Something bothering you?

[1048576]

I never said it was a rational basis, I was saying it's understandable and in some cases should actually be expected.

I'm not sure where that second paragraph came from. Sex with people over 6 feet tall is not a sexual deviancy. I'm over 6 feet tall, there would be no deviancy in having sex with me.

You're abnormally tall, yes? Sexual deviancy is sex that deviates from the norm, right? Ergo, you're sexually deviant when you have sex.

Replace 6' with 6'4" if you think 6' is average height. (It's not, btw.)

Are you saying its understandable that people would hate for no reason? I guess I could climb on board with that; just admit there's no reason to hate gay sex, and stop the dishonest comparisons to various forms of ****.

 

[Merkuri]

^ You are very short aren't you? I'm guessing somewhere around 5'4?

 

[1048576]

I'm 6'2". I play a lot of basketball. What's that got to do with it?

 

[July]

CONSENT doesn't apply here. THE LAW does not apply here. The argument I'm making isn't even rooted in what is morally right or wrong, it is rooted in American culture. Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy, pedophilia iis a sexual deviancy, the fact that pedophilia is a more extreme case and is illegal is irrelevant. What matters is that they both go against the norms and values of American culture, with that said and with that in mind, people shun pedophiles because they are sexual deviances, if the age of consent didn't exist tomorrow people would still shun pedophiles, not so much because it is illegal but because it goes against the norms and values of society. Homosexuality in this context does the exact same thing, so if pedophiles are shun then it's only normal for homosexuals to be shunned as well.

I see the point you are trying to make, but you just can't keep opinion out of this argument. I admit that I tried to put my own thoughts aside as I read this, but to put aside morality, legality, and personal opinion is hard.

You bring up the issues of norms and values in American society. Homosexuality, pedophilia, prostitution, etc. are definitely outside of what is sexually the norm in our society. But when you consider American values, as a society we traditionally value the right to equality, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, privacy, freedom of speech, and protection via the establishment and enforcement of laws. As long as one's sexual orientation or activities do not interfere with these tenets of American society, it seems as if people rather than shunning the behavior adopt a "live and let live" policy.

Homosexuality is indeed sexually deviant in society; however, it is not illegal, and accepting it enforces the right to equality and the pursuit of happiness, which is generally valued. Thus if people tend to support homosexuality and shun anti homosexual behavior, it really shouldn't be too much of a surprise, while shunning such activities as pedophilia is expected as it violates the law and thus people's right to security.

 

[Reizilla]

You bring up the issues of norms and values in American society. Homosexuality, pedophilia, prostitution, etc. are definitely outside of what is sexually the norm in our society. But when you consider American values, as a society we traditionally value the right to equality, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, privacy, freedom of speech, and protection via the establishment and enforcement of laws. As long as one's sexual orientation or activities do not interfere with these tenets of American society, it seems as if people rather than shunning the behavior adopt a "live and let live" policy.

Tell that to blacks, the Japanese, most minorities throughout history, the Muslims trying to build the mosque in NY, the Mexicans in Arizona, women, all the people that got slammed for being in a multiracial relationship, Native Americans, etc. I think you see where I'm going with this. Freedom of speech, equality, they're all influenced by what people feel is okay and what people feel is wrong. As long as it fits in with what people like, freedom of speech and all that is just fine and dandy, but once people start to want things that go against the norms and values of society, that's when those lines become hazy.

Being a sexual deviant, how-so-ever you may choose to do so, don't take it as a surprise that people look funny at you, whether it's illegal or not. Then again, you also talk as though anyone that is against homosexuality constantly tries spitting in your face, which is untrue. (this part isn't so much towards the guy I quoted as it is to everyone else)

Also, what do you have to say about when it WAS illegal? What then? You're all good with prostitution and stuff as well?

 

[Pluvia]

@Puvial: No offense bro but I ignored you because I think you're dumb. That argument you made about the heterosexual media biasedly influencing children away from homosexuality was one of the most ******** arguments I've never heard. I also find it annoying that you won't openly admit that you're gay on these boards.

Funny how you just ignore me when I completely flounce your argument.

I think that's a checkmate there for me.

Also yeah everyone here knows I'm gay, I just couldn't be arsed saying something completely irrelevant to the post at hand.

