Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Ben Kenobi]

BS... it doesn't change it for EVERYBODY... just bigots. Why would you let other people define your marriage, because that's what you are saying. You must not understand love at all...

Yes, it changes it for everyone. I don't want to be 'spouse number 1' on my marriage certificate. I want it to say 'husband and wife'.

If I'm defining it for myself, why do I need a government certificate at all?

The fact that you have to do something special and different means it's not equal.

My heart bleeds for them. Life isn't fair, never has, never will.

Why should gay couples have to do something different just to have the same rights. If they were allowed to get married, then they would have the same rights.

Life ain't fair. It doesn't mean that they are suffering from a loss of rights. They have the same rights as everyone else.

That's because you are blind and a bigot... you are asking them to do something different than you would have to do.

No, I'm not. I don't see why they are so frightened by a little legwork.

Since you think a gay couple across the country getting married would effect your marriage, you obviously have never experienced true love.

On the contrary, because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, you would come to that conclusion that I don't believe in the whole sexual revolution.

You'd be right about that. I'm sorry Ming. I don't buy the free love generation and what you sell.

If true love means the hook up culture, count me out.

Sexual love between two men or two women is pretty special too... your point?

It's not Eros. It's something else altogether.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I don't think you understand Eros. Sexual love between a man and a woman is very special.

Sexual love between two men or two women is pretty special too... your point?

This argument will never work, Ming, because Ben has made a fetish -- and I mean that in the precise psycho-sexual sense -- out of everything that he values but is unlikely to ever have; the short list would include romantic love, offspring, American citizenship, and eternal salvation, but I'm sure there's other stuff as well. You can't argue with a fetishist, because fetishes themselves aren't rational. Still, good on you for trying.

[Ming]

Right. And you declared victory. I honestly didn't see it till the flurry of posts today.

Well, you may be able to delude yourself, but everybody else knows the truth.

How was I proven wrong? I've been saying that argument for a long time now. The two aren't really comparable.

The romans got brought into it when you tried to prove that civil or non religious marriages were a new thing by pointing to the English Civil marriage act. You never admitted that you were wrong, but then just changed the argument to something else. Again... A FACT... NON RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES OCCURED BEFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS EVEN AROUND!

Isn't that age discrimination? Why are you discriminating against people because of their age, and because of their religion?

More strawman crap... Why, are you saying that people who aren't in a position to consent should be forced into marriage? Oh, that's right, you believe that arranged marriages in the good ole days were more romantic than it is now, where people actually get to choose their mates. And the Church agreed as well, by actually performing the sacrament, even if the couple didn't want to get married or loved each other

Specifics? I'm curious. I don't think that we are very far apart, and you would much rather call me a bigot then admit that our positions are really only a hairbreadth away.

The fact that you want to be apart and different is what makes you a bigot.
Fell free to read all the posts that have already been made on the specifics.

Why's that? Because there are fewer believers?

Yep... exactly. You keep wanting to take government out of the picture calling their involvement irrelevent. Well frankly, with the less and less believers and more people not joining churchs, they are the ones becoming more irrelevent to marriage.

It treats everyone exactly the same.

Exactly the opposite... forcing people to do something they don't believe in is not treating eveybody the same.

Have you been in a unitarian church?

Actually... yes I have... so what's your point?
Why should somebody who doesn't believe in relgion, god or churchs, have to got to a church to get married? Even a unitarian church...

Why is it the responsibility of the state to officiate marriages?

Why is it the responsibility of the church to officiate marriages?
I care how the state views my relationship/marriage... I don't care how some silly superstitious people view my marriage.

Our?

What makes you think we are on the same side here? You've labelled Catholicism as superstition. Sure some people don't like it but there are churches for lack of a better term that match your beliefs exactly. True religious freedom exists today.

Silly typo

And I have the freedom not to be forced to join any religion. True freedom is not having to belong. And frankly, there is no relgion that exactly matches my beliefs. I no longer believe in the Catholic Church because they have betrayed it's members repeatedly and simply do not live in the real world anymore.

You mean, the state is their church. Why should we all be paying for their ceremonies and worship services?

It figures that's how you would see it. ONE MORE TIME. NO THE STATE ISN'T THEIR CHURCH... THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN RELIGIONS OR CHURCH.

