[Anti-Gay Marriage]

Constable Reggie, I agree with most of what you are saying, apart from this:

Same as trying to ban ceremonial animal sacrifice .

Is there still someone who practices animal sacrifices? Animal aren't droids, they feel pain too, and what about animal rights associations? Killing anyone or anything for other reasons than survival is sick as incest. I thought that whatever disagreements different people in this world may have, senseless violence is bad anyway, from any point of view.

[Anti-Gay Marriage]

I do think however that it is part of one effective method that should be employed in certain situations.

Such as? Really, I don't get your logic, as much as I would like to. I think that being calm under any circumstances would make a better impression generally and make the adversaries probably think they are in the wrong if they see you are calm. I really loathe it when people try to shovel their ideology down the others' throat, being it religion, homosexuality or something else.

And, as I said, I criticize only the methods used, not the ideologies by themselves.

[Anti-Gay Marriage]

There's no such thing as being "close-minded" when it comes to being intolerant of bigotry.

There IS. Behaving in such a manner makes you no better than those you hate. Being aggressive in the name of ANY ideal casts a shadow upon the ideal in question, in my opinion. Rude Christians and rude homosexuality supporters are the same kind of people. I have always disliked it when people are proud of defending their ideals in an aggressive manner and seek a reason to disagree even when there isn't any. And, as I said, for me that applies to BOTH sides in most of these debates.

[Anti-Gay Marriage]

I honestly don't even get what you're trying to say here anymore.

Well, forget it then. It's probably because I was remembering the attitude of people on another forum.

If I have to answer the original question, I have nothing against gay marriage being legalized, I just wanted to point out that not all religious people go preaching hatred. I think that religion theoretically is and should be about being good people.

[Anti-Gay Marriage]

If you really think that it's okay for a homophobe to call a gay person disagreeable for existing but that it's not okay for anyone here to call the homophobe an asshole for doing that, I have nothing to say except that you're drawing a huge case of false equivalence here.

If a homophobe says that, it's okay to call him whatever you want. It's just I don't think that everybody who isn't active enough in fighting for the homosexuals' cause should be labeled as a homophobe and that not every religious who doesn't personally like homosexuality should be labeled as a bigot. I personally don't like it, but I don't go around preaching hatred towards homosexuality. I am religious, but to me, a gay atheist who is honest and does good things is way better than a serial killer or a bully who do whatever they want justifying themselves with "helping God".

[Anti-Gay Marriage]

Uh, dude, I'm someone totally in favor of gay marriage and I'm reasonably sure 99% of people who share that position aren't in favor of allowing pedophilia or incest or murder or any of the other ridiculous, outlandish crap "including."

oh, and sorry, but the whole "it's bigoted to hate bigots" line isn't gonna fly :V

I was exaggerating of course, but I am sure religious people don't want to return to the 17th century to burn witches either.

But what's wrong with the "it's bigoted to hate bigots" line? The Germans once built concentration camps for Jews. Should Jews now build concentration camps for Germans?

I really have the impression that it's not so much about human rights or religion as it is to argue for the sake of arguing. If this was the first discussion about this I read, I wouldn't have said that, but I read at least 10000 by now and they are all the same.

[The Issue of Piracy]

Still, I would like to ask: what do people who are against piracy think about pirating things that aren't available for sale? Does it make sense to denounce them if it's the ONLY way to watch the video?

[Anti-Gay Marriage]

I don't really have a position on homosexuality, but when I see debates between it's supporters and haters, I can only notice that both sides in such debates are full of hatred and the most sick thing is each of them feels justified to be rude just because the other side has been rude as well on a certain point. It's just a crazy, pitiful race of "who is more good at being evil". People just think that we either should allow everything, murder, rape, pedophilia, incest and drugs including, or we should live by 17th century standards when people were burnt for "witchcraft" or when they were killed for "heresy". No middle-groud, according to them.

As I said, it's just childish to say "why should we be polite if others were not?"
BECAUSE YOU PRETEND TO BE BETTER, THAT'S WHY!

