Gay subtext?

[Snowflake]

I think you can be very good friends with someone of the same sex, and that doesn't mean you're gay. My two best friends are the most important people in my life,( I have a dysfunctional family...) and I'm not gay.

[Elendil]

So what about deep love between people of the same sex?

[Snowflake]

It's possible, and I personally don't have a problem with it...**shrugs**

[Lush]

I used to have a friendship like that, before it all went sour a long, long time ago. So yes, it is possible. People that claim otherwise have probably never had the chance to experience it. *shrugs back at Snowflake, who obviously loves making ambivalent gestures*

[Vitesse]

I typed something like this out yesterday but it was swallowed whole by the black hole of bad networks...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I've read the LOTR series a couple of times now, and I have to say, I've never seen much sexual content in it at all - straight or gay. The romantic relationships in the book are all very minute details and in general don't spring forward with any emphasis on Passion. With the exception of the meeting of Faramir and Eowyn, there's hardly any really vibrant romance.

Now, I've heard the "Gay Sam" theory before and I have to say - I don't buy it, either then or now.

I don't mean to patronize fans of Hamfast Gamgee's son, but it seems to me that the Love, genuine love, that Sam feels for Frodo is more akin to the love a Puppy might feel for it's master than anything else. In my eyes, it's certainly not sexual love, despite the touchy-feely customs of Hobbits. Sure, Sam and Frodo are more "together" in Mordor than other characters in the text in other places, but even ad Barad-Dur, Sam's thoughts do indeed stray to Rosie, the shire, and his friends the Cottons. When they return to the Shire it doesn't take long for Sam and Rosie to court and they have a long and very fertile marriage - which would seem to negate any idea that Sam is Gay.

I also don't see any necessarily homosexual relationship between Legolas and Gimli.

In Dwarvish culture it's uncommon for men to get married and male Dwarves outnumber female Dwarves by something like 6 to 1. Dwarvish marriages are always manogamous and rarely do they have more than one child. This is recorded in the appendix "Durin's Folk" after the end of "Return of the King". Romantic relationships of any kind seem rare among Dwarves and the text gives the impression that they are more concerned with their crafts and ideas than any kind of sexual or romantic relationships.

Similar but different is the attitude of Elves. Legolas it seems, is more interested in the mysteries of the woods and nature and the songs of the sea than any more traditional living thing. He seems to me to be more comfortable among the Ents and in Lorien than anywhere else. I think his rather isolated but warm demeanor is typical of Elves in the text, but I'd have to re-read The Silmarillion to really understand more about Elvish culture.

That said, it's highly unusual for a Dwarf and an Elf to be such good friends. But I don't see anything sexual or romantic about it - they're two friends, friends who are more interested in having orc-killing contests and learning about their cultures (which are equally misunderstood on both sides because of the animosity between Dwarves and Elves) than anything else. Furthermore, Lady Galadriel commands Gimli's attention in a way that Legolas never does - and it's Gimli's like for Galadriel and service to her that allows Gimli to go to the Undying lands in the end.

If there's a Homosexual subtext to the relationship of Legolas and Gimli, I'm blind to it, for I cannot see it.

I should preface my next statement by saying that I am Gay, but I don't conform to any stereotype and I usually don't talk about such things with strangers as it's none of their business.

Anyway, I think that predisposes me to seeing a Gay subtext in a book or a film where most might not see one.

That said, I don't see anything like it in LOTR and it's my firm belief that JRRT never meant for one to be read into his characters - but books are intepretive and people can read them however they want.

I don't believe it's the case, but there is only one character in all of LOTR that I ever had an inkling might be Gay, and that's....Merry Brandybuck. Merry seems to come from a rather priveledged life and is somewhat more timid and posh than the other Hobbits. He's as mature and smart as Frodo but he's not as intrepid. I think that in 1940's Britain as today, Merry might meet some of the definitions of Gay Stereotypes, but nowhere near all of them. But to add fuel to the fire...

Merry is never without Pippin, until Pippin's "accident" with the Pilantir. Gandalf whisks Pippin away to Minas Tirith moments after that happens, and Merry and Pippin are separated for the first time. From there on, Merry's thoughts dwell specifically on two things - 1. Helping King Theoden any way he can, and 2. Getting back to Pippin. He even sneaks away with a disguised Eowyn to the battle at Minas Tirith in hopes of finding Pippin. After they return to the shire, Merry goes right back to his old life with Pippin, although now they're celebrities and enjoy a life of parties and both gain leadership positions within the Shire.