And I'm paying for your ceremonies and worship services because you get tax breaks that ultimately cost me money.

That's great. Nothing stopping these people from loving whomever they want and to be with them their whole life.

But you are stopping them from getting married, like all other people that love each other and want to spend their lives together.

Where am I trying to stop gay people from getting married in church? I've argued there are churches that will marry them, so this whole 'religion and the state' argument is bunk. What protection do they need? They already have everything.

But you've argued that you don't want the state to recognize their marriages... so they don't already have everything. And frankly, it's the state that counts.

Well, you'll have to spell them out exactly. Power of attorney? You know damn well that you can have whomever you want to have power of attorney by filling out the paperwork.

Again... it's different... not the same. All they want is the same rights that you already have.

What freedoms are they denied? Absolutely none.

The freedom to be considered married in the eyes of the state.

So what's the issue? So are donations to the Sierra club, or to Al Gore's global warming club for men.

Yeah... but I didn't claim that churchs souldn't be taxed for double taxiation on donations like you did.

How is that different from secular charities and organisations? It's all the same. Why aren't you calling for them to be stripped of their benefits too?

Because they don't whine and say they don't want to pay the cost of civil marriages.

No, I'm arguing that atheists should not recieve special treatment from the state, as they do now with civil licenses, and marriage officials.

What special treatment? If relgious people want to get married outside of the church, the same option is available to them?

So all men are permitted to do so? No, that's hardly the case. It has nothing to do with sex, but everything to do with the sacrament.

No... not all men are permitted... just those that have been admitted to the priesthood... even if they do molest children. And it has everything to do with sex... since any man can take the training and attempt to become a priest... but no woman can. If that isn't about sex, what is.

Are you saying that the sacrament should be changed so that they can perform all the sacraments? That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. The sacraments are what they are, and that includes ordination. If you change ordination, then it's no longer ordination anymore.

Just pointing out that the Church considers woman second class citizens...
The Church/Pope has changed many things over time... The faith that is practiced today is by no stretch of the imagination the same as it was hundreds of years ago... But they still will not allow woman to become priests. So... treated differently and not equally.

Again, Al Gore's global warming for men is a fine, registered charity. I don't think he asks what religion you are before donating to the good of Al Gore.

And again... they don't whine about having to pay for civil marriages...

I'm a writer. I love words. Words are powerful. I hate jargon, and I especially hate the watering down of perfectly good words to make them useless and meaningless.

Even love, what is that? Is it the feeling you get from eating a really juicy hamburger? Or the feeling you get when making love to the most beautiful woman you've ever known who's pledged to be your wife until death do you part?

If you can't tell the difference, than marry a hamburger...
And leave marriage to those that love each other.

It's not. You yourself have proven this when you said you had no problem with applying 'holy matrimony' to the sacrament, and 'marriage' to whatever catch all applies.

BS... you want to deny Gays the right of marriage in the eyes of the state.

It's not my fault you don't donate to the Al Gore global warming club for men. It's really a fabulous charity.

And as usual... you ignore the point because you have no real answer.
Like all of your arguments... pretty typical.

[Ming]

Yes, it changes it for everyone. I don't want to be 'spouse number 1' on my marriage certificate. I want it to say 'husband and wife'.

Are you saying that words on a marriage certificate define your love..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If I'm defining it for myself, why do I need a government certificate at all?

Because it's the law... and every married couple has to have it
If you don't want one, don't get married.

My heart bleeds for them. Life isn't fair, never has, never will.

Ahhh... your true feelings... bigot.

Life ain't fair. It doesn't mean that they are suffering from a loss of rights. They have the same rights as everyone else.

No they don't.

No, I'm not. I don't see why they are so frightened by a little legwork.

They shouldn't have to do anymore than you do...

On the contrary, because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, you would come to that conclusion that I don't believe in the whole sexual revolution.

You are welcome to your opinion... but you aren't welcome to cram down other people's throats

You'd be right about that. I'm sorry Ming. I don't buy the free love generation and what you sell.

I'm not selling it... just pointing out reality.

If true love means the hook up culture, count me out.

You seem to have counted yourself out already...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interesting. As I recall, his gay daughter was mentioned briefly in the 2004 Presidential election cycle and the conservatives howled in outrage at this.

