectrum, they certainly wouldn’t be coming out into the open about it for fear of being ridiculed and bullied by their fellow classmates. If what he says is true, the only way Rick Riordan would’ve known that a child was any one of those categories is if he was having conversations about sexual identity behind their parents’ backs at school, in which case I would say that he is not only a groomer but is a sexual predator.
While I’m fine with authors putting LGBTQ+ characters in their book (you’re allowed to do that thanks to your First Amendment rights), I’m not okay with authors putting LGBTQ+ characters in kid’s books because it opens up conversations about sex and sexuality that’s supposed to be between the parent and child, not the author and child or teacher and child. That type of subject matter is not appropriate for kids between 8-12 years old, since not only can they not understand it completely, but it also encourages a life that’s primarily defined by who you sleep with. I’ll go more into detail about this when I wrap up this series, but I think it’s good to think about when it comes to this book.
#5: The Blood of Olympus
This is the book that wraps up everything. Gaea is defeated, the Greeks and Romans are now friends, there wasn’t as many identity politics in it, and no more crazy stuff can happen right? Right? Nope, we have a cliffhanger that involves Leo and Calypso, a character we barely remembered from Percy Jackson and the Olympians. Dang it.
Until next time,
M.J.
The Tanuki Corner 
Kind of a shame you disliked this book series, I loved it. But I have questions: if you don’t care about people being LGBT+, how come you always bring it up negatively when one is LGBT+ in a book? Is there anything wrong with it? Being LGBT+? Having it in media even though you acknowledge that they exist?
LikeLike
It’s a shame you didn’t like the series, I loved it. I have questions however: if you don’t mind people being LGBTQ+, how come you always mention them in a negative light? Is there anything wrong with being LGBT? You acknowledge their existence so why is it bad for their existence to be acknowledged in fictional media?
LikeLike
My comment posted twice because it didn’t appear the first time. Feel free to reply to whichever which one.
LikeLike
Hey. Sorry it didn’t appear the first time. With new commenters, the comments pend for a bit and have to be manually approved.
To answer your question, as a Christian, I do not condone LGBTQ+ behavior as it is condemned by God. However, if you are part of that community, I won’t have a problem with you as long as you treat me as you would like to be treated. As long as you don’t endanger me or compel my speech, we’ll be fine.
The issue I have with putting LGBTQ+ characters/themes in books geared towards kids is that it’s introducing them to a lifestyle that is very sexualized because it’s no longer a behavior, but an identity. That already is dangerous in of itself as it paints children as sexual beings, but it’s also dangerous as it paints that community in a safe light, even though it statistically has some of the highest rates of suicide, mental health issues, self harm, STD/STIs, abuse of all sorts, etc. That’s also not mentioning how many people in that community report experiencing some sort of sexual abuse as children.
These are never things that are mentioned in these books, as it’s always painted with the brush of “Love is love” and “inclusivity.” It paints everything as rainbows and smiles, when the reality is so much darker. That’s a dangerous precedent to be setting.
Another reason why I don’t think it should be geared towards kids is because the YA rating is usually 12+. At that age, most of us are just beginning to become more conscious of certain changes and the power of media in that can run deep. It’s quite possible for a child who’s already confused thanks to puberty to start believing that they’re in this group thanks to this type of media even though, in a few years, it turns out that they never were. This can lead them to make decisions that can potentially never be reversed and – once again – launch them into a world of darkness hidden by bright colors.
In conclusion, though I don’t hate LGBTQ+ people, when kids get involved in this stuff, I have a problem with it. A better solution would be to let them grow up and figure things out without shoving it on them. What media you consume has a powerful effect on you and sometimes the damage can never be undone.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Thanks for the questions. There’s a lot, but I will try to answer them all as clearly as possible.
1). Yes, God created man and woman in his own image (Genesis 1:27). However, this is not meant literally. The way that it is meant is that humanity reflects aspects of God’s nature, such as rationality, creativity, relationality, and moral agency. However, because of the Fall, this was corrupted, and humanity became sinful.
Because of our newfound sinfulness, our desires changed, pointing away from God and to ourselves, becoming perverted, an inversion of what God wanted. One of the biggest examples of this was in sexual desires. God created mankind for monogamous, heterosexual relationships, meant for the propagation and raising of children, as well as the pleasure and good of mankind. However, thanks to sin, mankind started perverting this and fell into sexual immorality, which included lusting after members of the same sex. That’s why on the occasion when it’s mentioned specifically (usually included with other sexual sins, BTW), God has some very harsh things to say about it (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 1:7, etc.)
Furthermore, LGBTQ+ seeks to elevate oneself above God. The most poignant example of this is the whole trans/non-binary thing, as it seeks to change the body that God gave you. It seeks to play God with biology, and, as any detransitioner will tell you, the results are often disastrous.
As for your questions about Christians supporting LGBTQ+ and why, if you’re a Christian, you have to be against it, the simple answer is this: the Bible is God’s Word, and thus, since we’re called to obedience to God, we must condemn what He condemns. That’s why Bible-believing Christians should not support LGBTQ+, as it is explicitly condemned in the Bible. Often the “Christians” that you do see supporting it come from churches that have very skewed views of the Bible and God, usually thanks to following progressive viewpoints.
2). I don’t believe that being straight is necessarily a lifestyle as it’s how people have lived for the entirety of history without giving much thought to it. The same can’t be said of LGBTQ+.