In the Chronicles Appendix, Pippin marries, but Merry doesn't. If you look in the family trees, Merry is listed as having Married Estella Bolger (presumably a relative of Fatty Bolger) - but there's never a mention of it in any text. And when they are old, Merry and Pippin leave the Shire and spend their last days in Gondor - and it says nothing of their wives or children (none are listed for Merry in the Family trees).

I don't believe that Merry is Gay, but if there were one character who would be, that would be the logical choice. I should also say that Tolkien was not altogether unaware of homosexuals and though in Britain the climate was very homophobic, among educated people there seems to have been something of a don't ask, don't tell policy - until the episode with Lord Montagu in the late fifties (by which time the LOTR series was entirely in print in several countries). However, I don't believe JRRT ever intended any of his characters to be Homosexual.

I don't think he meant for sex or Romance to play much of a part at all in LOTR - it's not a love story and strong love plots would be detrimental to the books, I think.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on it.

[Hama]

In terms of Frodo and Sam, I tend to lean towards the puppy - master relationship mentioned above.

There's also something of a Duty thing going on. Let's not forget, Sam is Frodo's servant, and has a strong sense of duty. This may seem unusual to us in these non deferential days, but in Tolkien's time, the idea that a servant might love his master to the extent of giving his life for him wouldn't be unusual. Also, as is said above, most of the love and devotion seems to come from Sam's side.

I may be doing him an injustice, but don't forget, Tolkien was a university don: you can still see these rarified types at Cambridge and Oxford, totally obsessed with their studies and waited on by faithful servants. He probably wouldn't see anything unusual in this sort of thing.

I'm sure Tolkien was quite familiar with the idea of homosexuality, but for what it's worth I don't think he meant Sam and Frodo to be that way.

[Rhudladion]

Excellent post, Vitesse! I agree whole-heartedly with almost all of your points.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Lush:
<STRONG> *shrugs back at Snowflake, who obviously loves making ambivalent gestures*</STRONG>

**raises eyebrow** Of course! Ambivalent gestures are so fun!

There is no way that there are any gay people in the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was a Christian and a strong one which would mean he would have thought homosexuality to be wrong and sinful.

I think there needs to be a clearer distinction made between (1) what the author probably intended, and (2) what the average reader might infer from the author's text.

The point has been made many times in this thread, by wiser heads than mine, that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and as such probably found any concept of homosexuality abhorrant. I think that the most that can safely be said is that Tolkien probably did not intend for people to read and understand the characters in his works to be homosexual. To state categorically, and even dogmatically as some have done here, that he did or did not intend such is specious at best, considering that the author is no longer around to confirm or deny.

On the other hand, what an individual reader might infer from reading the author's texts depends in large part on the intelligence, social background and political leanings of that individual -- in which case the number of possible interpretations (or misinterpretations) is probably as wide and varied as the natures of the individuals themselves. As long as the individual's view is all that matters, you can come up with the most farcical interpretations imaginable.

I myself, on first reading Tolkien's work, enjoyed it immensely without trying to make it say anything other than what it actually said -- it was an epic story told on a grand scale, and no more. In subsequent readings I found myself trying to force my Judeo-Christian perspective on the story and make it into a Christian allegory a la The Chronicles of Narnia. (this was before I read of the good professor's specific abhorrance of that literary device.)

In this sense I agree with the previous post which stated that the prevailing political/religious/social theory of the day can be applied to just about any work of literature. But to do so without any more justification than a juxtaposition of words which have been socially redefined since the author penned them, and then to use that as "proof positive" that such was the author's original intent...that is madness. Judging or interpreting a text without considering the context is nothing but pretext, or so said someone in a book I read some years ago.

For me the bottom line is this: You can read it however you will. I would ask for the sake of sanity, though, that you not try to read the mind of a dead man. If you want to know what he intended, you will have to read much more than just his story -- you will have to come to know the man himself (inasmuch as it is possible to closely know someone who has already passed on) and the era in which he wrote.

But above all, do not confuse your personal feelings about a work with the author's intent.

Thenamir of Rohan

[onewhitetree]

To an extent, yes, I agree with Thenamir. However, I think some things are obvious enough without having been stated clearly. Any reasonable person knows that he did not intend Frodo and Sam to be homosexual, whether he's alive to voice his accordance or not.

