Grantaire

um, SS is for one post stories, I don't think 20k fits in one post.

And besides, spare the eyes of your poor readers.

I'm too cynical to be shocked. Fortunately I don't follow people on Twitter.

People are stupid enough as it is, a little less learning can't make them worse!

Or maybe not. I just couldn't resist saying that.

If Velox joins, I might revive one of my characters in there.

Dangit... Sorry to hear about this... Happened to me a year ago. I hope you and your family coup well with the loss.

D'aw, no long discourse?

I'd write one... If I didn't feel so lazy.

...They would reject me on the spot. XP

Happy Birthday, and I take it you are a history buff?

I'm mostly a Crusade nut, although I'm fond of other periods. Mostly though, I was researching the historic (in)accuracy of Kingdom of Heaven, and came across that date; since it's my birthday, I remembered it.

To everyone (including Velox, again), thanks. ^.^

...I demand this.

My soul having complete control over my body.

That of course gives quite a few super powers inadvertently. But overall it would make life much easier.

I disagree. Chainmail owns all other forms of mail. Unless it's chainmail received via mail.

...I really doubt my vocations director would approve of your advice.

Or at other times, people don't say that, but are constantly accused of saying that. I notice that as well.

Some viewpoints:

1)

Dye X turns people blue when they drink it

I hate it when people turn blue for no reason

Therefore, I hate Dye X and the people who drink it.

2)

Dye X turns people blue when they drink it

I hate it when people turn blue for no reason

Therefore, I hate Dye X.

3)

Dye X turns people blue when they drink it

I hate it when people turn blue for no reason

Therefore, I hate it when people drink Dye X.

4)

Dye X turns people blue when they drink it

I like it when people turn blue for no reason

Therefore, I like Dye X.

You could substitute the rather nonsensical analogy I used for anything of that has a similar essence (consuming it or whatnot has some sort of effect, or whatever). But anyways, I think that sums up minimally some of the basic views of the subject. What would you say is homophobic if you changed the example to homosexuality? I would say 1 and maybe 2 (depending exactly on what the person meant). 3 is the position closest to what I hold.

You could of course further divide it, further provide examples and analogies... This was just a quick example I whipped up. What does everyone think?

Would this be logical? If a person is homophobic, then they would have an overwhelming terror of it; thus, they would instinctively, like animals trapped one might say, strike out in fear and anger, against people who support homosexuality, and people who have that orientation. Would this be in accord with your idea of the connection between terror and hatred?

At any rate, I'm glad to see that neither myself nor friends of mine who hold the same position that I do, are homophobic according to your standards.

Welcome to CT (temporarily)!

I missed it...

And Aragorn never threw me an apple to make up for it! I've lost my faith now. ;.;

Pfft, he couldn't hold a candle to the epicness which is chain mail and surcoats. actors cannot compare with my favorite era of history.

And honestly, my all out favorite character (aesthetically and characteristically) in the whole movie was Baldwin IV.

But can everyone love love?

And can everyone love loving love?

Or love loving loving love?

/nonsense

I agree definitely, however, I feel also that people very often instantly assume that people who disagree with homosexuality being a good thing are hateful, bigots, insensitive, etc. Honestly, in the debate I quite sympathized with Velox and Grochi... I dislike intensely, however, how their stance has been foully twisted so that people think that they are saying that it's a sin to have same sex attraction... a sentiment both they and I disagree with.

Yes, but Gato's sexuality isn't just a faculty. What we are referring to by saying "Gato's sexuality" is the complex connotation that it has developed. His entire past. Gato's thoughts on it, and society's thoughts on the matter all make up what we are referring to.

I don't see how those external things modify it.

Especially his past, which has influenced his will fundamentally. I may not literally be my parents, but their influence is so great that when I say they are part of me, I mean that they have shaped me incredibly, and that who (emphasis on who, not what) I am is deeply connected to them.

And it's a good thing to be able to say that your parents own you to the point where you are them in a certain sense? IMO, the only thing ideally you should be able to say that about is your will and intellect.

But anyways, I think I've stated my opinion well. This conversation really is getting pointless.

Best of luck to you, again, Gato.

As much as I hate her music, I can't deny that this was a good song.

Agreed. I don't really like her music, but this is one of my favorite songs.

My argument is not related at all to that. My argument, simply put, is that your sexuality is not who you are, but what you have. Regardless or not of choice, your being is not your sexuality, despite intimate connections therein. No one would be silly enough to say that a human being is eyes, nose, a mouth, or ears. Or to be more specific, no one would say that you are brown hair, blue eyes, etc. They are properties of you, regardless of the level of importance (and sexual orientation is certainly a large property).

So yes, I am disagreeing with you; I'm saying that your sexual orientation is a faculty or (philosophic) accident of you, while your substance is Gato; namely your unique person.

I believe you can be separated from your sexuality, due to the fact that I believe in the duality of the human person; as a being of matter, chemical reactions, etc, but also a being of intellect, will and rationality. It's like how an apple is still an apple even if all its color is gone; there is not enough accidental change (change of the material properties) to warrant a substantial change (namely the apple no longer being an apple).

Furthermore, I detest the insuation that someone identifying as bi or gay is somehow less in control of their primal urges than someone who identifies as straight. If I said I'm a heterosexual, you wouldn't think of me as some slobbering bundle of instinct and libido, would you?

Identifying with an orientation already means that you accept that (you) are identifying or unifying with a particular orientation, not that you are that orientation.

In short, a person can identify with something but they cannot become that thing, as it is a separate thing from them inasmuch as their being is, well, their being; it cannot change. I could not, for instance, wake up one day and decide I was, Gato, or you. Well, I could, but I'd be living in an illusion, because I'd still be me.

My point is that saying that person is a sexual orientation infers inherently that they are simply a sexual orientation, that their orientation is their being.

This is English. Mayhaps you mean a simple, vernacular English version?

Zarayna, would you care to explain how a facet of someone's personality and existence is not who they are? Because I feel that one item holds the key to understanding your comment, and I currently can't puzzle it out for the life of me.

Sexuality is primarily seen as a function of the body; in fact in non humans it is solely a faculty of the body. However, due to our nature as thinking, rational beings, sexuality transcends into the intellect through romantic love. Sexuality (both the bodily expression in sex and the intellectual expression in love), therefore, is a faculty of a person in body and in soul. Note however the 'faculty of' portion. it is a faculty and an important one, but it belongs to something. In specific, it belong to someone: it is not who you are, for that is defined by your someoneness (for lack of a better word on the spur of the moment) It is a faculty of who you are. What you are is a person... Who you are is the individual person. Sexuality is outside the realm of who and what, and in the realm of whose and what's, if you understand; it belongs to someone, it is not someone. For sexuality is too universal a thing to be bound as a person; rather, it is a faculty of people.

This may sound dry and complex, but I feel it is very important. To me, it's the difference between a person accepting themselves as a person and a child of God, and a person accepting themselves as... A sexual orientation. Perhasp many people do not understand this.. But it seems to mark a shift in perspective and focus, and one that is destructive to all persons trying to live chastely, regardless of sexual orientation. In short, when man is seen as nothing more than a sexual creature, self restraint, and with it civility and rationality die out rapidly.