The House of Hades
discussion
NICO… YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT O.o
"I'm still waiting for an actual reason on why you hate us.
I don't read your full responses because I don't like to read things so full of stupidness."
Thank you for summing up all your hypocritical close-mindedness and hatred in one comment. You are all liars, and you love hatred in more ways than one.
I don't read your full responses because I don't like to read things so full of stupidness."
Thank you for summing up all your hypocritical close-mindedness and hatred in one comment. You are all liars, and you love hatred in more ways than one.
Leah wrote: "Brown wrote: ""I'm still waiting for an actual reason on why you hate us.
I don't read your full responses because I don't like to read things so full of stupidness."
Thank you for summing up al..."
It seems to me everyone here supporting gay lifestyles is a vicious little liar full of hatred in denial.
That's all I'm gleaning from this.
They enjoy being victims. They live for it.
And they will lie about and demonize anyone who feels differently even their own family.
I don't read your full responses because I don't like to read things so full of stupidness."
Thank you for summing up al..."
It seems to me everyone here supporting gay lifestyles is a vicious little liar full of hatred in denial.
That's all I'm gleaning from this.
They enjoy being victims. They live for it.
And they will lie about and demonize anyone who feels differently even their own family.
I sent Will a message and asked if they would stop throwing off the conversation that way, but they'll probably just close-mindedly ignore it.
I get that you guys rely heavily upon repeating meaningless phrases to make your points, but it's really telling.
I get that you guys rely heavily upon repeating meaningless phrases to make your points, but it's really telling.
Glad you care enough about what you stand for to address another person's concerns about it instead of acting like total jerks about everything they try to express.
(Thanks to the few people who don't repeat phrases about haters and judging)
(Thanks to the few people who don't repeat phrases about haters and judging)
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᶫᵃᵈʸ ᵒᶠ ʷᶦᶰᵗᵉʳᶠᵉᶫᶫ ❄ wrote: "Okay. Here's why being open minded doesn't apply to your statement that homosexual activity is gross.
Would it be open minded to think that girls being girls is gross?
Would it be open minded to t..."
1. We're not talking about me.
2. I explained deeper reasons than just "it's gross" and you keep pretending I didn't and ignoring everything I say.
It's mean, it's rude and it's not how to win someone over, especially if this is supposedly about respect. None of you want to have real dialogue you just want to accuse, because you love, love, LOVE hate and insist on seeing it everywhere.
Would it be open minded to think that girls being girls is gross?
Would it be open minded to t..."
1. We're not talking about me.
2. I explained deeper reasons than just "it's gross" and you keep pretending I didn't and ignoring everything I say.
It's mean, it's rude and it's not how to win someone over, especially if this is supposedly about respect. None of you want to have real dialogue you just want to accuse, because you love, love, LOVE hate and insist on seeing it everywhere.
Those who want to be depressed and miserable can't be helped. It has nothing to do with bullies. I see that more and more clearly with every one of you I talk to.
Léna wrote: "Okay seriously. What's going to happen when gay people get married? Is the world going to end? Is your child going to suddenly commit suicide? Are aliens going to arrive on earth and declare earth ..."
I need a like button just for this post.
I need a like button just for this post.
❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᶫᵃᵈʸ ᵒᶠ ʷᶦᶰᵗᵉʳᶠᵉᶫᶫ ❄ wrote: "I didn't see that, sorry. Could you refer me to your posts?"
I just put 10 super long....
Okay, I'll just say it again.
In short, I don't think it's true that passions or emotions of any kind are serious enough to dominate who you are or the choices you make.
I think marriages based on the mere pleasure of the two partners (be it a gay or straight relationship) is a cheap copy of marriage between two people that is ordered toward being selfless (able to give fruit).
There is no reason to think that physical displays of affection fulfill any relationship, and that friendship isn't good enough when you have no goals with that person as far as having a family.
Relationships aren't just a fun thing about being cute together. It's just been turned into a big game.
No, that is not super important or serious.
It is not important enough to literally take two body parts that don't even work together and use them for (the only thing they can be used for in this case) plain old pleasure.
And pleasure isn't wrong in itself at all. But you are taking something that is supposed to be the most selfless act and essentially making it selfish. That's shallow and people deserve better than to believe that's a part of who they are.
You over value sex (and romance) and miss the point of it.