[Elendil]

Well, gay or not, intentional or not, at least Tolkien left enough space for everyone to read what he wants. So being a devout Catholic, he certainly wasn't homophobic IMHO.

[Alkanoonion]

Is Eve still around?

[Vitesse]

There is no way that there are any gay people in the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was a Christian and a strong one which would mean he would have thought homosexuality to be wrong and sinful.

Wrong and Sinful you may label things you don't like, but I consider myself to be a pretty upstanding and moral person, and never one to accuse people of being evil and sinful just because of who they are.

If that's the only thing you have to offer, then don't offer it because it doesn't contribute to serious discussion.

I don't know why people are so self-righteous that they feel they can stifle the opinions of people they don't like or have been taught to dislike.

In my post above, I tried to evaluate the topic as objectively as possible - and I'm at a loss to understand why others lack that objectivity.

[Turambar]

Alkanoonion - regarding Eve's whereabouts, see the "Reply to Previous Thread" thread, in this part.

Vitesse - good posts. I think the "evidence" of Merry's homosexuality is pretty thin, but as I understand your post you weren't really arguing that he was. Remember the Seinfeld episode where the evidence that Jerry was gay was that he was "thin . . single . . neat". [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Turambar ]

[The Barrow-Wight]

Vitesse,

Adariana was not labeling anyone but was instead stating what Tolkien's views on homosexuality were likely to be based on his devout religious beliefs. Her point was a simple one and didn't deserve a rebuke. Please step back from the defensive posture and comment on what she was saying: "Tolkien, being very religious, would have considered homsexuality wrong and would not have intentionally injected it into his stories."

[Rhudladion]

Dido!

No body accused anyone or anything of being sinful. The statement was made to give evidence for a claim.

[Vitesse]

Point taken and conceded.

[Snowflake]

I personally think each person will read something and interpret it differently. I stopped trying to get people to give up their views a long time ago.

[Nazgûl]

Personally I think that Eve is gay. Why else would he spot out gay names in the books. If you are a man I here Tom Cruise is single. If you are looking for a women try Ellen. I respect you for not trying to hide it you are just being you. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[Dûrkriswen]

Originally posted by shireGirl:
<STRONG>Eve: I read your first thread and thought that you were right - you are reading too much into nothing and it almost appears that homosexuality might be a problem for you if you find yourself looking for it constantly within books - because it obviously doesn't serve any purposes other than your own. I would have considered the topic and given a serious reply but I am not willing to read the *books* that you posted further down.</STRONG>

*nods*

[Lush]

I have always considered myself to be a very religious person; I may not come off as one at first, but I am an Orthodox Christian, came to the church on my own terms, and have been happy within it ever since.
I believe that labeling homosexuality as "sinful" and "wrong", or making such rash assumptions regarding Tolkien's opinion of it, is not a very Christian way of doing things. We can fling Bible verses at each other all day long, but in the end, one thing remains clear-we are all equal in the eyes of God, and all of us have sinned, and all will be judged accordingly. Can we not please use our time on Earth to love one another despite our various imperfections? The greatest human good, I believe, is compassion.
And yep-Eve is bi. She said so herself, in her first post on this topic.

[Turambar]

***loves Lush*** [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Alkanoonion]

Live and let Live. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Very good, Lush. I actually took Buddhist genyen vows, ordained in 1987, and have many close Christian friends (my best friend from high school is in seminary right now in a funny twist of fate). Sincere spiritual practitioners seem to see more in common than differences amongst themselves.

According to many friends, the bible itself is a little vague on the subject of homosexuality, probably due to the fact that it -as a classification- is a recent concept (the definition 'homosexual' is not a religious but a psychological term, from the DSM-IV, though it has been deleted from the DSM-IV since). Although one term associated with homosexuality which indicates what-many-people-have-an-issue-with comes from the name of those twin cities of infamy, Sodom and Gamorrah, that term actually refers to either a hetero- or homo-sexual practice. This linguistic leap is where most people get the idea homosexuality is condemned by the bible.

For devout Catholics, the current interpretation of the Bible, recently published by Pope John Paul II, concludes that homosexuality is by implication immoral (I apologize for any inaccuracy in the quote, I have not read his book). And that should be good enough for most Catholics.

For Protestants, it still varies, often from minister to minister, though the vast majority do not approve.

