>>16492362
It is sometimes very hard, even for adults, to tell the difference between intense friendship and love. They sometimes joke about "bromance." It's even harder for teenagers.

Whatever it turns out to be, don't worry about it. Whatever is, is natural. Chances are that these confusing feelings will pass and you'll settle back into a good friendship.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean specifically by "romantically attracted".

I absolutely hold genuine love for my female and male friends. I've known them for years, and we've never done one another wrong. I'll tell them this, and they know damn well that I mean it.

I don't know if this is what you mean. I would consider me and my close friends very intimate...but can't say that I've ever been romantically attracted to any of them.

Could you perhaps clarify a bit?

I consider myself highly fortunate to have such an intimate relationship with both my male and female friends. I mean, we joke about gay shit all the time as well....just pretty common among males.

Guys who are ugly fall in love easily.
Know the difference between love and friendship, dipshit.

>>16492433
I have seen evidence of the first thing. While cruel, you're pretty right.

The second makes you a fucking jackass, though. There can, and SHOULD be love involved in a proper friendship.

This is a different phenomenon than being "in love" or whatever you'd like to call it.

>>16492472

Romantic love is not like friendship love.

You betas will orbit anything that talks to you. Get a grip.

>>16492362
The only way to know for sure would be to give him a brojob.

Make sure to say, "No homo," before, and call him a faggot, jokingly, when he cums.

>>16492481

>You betas will orbit anything that talks to you. Get a grip.

How?

>>16492508
>Make sure to say, "No homo," before, and call him a faggot, jokingly, when he cums.

Thats funny to me. Im not gay or bi but Id do it, lol. What does this mean?

>>16492519
You're bi-curious.

>>16492519
Faggot, lol.

;-)

>>16492528
>You're bi-curious.
Well I guess Im fine with that

>>16492519
It's a reference to an old greentext story, I believe. I don't have it but I'm sure someone else can post it.

>>16492414
>Whatever is, is natural.

I have no problem with the sentiment of your post, anon, but this kind of got in my teeth like some bothersome piece of grit.

1. If 'is' merely means to exist, where all things that exist are a part of 'nature' or the laws of physics, yes, then all ontologies/processes are strictly 'natural' (naturalist/materialist presupposition). The term becomes meaningless, however.

2. If by 'natural' you mean a moral good, then that seems an equally useless proposition. Just because something is a part of nature does not, by default, qualify it as a moral good. Moreover, in conjunction with the above consideration re: naturalism (1), everything that exists is natural and is necessarily a moral good. Child molestation does not intuitively seem to have the same moral status as altruism; but, I suppose you could have that meta-ethical argument re: moral statements.

3. If you did have that meta-ethical gripe, it is unhelpful to the OP insofar as there exists a presumption that there are equally proper and improper modes of being in the world. The question pertains to whether romantic feelings towards someone of the same sex is morally problematic.

1/2

>>16492649
Cont.

A better response:

These feelings exist; but, these feelings are morally neutral facts in-and-of-themselves unless there is some disutility, harm or desecration of virtue associated with these feelings.

Even within the most conservative religious moral framework, homosexual or same-sex desire is only problematic if acted upon; the thoughts or feelings themselves are not considered immoral. See N.B re: the possibility of lacking virtue, but not strict immorality.

Given that nobody tends to say these are particularly compelling reasons to find same-sex feelings, as separate from the act, morally questionable, it seems your discomfort is unwarranted. That is, unless you can show why some harm, disutility or sullying of virtue is occurring.

Possible candidates:

(a) Harms the friendship you value, which would reduce net utility.
(b) Offends some commitment to virtue where 'virtue' is a synonym for 'good', i.e. you have already pre-supposed the immorality of same-sex desire.

N.B: Some may even make a distinction between 'virtue' and 'good'. It is possible for an act to be lacking virtue but not, strictly speaking, 'wrong' or immoral.

>>16492664
The kid was feeling bad. I was trying to cheer him up a little.

You must be fun at parties.

>>16493510
OP here
Sorry for the delay. Thanks for the response. I will try to ask him. If something interesting happens. Ill tell you

>>16492414
Read no further OP. That's your answer