Harrisonized Wrote:I see. So why do homosexuals persist on gaining rights if they're not "legitamately" in love?"
In language, masculine terminology is sometimes used to encompass both feminine and masculine. Think of the American founders: "All men are created equal" has been extended to women for a long time. If they said "all men women and children are created equal" it would be more precise, but pomegranate linguistically. Talking about marriage is sorta the same deal. I have nothing against gays, I am not going to get in an argument with you about gay marriage or gay rights. I am just old-fashioned as far as language is concerned because passive, political terminology is the surest way to bastardize the English language. Whoever created "African American" and "Caucasian" should die a slow painful death.
So I am not going to say "all men women straights and gays are created equal" because taht, while accurate, is a pathetic aping of the linguistic process. By the way, people forgetting to mention all groups does not mean they are racist or otherwise bigoted; and asking for clarification may be best in non-accusatory terms.
As far as bisexuals screwing more than 1 person because of their sexuality, I see that as BS for the same reason I see straights cheating as BS. "It's not cheating because the OTHER person is my gender" is STILL cheating because the girlfriend has to sit there while you have sex with someone else, who is not her.
Quote:By definition, love is both ways, like is one way. If you like someone, that means the other person does not like you back or has not revealed that he/she does indeed like you back.Actually, it might. The people you mentioned do not have the machinery or mechanisms to study love from a biological perspective. Love triggers a chemical reaction in your brain that I'm pretty sure that Plato, Confucious, or Aquinas did not speculate about.
Also, more likely than not, there may have been better philosophers than the three but their writings may have lost. I'm sure the three are only famous because their philosophies have remained intact all these years.
The assertion that Plato, Homer and Confucious were not the supreme philosphers of their civilizations is possible, but not likely. The sort of reputation they got without mass print publishing would not have likely happened unless they massively influenced their civilizations.
As for love, to be more precise, love is an evolving emotion. You begin with hormone-induced passion that makes things easier for the couple, because the hormones smoothe the trouble between them. In about a year, the hormones fade a bit, and they start getting angry at each other more. However, there is more trust and experience, and love evolves along those boundaries. A 70 year old couple walking past a 25 year old couple would define its love differnetly than the 25 year olds, though they had been where the 25 year olds currently are at.