If a couple can't have kids, that's tragic. It's a bad thing. It's not something you just think, "well, see it doesn't matter if you were gonna have a family or not anyway, so relationships are all about the two partners having fun together." No. That will never be as important.
And you can't whip out the excuse that once in a while it's possible a gay couple could adopt. They still don't need to be in a romantic relationship or have sex. Same with the legal benefits excuse.
Romance (especially in the sense of the word that it's just a fun thing without any goals) does not fulfill you.
The meaningful part here is friendship, not physical displays of affection.
(Now you can call me a bully for expressing how I feel and not try to explain why you disagree with any of that, but I hope we'll all show each other more respect than that).
I just put 10 super long....
Okay, I'll just say it again.
In short, I don't think it's true that passions or emotions of any kind are serious enough to dominate who you are or the choices you make.
I think marriages based on the mere pleasure of the two partners (be it a gay or straight relationship) is a cheap copy of marriage between two people that is ordered toward being selfless (able to give fruit).
There is no reason to think that physical displays of affection fulfill any relationship, and that friendship isn't good enough when you have no goals with that person as far as having a family.
Relationships aren't just a fun thing about being cute together. It's just been turned into a big game.
No, that is not super important or serious.
It is not important enough to literally take two body parts that don't even work together and use them for (the only thing they can be used for in this case) plain old pleasure.
And pleasure isn't wrong in itself at all. But you are taking something that is supposed to be the most selfless act and essentially making it selfish. That's shallow and people deserve better than to believe that's a part of who they are.
You over value sex (and romance) and miss the point of it.
If a couple can't have kids, that's tragic. It's a bad thing. It's not something you just think, "well, see it doesn't matter if you were gonna have a family or not anyway, so relationships are all about the two partners having fun together." No. That will never be as important.
And you can't whip out the excuse that once in a while it's possible a gay couple could adopt. They still don't need to be in a romantic relationship or have sex. Same with the legal benefits excuse.
Romance (especially in the sense of the word that it's just a fun thing without any goals) does not fulfill you.
The meaningful part here is friendship, not physical displays of affection.
(Now you can call me a bully for expressing how I feel and not try to explain why you disagree with any of that, but I hope we'll all show each other more respect than that).
Leah wrote: "Brown wrote: "I sent Will a message and asked if they would stop throwing off the conversation that way, but they'll probably just close-mindedly ignore it.
I get that you guys rely heavily upon r..."
I mean things they know are lies like, "stop judging people. You hate gay people. You think gay people are disgusting. Stop bullying people. Everyone's equal." (implying anyone said they weren't).
Or putting other one line comments that purposely miss the point instead of having a constructive back and forth.
If all my points are wrong, they can easily counter them can't they? Do they not care enough about what they stand for to address the real concerns about it?
I get that you guys rely heavily upon r..."
I mean things they know are lies like, "stop judging people. You hate gay people. You think gay people are disgusting. Stop bullying people. Everyone's equal." (implying anyone said they weren't).
Or putting other one line comments that purposely miss the point instead of having a constructive back and forth.
If all my points are wrong, they can easily counter them can't they? Do they not care enough about what they stand for to address the real concerns about it?
Leah wrote: "Brown wrote: "❄ sʜᴀʜᴅɪᴀ ❄ ᶫᵃᵈʸ ᵒᶠ ʷᶦᶰᵗᵉʳᶠᵉᶫᶫ ❄ wrote: "I didn't see that, sorry. Could you refer me to your posts?"
I just put 10 super long....
Okay, I'll just say it again.
In short, I don't ..."
Thanks.
I just put 10 super long....
Okay, I'll just say it again.
In short, I don't ..."
Thanks.
Leah wrote: "Brown wrote: "Leah wrote: "Brown wrote: "I sent Will a message and asked if they would stop throwing off the conversation that way, but they'll probably just close-mindedly ignore it.
I get that y..."
Yes, but it becomes a lie when it's trying to make it look like someone was judging others when they weren't.
I get that y..."
Yes, but it becomes a lie when it's trying to make it look like someone was judging others when they weren't.
@Brown- You're not a bully, a hater, ect. You're a person with an opinion, and that's fine. But I strongly, strongly disagree with your opinion, so of course I'm going to argue with it. That is, in essence, what people do. We disagree until we learn to compromise and hopefully make some progress of some sort. So let's try something- you make a comprehensive, UNBIASED list of cons, and I'll do the same with pros. See where that gets us. Agree (this one time)?