You also ask if gender and sexuality go into your identity. Though your biological sex (if that’s what you mean by “gender”) can have somewhat of an impact on your personality and identity, your sexuality should not. For straight people, we don’t usually go about announcing proudly that we’re straight and making our entire identity revolve around that. Instead, we let our identity rest in something else, like who we are as people, our family, our friends, who we worship, etc. For me, my identity is shaped by my faith, what I do, my duty as a daughter, etc. It isn’t shaped by who I’m attracted to.
Meanwhile, what I see quite often from the LGBTQ+ community is that they make everything revolve around their sexuality from posting their pronouns and demanding people use them, to putting one of the LGBTQ+ pride flags in their bio to announce their sexuality, to making it so incredibly obvious that you don’t even have to guess. They announce it constantly, make sure you know, and everything revolves around it. This then makes it sexual because it’s all based on announcing who you’re sleeping with or are sexually attracted to.
As for what you said about LGBTQ+ experiencing bullying and suicidality, while I will admit that there is some bullying from straight people, there’s also a lot of bullying within the LGBTQ+ community and quite a bit of the suicidality can be attributed to a victimhood mentality. I say this because if you look at a lot of members of the LGBTQ+ community, they’re constantly complaining about something, even though they have more rights than ever before in history. It’s no surprise that when you constantly ruminate on your perceived problems to a pathological extent that the suicide rates are so high. I do not say this to condone bullying, but many of your problems are yours, not society’s. If you can’t grow a thick skin, don’t be surprised when you’re constantly depressed or anxious.
You’ve commented on STDs as well, asking if they’re overrepresented. I won’t spend much time on this one, as numerous clinical studies have shown that LGBTQ+ behavior (particularly between men) leads to higher rates of STI/STDs. This should be no surprise as men have higher sex drives than women and other biological factors contribute to this as well. (Sexual Orientation Disparities in Sexually Transmitted Infections: Examining the Intersection Between Sexual Identity and Sexual Behavior – PMC)
Lastly, for this section, you ask what does abuse have to do with anything. To be frank, I’m shocked that you’ve asked this, but hopefully these statistics clear this up:
(Family Research Institute » Blog Archive » How Much Child Molestation is Homosexual?)
Furthermore, according to Pubmed, in one study with 327 gay/bisexual men, 116 (35.5%) of them reported some sort of sexual abuse/assault as a child. According to this study, “Those abused were more likely to have more lifetime male partners, to report more childhood stress, to have lied in the past in order to have sex, and to have had unprotected receptive anal intercourse in the past 6 months (odds ratio 2.13; 95% confidence interval 1.15-3.95).” (Childhood sexual abuse among homosexual men. Prevalence and association with unsafe sex – PubMed)
Moreover, according to the AASAS (Association of Alberta Sexual Assault Services), gay, trans, and men with disabilities are more likely to experience some sort of sexual assault, but it often goes unreported, and the prevalence of these cases may be even higher than reported. (Fact-Sheet_Sexual-Violence-Against-Men-_-Boys.pdf) Lastly, according to Gitnux, 74% of LGBTQ+ people have experienced some sort of sexual assault or harassment. (Lgbtq Sexual Assault Statistics Statistics: Market Data Report 2025).
I could continue giving more examples of these alarming statistics, but from this, it should hopefully be made clear to you why getting kids involved in this community is extremely dangerous. If any other group had these numbers, we would never let our kids within 100 miles of them. Why then is it okay when it’s the LGBTQ+ community? I don’t care that it’s marginalized; this is dangerous.
3). You’ve asked about why we expose children to heterosexuality at a young age, implying that exposing them to homosexuality at that age is no different. Children are exposed to it at a young age because it takes one man and one woman to make a child. That’s just basic biology.
As for your other questions in this section, you ask why it’s a bad thing that children are confused, implying that it’s a good thing to expose them to LGBTQ+ subject matter since it will make them curious enough to question their identity. The simple answer to this is: yes, children are confused because they’re learning about the world. That’s not an excuse, however, to confuse them further. If a child is confused, the best solution is to give them clarity in an age-appropriate way instead of introducing them to ideas and concepts that 1). They can’t yet understand and 2). Most adults have a hard time understanding, much less articulating. It’s clarity that helps a child find their identity as they grow up, not more confusion.
When sex is introduced to this, it’s especially bad for kids. My mother experienced this when a family member groomed and raped her as a child. It deeply confused her not only because she didn’t have a grasp on what sex was yet, but also in the manner that it was done in. Even if it had stopped at grooming, it was still inappropriate, led to years of trauma and confusion – quite a bit of which was about her sexuality thanks to the assault – and the pedophile should be behind bars.
I hope this helps answer your questions. I think I got all of them but let me know if I missed any.
LikeLike
I feel like you’ve answered sufficiently so I’ll respond to the points you’ve made:
1). As an atheist with only basic knowledge of the Bible, I unfortunately cannot give an in-depth response to your own personal religious views. However, I’ll state this: religious interpretations are subjective. They vary from person to person and across the political spectrum. Look no further than history to understand: ever since the appropriation of Christianity by Europeans around the fall of Rome, people’s views on the religion have always varied. Because of this, Europe had gone through various papal schisms, excommunications, heresy accusations, executions, and church reformations; all this occurring through the Middle Ages and Early Modern period. A prime example would be the Martin Luther Protestant reformation which seeked to steer religion away from the Catholic Church’s authoritarian take on Christian values. Different religious interpretations have even resulted in Islam, who refer to Christians as Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book).