But it is good to see he's finally standing up for his daughter's rights.

I wonder when the theocons try to kick out Cheney for "not being a conservative"

[Ben Kenobi]

This argument will never work, Ming, because Ben has made a fetish -- and I mean that in the precise psycho-sexual sense -- out of everything that he values but is unlikely to ever have; the short list would include romantic love, offspring, American citizenship, and eternal salvation, but I'm sure there's other stuff as well. You can't argue with a fetishist, because fetishes themselves aren't rational. Still, good on you for trying.

Wow, that's only what, the 4th or 5th person so far on this thread to comment on my love life and how I'm going to die an old and lonely man.

Do you folks take pills for arrogance? I mean seriously.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I wonder when the theocons try to kick out Cheney for "not being a conservative"

You'd be surprised. Back when I worked at The Washington Times there was a fair bit of discussion amongst editorial staff about whether Bush was "conservative enough" to be president.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well he was campaigning as a "compassionate conservative" at the time...

[Q Classic]

I was baptised in one of those churches, so yes it does bother me. The difference is that I'm not getting married there. Changing the marriage definition changes it for everyone, not just members of one church.

The definition's already been changed by those churches that provide marriage to gays, and thus, changed for everyone.

All of which can be arranged for a relative or non-relative. I honestly don't get why gay people are complaining. I've had to do that with my mom for my grandmother, as my father used to have power of attorney for her. It's a bit more difficult, but it's not that hard.

They can already make those arrangements legally. I really don't see what the issue is here.

Because even showing the legal papers doesn't necessarily let gay couples exert those rights.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2009/02/24/don-t-go-to-florida-on-not-getting-to-see-your-dying-beloved-in-the-hospital.aspx

http://www.miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html

Well I wouldn't be so presumptuous. How do you know that I've never experienced true love?

Because if you had, you wouldn't be whinging about how much better it was in the Dark Ages.

I don't think you understand Eros. Sexual love between a man and a woman is very special.

Eros is not necessarily restricted to just heterosexuality.

Of course, your bigoted, judgemental ways shine through with the implicit suggestion that sexual love between two men or two women isn't special.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, you may be able to delude yourself, but everybody else knows the truth.

If you as a moderator can excuse yourself for not reading every post, surely you can afford me the same consideration.

The romans got brought into it when you tried to prove that civil or non religious marriages were a new thing by pointing to the English Civil marriage act.

They are a new thing. The Roman style of marriage is hardly comparable, not the least of which it permitted the men to divorce their wives, and did not permit the wife to divorce her husband. Are you seriously arguing that this style of marriage is what the civil laws base themselves upon?

The civil laws were passed as part of Catholic emacipation of all things, such that non-Anglican religions could get married and recognised by the state. Prior to this, there was no such thing as 'religious freedom' in the sense that the Anglican church refused to allow the Catholics to even hold open worship services.

But of course you already knew all that.

You never admitted that you were wrong, but then just changed the argument to something else.

Why should I admit I am in error? My point still stands. You've bobbed and weaved and repeated yourself, but you still haven't addressed the point that civil marriage as we know it today only goes back to the start of the Victorian era.

Again... A FACT... NON RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES OCCURED BEFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS EVEN AROUND!

Again, if you consider contracts where the wife cannot divorce as 'marriage', then they do count. I don't count them as marriage at all. For someone who extolls the Roman marriage, while condemning medieval times boggles me.

More strawman crap... Why, are you saying that people who aren't in a position to consent should be forced into marriage?

No, all I am asking is why do we draw an arbitrary line at age wrt to consent for marriage. Is it, or is it not discriminatory? If not, why not? Why are some restrictions on marriage permissible, while others are impermissible?

If you don't want to answer the questions, fine. I'll ask them again.

I actually find it hilarious that someone who is arguing against child marriage is arguing in favour of Roman marriage.

Oh, that's right, you believe that arranged marriages in the good ole days were more romantic than it is now, where people actually get to choose their mates.

Where did I say anything of the sort? Please quote me, or stop putting words in my mouth. Those are hardly straw men, these are simple questions.