[Collecting Rainwater Is Now Illegal!]

I once read about a law (don't remember which country and which city) that forbids people to brandish snakes above their heads when walking near the city hall. I especially liked the sarcastic comment: "good that at least in other cities there are no such strict laws".

[Movie parodies]

Just to make people laugh:

There is a fan project made with the "Lord of the rings" movie trilogy in Russia. This fan nicknamed Goblin made a sort of one-voice dubbing (the sort used for TV news about other countries) and inserted absurd, hilarious quotes instead of everything the characters were normally saying. For example, Gimli started speaking with a Georgian accent, Legolas with an Estonian one, the dialogue between Gollum's 2 personalities was transformed into a discussion about football (one was talking with an Ukrainian accent, the other in normal Russian). When somebody shot with a bow, sounds of a gunshot was inserted. Elrond became Agent Smith from "Matrix" (since it's the same actor).

Another quote: when in the 2 part Aragorn asks Legolas to look what's happening in the distance, there is a script saying "for your consideration" appearing at the bottom of the screen, and Legolas answers "there is a suspicious writing always popping up in the lower part of the screen. It isn't in Russian"

The same thing was done to "Star Wars: episode 1" where they didn't limit themselves to substitute what the characters are saying, but also modified some of the the images: for example, Darth Sidious has Bin Laden's face, the the Trade Federation Viceroy is paid with sweets like chocolate for his invasion at Naboo and the final fighting against Darth Maul is accompanied by Lezginka music.

The sad thing is that for the most part only Russians could understand why it's funny, because there were too many quotes from Russian or Soviet movies. Otherwise, I would have made English subtitles for it.

Elrond as Agent Smith:

Darth Sidious as Bin Laden:

Are there any such parodies in other countries? The closest thing to this I saw were some cartoons and movie segments dubbed with the Italian journalist Germano Mosconi's voice (he was once filmed when he was angry because he continuously had to stop and start his speeches all over again because there were problems with the cameras. That was, however, not so funny in my opinion, because he mostly said blasphemy.

[Childhood friend romances]

Has anyone played Dragon Quest V and VIII ? I think that among the childhood friend romances in video games those are the cutest ones (in V it doesn't necessarily take place though, as you can choose between different girls). It isn't a romantic simulator though, but rather an RPG.

[Childhood friend romances]

I agree with Samias for the most part.

It's probably not going to be TRUE LOVE FOREVER that gets sold to us in media

But I don't really think the media sell it to us as true love forever, there aren't that many childhood love stories with happy endings in fiction. For example, in most animes I heard about the main character chooses somebody else other than the childhood friend (unfortunately, in my opinion).

[Childhood friend romances]

To be considered a masterpiece, a book must have an EFFECTIVE ending. Eclipse explained perfectly why HP's revised ending would be better. Or take a book like... Let's go with Alice in Wonderland (or Through the Looking Glass, my Lewis Carroll isn't up to par). Is the book better if it turns out that Wonderland is real? No, the realization that Wonderland stems from Alice's brain opens up a whirlwind of discussion about her sanity and reliability as a narrator, thereby having the more effective ending.

Speaking of HP, I would claim that it's a masterpiece.

I am not saying I disagree completely or that I don't understand. However, I can speak only for myself, and in my personal case I have read enough sad endings for the rest of my life during my times at school and university. Now I just prefer positive emotions.

[Childhood friend romances]

I'm not Lifey, but I would've liked that ending better, too. Instead of being a lighthearted magic-on-top-of-real-world children's story, it would've been about escape mechanisms that an abused boy made up to keep himself sane, and most definitely NOT for children.

There are far too many real-life cases that end like that, so I don't think there is anything wrong in writing a book where things end differently and which gives a sense of hope. I don't think that, to be considered a masterpiece, a book must necessarily have a sad ending, only because it would be more realistic that way (not saying Harry Potter is a masterpiece, but still, my opinion is this).