Natalie wrote: "@Brown- You're not a bully, a hater, ect. You're a person with an opinion, and that's fine. But I strongly, strongly disagree with your opinion, so of course I'm going to argue with it. That is, in..."
I just did.
And once again, you ignored it, and made this about me.
Please stop making me repeat myself.
I'm just going to go ahead and copy and paste part of my last comment one more time:
In short, I don't think it's true that passions or emotions of any kind are serious enough to dominate who you are or the choices you make.
Can you directly address at least that point for now? What is it about emotions that's so serious in this case? How does liking something make it alright? How is that a valid basis for an argument? Couldn't you apply that to porn too? Or almost anything? Why do you think that liking something is a huge part of who we are? When did preferences become so important as to rule over even our ability to make choices? Do our temptations define us? What about our passions for evil? Do you really think the "born wanting something" argument is wise to live by in any other situation? And why would you label yourself after something like that, in a way that implies it defines us as people?
I just did.
And once again, you ignored it, and made this about me.
Please stop making me repeat myself.
I'm just going to go ahead and copy and paste part of my last comment one more time:
In short, I don't think it's true that passions or emotions of any kind are serious enough to dominate who you are or the choices you make.
Can you directly address at least that point for now? What is it about emotions that's so serious in this case? How does liking something make it alright? How is that a valid basis for an argument? Couldn't you apply that to porn too? Or almost anything? Why do you think that liking something is a huge part of who we are? When did preferences become so important as to rule over even our ability to make choices? Do our temptations define us? What about our passions for evil? Do you really think the "born wanting something" argument is wise to live by in any other situation? And why would you label yourself after something like that, in a way that implies it defines us as people?
Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "@Brown- You're not a bully, a hater, ect. You're a person with an opinion, and that's fine. But I strongly, strongly disagree with your opinion, so of course I'm going to argue with..."I said unbiased. Facts, not opinion.
Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "@Brown- You're not a bully, a hater, ect. You're a person with an opinion, and that's fine. But I strongly, strongly disagree with your opinion, so of course I'm going..."
They are statements that are either true or false.
So why do you think they are false?
And stop misusing the word opinion: http://makingfunofstuff.deviantart.co...
(I'll add that you can't apply facts if you don't start with a belief. We can only get to the bottom of things by comparing views and finding what makes sense. That's why scientists first have to have theories, etc. I think you get that, you just want to shut me down for some reason. Stop pretending you don't know how to have a discussion).
They are statements that are either true or false.
So why do you think they are false?
And stop misusing the word opinion: http://makingfunofstuff.deviantart.co...
(I'll add that you can't apply facts if you don't start with a belief. We can only get to the bottom of things by comparing views and finding what makes sense. That's why scientists first have to have theories, etc. I think you get that, you just want to shut me down for some reason. Stop pretending you don't know how to have a discussion).
I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourself after them in a way that implies they define us as people and are superior to our ability to make choices when it comes to identifying ourselves?
No more games. Don't even respond to anything else.
No more games. Don't even respond to anything else.
Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourself after them in a way that implies they define us as people and are super..."Being a part of the LGBT community is not based on preference, it is based on love (which is not a choice). Our ability to make choices, as you put it, is only applicable in whether or not we act on that love. If you don't, misery is waiting. If you do, then you will be much happier, and, in my eyes, happiness is the end goal in life- not making more humans to over-populate the earth even further, but to be happy and to make others feel the same way (and entering a loveless marriage isn't going to make anyone important happy.) There you go. All laid out. Critique away.
Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourself after them in a way that implies they define us as people..."
(Okay, thank you. I hope we can keep the discussion on topic now. I'll add that I don't intend to be insulting or personal and I won't take anything you say that way either. Let's just be sincere).
I don't understand what you're saying is love. Of course two people can have a deep meaningful love and relationship without showing physical displays of affection. That's friendship though. Why does it make you miserable to not show physical displays of affection? Isn't it kind of an over-value, especially if parts don't even fit or work together?
At least, how is it a super serious part of who you are?
(Okay, thank you. I hope we can keep the discussion on topic now. I'll add that I don't intend to be insulting or personal and I won't take anything you say that way either. Let's just be sincere).