The main point to get from all of this is that the pro-LGBTQ+ Christians are no more Christian than you are. It’s unfair to automatically dismiss someone as falsely religious for allegedly not following the religion correctly. You claim that you have to follow everything in the Bible as these are God’s words and to be Christian is to follow God’s words. If that’s true, then every Christian across the world would have to be in support of slavery (as stated in Esphesian 6:5 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ”). Except, majority of Christians today–at least in the Western world–show no support for the enslavement of other peoples. So I ask again, what makes a progressive Christian’s views on Christianity any less valid than yours even though–assuming–you express no support for slavery? It’s written clear as day, so why don’t I see you advocating for slavery along with the prevention of homosexuality? Say if you were arguing with a U.S Confederate around mid 19th century: what makes their Christian values any less valid than yours? They’re following the Bible after all, so wouldn’t that make you a false “Christian” by your logic?
Furthermore, I don’t see how gender reassignment surgery does any harm to trans people considering the incredibly high success rate compared to the low regret rate, which is mostly the result of external factors like societal stigma (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36149983/, and https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/). I will address this later in detail, but gender and biological sex aren’t the same thing.
2). A lifestyle, by definition, is how people live their life. By your reasoning, being straight is essentially a lifestyle the same way being gay would be. Human sexuality itself isn’t a lifestyle, it’s merely feelings of attraction. Besides, how have straight people lived for the entirety of history? LGBT people have also existed alongside straight people for the entirety of history. Look no further than the gays in the Ancient Graeco-Roman world, China, medieval Europe. Or how about the gender non-conforming individuals around Anglo-Saxon times, which some would go as far as to claim as transgender? Yes, the same can be said about the LGBT. If simply being a sexuality is a lifestyle, then heterosexuality isn’t exempt from this.
No, by “gender” I do not mean biological sex, I mean a construct. Gender is neither reproductive biology nor sex. A person has various types of identities that range from physical, personality, hobbies, careers, and so on. Blue eyes is no more an identity than being straight or gay. It’s the decision of the person to decide what part of their identity they want to connect with more. Speaking of identity, there’s simply no lack of straight people (especially men) who also like to proclaim their sexuality. You see this often in social media, forums, even in-person amongst strangers, friends, acquaintances. I’m not interested in doing this little exchange of who flaunts their sexuality more, I point this out because everyone has stated their sexual/romantic attractions at least once. People do not make their sexuality their sole identity, that’s silly. So how is simply proclaiming your sexuality making it revolve entirely around your personality/identity? How is a gay guy saying they like boys any different than a straight guy saying they like girls from time to time?
About the pronouns, they are simply embedded in the language we use (I, we, them, he, she, us, etc.). A person posting their pronouns in their profile is them simply not wanting to be misgendered. No one likes being misgendered, even cisgender people. In what way does posting pronouns feel demanding to you?
What you’ve stated about the bullying and suicidality is incredibly insensitive. In what way does “manning up” and “growing thick skin” help with depression and anxiety? In what way does any of this help lower the suicide rate, especially amongst LGBT folks? If only everyone knew that to solve suicidal thoughts and depression is to just move on–man up, get over it. You’d be a terrible therapist! While in comparison to past centuries LGBT people have more rights–than ever before in history! you say–they still do not have equal rights, especially worldwide where half the world punishes LGBT identifying people and people who profess pro-LGBT views. Examine Bangladesh, Russia, most of Africa, Asia, and most of Latin America. In slightly more sensible countries like the U.S and U.K, LGBT people still face family neglect, housing discrimination, hate crimes, job discrimination, and a couple more. It’s for these reasons that the LGBTQ+ have a right to complain about the issues going on with current society, yet you dismiss it as just a victimhood mentality. Why is it that you paint the LGBTQ+ as whiny children when they still suffer from discrimination based on their identity? Is there something inherently wrong with complaining?
You’ve also responded to the STD question and have posted stats–which I’ve examined in preparation of this comment. To briefly address the STD question, no matter the sexuality, sex is always going to be risky. With gay people, I’m aware it’s much more by a few percentage. A simple solution to this problem would be sex education and the wearing of protection when performing penetrative sex. In the case that by some chance you might be against sex education, places with sex education have fewer teen birth rates than places that teach abstinence, implying that the teaching of cautious sex and making good love life decisions prevents people from committing spontaneous pregnancy. You simply cannot tell people to not have sex because they’ll eventually do it and teaching them the right way would prevent consequences, such as teen birth.
I question the validity of the stats you used from Family Research Institute, notorious for using false research methods and essentially being an anti-LGBT hate group. So it’s not okay to promote progressive pro-LGBT values but totally okay to cite from a website that promotes socially conservative Christian values? What happened to not being politically biased? But on the assumption that you’re correct, do you know the methodology behind the stats? Have you read any of the references listed below to validate these stats?
Going off the other stats that you’ve cited (I read a similar one from PMC as the one you cited was merely an abstract: “Does Maltreatment in Childhood Affect Sexual Orientation in Adulthood?”), not only is sexuality affected by sexual abuse, it’s also the sexuality that influences the abuse. It seems like it goes both ways; nature and nurture. However, I’m currently not interested into getting into the nature vs nurture aspect of sexuality and instead would like to state that not all LGBTQ+ people suffer from sexual abuse as pure exaggeration of stats would say otherwise. There’s a good amount of LGBT folk that grew up in healthy households. There’s also a good amount of LGBT that grew up in environments where they had to repress their identity, else they’re immoral criminals!
You have also pointed out how LGBT and disabled men suffer from sexual assault and harassment. I’m aware that this group suffers from disproportionate sexual assault and that’s deeply unfortunate. It’s for these reasons and the reasons I’ve listed for why the LGBTQ+ are a marginalized community. And yet, you say that you don’t care and it’s dangerous nonetheless. I’m curious, do you think any part of these problems that LGBT people face are merely voluntary or by circumstance? It’s funny how you say that you wouldn’t let kids within miles of the LGBTQ+ community if it meant exposing them to the harsh realities of LGBT discrimination–or “dangerous lifestyle.” Would you let your six year old play with legos if it meant that by some small chance they’d accidentally swallow it?