I myself am familiar with the vast numbers of religious disagreements between highly qualified and respected commentators in Buddhism; I've noticed the same in Christianity. I also bear in mind that many (still revered) medieval Christian commentators came to similar conclusions about the Jews, leading to unfortunate results in Spain in other places. So I'm cautious about interpretations and feel that most spiritual advisors would not oppose the suggestion that people read the bible and think about it themselves. Catholics shold refer to their catechism and/or ask their priest (though reading the Pope's book is probably more proactive).

I'm constantly surprised to find that many Christians have read less of the bible than I have, and can't tell me, say, what is in Leviticus and why it would caution us to always take the Old and New Testament together.

(For those of you who don't know, Leviticus details how to properly sacrifice a calf, removing the organs in a particular fashion, etc. Lesser offerings, such as grain and so forth are described as well. My point is that any religion has parts that when taken out of context will cause great deal of confusion. Buddhism has tantric texts that taken similarly out of context also cause a great deal of stupidity - I mean, confusion.)

Those picture books from Sunday school were a little thin, and shouldn't comprise ones entire religious education. Not if you're going to make grand sweeping statements, that you cannot back with book/chapter/verse quotes.

If you're going to quote the bible, read it.

-Maril

Oh, those of you who are curious, Buddhist texts don't ascribe any particular moral failing to homosexuality, except to specifically include abstaining from it among the celebacy vows of a monk or nun. Notwithstanding, culturally most Buddhist societies don't approve. The Ven. Kalu Rinpoche's interpretation of the subject is that it is neither good nor bad, but simply resulting from events in the intermediate state preceding conception. As anyone who's studied the Abhidharmakosha can tell you, results are neutral. Only causes can be negative or positive.

I tried to keep off the subject of religion, but you guys just kept bringing it up.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Sindalómiel]

Originally posted by Lush:
<STRONG>I have always considered myself to be a very religious person; I may not come off as one at first, but I am an Orthodox Christian, came to the church on my own terms, and have been happy within it ever since.
I believe that labeling homosexuality as "sinful" and "wrong", or making such rash assumptions regarding Tolkien's opinion of it, is not a very Christian way of doing things. We can fling Bible verses at each other all day long, but in the end, one thing remains clear-we are all equal in the eyes of God, and all of us have sinned, and all will be judged accordingly. Can we not please use our time on Earth to love one another despite our various imperfections? The greatest human good, I believe, is compassion.
And yep-Eve is bi. She said so herself, in her first post on this topic.</STRONG>

Absolutely my beliefs, couldn't have put it better.

[Rhudladion]

It would take me forver to respond to the last few entries with proper care, and really I would rather be discussing Tolkien (on this site). However, here are 3 verses from the Bible in 3 different versions (King James Version, New King James Version, and New American Standard respectively.
Please do not respond to me as if these are my commands/statements. I am only providing Scripture.

Leviticus 18:22 (in this context, God is speaking to men (male gender))
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV)

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an
abomination." (NKJV)

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination." (NASB)

Leviticus 20:13
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV)

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of
them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be
put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (NKJV)

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a
woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they
shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon
them." (NASB)

1 Corinthians 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." (KJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor
sodomites," (NKJV)

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God ? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"
, (NASB)

[Tirinor]

thanks rhud.
It's hard to argue with that.

[Turambar]

He's convinced me that the Bible condemns homosexuality; obviously that doesn't "prove" that it's a sin or wrong. The OT also talks about slavery with no apparent disapproval, and is an unreliable guide (IMHO) to life today. I agree with what Lush said above - seemed a very Christ-like utterance.

[Vitesse]

Please do not respond to me as if these are my commands/statements. I am only providing Scripture.

What is the purpose of adding those comments then, if not to enflame tensions and tell others that they are "wrong" and deserve to be "put to death" for being who they are?

Those comments certainly aren't related to Tolkien or a discussion of Tolkien's characters.

[The Barrow-Wight]

This one needs a time out again.... Everybody kick back and get back on topic when and if we reopen it.

[The Barrow-Wight]

Though this subject seems fairly worn out, feel free to comment on it in a civil manner. Thanks.

The next closure will be final, so be good.

[Tirinor]

<STRONG>He's convinced me that the Bible condemns homosexuality; obviously that doesn't "prove" that it's a sin or wrong. The OT also talks about slavery with no apparent disapproval, and is an unreliable guide (IMHO) to life today. I agree with what Lush said above - seemed a very Christ-like utterance.</STRONG>[/QUOTE]

1 Corinthians is in the New Testament.

The whole of the Bible, both Old and New testaments, points to the Law, our shortcomings, and the necessity of redemption through Christ. Lush may seem Christ-like, but I assure you that the Bible is an infinitely better source for a worldview than Lush. No offense Lush. And it does prove that it is wrong, IF that is the foundation for your worldview.