I don't understand what you're saying is love. Of course two people can have a deep meaningful love and relationship without showing physical displays of affection. That's friendship though. Why does it make you miserable to not show physical displays of affection? Isn't it kind of an over-value, especially if parts don't even fit or work together?
At least, how is it a super serious part of who you are?
Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourself after them in a way that implies they def..."Here is where the major misconceptions of LGBT society are born- in the idea that being attracted to the same gender is what gay or lesbian means. That is actually a myth of a sort- being gay or lesbian is about being emotionally connected to the same gender in a loving way- love essentially being that you care about someone else more than you care about yourself. According to Ancient Greek philosophy, there are four types of love: storge (family like affection, a best friend or sibling style relationship), philia (friendship), eros (sexual love), and agape (unconditional love). Gays and lesbians have both agape and eros for the same gender, not simply eros. Raw sexuality is not the same as love in the least, and you can control who you do have sexual relations with, but not who you feel love- real love- for.
Hope that makes sense. And I am glad the conversation has shifted to a less argumentative tone; I much prefer a debate to an argument.
Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourself after them in a way that im..."
But agape could be for a friend or family member also, so it does leave eros as the one that we are discussing. Again I have to ask, what is so important about being sexual? This love does not seem equal in importance to the other ones.
I would ask where the line is drawn, if not where body parts do not physically fit together. How is this an equally important part of love compared to something like agape, the part that leads us to make great and small sacrifices for each other, etc?
It seems like it tries to steal the greatness of other types of love, but in the end isn't necessarily as important.
(I agree, this is much better. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me.).
But agape could be for a friend or family member also, so it does leave eros as the one that we are discussing. Again I have to ask, what is so important about being sexual? This love does not seem equal in importance to the other ones.
I would ask where the line is drawn, if not where body parts do not physically fit together. How is this an equally important part of love compared to something like agape, the part that leads us to make great and small sacrifices for each other, etc?
It seems like it tries to steal the greatness of other types of love, but in the end isn't necessarily as important.
(I agree, this is much better. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me.).
Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourself after them ..."It's hard for me to define, but love that you feel for only one person, the person who you want to spend your life with, is different than loving sex with someone. Subtracting sex from the equation, we're looking at two individuals of the same sex who feel romantic (without sexual) love for each other.
I do agree that sexual love will never be as important as genuinely caring about and loving another person, nor should it be. For LGBT individuals, love for the same sex isn't simply attraction based, it is real, genuine love- that's why the fight for marriage equality is a big topic. People want to be able to express romantic love that reaches beyond sex. Sex isn't the object of love so much as a pleasant side effect. At least, that's what it should be. Straight and gay people alike sometimes misunderstand this, and that's their business. But it is important to recognize that all LGBT people are not represented by the few who value sex over real love- again, that's their choice, but it isn't the majorities' belief.
(Thank you for talking to me a swell. Comparing people's views on things to your own creates an interesting perspective.)
Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourself after them ..."(I read your entire comment. So now you read mine.)
wait. Wait. WAIT.
Since when does someone have to have sex to show love? Since when does a sacrifice made by a girl for a girl not match up to a sacrifice made by a guy for a girl?
This one hurts deep.
It's not important?
IT'S NOT IMPORTANT?
OF COURSE IT'S IMPORTANT HOW DO YOU THINK I FEEL CHANGING FOR GYM AND SWIM AND WHEN I CATCH MYSELF STARING HOW DO YOU THINK THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT IT IS MY ENTIRE LIFE I CAN'T CHANGE IT.
I DON'T MEAN TO GET UPSET LIKE THIS BUT THAT'S JUST SO-
IT'S EVERYTHING.
I CAN'T CHANGE IT.
DON'T YOU THINK I HAVE TRIED?
DON'T YOU THINK I HAVE LOOKED A BOY AND TRIED TO FIND SOMETHING ATTRACTIVE ABOUT HIM BUT I HAVE FOUND NOTHING I LIKE MORE THAN JUST A FRIEND?
IT'S EVERYTHING.
IT IS MUCH MORE THAN IMPORTANT.
I DON'T MEAN TO SCREAM AT YOU BUT HOW ON EARTH IS MY ENTIRE LIFE NOT IMPORTANT? HOW THE HELL DOES MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SHUNNED AND DISGRACED BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THEY CAN'T CHANGE NOT MAKE YOU BAT AN EYELASH AND THE ONLY THING YOU MOVE ARE YOUR FINGERS TO TYPE THESE COMMENTS.