And finally…
3). Yes, it really is no different. The only difference being that you’re exposing your child to nuance rather than trying to suppress a part of the world that’s always existed. Your reason against this is merely because it’s basic biology that a man and a woman (better worded: an egg and a sperm) create a child. My question is: how would you go about explaining the basic biological concept of conception to an incessantly curious child who will inevitably always ask questions? Do you explain what egg and sperm are? Do you explain where they come from? How it’s made? Where it’s stored? Say if a child were to stumble upon a gay couple, either on TV or in person. How would you be able to explain to them that being heterosexual is the only valid sexuality when the child observes otherwise? How do you go about explaining to them that not everyone is attracted to the opposite gender whilst maintaining the heteronormative hierarchy? Do you see now the hypocrisy of only exposing heterosexuality to a child but not homosexuality? It shouldn’t come as a surprise that any discussion about human sexuality and conception will result in discussions related to sex. You are exposing your child to sex regardless who’s doing it to who. Heterosexuality is no exception.
As for your other point, you state that children being confused is okay because they get to learn…but that it’s not okay still? I’m sorry to break this to you, but children will always be confused. That is why they always ask questions. The moment children are enrolled to school is especially when they become even more confused, with subjects like math, reading comprehension, history, writing, and science. This is a ludicrous argument: should we now ban schools on the basis that children might suffer from confusion? Are we to keep our children in perpetual ignorance if it means that they won’t be confused?? If you’re not able to cope with children being confused, then being a parent shouldn’t be on your bucket list.
And again with the sex. Any discussion on the basis of conception and human sexuality will be sexual. I know that’s hard to contend with, but that’s just what happens when a child asks too many questions about where they came from. Speaking of sex and heterosexuality, there are numerous kids TV shows like Spongebob Squarepants, Rocko’s Modern Life, and Phineas and Ferb where the writers will write in subtle sexual innuendos and jokes that mostly pertain to the birds and the bees. It’s usually along the lines of a character that doesn’t know better asks where babies come from and the wiser character shutting down the conversation, with the punchline being that sex is required for a baby to be born. The jokes are never explicit, only alluded to enough so that children who also don’t know better watch the show and miss the joke. I see no complaints or outrage over this. So why is making jokes about sex and conception in a kids TV show totally okay but a gay character being written into a book also for kids isn’t? How, in what world, is this any less sexual than Riordan simply mentioning a character that’s gay and had a crush on a boy? There are so many plot holes to this mess, it’s crazy!
And that pretty much concludes my counter argument.
LikeLike
As a counterargument to your counterargument (thank you for responding; most people don’t respond to these types of discussions) …
1). As someone who has been rigorously studying Christianity, the Bible, and Christian apologetics for the past four years or so and has been defending the faith more openly over the course of this year, I would like to address your claims about religious interpretation of the Bible and how that ties into LGBTQ+.
While I will not argue that some religious interpretations of the Bible are personal (i.e. views on things like food laws, piercings, tattoos, dress codes, etc. will vary from Christian to Christian), there are things in the Bible that are fundamental. The biggest examples of the fundamentals are the 5 Solas (Scripture, Faith, Grace, Christ alone, and for God’s glory alone). If you mess with these, you end up with outright heresy, if not an entirely new religion (such as Islam, which I’ve been writing extensively about here on the blog and draws heavily on the ancient Christian heresy of Gnosticism).
[Author’s Note: While you can argue that that’s also subjective because Martin Luther pioneered this, it was not, as it came from a hermeneutical approach that looked to read the text as the authors originally intended, drawing on historical background, surrounding context, etc. This type of approach had been in the making for years and years thanks to the Renaissance’s resurrection of classical learning and humanities. I would also like to point out that Martin Luther’s movement wasn’t necessarily meant to drive people away from the authoritarian take from the Catholic Church, but back to Biblical Christianity (the beliefs of the early church fathers, such as Peter and Paul.) There’s also the fact that many of these church splits and schisms, if they weren’t about secondary issues (like the personal above), were because of things like power, politics, etc.]
However, this is not to say that secondary issues are unimportant. Though true that the fundamentals are what matter most, there are quite a few secondary issues (such as LGBTQ+) that are dangerous to mess with. In the case of LGBTQ+, though I do think there are Christians who are genuinely saved who hold a positive view of LGBTQ+, when you start taking a pro-LGBTQ+ stance in the church, you really have to ignore some major Bible verses, especially as they are written in the original Greek/Hebrew. This can then open some big questions about how much else in the Bible you’re willing to ignore or rewrite to fit a social narrative, thus bringing up questions of what you believe about Scripture as God’s word, which affects everything else. In fact, if you’re interested, I will link a debate Michael Knowles recently had with two LGBTQ+ affirming pastors. I may not agree with him on everything, but I think it illustrates my point (HEATED Debate: LGBTQ In the Bible? Michael Knowles Pulpit & Politics).