 

[Merkuri]

Funny how you just ignore me when I completely flounce your argument.

I think that's a checkmate there for me.

Also yeah everyone here knows I'm gay, I just couldn't be arsed saying something completely irrelevant to the post at hand.

I ignored your argument because it was just stupid. I think any objective person who reads your argument would agree with me. Just like I ignored 1048576's last post. However if you want to take that as a victory for you then go ahead

Edit: Despite ignoring your post I did kind of obliterate your argument with my later posts. If you want to keep up the argument then that's cool, it doesn't matter either way to me.

@Aicila: Shun Goku Satsu pretty much said what I would have said. So just respond to him if you wanna keep going.

 

[1048576]

It's called Reductio ad absurdum. If gay sex is bad because it's deviant, then so is tall sex. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

[Jim Morrison]

ignoring someone's argument is bad for you

I'll simplify this again for you. Homosexuality and Pedophilia are both sexual deviances, they contradict the traditional norms and values of society; the fact that pedophilia is illegal is irrelevant. Even if it were legalized tomorrow my argument would not change. They are both deviances, and therefore they are acts which many people see as wrong(we're talking about culture here, not legality). The same way that people see pedophilia as being wrong, is the same way many people see homosexuality to be wrong. And no one should be blamed for being prejudicial against these deviants

this is dumb because what is and is not acceptable is purely up to personal taste so if you take offense to gay sex, then that's you, but there's others who also see it as normal.

it's like interracial sex, unacceptable 100 years ago, but everyone (lol okay most) are like :| okay idc about them.

gay sex is the same.

 

[Merkuri]

It's called Reductio ad absurdum. If gay sex is bad because it's deviant, then so is tall sex. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Tall sex isn't deviancy. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer.

 

[1048576]

Of course it is. Normal height is 5'7 doing it with a 5'10. If you aren't doing it that way, then you're deviating from the norm.

Care to redefine your terms to make it so that bad sex has a few more characteristics than "not normal."

Edit: if you're going to be nitpicky about height semantics, we can always use different examples. Is shoulder biting horrible? How about while wearing glasses?

 

[Reizilla]

Numbers, you seem to lack understanding of what a social norm is. In this case, the norm of sex is between a man and a woman. That's it. A norm is what's normal and accepted in society. You're using the broad definition of deviance, this is a more specific one. I'm pretty sure you know that and you're making up **** because you can't come up with a real argument.

 

[1048576]

Uh huh. The norm of sex is also between a shorter woman and a taller man, a white woman and a white man, missionary style, ~10 minutes of foreplay, no fetishes, birthday suits, etc...

Why is gay sex treated differently?

Edit: It seems like you're equating normal with socially accepted. Then you're saying gays aren't socially accepted because they aren't socially accepted. Um, hi. That's about as circular as it gets.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Numbers, you seem to lack understanding of what a social norm is. In this case, the norm of sex is between a man and a woman. That's it. A norm is what's normal and accepted in society. You're using the broad definition of deviance, this is a more specific one. I'm pretty sure you know that and you're making up **** because you can't come up with a real argument.

but back in the day, interracial sex deviated heavily from the norm.

but that changed.

this is exactly the case and you're just a bit oblivious and only slowing the process down.

 

[1048576]

I was going to go there, but I figure he still sees justification in hating interracial sex.

 

[Reizilla]

But you see, it still is. Doesn't matter what it should be or not. Gay sex is deviant from the norm. People will look at you funny. It's as simple as that. It's expected for people to look at you that way. There's nothing you can do about it except hide. That's it. I'm a vegan, people look at me funny all the time. I don't ***** about it. I just ignore them or try to tell them what's up. It's expected. You can't blame ignorance.

I'm not hating on anything. I'm telling you all to quit your *****ing and do something about it where you can. *****ing about things gets you nowhere.

 

[Jim Morrison]

But you see, it still is. Doesn't matter what it should be or not. Gay sex is deviant from the norm. People will look at you funny. It's as simple as that. It's expected for people to look at you that way. There's nothing you can do about it except hide. That's it. I'm a vegan, people look at me funny all the time. I don't ***** about it. I just ignore them or try to tell them what's up. It's expected. You can't blame ignorance.

and that's the anti-climax of an argument.