I exchanged my view.
It's wide-eyed.
And there's a middle finger in front of it.
Will Solace wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourse..."Passion. I like it. You're completely right, and also I think you're my new favorite person. My points have been summed up into something much better than anything I could ever say (even if it involves more caps locks than is customary.)
@Will How do u think the other guys feel. No need to yell. No need to flick people off. Even though i dont agree with i havent flicked u off once.
@BrownI havent read all ur comments because they are so long XD. From what i read though i have to agree with u (with a few exceptions).
Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourse..."
Will Solace wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourse..."
Natalie,
This is where I have the most trouble understanding.
You can spend your life with someone, have an intimate relationship, want legal benefits and even raise children with plain agape.
What do you get out of a "romantic" relationship in these situations that you couldn't get out of friendship aside from self-pleasing feelings?
The thing that makes us want to act romantic is a type of attraction. That's not to say that the friendship you might have with that person is a part of that attraction. They are two separate things.
Because it is only attraction that makes this love different, it is not necessarily more important for that.
Again, what we "like" is not equally as important as other types of love such as those that lead us to sacrifice. Two people receiving equal amounts of pleasure is not selfless or giving in the same way as other types of love.
You can have a meaningful relationship without tacking on the unnecessary self-satisfying parts that only exist in the first place to ease people into a commitment to raise a family. It's like licking the frosting off something and insisting that was the purpose for which it was made.
That will never be as important.
If you are attracted to someone and you are truly making a wise and responsible choice to be romantic with them, that is good and fine. But it is a fruitless selfish end when sought only for itself.
If the line is not drawn when body parts literally cannot fit together, where is it drawn?
Will Solace wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourse..."
Natalie,
This is where I have the most trouble understanding.
You can spend your life with someone, have an intimate relationship, want legal benefits and even raise children with plain agape.
What do you get out of a "romantic" relationship in these situations that you couldn't get out of friendship aside from self-pleasing feelings?
The thing that makes us want to act romantic is a type of attraction. That's not to say that the friendship you might have with that person is a part of that attraction. They are two separate things.
Because it is only attraction that makes this love different, it is not necessarily more important for that.
Again, what we "like" is not equally as important as other types of love such as those that lead us to sacrifice. Two people receiving equal amounts of pleasure is not selfless or giving in the same way as other types of love.
You can have a meaningful relationship without tacking on the unnecessary self-satisfying parts that only exist in the first place to ease people into a commitment to raise a family. It's like licking the frosting off something and insisting that was the purpose for which it was made.
That will never be as important.
If you are attracted to someone and you are truly making a wise and responsible choice to be romantic with them, that is good and fine. But it is a fruitless selfish end when sought only for itself.
If the line is not drawn when body parts literally cannot fit together, where is it drawn?
Will Solace wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose to label yourse..."
Will, of course a sacrifice made for anyone is important.
Since when are sacrifices romantic though?
That is plain love.
Who you find attractive is not your life. I sincerely hope you don't believe that.
You do not have to look at girls nor boys for something attractive, rather I would hope you look at people for themselves and at situations so you could make wise choices. Nothing is forcing you to do anything. Attraction is a starting point for making choices, not anyone's life.
Feelings exist, and they are important. But only so long as we act on them wisely. Not use them as excuses to justify what we want. That has never worked for anything and it never will. Whatever they are, they are not your life.
Otherwise you are essentially saying it's acceptable that my art teacher draws porn. Yes, he was born wanting to lust at women. That's not a part of who he is, it's a temptation at best. Feelings do not automatically = good, and certainly do not define us as people.
You're life is EXTREMELY important, and that's why you should be responsible and wise when it comes to emotions and not give them more power over you than they are due.
Will, of course a sacrifice made for anyone is important.
Since when are sacrifices romantic though?
That is plain love.
Who you find attractive is not your life. I sincerely hope you don't believe that.
You do not have to look at girls nor boys for something attractive, rather I would hope you look at people for themselves and at situations so you could make wise choices. Nothing is forcing you to do anything. Attraction is a starting point for making choices, not anyone's life.
Feelings exist, and they are important. But only so long as we act on them wisely. Not use them as excuses to justify what we want. That has never worked for anything and it never will. Whatever they are, they are not your life.