From here, you bring up the argument of, “If Christians must follow God’s word, then they must believe that slavery is okay because of Ephesians 6:5.” This is a strawman argument rooted in a misunderstanding of the Bible that I covered back in February (Apologetics: Debunking Deconstruction – Does God Condone Slavery? – The Tanuki Corner). The Bible is ambivalent towards slavery – neither condoning nor condemning it – because 1). Christianity was never meant to be a political movement and 2). To outright condemn it would’ve given us so many atrocities and horrors thanks to the political, societal, and economic upheaval that slavery would’ve been a minor concern. I think God waited so long to raise up people to get rid of slavery because during the early-to-mid 1800s, many tasks that would’ve required manual labor were being replaced with machines, thus setting the stage for the elimination of the slave trade as it was becoming less and less viable economically. Even the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, acknowledged during some earlier Senate speeches that slavery would eventually become obsolete due to these technological changes, even though he was pro-slavery. Your argument also seems to ignore the entire fact that the Exodus happened, God encouraged people to treat their slaves well, the fact that the Bible never commands anyone to own slaves and it took ridiculous amounts of cherry-picking and lying to say the Bible ever condoned it, and it was mainly Christians who moved to emancipate the slaves. Thus, your argument falls flat on its face.
[Author’s Note: And if you want to argue that the Bible is hateful towards other groups (such as women), look up my Debunking Deconstruction series, as I’ve probably already debunked it.]
You also linked some articles about the supposedly low regret rates of transitioning. I’ve examined these and here are some other stats from Stats for Gender.org, a non-partisan group that works to bring the truth of transition surgery to light (Stats for Gender – Providing reliable and accessible information on gender and transition.). I would also recommend listening to some of the stories of detransitioners.
2). Thanks for defining your definition of gender. According to psychology, gender is not biological sex, however, it is how your personality intersects with your biology and can be influenced by other factors. That is true. But this is where things have become confused. Just because you may be male and be more feminine doesn’t mean you’re trans. I’m a female, enjoy female things, but also have a more of a masculine temperament as compared to my female counterparts. That does not mean that I’m trans, 2-spirit, non-binary or something else. It just means I’m a human with a unique personality, which does not define me. When you make your sexuality or gender the defining point of who you are (which is what I mean by identity), then you’ve started down a dark path. And when people are telling kids to get HRT or GAS for gender dysphoria that they’ll likely grow out of, those people are pushing them into all sorts of medical malpractice.
On this topic, you’ve stated that it’s silly to make sexuality your sole identity, which I completely agree with. From there, you ask: “So how is simply proclaiming your sexuality making it revolve entirely around your personality/identity? How is a gay guy saying they like boys any different than a straight guy saying they like girls from time to time?” The LGBTQ+ movement does not simply proclaim it as a casual thing. It has an entire month dedicated to parades celebrating who a minority of people have sex with, with floats, speeches, corporate and state endorsements, etc. Not even something like Black History Month has anything like this, for Pete’s sake. The LGBTQ+ community has made sexuality no longer a behavior, but an idol, a defining point of their identity.
To move on to pronouns, this is another way that the LGBTQ+ community has made sex an identity. Sure, being misgendered can be weird, but if someone were to refer to me as “he/him” though I’m female, I would not care, much less throw a fit over it. However, in the LGBTQ+ community, any time someone refers to you with the pronouns aligning with your biological sex, you throw a tantrum that you weren’t referred to as “ze/zim/zer,” even to the point where in some countries, like Canada, if you use the wrong pronouns, it’s a hate crime, and you can be sent to jail. It doesn’t make using the “preferred pronouns” an option at that point; it’s emotional manipulation and coercion and is a direct affront to the right of free speech. Sorry to step on your toes, but that’s what it is.
Speaking of stepping on toes, thanks for saying I would make a terrible therapist. I appreciate it (R. Lee Ermey Geico Commercial – Gunny Therapy – Unlimited EDU Backlinks ). But sarcasm aside, you say that “growing a thick skin” isn’t the cure for anxiety and depression, but, according to psychology, it is. One of the main causes of depression and anxiety is rumination (which is also commonly found in people with a victim mindset {Victim Mentality: 16 Signs and Tips to Deal with It}), a repetitive, passive focus on symptoms of distress and their possible causes and consequences, which can easily lead to catastrophizing, where you jump to the worst possible outcome. This constant cycle of negative thoughts can then lead your body to release stress hormones such as cortisol, which can lead to the physiological symptoms of anxiety. However, when you stop ruminating on perceived problems and catastrophizing and recognize that not everything is out to hurt you or will hurt you, your mental health will thank you. You’ll not only feel less anxious/depressed in the moment, but you’ll become more resilient. (Why People Ruminate and Tips to Stop). I speak from seeing this happen in my mom’s life, and from personal experience. I’m going through a situation that is objectively crappy right now that’s like something I went through a few years ago. The first time it happened, I was experiencing anxiety, depression, and mild panic attacks. Today, however, I recognize it’s not something I can control, it’s okay to be upset about it, but it won’t seriously hurt me long term and is in God’s hands. Because of this mindset, I’m much calmer about it and even feel a bit curious about where it will take me. But if you would prefer to be coddled and allowed to spiral into constant naval-gazing and self-pity and wonder why you’re not getting better, then I can’t help you.
As for what you had to say about LGBTQ+ people not having equal rights in most countries, while I can agree with that and I do think it’s tragic what’s happening there, here in the West, we’ve tied ourselves in knots trying to give LGBTQ+ people equal rights to the point where we’ve surpassed it, and, up until recently, made them the equivalent of a protected class. Look at all the laws that are meant to protect LGBTQ+ from Western countries, including (as I mentioned earlier) arresting anyone who misgenders someone (Man arrested for discussing child’s gender in court order violation). That’s also not mentioning how, in many states, biological men are still allowed to go into women’s bathrooms because it conforms with their “gender identity,” even though it’s a violation of basic women’s rights, makes women feel uncomfortable, puts them in danger when men use this to sexually assault them (which has happened), etc.