And yes, Vitesse, we are straying from Tolkien, but I believe that Rhud's point was to straighten out the faulty presuppositions about the Bible and Christianity that some have been wielding in arguments in this thread, and nothing more. The Bible and Christianity condemn homosexuality, bottom line. If some choose not to agree with those parts, they are in essence saying that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, and are thereby looking to other sources, mostly themselves, for the answers to life's questions. While they have the right to do so, making claims under the umbrella of Christianity that contradict the source of Christian beliefs undermines the principles and integrity of that source.
If one wishes to make the claim that homosexuality is ok, that is their belief, and their right. But if one wishes to make that claim, and also claim that the Bible is ok with homosexuality. That is false.

Also, you are equal to Rhud at enflaming tensions by asserting your "that is who they are" premise. The source for you views is different; either side can't win the argument unless you come from the same premise. If I believe that the moon is made of cheese and you believe that it is made of rock, we will have no chance of convincing the other if the moon is edible or not.

Back to Tolkien: some have said Tolkien would not have homosexual characters in his books because he thinks that homosexuality is wrong. While I agree that Tolkien, being a devout Catholic, believes homosexuality to be wrong, it does not follow that he would then exclude it from his books. But, looking at the text itself, every time wrong doings are presented in his works, they are presented as exactly that, wrongdoings. Therefore it could be inferred that if Tolkien did include elements of homosexuality in his books, they would have been presented in a light that is consistent with his views. So, if Tolkien is against homosexuality, and homosexuality was in his books, it would be obvious, and presented in a negative light. If he didn't have a problem with homosexuality, it might be less easy to spot. But like I said earlier, I believe there is sufficient evidence the Tolkien was not supportive of the homosexual lifestyle.

But looking at the subject from a practical and unbiased viewpoint, the gay Sam theory is very weak, and to quote Vitesse's earlier post, "I don't buy it."

[Rhudladion]

Originally posted by Vitesse:
<STRONG>Please do not respond to me as if these are my commands/statements. I am only providing Scripture.

What is the purpose of adding those comments then, if not to enflame tensions and tell others that they are "wrong" and deserve to be "put to death" for being who they are?

Those comments certainly aren't related to Tolkien or a discussion of Tolkien's characters.</STRONG>

Here is the purpose of adding these comments:

As a way of refuting the suggestion that JRRT intended to have some Gay Subtext in his work, the following argument has been posed several times:

1) Tolkien was a Christian.

2) Christian's believe the Bible and use it as a guide unto everything in life.

3) The Bible does not approve of homosexuality.

4) Tolkien would not approve of homosexuality. (from 1,2,& 3)

Implied conclusion: Tolkien would not have written a gay subtext into the LOTR; and if he had, he would have portrayed it in a negative light.

I quoted the Bible merely to provide evidence for the truth of 3, which plays a significant role in the above argument, which in turn gives evidence that there is NO gay subtext in the LOTR (if this assumption is accepted: Tolkien would not cast an approving light on a lifestyle that he did not approve).

So as you can see, I was not agreeing or disagreeing with the Bible. (my comments were void of personal opinion.)

Furthermore, as the above surely shows, my last post was very "on topic".


Based on the above argument,MY opinion is that Tolkien did not include any gay subtext in the LOTR.

Hello - I'm relatively new, so of course I choose the most controversial topic to reply to...

There was a very intertesting articleon LOTR on Salon.com a while back - the full story ts here if you can have access.

"Despite what some critics have suggested, I see no homosexual element in "The Lord of the Rings"; rather, it is a "homosocial" realm of intimate, affectionate relationships among men, of a kind that has virtually vanished from modern life. From his school days in Birmingham onward, Tolkien spent his intellectual life in just such a realm, sharing his innermost thoughts and visions with Lewis and other friends around firesides and in Oxford pubs. Frodo and his courageous servant Sam -- who indeed saves the entire quest from disaster -- undoubtedly love each other, and their love is both physical and emotional, in fact platonic in the truest sense. Tolkien intended to reflect the complex cross-class relationships between man and officer, servant and master, that he had encountered as a World War I lieutenant."