 

[1048576]

Are you saying its understandable that people would hate for no reason? I guess I could climb on board with that; just admit there's no reason to hate gay sex, and stop the dishonest comparisons to various forms of ****.

10char .

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I can't stop getting sick this is the third time I have gotten sick and it is near (but not) Back to back.

 

[Reizilla]

I can't stop getting sick this is the third time I have gotten sick and it is near (but not) Back to back.

Do you know why? Diet? Surroundings?

 

[DTP]

@the whole pointless argument,

I can't believe you guys are still going at it.



@Dragoon,


Hope you stop getting sick soon!

 

[Merkuri]

Of course it is. Normal height is 5'7 doing it with a 5'10. If you aren't doing it that way, then you're deviating from the norm.

Care to redefine your terms to make it so that bad sex has a few more characteristics than "not normal."

Edit: if you're going to be nitpicky about height semantics, we can always use different examples. Is shoulder biting horrible? How about while wearing glasses?

You've never taken a sociology class have you? We're talking about social norms and social deviancy, you're talking about statistical norms and statistical deviancy, very big difference. I suppose you're right that an average height woman having sex with a 6'4 man, is a statistical deviancy, but it's not a social deviancy. A man having sex with another man is both a statistical norm and social norm so I hope I've made the difference clear to you.

but back in the day, interracial sex deviated heavily from the norm.

but that changed.

this is exactly the case and you're just a bit oblivious and only slowing the process down.

Yeah I suppose it did change, although people in the south would disagree with you. And while I recognize that more people are accepting homosexuality the fact remains as of now it is not accepted as a social norm. If it were a social norm we wouldn't be having this argument.

And despite what a lot of you obviously think, I'm a diehard liberal and I believe in freedom. I actually don't have a problem with homosexuality, I'm just simply stating that it's nor fair to shun pedophiles or zoophiles and not shun homosexuals, and that homosexuals themselves need to understand this.

 

[1048576]

You've never taken a sociology class have you? We're talking about social norms and social deviancy, you're talking about statistical norms and statistical deviancy, very big difference. I suppose you're right that an average height woman having sex with a 6'4 man, is a statistical deviancy, but it's not a social deviancy. A man having sex with another man is both a statistical norm and social norm so I hope I've made the difference clear to you.

We moved past that. You're saying normal = socially accepted and gay sex isn't socially accepted because it isn't socially accepted, which is circular reasoning. So you either need an actual reason, or, since you won't be able to find one, admit gay sex is a-ok and stop comparing it to pedophilia and bestiality.

 

[Merkuri]

We moved past that. You're saying normal = socially accepted and gay sex isn't socially accepted because it isn't socially accepted, which is circular reasoning. So you either need an actual reason, or, since you won't be able to find one, admit gay sex is a-ok and stop comparing it to pedophilia and bestiality.

You need to take a logic class as well dude. You keep jumping from one conclusion to another missing important steps in reasoning. Again like before, if you don't understand how I move from one step to another just keep reading earlier parts of the post until you do.

I'll simplify this. Gay sex isn't socially accepted because it's a social deviancy. American culture has defined gay sex a social deviancy just like pedohilia and zoophilia. For some reason you ask me to explain what makes gay sex a deviancy, and the reason is irrelevant. The fact remains that just like pedophilia and zoophilia homosexuality is a sexual deviancy And that in and of itself gives everyone a right to compare homosexuals to pedophiles and zoosexuals on the basis that they are all sexual deviancies. I'm not arguing people have a right to hate homosexuals, I'm arguing that if society shuns pedophiles and zoosexuals then it should be expected that homosexuals are shunned as well. I really don't think this is a difficult concept to grasp.

And I find the last part of your post to be insulting. Zoosexuality is legal in 30 states in America. It's legal in almost all of Europe. I really don't like your self-righteous attitude in proclaiming that homosexuals are for some reason inherently better than zoosexuals.

 

[1048576]

CONSENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! **** is bad, ok. This is not up for debate.

I told you exactly what the flaw in your argument is, and you've just gone and repeated it again. Either you're smart and you know you lost and are trying to save face, or you're stupid and any argument that requires more than 1 deductive step isn't going to get through to you. Maybe someone else will get the energy to try to explain again why American-culture-defined-this-as-bad-because-it's-a-deviancy is a logically flawed argument, but for right now, I know you're wrong, and I know where the sympathies on this board lie, and that's good enough for me.