And the Church agreed as well, by actually performing the sacrament, even if the couple didn't want to get married or loved each other

Define 'love'. What you really mean is they didn't love in the sense that you believe is love, therefore it doesn't count. The Free Love generation is a garbage philosophy.

The fact that you want to be apart and different is what makes you a bigot.

Again. Which are the specific things that gay people are denied wrt to marriage? Calling me a bigot is not answering the question.

Fell free to read all the posts that have already been made on the specifics.

I want your specifics.

Yep... exactly. You keep wanting to take government out of the picture calling their involvement irrelevent. Well frankly, with the less and less believers and more people not joining churchs, they are the ones becoming more irrelevent to marriage.

I do want the government out of marriage, because I believe they are hostile to Christian marriage. I believe you want very much to cram your ideal of marriage down the rest of our throats through the government.

I could, and have, argued that the government has a legitimate concern to regulate marriage. I also believe that the government has a responsibility to uphold and not undermine and redefine marriage to suit the passing winds of the age. Therefore, I want them out of it altogether.

Exactly the opposite... forcing people to do something they don't believe in is not treating eveybody the same.

Right. My heart bleeds for them. They love each other and it's too much of an effort to go down to the government and do the paperwork.

You know, it's funny. Rights are such a wonderful thing, yet only 50 percent of people actually take the effort to vote. It dawned on me that people really don't want rights when they have to work to exercise them. Rights are hard and annoying and difficult.

Actually... yes I have... so what's your point?

I would argue your beliefs fit in with them just fine.

Why should somebody who doesn't believe in relgion, god or churchs, have to got to a church to get married? Even a unitarian church...

Why should someone who doesn't believe in religion at all get married? I'm really not seeing it. You get all the benefits of marriage up here, simply by living together for two years. What's the point of the ceremony, in a church? You can rent out a hall and have a party with your friends. I'm just not seeing it.

I care how the state views my relationship/marriage

So, IOW you are allowing the state to define your marriage. Thank you, finally for admitting it. You and I both care damn well about that marriage certificate. At least now you are finally being honest about it.

And I have the freedom not to be forced to join any religion.

You don't have to belong. The consequences is you don't get a marriage in the church. Actions have consequences. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I no longer believe in the Catholic Church because they have betrayed it's members repeatedly and simply do not live in the real world anymore.

Well that's a shame. You are a good man Ming, and so is your brother rah. I have been very happy in the Catholic church, and I am sorry to hear that you and rah no longer feel comfortable.

It figures that's how you would see it. ONE MORE TIME. NO THE STATE ISN'T THEIR CHURCH... THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN RELIGIONS OR CHURCH.

It is. They have everything they have in the church in the state. That's why you are fighting so hard for it because you don't want it taken away from you.

And I'm paying for your ceremonies and worship services because you get tax breaks that ultimately cost me money.

How do charitible tax breaks cost you money? That's like saying tax cuts to every other bracket then yours costs you money.

People having more money, means more business. You know this already, I don't need to tell you.

But you are stopping them from getting married, like all other people that love each other and want to spend their lives together.

How? They can get married in whichever church they want to. They, themselves are making the conscious choice not to get married. They can moan and complain about how life ain't fair, but there is no one, especially not me, preventing them from getting married.

But you've argued that you don't want the state to recognize their marriages... so they don't already have everything. And frankly, it's the state that counts.

I don't want the state to recognise anybody's marriage. You can argue that's foolish, but it's hardly discriminatory.

Again... it's different... not the same. All they want is the same rights that you already have.

Which they already have. Special rights for them alone? Count me out.

The freedom to be considered married in the eyes of the state.

That is the most ridiculous freedom I have heard.

You have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government recognition of your marriage? I don't see it. Government getting the hell out of the way so you can pursue your own happiness? Hell yeah.

Ming, that's not freedom. That's like getting a token when you play bingo. It's useless outside the hall. What you are basically saying is that you want the state to approve your relationship to stamp it with a big rubber stamp saying 'married'. But what happens if the stamper is ill, or the stamper runs out of ink?

Yeah... but I didn't claim that churchs souldn't be taxed for double taxiation on donations like you did.

Well I didn't realise you thought the exemptation for other charities should be taken away. That's a rather interesting position, and I'd like to hear more about it.

Because they don't whine and say they don't want to pay the cost of civil marriages.