[What should I do with my stuff animal?]

Deep down, it's things like this that keep us connected to our inner child, remind us not to lose who we truly are along the path of life.

Really well said.

[What should I do with my stuff animal?]

I had many toys when I was little, I have passed some to others later, but I kept the favorite ones, especially the 1,2 meter long crocodile which my cat does sleep on

[Childhood friend romances]

Best ending for Harry Potter would have been Harry waking up in his cupboard underneath the stairs.

Why?

As for the stories not being realistic, I really don't understand why some people say fiction should necessarily be close to reality. In my case, I read or watch fiction because I want to immerse myself in a world where endings give a sense of hope unlike real life.

To be honest, I don't see the point of sad endings in fiction at all, unless it's based on a real-life tragedy that can't be changed. There already are enough tearjerking endings in real life. I mean, if somebody just wants to cry, they can watch a documentary about children dying in Africa or something like that (just my opinion).

And it's not like such pairings don't exist in real life at all. Even though such stories are relatively few, I have great respect for those people who never change partners and stay with the same person since childhood.

[Childhood friend romances]

My least favourite romance of all time that I have actually read to the bitter end is Harry Potter. Worst epilogue ever. I swear my eyes could've rolled back until they got stuck there. It wasn't really going all that badly but accelerated right into processed cheesiness.

...Actually Tales of Graces f is up there too, if only because the future arc is LET'S SHIP ALL THESE PEOPLE and Cheria makes me want to claw my face off.

Haven't yet played Tales of Graces, but I am going to. But what's wrong with this Cheria?

As for Harry Potter, I agree with you. The childhood friend stories there are among the few I still don't like. I am not really a fan of how they are described, and the fact the characters date so many people before getting together gets on my nerves. By the way, the pairing Ron x Hermione really made me say "what the [censored]?" There was absolutely NOTHING to indicate things could go this way, from how the relationship between these 2 characters was described before, romantic love was really out of place there. Nevertheless, there are people who haven't been surprised at all

[Childhood friend romances]

Eclipse, a small digression: you mentioned Twilight. Is it really THAT bad? I have never watched or read it, but many people are saying it's so EXTREMELY PAINFUL to follow that it seems they wouldn't do it even if promised a big reward unless they have a gun pointed at their head

[Childhood friend romances]

Now, getting on someone's case for something they were born with (skin color) is a completely different from a trivial preference (childhood friend romance). The former has some real-life implications (race and all that); the latter, not so much. My question to you is: why does it matter if someone dismisses the entire genre?

I am not saying they have no right to dismiss it, I am just saddened by such reactions on something innocent and tender (you can argue not ALL childhood romances are forever innocent and tender, but again, it's a matter of different cases), and I always want to understand the reasons, I am simply not one of those people who say "I could care less about what others think". If we are talking only about fiction, where childhood friend romances are often badly written because of the lack of character development, that I can understand (but in this case it would be you disliking the pairings for the lack of character development, not because they are childhood friends). But if you are talking about real life too, about people who managed to be happy with their childhood friends and you are still saying it stinks, that's a different matter.

[Childhood friend romances]

I shall also disagree about throwing the entire subgenre under the bus. So WHAT if someone thinks it's the worst thing since Twilight? Will this cause a huge loss in someone's quality of life? Will this be the basis of any major financial/personal/government decisions? I've got better things to worry about, thankyouverymuch.

I am not saying you have to worry about it, there is no need to react in such a cynical way, I have done nothing to you. But just hating it like that for no reason is weird (even if, as you told you have negative personal experience, I don't see how this makes you hate the whole category and not just cases of specific people). People are constantly talking to me about respecting others' tastes while they themselves don't even try to respect mine (of those of people who think like me).

[Childhood friend romances]

My interpretation so far of romantic love is that it depends on how close people are comfortable being to each another over a lasting period of time. How much they're comfortable sharing, what commitments they're comfortable making (or at least overall willing to make) to each other, and how comfortably/effectively they can draw strength from each other. How each participant helps fulfill the other's needs, how willingly they do so, and how they react to adversity overall.