You know what, I just thought of a way to summarize what I've said. Maybe it'll help

If deviancy = abnormal, then society also thinks wearing glasses, wearing clothes, keeping the lights off, etc... is wrong, which is not true.
If deviancy = not socially accepted, (like pedophilia and beastiality) then gays aren't socially accepted because they aren't socially accepted, which is circular. It's like if I say 2 + 2 = 500 because 2 + 2 = 500. You need, like, an actual argument.

 

[Merkuri]

CONSENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! **** is bad, ok. This is not up for debate.

I told you exactly what the flaw in your argument is, and you've just gone and repeated it again. Either you're smart and you know you lost and are trying to save face, or you're stupid and any argument that requires more than 1 deductive step isn't going to get through to you. Maybe someone else will get the energy to try to explain again why American-culture-defined-this-as-bad-because-it's-a-deviancy is a logically flawed argument, but for right now, I know you're wrong, and I know where the sympathies on this board lie, and that's good enough for me.

You know what, I just thought of a way to summarize what I've said. Maybe it'll help

If deviancy = abnormal, then society also thinks wearing glasses, wearing clothes, keeping the lights off, etc... is wrong, which is not true.
If deviancy = not socially accepted, (like pedophilia and beastiality) then gays aren't socially accepted because they aren't socially accepted, which is circular. It's like if I say 2 + 2 = 500 because 2 + 2 = 500. You need, like, an actual argument.

Lol you are a *******. But believe what you want, I made the much stronger argument and all you did was repeat what everyone says which is the point I refuted over and over again.

You're even dumb enough to use that statistical deviancy point again, when I went to lengths to explain the difference between a social deviancy and statistical deviancy, this disappoints me because us dumb as you are I don't think you learn anything from this debate and that saddens me

Honestly I'm even disapointed in myself for arguing with you for so long, I'll even use your own words against you to show how dumb you are. ''If deviancy = not socially accepted, then zoophiles aren't socially accepted because they aren't socially accepted, which is circular. like if I say 2 + 2 = 500 because 2 + 2 = 500. You need, like, an actual argument''. How smart does that sound?

Whatever, I know I'm right. You running away from the argument is proof of that, if you didn't want to argue anymore yo could have least made a rebuttal and then quit. But whatever. As a blanket statement to anyone who just started reading. Homoesexuality is the same as zoophilia and pedophilia because it's a social deviancy and not because of the law or what is right or wrong.

Edit: I was sad and frustrated when I started writing this, but now I'm laughing so I guess it wasn't a complete waste.

 

[1048576]

You do realize that sharing one characteristic does not an equivalence make, right?
For example, "gay people have two eyes. You have two eyes. Therefore, you are gay." is a logically flawed statement, yet it is one that you have felt bears repeating over and over despite many objections. Pedophilia and bestiality have several relevant differences to homosexuality, most notably the consent issue. In fact, they share only two common characteristics. 1.)People hate them. 2.) They are sexually oriented.

"Zoophiles aren't socially accepted because they aren't socially accepted." This is a fallacious statement. Zoophiles aren't socially accepted because they practice ****. And **** is bad.

If none of this gets through to you, then at the very least I've confirmed the nature of my opponents on this issue.

 

[Merkuri]

You do realize that sharing one characteristic does not an equivalence make, right?
For example, "gay people have two eyes. You have two eyes. Therefore, you are gay." is a logically flawed statement, yet it is one that you have felt bears repeating over and over despite many objections. Pedophilia and bestiality have several relevant differences to homosexuality, most notably the consent issue. In fact, they share only two common characteristics. 1.)People hate them. 2.) They are sexually oriented.

"Zoophiles aren't socially accepted because they aren't socially accepted." This is a fallacious statement. Zoophiles aren't socially accepted because they practice ****. And **** is bad.

If none of this gets through to you, then at the very least I've confirmed the nature of my opponents on this issue.

About characteristics = equivalence, my argument was more like you have one eye, cyclops' have one eye therefore you are a cyclops. There is nothing flawed in that. Granted my argument was more complicated than this but for you to have one eye and argue that you are not a cyclops I did feel that his point warranted repeating over and over again.