Al Gore doesn't whine? Damn man! That's how he makes his living. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

What special treatment? If relgious people want to get married outside of the church, the same option is available to them?

Finally, I was waiting for this.

Now, your other statement is that it's wrong to say that gay people have the same right to marriage, because they would never want to marry someone of the opposite sex. Now, here you are saying that religious people should be happy they have the 'right' to marry outside the church.

Yes, it's true religious people have that option open for them. So do gay people.

No... not all men are permitted... just those that have been admitted to the priesthood... even if they do molest children. And it has everything to do with sex... since any man can take the training and attempt to become a priest... but no woman can. If that isn't about sex, what is.

No man can take the training and attempt to become a nun either. I really don't see how the sacrament of ordination is discriminatory.

Just pointing out that the Church considers woman second class citizens...

The same church that venerates the Blessed Virgin? I don't see it Ming. The same church that's filled with flowers every sunday?

The Church/Pope has changed many things over time... The faith that is practiced today is by no stretch of the imagination the same as it was hundreds of years ago...

What has changed?

But they still will not allow woman to become priests. So... treated differently and not equally.

They are given different jobs. Are you seriously arguing that there are not fundamental differences between men and women? Just because they are different doesn't make them equal in value. We aren't cookie cutter copies of each other.

And again... they don't whine about having to pay for civil marriages...

Have you even heard the Goracle? Man, he's a windbag.

If you can't tell the difference, than marry a hamburger...
And leave marriage to those that love each other.

Well the analogy is about as much as your concept of 'marriage' as mine. The two are very different.

BS... you want to deny Gays the right of marriage in the eyes of the state.

I want to deny everyone. Oh my, that makes me a damn bigot!

[Q Classic]

If I'm defining it for myself, why do I need a government certificate at all?

If you're defining it for yourself, why do you need the government to agree with your definition?

My heart bleeds for them. Life isn't fair, never has, never will.

How Christian.

Life ain't fair. It doesn't mean that they are suffering from a loss of rights. They have the same rights as everyone else.

Actually, it does mean that they have a loss for rights. If they have to jump through extra hoops just for parity, then there's an inherent unfairness to it. It means that those heteros who don't have to go through that extra legal paperwork have an assumed right, whereas gays and lesbians don't have those rights; that deficiency is by definition a lack of equal rights.

No, I'm not. I don't see why they are so frightened by a little legwork.

Then strip it from heterosexual marriages as well. Of course, that's not the argument. And it's nice of you to continue to be a ***-hater by assuming that gays and lesbians are too faggy to actually go through this legwork, when many already have, only to still be denied.

If true love means the hook up culture, count me out.

If that's what you think others think true love means, you truly don't understand it.

It's not Eros. It's something else altogether.

Then what is it?

[Ben Kenobi]

The definition's already been changed by those churches that provide marriage to gays, and thus, changed for everyone.

Their concept of marriage gets added to the pile along with the Muslims under Sharia law. They want to go that way, more power to em. Count me out.

Because even showing the legal papers doesn't necessarily let gay couples exert those rights.

Hmm, your article argues that the hospital is under no obligation to admit anyone. You don't have the right to visitation if the hospital says no.

Because if you had, you wouldn't be whinging about how much better it was in the Dark Ages.

More prejudice.

Amazing. Are people really that arrogant to believe that true love is a modern invention?

No, the only experiences that speak to me are the ones from that time. That is why I refer to them. Your idea of what love is, is very different, so it's no wonder that we wouldn't see eye to eye.

Eros is not necessarily restricted to just heterosexuality.

And agape isn't just restricted to self-sacrificial love. Eros is man and a woman, by definition.

Of course, your bigoted, judgemental ways shine through with the implicit suggestion that sexual love between two men or two women isn't special.

It's not eros. I consider Eros special. Take it up with the Greeks.

[Ben Kenobi]

How Christian.

Choices have consequences. You can preach until you are blue in the face, but in the end if people want to go their own way, they will do so. I don't see that gay people are hard done by the current situation. I don't see gay people beaten up in the streets.

I do see a whole faculty devoted to them, and half my degree program devoted to 'gay and lesbian' issues. I do have to put up with that in my classes on history, when it has absolutely no relevance to the topic. I do have to sit through lectures devoted to 'gay and lesbians', regardless of the topic.