Also read an interesting article by Neva Chonin in the San Francisco Chronicle on a similar subject. "...the fellows of the Fellowship openly express affection for one another with no erotic strings attached. In contemporary culture, which views almost all (nonviolent) physical contact between men as transgressive, it's a courageous and even radical concept."

Just passing along some interesting thoughts,

EG

[Vitesse]

It's not my intention to make the Wight angry or kill the discussion, but I think that some things need to be said here:

Also, you are equal to Rhud at enflaming tensions by asserting your "that is who they are" premise.

But it's not "who they are" - it's who *I* am.

I'll try to explain via allegory -

When somebody asks me how to change a head gasket on an MGB, I know what to tell them because I've changed a head gasket on an MGB before - I know how to do it and have actually done it already. If somebody else came along and made a bold assertion about how to change an MGB head Gasket after only having read about how to change a head gasket on a Mazda RX-7 (who's rotary engine is entirely different from an MGB's, and doesn't have a conventional head gasket), who's advice would you take if you wanted to know how to change the head gasket on your MGB?

I am Gay, as I said before, and that probably means that I have a better understanding about whether or not being gay is a "lifestyle" or a "choice" or a "sin" than somebody who's entire world view on the subject is determined solely by a 2000 year old text - however revered it may be.

homosexual lifestyle.

It's not a lifestyle. I don't want to cause discord or have really negative arguments here, I like the downs because it's a place where I can get lost in Tolkien lore at will. But there are some things that I just can't stand to hear, and this is one of them.

It isn't a lifestyle - touring with Phish is a lifestyle. Being a Goth is a lifestyle. Being a car freak is a lifestyle. But being gay is not - it isn't a choice, it isn't an affectation or a fashion accessory. I'm sad to hear that intellegent people honestly believe that being gay is a "lifestyle" that somebody chooses. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

But looking at the subject from a practical and unbiased viewpoint, the gay Sam theory is very weak, and to quote Vitesse's earlier post, "I don't buy it."

Well at least we agree on that. I just don't see it, in any of the characters.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vitesse ]

[Rhudladion]

Vitesse,
You are still missing the point.

I am not condemning anyone for anything. Regardless of whether you believe in the Bible, it is a simple fact that the Bible condemns Homosexuality.

Let me explain it to you:

If I am a Buddhist, the Bible still condemns Homosexuality. If I am a Nazi, the Bible still condemns homosexuality. If I am a Christian, the Bible still condemns homosexuality. If I am an atheist the Bible still condemns Homosexuality.

The fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality does not rely on what you personally believe. It's merely a fact.

It seems to me that you think I am telling you that the Bible is true on this point. I am not stating that!!! I am merely clarifying the Bible's take on homosexuality. This point goes to show, as I have said now about 3 times, that Tolkien probably did not intend any gay subtext.

Let me put it another way:

I DON'T CARE WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE.
I DON'T CARE WHETHER OR NOT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A LIFESTYLE OR NOT.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT PROVING ANYTHING BESIDE THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE LOOKS DOWN UPON HOMOSEXUALITY, AND I ONLY CARE ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT HAS TO DO WITH THE LOTR WITH RESPECT TO GAY SUBTEXT!!!!

[Vitesse]

This point goes to show, as I have said now about 3 times, that Tolkien probably did not intend any gay subtext.

Which is a point I fully agree with. If you'll notice, I've edited my previous post.

[Tirinor]

Originally posted by Vitesse:
<STRONG>But it's not "who they are" - it's who *I* am. </STRONG>

I understand what you are saying, but what it comes down to is that you are putting your faith in your experience and psychology, and others are have decided to put their faith in the Bible. And your statement about "who they are" is the exact same thing as someone from the Biblical perspective providing scripture references. You are providing a statement refferenceing the foundations of your perspective, just like quoting the Bible.
And the lifestyle thing is a different matter that I will not disscuss here because the Barrow-Wight wants us to stick to the point, and addressing that would lead us further astray.
It is pontless to argue such matters when we aren't coming from the same place. If I'm on a baseball field and your on a football field, any attempt to compete will be futile. the argument must be moved up to the level of venue. and doing that here would bring the disscussion out of the context of Tolkien an into the context of worldview foundations, which is beyond the scope of this forum.

[Rhudladion]

Vitesse,
Did you know that you can quote people in your entry by clicking on the quote marks above their entry?
I noticed that you were retyping alot of stuff.
Just letting you know.

Rhud

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]