Now for the sexual abuse question. You ask about the validity of the Family Research Institute, and I found a page about where they got their info if you would like to check that out (Family Research Institute » Blog Archive » Child Molestation and Homosexuality). It is disturbing.
However, the biggest thing that stood out to me about your paragraph on childhood sexual abuse – though I can agree that not all LGBTQ+ people have been abused – were these lovely sentences: “Going off the other stats that you’ve cited (I read a similar one from PMC as the one you cited was merely an abstract: “Does Maltreatment in Childhood Affect Sexual Orientation in Adulthood?”), not only is sexuality affected by sexual abuse, it’s also the sexuality that influences the abuse. It seems like it goes both ways; nature and nurture.”
I would like to know what you mean by this, because while I can agree that sexuality can be affected by sexual abuse, to suggest that it’s the sexuality that influences the abuse, though I can see some grounds for this, is ridiculous. To say that it goes both ways with the context of the previous sentence – even if a realization of one’s sexuality leads them to risky behavior – is disgusting as it brushes off that abuse as though the kid was asking for it. By what moral metric is this okay? Either way, this stuff is evil, as it causes a child mental and physical trauma (The Long-Lasting Consequences of Child Sexual Abuse | Psychology Today).
Lastly for this section, you say that I don’t care that the LGBTQ+ community is marginalized because of the disproportionate rates of sexual assault amongst other things. I do care and wish these things would be reported more and that justice would be served. But, because of how political our judicial system is as it often tries to paint LGBTQ+ in a safe light, it may be long before we see that day. It’s a sad reality and adds to the atmosphere of why many of the victims of sexual assault are pressured to never speak up and the crimes go unpunished (which should answer your question about if this is voluntary or circumstance).
However, just because this is the reality of things doesn’t mean that this community is any less dangerous. To use the Lego analogy is grossly inappropriate for this context, as we are talking about a community in which close to three-quarters of its members are sexually harassed or assaulted. It’s not a small risk that they might be assaulted; it’s a statistical reality that if kids go into that community, they will be harmed at one point or another. If not, they will be the minority. To expose kids to this isn’t just teaching them about the harsh realities of the LGBTQ+ community but is actively putting them in unnecessary danger.
3). To answer your questions here, if my future child ever came up to me asking where babies come from, I would explain it the same way my parents explained it to me when I was a young child. I wouldn’t go into an in-depth discussion of sex, where these things are stored, etc. until they needed to start knowing more about that (such as when puberty hits). That’s just common sense.
If my kid saw a gay couple in public or on T.V., depending on their age I would explain it differently, but overall, the message would be that that isn’t how God intended for love to be. God’s plan for love was for one man and one woman to marry for life (which, if followed according to Ephesians 5 and Matthew 19, solves numerous problems, including misogyny, high STD rates, divorce rates, etc.) You can call that “homophobic,” “hate speech,” “Christian nationalist indoctrination,” whatever. I don’t care. Public schools do the same thing, but in a less age-appropriate way and from a different worldview.
Your second paragraph here about children being confused in school is a complete strawman. I do not argue that kids shouldn’t be confused. As you point out, they will always be confused. My point is that we shouldn’t confuse them further by introducing concepts to them that are beyond their ability to understand. Math, history, language, etc. are things that, when introduced and clearly explained in an age-appropriate way, a kid can understand. The “Genderbread Man” is not, especially since I remember being a five-year-old thinking I was a mermaid and a fairy in the same day. But maybe understanding that makes me unfit to be a parent, LOL.
Finally, with your comparison to subtle innuendos and gay characters, you’re comparing oranges and apples. The difference is that innuendos are subtle and are meant to go over your kids’ heads. Meanwhile, every time an LGBTQ+ character is introduced, it’s made explicitly clear that they’re LGBTQ+. Just look at Rick Riordan’s book, The Sun and the Star, where Goodreads users were complaining about how many times Nico’s sexuality is hammered into our skulls.
Ultimately, I cannot persuade you to one side or the other but thank you for writing a response that had some thought put into it. I am curious, however, as to why you are so invested in your beliefs.
LikeLike
1). Again, as an atheist, I have minimal knowledge of the Bible and am not interested in trying to argue against your religious beliefs as I feel it’s exhaustingly useless. Since you were kind enough to leave a video I’ll link one of my own that does a better job at explaining the issue I have with anti-LGBTQ+ Christian ideologues and the Bible–https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGNZQ64xiqo.
[Response to Author’s Note: Martin Luther’s reformation movement aimed to direct Christian interpretation at reading the Bible and also to redirect the religion away from the Catholic Church’s complete authority, especially considering the hypocrisy of the Church. Subjective religious interpretations were secondary reasons for the excommunications, schisms, and executions. The primary societal change towards changing the meaning of Christianity doesn’t exclude the secondary issues behind the reformations.]
You state my argument about Bible slavery is a strawman. Yet you haven’t made an attempt at disproving this mysterious strawman, you’ve reinforced it by mentioning God in Exodus to treat the slaves well. So no, the argument has unfortunately not fallen flat. It’s no matter that the slaves were treated well–they were still slaves! They are people who were owned by other people! The fact that some Christians during the civil war moved to emancipate slavery doesn’t negate the glaring observation of the Bible demand the slaves obey their masters.
You THINK??? What’s the logic behind raising millions of people for more than a millennia to abolish slavery when you could’ve just prevented it in the first place?? Are you not aware of any of the slave revolts that have occurred way before the transatlantic slave trade? There have been people against the concept of slavery centuries ago. It was only recently that the idea that slavery was bad even lodged itself into the heads of many.
