Borrowed Emotional Banter
I'll be the first to tell you that it is a sad day when women and men have created an aura of "not needing" each other. I simply mean that even if in a literal, emotionless sense we don't need someone of the opposite sex in our lives, that because of the emotional reasons (eloquently enumerated by grannysmith on Intel Cit's blog) it is the joy of life to find companionship.
I have to say (it's actually required by my liberal standings) that I don't think it's that a same sex relationship is any less satiating if it's what you want/need. Homosexual couples may have a higher stress rate because of a confounding external factor: like the stress of being gay in a straight man's world, or perhaps the stereotype that gay men are as emotionally stress-prone as the most catty of women.
I think that it's all about seeking companionship. Be it sexual, emotional, supportive, whatever we need at that time. It is one of the driving reasons of human existence. We seek it because we are made to seek it. Humans yearn for human relationships -- we may be burned a hundred times and still seek love. Because without it and without the hope of it... what would be true happiness and sorrow?
I have to say (it's actually required by my liberal standings) that I don't think it's that a same sex relationship is any less satiating if it's what you want/need. Homosexual couples may have a higher stress rate because of a confounding external factor: like the stress of being gay in a straight man's world, or perhaps the stereotype that gay men are as emotionally stress-prone as the most catty of women.
I think that it's all about seeking companionship. Be it sexual, emotional, supportive, whatever we need at that time. It is one of the driving reasons of human existence. We seek it because we are made to seek it. Humans yearn for human relationships -- we may be burned a hundred times and still seek love. Because without it and without the hope of it... what would be true happiness and sorrow?
posted by Jess at 11:30 AM
11 Comments:
You pose the question of "without it and without the hope of it what is true happiness or true sorrow." I assume that you are speaking about love. Rephrasing, without love we have no measurement of happiness and/or sorrow. If you feel there must be a measuring stick for this, (ie something to determine happiness [good] and sorrow [bad]) why have you suggested before that there is no black and white on any one issue and that everything is gray? In fact your exact comments were "what do we call moral and immoral? How do we know what's right and wrong...it is seldom an issue so black and and white"
Whoa there Tonto... "Rephrasing" should not be used to replace "twisting my words." I will never (and you will never hear me say) that anything is black and white. Please note that a measuring stick, though that is a very ROUGH metaphor for happiness and sorrow) has markings all the way from one side to the other. It is hardly a black and white situation. You don't use a measuring stick to see if something either fits into the "short" or the "long" category.
And happiness and sorrow cannot be equivicated to good and bad such as you have demonstrated. Both are vital to our emotional range.
And I'm shocked that you think that either love or happiness could even be measured on a yard stick. Do you honestly think that? Or are you simply trying to diminish my argument by way of picking on my wording because the logic behind isn't arguable?
"Do you honestly think that? Or are you simply trying to diminish my argument by way of picking on my wording because the logic behind isn't arguable?" Yes, the logic isn't arguable. Thank you for saying that. Most liberal views are not logical, infact they do there best to be an exception to logic. Victimhood, special cases, exceptions.
And yes, I do beleive that love and happiness can be measured. You either are and thats fine, or you aren't (sorrow, sadness) and are looking to get back to the good stuff somehow. They are, agreeably, vital but as place where you don't want to be for long.
And yes, I am rephrasing...But only putting the facts that you layed out in order. My rephase, without love we have no measurement of happiness and/or sorrow, was exactly what you meant. The quoted parts are your words verbatim.
Life is truely already complicated enough. Why not make your take a stand with what you believe, instead of having to sopport the bad because of the desire to be all inclusive?
Just a side note, granny apple wrote is response at 5:12 in the morning. Sleepin will ya?????
If only life were so simply defined for me as it seems to be for both of you.
I deem you lucky.
Please note that the part of your "rephrase" that bothered me was not love as a measurement, but rather the part where you defined what I was saying into two mutually exclusive categories and said that I was the one who classified them as such and put a measuring stick up against them.
I don't think that being able to see both sides of a situation as not having an opinion. Obviously I have lots of opinions... you all read them every time I post something. I just don't think there is anything that can be simply defined as right/wrong good/evil or black/white.
My measuring stick metaphor is that one doesn't use a stick with inches and centimeters marked on it, to decipher a black and white description, like "Long" or "short" otherwise those would be the only two markings on the ruler. Do I need to describe this further? Yes, it does measure how long or short, but it doesn't ever just say long or short: right or wrong.
Think of a case of what is right vs what is wrong. Now think of it from the person's perspective who committed the act? Did they think it was right or wrong? Or that perhaps it has some elements of both and that what was right to him outweighed the wrong...
Once again, I must have failed to explain myself. I was the one pointing out the endless options of measurement by a yard stick and have not denied that I make my own decisions based on my yard stick every day. But this is only one person's opinion and my opinion is open to change if the right facts are introduced.
For example: Killing someone is very rarely just killing someone, typically classifiable as wrong. What if you're in a situation that is kill or be killed? Or your decision to kill someone is based on the fact that they might hurt those nearest and most precious to you? Perhaps it doesn't make it right, but it becomes "justified" to the person doing the killing.
Everything is subjective and unless a person is mentally unbalanced (which there are cases of, I'll admit), they do not strive to do wrong, but rather aim for what is right in their own mind, considering the consequences and options they face.
And while we're off on tangents, grannysmith (and intelcit who started the tangent offing), why haven't you posted any information or blogs on your own site? It seems you have quite a viewpoint to portray...?
Interesting idea granny, start a blog...then we will have 3 places to ague:)
FYI...Kick this around. I was not trying to tangent this conversation. I am merely trying to understand your viewpoint. I too can see both sides of an issue. I hate communism, but have read the communist manifesto. sidenote sorry. But I can't seem to grasp a solid thread in your views. All Im trying to do.
If you were trying to understand me, you wouldn't say that you had read the Communist Manifesto and in-so-doing have learned my point of view or in fact anything about me.
And as for grannysmith's blog, I'm mostly just interested in a profile...
Back in my poli sci classes, a common way to differentiate between classic liberal/democrat and conservative/republican viewpoints was to consider that democrats are often in favor of more government (gov has responsibility to citizens kind of thing) and republicans are often in favor of less government (the people can do it better themselves kind of thing). With this in mind, I find it curious that when it comes to morality or human behavior, those roles seem to be reversed. It is the often the conservatives shouting for more legislation and regulation, with the liberals fighting bitterly for more "personal freedoms", as it were.
Reading the comments posted previous to this one seem to really illustrate this political role-reversal to me, since the discussion is focusing on how decisions are made, not really any one particular decision. How decisions are made, and how often a measuring stick metaphor can be worked into a single comment thread, apparently.
I don't know if I stop by often enough that I can rightly welcome you to the fray; but welcome LacyK!
Hope everybody had a lovely NYE.
So true! It's odd that these "moral issues" would be the one area in which Republicans demand goverment interference!
Could I be more behind on this post? Yeah, I think not! If anyone is to see this, you must know that I am enthralled by this dichotomy...and I wish I knew any of you well enough to jump in at some point. You have made me a semi-loyal reader, as I am a loyal reader of almost nothing. What up to the only person I know on here (he who will probably never see this - I love google) - guess who is blogging again - no, not me! ha!
Post a Comment
<< Home