Otherwise you are essentially saying it's acceptable that my art teacher draws porn. Yes, he was born wanting to lust at women. That's not a part of who he is, it's a temptation at best. Feelings do not automatically = good, and certainly do not define us as people.
You're life is EXTREMELY important, and that's why you should be responsible and wise when it comes to emotions and not give them more power over you than they are due.
Nico is my favorite character all the time. I really love him and all the sacrifices he has done made me want to hug him so tight and never let go.I personally don't have nothing to say about the gay thing. But yes I just realized that this book is for kids... Well I dont know what to say but since I am old enough, I dont have anything to say and just enjoy the books.
And I think some kids who read the books already know about gay thing, thanks to the internet. So when Rick put this story in his books it doesnt matter anymore.
Also, interesting how Will's comment is considered "passionate." If such a tone dared come from my side it would be "hateful." (I think it is just plain hateful no matter which side uses it).
Brown wrote: "Also, interesting how Will's comment is considered "passionate." If such a tone dared come from my side it would be "hateful." (I think it is just plain hateful no matter which side uses it)."That is because content also matters, not just tone.
Matthew wrote: "Brown wrote: "Also, interesting how Will's comment is considered "passionate." If such a tone dared come from my side it would be "hateful." (I think it is just plain hateful no matter which side u..."
The very thing we're discussing is the value of the content. Should we all blow up at each other then?
The very thing we're discussing is the value of the content. Should we all blow up at each other then?
Everyone should be capable of addressing sincere concerns about something they stand for. There are no special exceptions.
Léna wrote: "Please take some time to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkn4Py..."
Lena,
that's awesome. XD
Lena,
that's awesome. XD
By the way, the original discussion is still going on, guys. Don't get off track on me now. It was going fine for a while there. Consider my last comment to Natalie still unanswered.
Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important that you choose..."How you treat your significant other is usually different than how you treat your best friend (unless your best friend is your significant other, in which case, lucky you). It's not simply a difference in the ways you interact physically- for instance, I could hold my best friend's hand and it wouldn't be weird- it's a difference in the way you talk and act around them in general. It's... well, very hard to explain clearly. My question to you is: does this same logic apply to all couples, or just same sex couples in your mind?
Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like) so important t..."
Yes, it applies to all couples. No romantic relationship that is centered on mere pleasure has equal meaning to a romantic relationship that is open to sacrifice.
And I do mean sacrifices that you can't make with other types of love. Romance exists to serve a unique purpose, and that is being open to a family with someone.
Some couples can't have children, but they would still be open to them. It's not ideal or an excuse that romance is actually just for pleasure.
For a gay couple there is no such thing as procreation. They have taken out the end and glorify the means. Not just to sex, but to the romantic relationship in general. Romance is the explosion that eases us into a serious commitment and responsibility. It didn't evolve for us to exploit ourselves fruitlessly. That is shown in the way our bodies are built.
I understand you're saying that sex isn't the point of a romantic relationship anyway.
I agree. It's about what sex leads to. That's how I think we keep coming back to it. A gay couple can never have children or a family.
Raise children? Yes, probably. That's not the point. Again, two non-romantic partners could do that. The ONLY unique type of sacrifice that comes from a romantic relationship is the creation.
If there is no possibility for that, there is no pleasure owed.
I have never heard of any other type of love that exists solely to be self-satisfying or comes without sacrifice.
What other types of sacrifices can you make that are not already covered in the other types of love?
So far the only thing we seem to be getting at is the hazy implication of a "feeling" (which is not a sacrifice) that nobody can quite explain and makes no sense. Even IF this feeling made sense HOW could it ever compare to any type of sacrificial love?
Yes, it applies to all couples. No romantic relationship that is centered on mere pleasure has equal meaning to a romantic relationship that is open to sacrifice.
And I do mean sacrifices that you can't make with other types of love. Romance exists to serve a unique purpose, and that is being open to a family with someone.
Some couples can't have children, but they would still be open to them. It's not ideal or an excuse that romance is actually just for pleasure.
For a gay couple there is no such thing as procreation. They have taken out the end and glorify the means. Not just to sex, but to the romantic relationship in general. Romance is the explosion that eases us into a serious commitment and responsibility. It didn't evolve for us to exploit ourselves fruitlessly. That is shown in the way our bodies are built.
I understand you're saying that sex isn't the point of a romantic relationship anyway.