[Another Author’s Note?: if you’re willing to make the argument that the Bible condemns the entire LGBTQ+ community–does it really? what about asexual, intersex, and questioning people?–then yes, it would be a valid assertion that the Bible is being hateful towards another group. I would also say the same thing about race if you were a KKK member who believed that God created white people as superior. You would have to make an argument otherwise in order to convince me, an atheist with basic knowledge of Christian literature, that the Bible isn’t hateful.]
Yet again you link me to an unreliable source. Stats for gender.org comes from Genspect, which not only opposes gender reassignment surgery, but also opposes laws banning conversion therapy. For the second time, you must convince me how this source is any more reliable than FRI. And no, I do not care to listen to detransition stories. If I cared enough to only rely on anecdotes as valid evidence I would’ve took the advice of a schizophrenic person that told me about demons telling them to commit harmful acts.
2). Being transgender isn’t the same as being more masculine than usual as a girl. Despite gender being a construct, it’s also a spectrum. If a “woman” acts too masculine to the point where they don’t even consider themselves as a woman, it’s reasonable to state they’re trans and they’ll identify as such. If a person didn’t consider themselves aligning with either gender, then that would make them non-binary. Butch lesbians, despite being more “masculine” presenting, still identify as woman. Femboys still identify as men despite being feminine presenting than usual. That is ultimately what separates masculine women from trans men. You have the wrong idea about identity if you think it’s merely a sole defining factor. I have spoken of this already.
Grow out of?? How are you so sure that children will just “grow out of” gender dysphoria? If it’s so severe to the point where they don’t identify as the gender assigned at birth, then how would they simply “grow out of it”?
Confusing pride month with “just celebrating being gay” is a gross oversimplification of the movement. You seem well aware of the long-lasting oppression that LGBT people have faced, so there seems no need to go into detail about how the pride movement seeks to celebrate the still ongoing overcoming of anti-LGBT oppression and the message of there being no shame in being different from the status-quo. Despite some of the current problems with pride parades, it doesn’t ignore the overall message of the movement. Your off-handed assertion of Black History Month is ridiculous. If this is the level of historical apathy you’re willing to go with, then there’s simply no hope in convincing you that the LGBTQ+ doesn’t seek to revolve everything around their sexuality. In ideal world where black people and the LGBT weren’t an oppressed and marginalized community, there would be no pride month or Black History Month. Why do you think there wasn’t a pride month during Ancient Greece? And since when has sexuality been a behavior? Sexuality are the feelings of attraction to a specific gender(s).
This is wrong. Pronouns do not refer to a person’s sex but their gender. No one is going to pull the pants down of every person to accurately refer to their pronouns–which is partially why gender is a thing, by the way. Since when has a simple misgendering of someone been considered a hate crime that can put you in jail? Are you deliberately hiding key details? For you to be in jail for a hate crime, you’d have to have continuously harassed, violated someone’s identity and privacy. But you say that it’s just free speech–as if free speech ever equated to bigotry!
According to psychology, you say. Interesting. What psychological studies, research papers, empirical evidence have you read that confirms that simply “getting over it” cures depression and anxiety? From what I’ve read, “getting over it” doesn’t help whatsoever with depression nor anxiety; it’s actually a harmfully counter-productive attitude. Telling a person with severe social anxiety or depression to “get over it” is equivalent to telling a person with a broken leg to “walk it off”–which is why you’d be a terrible therapist! But why, you might ask? Because depression and anxiety are mental conditions, not trivial emotions. Which is why it’s always recommended you seek professional help to alleviate these conditions. In response to the “rumination causes depression and anxiety,” correlation doesn’t equal causation. There are a wide variety of factors that can cause depression and anxiety. Your story for how you got over a terrible situation does not speak for the general suffering of mental conditions. It’s bitter irony to willingly share your personal experience yet demonize others for having a “victimhood mentality.”
No. Why do you still insist on LGBT having equal rights and being a protected class? You’ve already agreed with me that they’re yet to gain equal rights and I’ve already explained it earlier. Not only have you used two isolated articles out of context, but you’ve now resorted to tabloids to try and prove that the LGBTQ+ community have nothing to fear! That they’re rights will not be taken and there’s really no need to complain, even though gay marriage in the U.S is currently ambiguous as to whether it will be overturned or not. Not to mention that conversion therapy is still legal. It’s also silly to think women’s rights are being violated because trans women decide to use the bathroom of their gender. Simply excluding trans women from using the women’s bathroom as if this will solve sexual assault is just a stupid claim. You are pointlessly fear-mongering at this point with talks about “free speech!!” and “sexual assault!!”. Do you think a rapist is gonna take their sweet time playing dress-up just to sexually assault someone? How does this make sense if the rapist knows they’ll be caught eventually regardless? Is every trans person a rapist? You must think this to be inciting fear about sexual assault in women’s bathrooms because of “gender ideology.”
Linking me again to the FRI doesn’t prove much. I have specifically asked YOU, what made you think this site is any valid. You have ignored my questions so I’ll ask them again: What’s the methodology behind any of the statistics? Have cared to read and analyze any of the reference to confirm the validity?
And about the sexual abuse: no. My observation was not that because the child was of a different sexuality that they “asked for it.” No where did I say that. I pointed out that the child being of a different sexuality is another risk factor of sexual abuse based on what I’ve read from the statistics. You are the one that brought up sexual abuse out of nowhere to try and justify why children shouldn’t be exposed to LGBTQ+ subject matter. You even agree with me that not every LGBT person is a sexual abuser or has been sexually abused. So I ask: what was even the point of mentioning sexual abuse in the first place if you concede my point? If anyone should be disgusted, it should be me.