Childhood-and-beyond romances can be fulfilling and well-done in all those ways, to be sure, but I think they can also be done lazily. For example, the idea that a childhood romance is as strong and/or virtuous as any can possibly be, just because it began in childhood, is an easy way to put me off a bit, as it's not like they can't still end up dominated unduly by lust, possessiveness, and/or friction. The idea that it can't fall prey to any of the same pitfalls that can dog a relationship formed at any other point in life occasionally seems to be woven into some depictions, though I'm not actually sure if it's a more common occurrence in them than in any other.

All love requires work and consideration, basically. If the writer shows that, they can do almost anything they want with it as far as I'm concerned. If they show that's been happening ever since childhood for their characters, and/or has gone through believable developments along that path since then, so much the better! Just so long as they use the childhood relationship angle to enhance, rather than to simply justify the romance.

Here I agree with everything. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with not liking childhood friend romances as long as people are polite and respect the point of view of those who don't think like them and don't just insult for the sake of it by no giving other reasons than "childhood romances are dumb and crappy" and "staying with the same person forever is immature" without explaining why would that be the case.

[Childhood friend romances]

Everyone has their own tastes, even you. If people don't like it for whatever reason, so what?

If I ever see a really well-done example of "childhood friend to romantic partner", I'll say something. I'm still waiting.

And I would like to understand those tastes. If they give me no "why", how can I ? Of course, you can say they technically "don't have to" give me their reasons, but I don't get it why would they say so if they have nothing personal against me and are simply asked a question. After all, it's not a criminal hearing with all lawyers present where it's vital not to answer questions to avoid being convicted

I simply don't understand (even though I would like to) people who hate childhood friend romances just because they are "childhood friend" romances and for no other reason and generalize the whole category without examining specific cases before judging. I personally don't see how it's different from generalizing people by their skin color or national belonging.

Anyway, it's all about the way they express it. If they just say "it's all stinky sugar-coated crap" without being able to say anything else, it's not really respectful towards the others' right to have a different opinion.

the cynical part of me says that "dumb kids don't know what love is at that age".

I think that even in cases they don't, it can evolve into real love unless they are pulled apart by force.

[Childhood friend romances]

Characters in that situation should be treated as individual characters, not a situational cliche.

I agree with this, if there were only disagreements about specific pairings, it would be fine. But the fact is there are people who just "criminalize" the entire category as such, they are not just saying they don't like specific examples, that's the thing I was complaining about.

[Childhood friend romances]

I noticed many people on internet hate romances between childhood friends. What's sad is that they don't just dislike specific pairings of specific characters, but hate this type of pairings in general, only because it's love between childhood friends. People often get so mad that they even write fanfictions where childhood friends are evil and selfish individuals while the "other woman" (or man) is a kind person with a heart of gold. For example, people are constantly bashing Akira from the "Ufo Baby" anime (don't know if you watched it) and that kind of behavior makes me extremely sad and depressed.
People sometimes say they don't like childhood friend characters because they are one-dimensional and just watch silently as the main character gets with somebody else instead of acting on their feelings. But, if they DO act, then they are labeled as evil [censored] who stand in the way of the other heroine. No matter how they behave, many people seem just to hate the concept of staying with the first love for the rest of the life. Don't know, maybe they consider this outdated for the modern society and this is the saddest thing.
I would like to ask: what do people on this forum think about this kind of romance? I personally like it much more than love stories between people who met as adults because if the bond is established in an innocent period such as childhood, there is a guarantee it's really love and not just lust. I think the love formed between two children that last throughout their lives is one of the best things ever, even though it's so rare...

I don't really know if I put the topic in the right section because when I asked myself this question I was thinking mostly about fiction, but I guess it could be applied to real life too.

P.S. Don't know why the post does have a light brown background. Probably because I copied some of the paragraphs from my posts on other forums where there was this color.