I'd like to discuss this matter with anyone who's interested and from these forums this is more viewale to the World Wide Web.

I'm clearly not all for the homosexuality in The VC world but that does not make me a homophobic. I SO am not a homophobic. :D
Here's the thing:

While I see and acknowledge and highly appreciate that Anne Rice speaks for gay liberation and all that important stuff, with The Vampire Chronicles, and the homosexuality is there all along on some level, I'm just not one of those fans, who like to think sexuality is the most important element in the books as they are. Yet I have never denied the sexuality from exsisting or said it isn't important at all, or at least I have never meant to. I may not have always put my words the best way but all I've ever tried to say is that the vampires don't have sexuality the way humans do - I have just tried to make some people see the blood drinking isn't sex. I have also refered to Anne Rice vampires as omnisexuals rather than gay. And I personally just rather focus on the love that I think the characters are all about and the depths of their loves and relationships - and sexuality, while in some cases a part of that depth and love - just isn't my main interest.

I really don’t believe Anne, even though clearly having (homo)sexuality in the books on some level, meant it to become the most important element of the books as they are. I mean, it’s an important element that should not be completely forgotten or denied but some seem to be taking it way too seriously - no offense, please, that's just my impression of all the blood drinking sex views, when it clearly isn't sex (as it's practically about so much more than the extacy it gives), and of the homophobic accusations for ie. just because someone doesn't think Lestat's gay (but no one should deny he's bi-sexual because he obviously is.) So it would be one thing to deny something completely than to see it in another way or making efforts to understand the matters.

Here's why I wish some people would reconsider their passion with the homosexuality in the books: It’s obvious that Armand and Marius have a sexual element to their love, but Anne Rice didn’t choose to describe them with words "gay lovers" but as "a sensualized love affair". After I loud and clear asked her "Are Lestat & Louis and Lestat & Nicki supposed to be gay/lovers of any kind?", she said "A reader has to form his own conclusions." and "Some gay readers have seen them as gay. Some have not seen this at all." and chose to defy Lestat & Louis only with the words "love hate relationship" (even if their relationship developes throughout the serie, those are the words she chose to use even today, long after finishing the serie), whereas of varioius others she used the words "love affair". But, even of most of them, she said they have nothing to do with sex. And Lestat & Nicki was not one of those relationships she defied. Of Lestat & Nicki she never said a word even though I loud and clear asked her about them. And I have been able to validly argue that whatever she thinks of Lestat and Nicki as and what thus is the accurate nature, a reader has been given a possibility to see them either way.

I strongly believve Anne is trying to message that a reader has to make his own conclusions, and some have seen the chatacters generally speaking as gay, some have not and that it's alright because love comes first and sexual elenebt of it comes second.

I think some people apprecite The VC's homosexual supportiveness too passionately.

I think that leads them to see sex and romance everywhere with no other possibilities. They seen to have forgotten they are still books of many depths and colours and not just about one absolute element. They support homosexuality but that doesn't mean it's all there is to them - at least the way I see it, and you're of course entitled and free to see them differently; They are books about love as love and a reader can find it there in so many natures in many kinds of relationships - and then there are the few that have been left open for possibilities.

Examples of what I see:
X Lestat and Marius are a father & son and teacher&student and have nothing to do with homosexuality or romance.
X Marius and Armand are romantic lovers with sexual element so having everything to do with homosexuality and romance but definition of 'sensualized love affair' does more justice.
X Lestat and Gabirelle are part mother-son, part love affair, having nothing to do with sex.
X And Lestat & Nicki are an excellent example of a relationship that has been described to open possibilities; viewable as just very close friends, whereas it is also possible to see homosexual lovers. Same goes for Lestat and Louis. I just think the story itself supports the close friends view.

And as I may have already quoted Anne, she has said "Some people have seen them as gay and some have not seen this at all." But did she start ranting that everyone should see them as gay or judge anyone homophobic or sexaphobic? No. She began to talk about her characters deeply loving all sorts of people and how with most of the vampire relationships, sex has nothing to do with the love.