I said that you didn’t care regardless of the disproportionate sexual assault rates, hate crimes, and censorship. Our judicial system has always been political, I see no point in mentioning this. I find it funny how you claim that judicial system tries to paint LGBTQ+ in a safe light. Since when has the judicial system ever tried presenting the LGBTQ+ community as “safe”? Being LGBT is the opposite of safe in a society where you run the risk being jumped in the streets for being gay! All you need to do is look the hate crimes.
Lastly, children do not choose to be LGBTQ+, either they are LGBT or aren’t. End of discussion. Informing children about the LGBTQ+ raises awareness of the issues that this community faces. You actively supporting the suppression of these issues and the community will only regress us back to when the majority considered homosexuality a mental illness.
3). Common sense, you say. It also would be common sense to inform your child about variances in human sexuality without at all mentioning things related to sex until puberty age. Simply telling your child that gay people exist isn’t whatsoever sexual and all you did was run in loops with your earlier reasons about LGBT being too sexual compared to heterosexuality.
You falsely claim that my argument was a strawman and that math, history, and language are just subjects that can be explained in an age-appropriate way enough for a child to understand. The same logic can be applied to explaining homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc. If a child is smart enough to understand academic subjects, that a man can like a woman, then they’re also smart enough to understand that a man can like another man. And again with the Anecdotal Amy! Your fantasies about being a mermaid and a fairy at five years old doesn’t speak for the general LGBTQ+ community. I have no clue what part of the “Genderbread Person” would be confusing to you or children for that matter, especially when they’re not even old enough to have gender affirming surgery! Do you think that children are stupid?
Speaking of confusion: Why would you confuse your child further by bringing up something as subjective as religion within a conversation about homosexuality? Why not let your child figure out their religious beliefs on their own? Why force your beliefs on your child that being gay is bad? How can you acknowledge accusations of “Christian Nationalist indoctrination” but demonize others for having different beliefs than you? In what way do public schools teach this stuff in a “less age-appropriate way”? You don’t notice the hypocrisy here either?
Not at all, because the punchline of these jokes are always about sex to create babies. Having a gay character in a kids book just…be gay and like boys in a non-sexual way doesn’t mention sex whatsoever, which is why I find it hypocritically silly that you’re outraged about Nico being gay but not about Percy having kissed multiple girls in the first series and him constantly mentioning how much he adores Annabeth in Heroes of Olympus–even having spent the whole damn book together trapped in Tartarus! How awful for both Percy and Annabeth to be flaunting their heterosexuality to literal children! The horror!!
About the reviews, they aren’t reliable sources of information whatsoever and I find it laughable that you even thought of using them as evidence. While I haven’t yet read The Sun and the Star, I have read the first book of The Trials of Apollo and the thoughts on it from Reddit. Their complaints were mostly the same whining about how Apollo’s sexuality and “LGBT politics” were being forced down their throats. To my half-surprise upon reading the book, none of the stuff they complained about was what I envisioned. Not a single word of “gay,” “bisexual,” “sexuality,” “LGBT,” was even mentioned ONCE in the whole book. The only LGBT mentions in the book were of Will and Nico being together, Apollo blushing upon Paolo kissing him on the cheek, Apollo mentioning his love life with Hyacinthus and a few more. And these are the things that these anti-SJW ideologues are getting triggered over?? It’s ridiculous! This is what you call “sexuality being hammered into your skulls”?? Apollo–who is bisexual in canon Greek mythology, dammit!–casually mentioning his love life in the narrative? And you genuinely expect me to believe that pro-LGBTQ+ politics are being forced down your throat?? You’re just as bad the woke games list!
To wrap, I’m not interested in specifying any more of my political beliefs. I would like to ask the same for you.
LikeLike
I will respect you not wanting to argue about this anymore. I similarly don’t want to continue this as you are clearly someone who doesn’t want to keep an open mind about what the other side has to say as you keep repeating arguments I’ve already debunked. Thanks for the interesting conversation and your time. I hope you eventually come to understand the other side of the argument. Have a nice day.
(P.S.: As a tip, if you’re going to argue about Christianity, especially when debating Christians who are against LGBTQ+, I would suggest actually studying the Bible. We Christians don’t hate LGBTQ+ people, we recognize that they are sinners too. We love the people as people, but don’t love the sin, nor do we wish to encourage this particular sin or any other sin.)
LikeLike
Never did I state not wanting to continue the argument. You also have not debunked any of my arguments. If that were the case, you would’ve responded in similar length to them, dissecting the flaws and providing evidence. The thing is, I actually do have an open mind. What’s problematic is when the opposing side engages in flawed research methods and the same old rhetoric about LGBT people continuously propagated by reactionary media. Had I not had an open mind I wouldn’t have bothered responding to any of your points and instead shut down the conversation, which is what you’ve conveniently done here. Nonetheless, I respect your decision to not engage further.
[Response to P.S: I do not need to be a Christian or Bible scholar to argue against someone’s political views. Had we were discussing the existence of the Christian God perhaps you would’ve had a point, but we did not. I say again, religious views vary across the political spectrum. There are genuine Christians who have studied the Bible extensively that, in fact, support or are neutral to the LGBTQ+ community. If everyone’s a sinner, then why target LGBT people? I’ve read the Ten Commandments; the traits of sexuality/gender/sex are nowhere listed on there, hence being LGBTQ+ isn’t a sin. You claim to show love towards the LGBT yet your arguments say otherwise. If you truly love the LGBT, you would’ve fought with them on their journey for equal rights and representation. Except, you’ve done none of that and have only fumbled for excuses to be against them. That is the ultimate gripe I have with your position.]
LikeLike