It seems to me, unlike persecution, they are extolled. I am sorry, my heart bleeds for them and their troubles. I'm sure theirs do for mine.

Actually, it does mean that they have a loss for rights. If they have to jump through extra hoops just for parity,

I have to jump through extra hoops as well. It's not fun, but that's the hand I've been dealt. I can either whine about it or get my **** together and get it done. So long as I have access to the same rights as everyone else, I don't care what hurdles get thrown up.

If they want to live a day in my shoes, they are very much welcome.

It's a fact of life, that life is not fair. You are not going to get everything handed to you.

Then strip it from heterosexual marriages as well. Of course, that's not the argument.

Does anyone actually bother reading my argument? I'm arguing doing away with it altogether, for everyone. Have some form of civil union or whatnot if you want the recognition, with no other rights attached to it.

And it's nice of you to continue to be a ***-hater by assuming that gays and lesbians are too faggy to actually go through this legwork, when many already have, only to still be denied.

I call 'em as I see 'em. I didn't want to have to go through all that paperwork for my dad's stuff, but guess what, life ain't fair. Hearing other people whining about it when it is the love of their life, just makes me laugh.

If that's what you think others think true love means, you truly don't understand it.

Then explain it to me. I've explained mine.

Then what is it?

I believe the word is sodomy.

[Q Classic]

Their concept of marriage gets added to the pile along with the Muslims under Sharia law. They want to go that way, more power to em. Count me out.

Which is fine. But why do you think your definition should supplant theirs instead? Are you truly so arrogant?

Hmm, your article argues that the hospital is under no obligation to admit anyone. You don't have the right to visitation if the hospital says no.

Are you serious? Did you even read and comprehend the ****ing article?
The hospital states it limits it to immediate family and spouses--either category into which the partner denied access would have fallen into. She additionally had all the proper legal papers.
It is the argument of the hospital's legal counsel that the hospital has no obligation to allow any visitors, not the article's.
But way to be a ****ing douchebag, misrepresenting the facts.

More prejudice.

Turnabout's fair play, bigot.

Amazing. Are people really that arrogant to believe that true love is a modern invention?

Are you really that arrogant to believe that true love no longer exists?

No, the only experiences that speak to me are the ones from that time. That is why I refer to them. Your idea of what love is, is very different, so it's no wonder that we wouldn't see eye to eye.

The experiences from that time speak to me, just as much as experiences from antiquity and experiences today inform and speak to me. You're the one who's wearing blinders, refusing to even consider that "true love" may, in fact, and does, in fact, still exist.

And agape isn't just restricted to self-sacrificial love. Eros is man and a woman, by definition.

It does not.

It's not eros. I consider Eros special. Take it up with the Greeks.

If you're going to go by only the denoted definition, then much of what you've said also needs to be re-examined. You cannot just wave away common definitions simply because they're inconvenient for you.

Well, maybe you can, since you're a ****head.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is fine. But why do you think your definition should supplant theirs instead? Are you truly so arrogant?

I don't. You folks are the ones arguing that my beliefs are outmoded and will fade away with time. I'm of the belief that we've always had this particular argument and we always will have this particular argument as a conflict of two very different worldviews.

Are you serious? Did you even read and comprehend the ****ing article?

Yes, and the hospital argues it has no obligation to admit anyone at all. Which is, of course the right interpretation.

But way to be a ****ing douchebag, misrepresenting the facts.

There are times when guests and visitors are not appropriate and are a hindrance to the recovery process. Perhaps the 'partner' did not want her as a visitor. It's a good thing though, that the priest was able to perform last rites.

Are you really that arrogant to believe that true love no longer exists?

When the modern world spits on these very fine stories, yes, I believe that their concept of true love has changed significantly.

The experiences from that time speak to me, just as much as experiences from antiquity and experiences today inform and speak to me. You're the one who's wearing blinders, refusing to even consider that "true love" may, in fact, and does, in fact, still exist.

I bet if we were to get down to it, your definition would be very different from mine. Look, do you even know the Griselda story?

Well, maybe you can, since you're a ****head.

Oooh, I don't know if I've ever been called a ****head before. Vocabulary.