I repeat; I believe she says sex isn't the most essential part of her characters. And that's subconsciously what I and some other have thought and so come to close friends cnclusions on some certain relationships in which she didn't describe sex but might still be meant as homosexual lovers.
And yet I nor anyone I know, have never denied sex(uality) being part of certain some of them, either clearly or being possibly a part of - or the other possibility.

So for everything that I've said by now on this page, it ought to be clear - I am not a homophobic/sexaphobic. The (homo)sexual element simply isn't the most appealing element of the books to me, while I do care about and appreciate the fact that it is in there and that it means something significant, and while I also do pay attention to it in cases when it clearly is meant to be essential.

In hopes to make this absolutely clear, the thing is I'm not denying the homosexuality in The VC or anywhere elese - nor Lestat's bi-sxuality - nor sayng that it isn't important element - but I'm just not interested in making it a big number in any attitude. Which is the reason why I oppose fanfiction slash as it is - having nothing to do with any specific fandom; as I said I just don't think gay people anything special. I don't judge them but I also don't think they should be obsessed about in fanatic manner either. You're free to think boy/girl love is cute and fascinating and whatever it is people think it, but the fanatic hype is ridiculous. Squeeng "OMG THEY'RE GAY!! AWWWW!!111" from the smallest and most insignificant detail / event that might in fact be about anything but the pair being gay if the reader/viewer just bothered to look into it. Fanfiction slash is totally ok as long as it's not twisting into gay, characters and relationships that aren't meant to be gay. And with that I mean to ask you to respect fictional relationships and bother to look into them, without twisting them into gay relationships even though you love gays. For the sake of human equalness and the appreciation and respect of an authors's visions and the fictional characters themselves.

And about relationshhips meant to be gay or not... link, reviewing The Lestat & Nicki relationship from the books's description to the song "Right Before My Eyes" by Sir Elton John. Seeing to the desctiption style the pair CAN be homosexual lovers but they CAN be just very close friends - but I think the story itself supports the close friends view.

Why the Lestat & Louis too - can be seen as just close friends and not necessarely as gay/romantic lovers? Lestat fell fatally in love with Louis. This doesn't yet mean that love is romantic. You can fall deeply in love with anything and anyone without it having any particular nature to it because love in it's purest and deepest exsistance doesn't have a nature and yet it has numerous natures. The term "lover", while usually used about romantic nature, still is basically about love in it's purest. You love someone and that someone loves you back. It makes you lovers, no matter what the nature. And passionate tone doesn't make love to be any nature either, it just tells about the depth and strength of the love. Passion can be behind any feeling and action in life. Passion is life.
"Without passion, we'd be truly dead." -Angel

I'm sure people know how passionately and strongly I oppose the Lestat & Marius homosexual videos/fanfics and that I've got support for that? Homophobia has absolutely nothing to do with that either. Here's the real thing: I know and acknowedge the mentor/student element of the relationship is very vital and significant and the admire each other as immortals but the father-son nature is the essence of their love and so very vital and significant to the characters and the book serie through them. And it should be clear from the books that they're not gay nor lovers and why it is clear you can study on my fan site. Just think about it: How would you feel if you yearned for a a loving father-figure all your miserable, unhappy life where you were emotionally and physically abbused, and then finally found that father, who also earnestly and deeply loves you as his son and wants to play the father; and then you live, need and complete each others in an extremely strong bond, healing, earnest love and closeness as the father and son - and as said there being deeply psychological backgrounds for why your relationship and feelings are all that - and then some people who look at you two, just ignore that in all levels and are all "Yay, you're gay and want to have sex with each others, how awesome!!!11" See? It's the total disrespect for the in-depth psychological father-son thing Anne Rice worked on and that means so much to the characters themselves, that makes the gay vision offensive and remarkably wrong - NOT the gay element as itself. You just can't take something so vital and significant and tear it apart for a shallow and cheap sex thing, without succeeding to offend. (NO, homosexuality isn't shallow and cheap - but the way people portray the false Lestat & Marius gay vision, is.) I can take a joke but when you take characters completely out of character like that, it's better off in a CLEAR crack video to avoid offense, and 99% of the Lestat & Marius slash videos are not humour crack videos.

****

So I would like to know what are your thoughts?