It appears you're obviously very ignorant on the zoophilia and zoosexuality, and if that is the case then don't argue the topic and don't pretend to know what you are talking about. Not all sex with animals is ****, animals are capable of giving consent in this manner, and you obviously seem to believe that the human is always the penetrating partner, not true at all, male animals readily have sex with female humans when encouraged to do so. Animals like humans have sex drives which is something people unjustly ignore as to have to confront an awkward situation. Almost every species of intelligent mammals have been documented to masturbate and engage in homosexual behavior. Don't tell me something as stupid as all sex with animals is **** because it just isn't true.

Now I ask again, please tell me what makes homosexuals inherently better than Zoophiles?

 

[sammy p]

i hate doing this, but.... should this be taken to PM's or something?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Do you know why? Diet? Surroundings?

No, there has been this one bug going around but that is all I can think off. Thanks Though .

 

[1048576]

About characteristics = equivalence, my argument was more like you have one eye, cyclops' have one eye therefore you are a cyclops.

See, you're missing a step. You need to show that there does not exist a creature with one eye that is not a cyclops. In other words, you're saying, If P (Cyclops), then Q (one eye.) Q. Therefore P. This is flawed. It's incorrect reasoning. You need to show either 'If Q then P' or 'If not P then not Q'. Then and only then does Q -> P.

There is nothing flawed in that. Granted my argument was more complicated than this but for you to have one eye and argue that you are not a cyclops I did feel that his point warranted repeating over and over again.

I think you need to take a logic class

It appears you're obviously very ignorant on the zoophilia and zoosexuality, and if that is the case then don't argue the topic and don't pretend to know what you are talking about. Not all sex with animals is ****, animals are capable of giving consent in this manner, and you obviously seem to believe that the human is always the penetrating partner, not true at all, male animals readily have sex with female humans when encouraged to do so.

Lots of citation needed. How, pray tell, can an animal give consent? Can you talk to them?

Animals like humans have sex drives which is something people unjustly ignore as to have to confront an awkward situation. Almost every species of intelligent mammals have been documented to masturbate and engage in homosexual behavior. Don't tell me something as stupid as all sex with animals is **** because it just isn't true.

Why don't you try providing evidence to support your claim. I'll give you this though: if you can have sex with an animal such that it isn't ****, then it should be morally okay. Big burden on you to show that's the case though. And even then, you're only helping my point.

Now I ask again, please tell me what makes homosexuals inherently better than Zoophiles?

There's several differences besides consent, (which you still haven't given any evidence of.) For one, different species opens the door to various health concerns. Two, the animal is likely dependent on its owner, which creates an unfair power struggle ('do it or I won't feed you'). Three, there's also the maturity problem in that an animal is incapable of understanding the consequences of sex like a person would, but that's sort of tied in with consent. Regardless, I don't have any problem with cross-species relations, provided the animal isn't being *****.

So what's the problem with homosexuality again?

I'd take it to pms (lol) but I'd rather other anti-gay folks observe this.

 

[Reizilla]

I'm pretty sure you can just bend over and your dog will hop right on, no probing necessary. Sounds a lot like consent to me. So your argument is left with.... nothing.

Also, the definition of a cyclops would be something with one eye. So all creatures with a single eye would be a cyclops. Kind of like how a rectangle is a quadrilateral because it has four sides. There is not a shape with only four sides that is not a quadrilateral. There is not a creature with only one eye that is not a cyclops.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I'd take it to pms (lol) but I'd rather other anti-gay folks observe this.

 

[Merkuri]

I wish you hadn't posted that way. I can't quote it so I'll just post this, and I'll leave it to you to assume where they plug in.

Apparently you need a vocabulary class as well.

cy·clops definition
Pronunciation: /ˈsī-ˌkläps/
Function: n
1 Inflected Form: pl cy·clo·pes Pronunciation: /sī-ˈklō-(ˌ)pēz/
: an individual or fetus abnormal in having a single eye or the usual two orbits fused

Animals are sentient beings just like humans, that is they have the power of perception and a consciousness. An animal experiences pleasure and pain. A person who owns a dog knows if what they do causes pleasure or pain. When we scratch a dogs head we can tell the dog enjoys this, he may roll on his back and let you rub his stomach. Likewise, hitting the dog in the head with a shoe causes pain and the dog will shy away and be fearful in the future.