I agree. It's about what sex leads to. That's how I think we keep coming back to it. A gay couple can never have children or a family.
Raise children? Yes, probably. That's not the point. Again, two non-romantic partners could do that. The ONLY unique type of sacrifice that comes from a romantic relationship is the creation.
If there is no possibility for that, there is no pleasure owed.
I have never heard of any other type of love that exists solely to be self-satisfying or comes without sacrifice.
What other types of sacrifices can you make that are not already covered in the other types of love?
So far the only thing we seem to be getting at is the hazy implication of a "feeling" (which is not a sacrifice) that nobody can quite explain and makes no sense. Even IF this feeling made sense HOW could it ever compare to any type of sacrificial love?
Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences (what you like..."But... what about those who don't want children?
Has anyone here read The Blood of Olympus yet? If so I want to ask you a question.
Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes your preferences ..."
They're missing the point too. Love is not a selfish thing. You still didn't explain what the sacrifice is. You're just saying it makes them feel good.
What unique fruits precisely come out of them being in a romantic relationship that 1. can't come from friendship and 2. are not selfish?
And when has any other love ever existed only to make ourselves happy? Love is about serving, and happiness isn't a guarantee or the main point. What are you saying is the real fruit of this then?
They're missing the point too. Love is not a selfish thing. You still didn't explain what the sacrifice is. You're just saying it makes them feel good.
What unique fruits precisely come out of them being in a romantic relationship that 1. can't come from friendship and 2. are not selfish?
And when has any other love ever existed only to make ourselves happy? Love is about serving, and happiness isn't a guarantee or the main point. What are you saying is the real fruit of this then?
Sammy wrote: "Has anyone here read The Blood of Olympus yet? If so I want to ask you a question."Plenty of people here have read it. Go ahead and ask, but mark your spoilers with the html tags < spoiler > and < /spoiler > without the spaces.
Sammy wrote: "
Okay, well throughout the series Nico has a crush on Percy. But in the last couple of chapters from Nico's point of view, Nico seems to think about Will Solace a lot. And in the very last chapter,..."
I (haven't read the book but) would suspect this is likely the case given Rick's unfortunate lack of imagination and obsession with making everything romantic.
Okay, well throughout the series Nico has a crush on Percy. But in the last couple of chapters from Nico's point of view, Nico seems to think about Will Solace a lot. And in the very last chapter,..."
I (haven't read the book but) would suspect this is likely the case given Rick's unfortunate lack of imagination and obsession with making everything romantic.
Sammy wrote: "Okay, well throughout the series Nico has a crush on Percy. But in the last couple of chapters from Nico's point of view, Nico seems to think about Will Solace a lot. And in the very last chapter,..."
I don't know he's out of my care now but...
I wouldn't terribly mind getting closer. :)
Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "Natalie wrote: "Brown wrote: "I'll ask again. In your own words, what makes y..."But what gives anyone the right to define love? Why is one love right and another wrong, simply because of gender or sexuality?
Why must a relationship be defined by whether or not you can produce children together?
Will Solace wrote: "Sammy wrote: "Okay, well throughout the series Nico has a crush on Percy. But in the last couple of chapters from Nico's point of view, Nico seems to think about Will Solace a lot. And in the very..."
That sounds bad, you know that right? Unless that's the team you bat for...
Anika wrote: "All this negativity is getting on my nervesSeriously the series might have started for children but it's been around for a time now. Most of the readers are older now and i think it's totally appr..."
Oh my gosh I laughed so hard when you said go read the Caterpillar book:D I agree though.
Brown wrote: "Sammy wrote: "Okay, well throughout the series Nico has a crush on Percy. But in the last couple of chapters from Nico's point of view, Nico seems to think about Will Solace a lot. And in the very..."
Sammy: that is exactly what happened.
Brown: Actually, Riordan went really light on this romance, and there was no gushiness whatsoever.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Last Olympian (other topics)
The Iliad (other topics)
The Blood of Olympus (other topics)
The Mark of Athena (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Sword of Summer (other topics)The Last Olympian (other topics)
The Iliad (other topics)
The Blood of Olympus (other topics)
The Mark of Athena (other topics)
More...
It really bugs me when people say, "Let's not talk about things like sexual ori..."
I think that is so true. by the time everybody actually starts taking about this stuff or grown-ups think they are old enough to talk about this stuff, everybody already thinks that not being heterosexual is wrong and abnormal.