Animals can not verbally say yes or no to sex in our human languages but they have other ways to show how they feel. Surely a dog who has mounted, say his human lover, experiences pleasure. This is evident because of his orgasm. Female dogs have orgasms too. Once a dog for example realizes you as a sexual being, they show sexual desire quite often: females will sway their tales revealing their swollen ******'s and dry hump the air in front of you, males will become erect and try to mount.

Anyone who is zoo will be aware of when their animals want sex. More importantly, they will respect their animal partner when they do not want sex. Sometimes when you rub your partner down there they will pull away and sit elsewhere. That is how animals show they are either interested or not.

If an animal does not enjoy what is happening to them they will show bodily signs of this: they will tense up, their eyes and ears will move, tails might jitter, and they will pull away. If you continue it could bring painful results: Dogs have powerful teeth and will bite you! Horses can break bones (or worse) with a single kick. Quite simply, it is obvious to see what causes pleasure and pain.

As I said before, the consent issue is really a smoke screen for the icky factor. By and large people are disgusted about the idea so they claim consent is a big issue when in fact it is not. People do many awful things to animals who do not consent to what is being done:

With that being said it not my job to educate or really prove anything to you. Why don't you prove to me that animals can't consent? If you want to learn more about zoosexuality and zoophillia then look it up yourself.

As for the health concern, anal sex itself is considered to be extremely unhealthy, with extreme medial risk I agree this could be a problem but no inter species disease has resulted due to zoophillia. So at this point bestiality is looking safer than gay sex.

So if you're saying that Zoophiles shouldn't be shunned then I guess we're in agreement.

 

[DTP]

i hate doing this, but.... should this be taken to PM's or something?

lol I was gonna say that awhile ago but figured they would be done by now D:


*Summons SkylerOcon secretly*

 

[1048576]

Appearantly you need a vocbulary class as well.

I'll edit in an actual response after I stop laughing.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Homosexuals and heterosexuals spending more time trying to understand each other on the internet, rather than living in ignorance by choosing to spend time with their like-minded brethren. We have made unfathomable progress as a collective society. Clap. Clap. Clap.

 

[Merkuri]

I'm half asleep, typos happen. When I was done that post was littered with typos, I auto correct them with right click. I missed two, whatever.

This doesn't change the fact that you need a vocabulary class btw.

 

[Patinator]

...I've been with my girlfriend, online, for seven months. Seven long, happy months.

...She decided to "take a break" from our relationship tonight. She doesn't like having a seemingly pre-destined future. She doesn't want a safe life in the country "yet". She's "gotten tired of being constantly happy".

I've been destroyed. The only reason I'm not shoving a pistol down my throat is because she promised to come back to me.

I love her dearly. Still. She shall forever be my sweetheart. I'll still talk to her as often as I did before. As I told her... "from my point of view, we're still together, just without the honey-drippin'-sweet talk".

I'm not looking for assistance or opinions, I just want to express my uncontrollable sadness. Nothing more. I need a vent. This formerly happy sixteen-year-old has become a, hopefully for the moment, impossibly depressed sixteen-year-old.

I wait for you to come back to me as my wife-to-be, Miller Cooper. It's all I can do.

 

[Merkuri]

...I've been with my girlfriend, online, for seven months. Seven long, happy months.

...She decided to "take a break" from our relationship tonight. She doesn't like having a seemingly pre-destined future. She doesn't want a safe life in the country "yet". She's "gotten tired of being constantly happy".

I've been destroyed. The only reason I'm not shoving a pistol down my throat is because she promised to come back to me.

I love her dearly. Still. She shall forever be my sweetheart. I'll still talk to her as often as I did before. As I told her... "from my point of view, we're still together, just without the honey-drippin'-sweet talk".

I'm not looking for assistance or opinions, I just want to express my uncontrollable sadness. Nothing more. I need a vent. This formerly happy sixteen-year-old has become a, hopefully for the moment, impossibly depressed sixteen-year-old.

I wait for you to come back to me as my wife-to-be, Miller Cooper. It's all I can do.

I hope you were exaggerating, but it's never healthy when some has your life in their hands. If she leaves you, you should not be feeling suicidal.

I hate to ask this but do you smother her? Always call her every night always want to spend time with her? You can push her away that way. Just be careful bro.