Gay Angels?

[rainbowdarling]

Hm. I must be blind to subtext this morning, but I don't really see anything in the answer that would hint toward his intentions for their "sexuality" (would it be called sexuality in angels? I have no idea how that works...).

Eh, I guess I'm still just not seeing it. That's okay for me, though - I don't think it takes anything away from my reading experience that the thought didn't even cross my mind until I happened upon this thread.

[daftbrain]

I don't mean from his answer. That was definitely the impression that the characters as written in the books gave me and I'm guessing that interviewer had that same impression as s/he said "their evident passion for each other might not thrill those who have already been critical of Lord Asriel."

I would say that the angels of Pullman's world are definitely capable of experiencing a sexual attraction (Metatron, for example) but what I meant was that the relationship between the two seemed definitely like a romantic one. And I think it is very likely that Pullman wrote the characters knowing full well that that comparison would be made by readers.

[rainbowdarling]

Ah, I see. I just didn't see it that way myself. Nothing wrong with it if it was how it was meant, of course, but somehow that didn't strike me while reading it. I guess I just assumed that the quote was relevant to the comment you made, erroneously so. You know what they say about assumptions...

I wasn't sure what to call the attraction, whether it was sexuality or what. I don't entirely comprehend the angels as yet - it will simply take time, probably - so their geometric shapes boggle me a bit.

All the same, there's no doubt about love between them. The kind I saw seems to be a little less involved than the kind others are seeing, I guess.

[elevate]

I don't think they were gay because they were one in the same. They were two pieces of one whole. They love each other the way you love your very mind. Or the thoughts you think. They are part of the other person. I don't think they are gay. I wonder if they are all just a-sexual.

[JoeSchmo]

I do think that they really loved each other-they acted like it.
However, Bathalmos said that Baruch was once a man, but did not comment about himself.
Also, When Pan+Kirjava tell Lyra about the female angel, Lyra did not believe that there could be female algels

[Rakesh]

So elevate, are you aying they where just extremely narcisists?

[Ferociter]

I voted no. I guess I just didn't read it that way; I saw it as very affectionate love, brotherly love, but not romantic love. They've been at one another's side for a Very Long Time so it is only natural to expect that they would forge affection for one another. I guess I just didn't see any over or undertones of that love being of a more romantic variety.

A brother doesnt love a brother like balthamos and baruch loved each other. it was a lot more intense than that. they were so in love that they were like the same person.

I don;t think they were thrown out because of their sexual orientation - they were thrown out because they were just supporters of the other side. I think that there must be gay angels on the authority's side, and the fact that it isnt a big deal is very good.

[rainbowdarling]

Why doesn't a brother love a brother like that? I don't see it being a type of romantic love, myself. I did not read it that way, and after rereading portions, I still don't. I fail to understand why brotherly love would somehow be considered weaker or less intense.

[Paxyn]

Yes they were.
It was a huge implication of free will to have such 'religious' beings in violation of christian morality...

The irony was that their relationship makes homosexuality seem very logical, just two beings with such great understanding and appreciation for each other.

Well, yes, because in reality that's what love is. Our shells matter nothing.
Angels transcend the limits of gender and society's labels on them. That's part of what's so beautiful about them. They're perfect pansexual beings.

And it was said by an Angel that they only appear human to their eyes because they expect to see a human. In reality they appear as constructs of light.
And who's got the gall to say light truly has a gender? Love is light, light is love, and neither have a gender. It's frankly insulting to say you can't love someone because they are or are not the opposite gender that you are.

Baruch and Balthamos were both males, and were soulmates. In love. That's awesome.

The thought had crossed my mind though that perhaps Baruch was Balthamos' Dæmon previously or something like that, but was later dismissed by further reading.

[faze]

The way I saw it, Baruch, became an angel when he died through balthamos's love for him.
Possibly I'm wron here, but yes their gay, in that they are a) both blokes and b) madly in love.

[Magisterium's Officer]

Has anyone asked Phillip Pullman about this topic?

[elevate]

Rakesh, I'm afraid I don't really understand your question. I don't know how them not loving each other in a gay way would make them narcisists. But if you explain it to me a little bit better, I will explain what I think.

[Magisterium's Officer]

i do not wish to express my opinion on this matter

[opaque]

Well, yes, because in reality that's what love is. Our shells matter nothing.
Angels transcend the limits of gender and society's labels on them. That's part of what's so beautiful about them. They're perfect pansexual beings.

And it was said by an Angel that they only appear human to their eyes because they expect to see a human. In reality they appear as constructs of light.
And who's got the gall to say light truly has a gender? Love is light, light is love, and neither have a gender. It's frankly insulting to say you can't love someone because they are or are not the opposite gender that you are.

Baruch and Balthamos were both males, and were soulmates. In love. That's awesome.

I think I'm in love with you.
That's my opinion, right there.

[Rakesh]

Well elevate.

You say they're both part of a same whole, wich somehow makes them not gay. So I was wondering, since what you imply is that they love THEMSELF I made a little narcisist joke.

Now, how does being or not being gay has anything to do with loving someone to the point of forgetting the self?

I'll really like to hear your anwser.

[elevate]

I don't think loving someone to the point of forgetting yourself really has anything to do with being gay or straight. But I think it is an entirely different ballpark between angels and humans. I think in a normal situation, a person would have to be romantically in love with the other person. So I guess I am kind of condridicting myself, I just really didn't think they were gay. I feel like I kind of have a gaydar, and they just didn't seem like they loved each other in that way. I think they just loved the other person more than anything else. Like a life-mate, just not a romantic one. If that makes sense.

[faze]

elevate, I think you've got a point.
The thing is, the angels loved each other for who they were, and didn't consider the 'gay' aspect of it important. It's only ignorant humans who make those distinctions.

[Rakesh]

But that's the whole point innit?

They remember their human counterparts and IT DIDN'T matter. THAT'S the important bit. Being a little bit of an omnisexual myself (yeah, I crafted the term, pretty awesome right?) I can understand just how limited by society love has become, when it's pures more basic form knows no shapes.

So, the thing is, does it EVEN matter if they where gay? What would be the difference anyways?

[elevate]

what is an omnisexual?

[Rakesh]

Means gender or shape is no problem for me, I can get to love all things I consider beautiful.

[elevate]

So does that consider things that aren't human? And are we talking about general love or romantic love? I just need a dictionary definition. Because it is super broad right now. Omnisexual from my point of view could be the same as bi-sexual right? If you are looking at it in that way, of course.

[Rakesh]

Ah, but then we'll have to go into defining what is love, wouldn't we?

If you're worried I havent hump any giraffes or things of the sort. But I have fallen in love with things outside of the realm of humanity.

Then again, what would you call falling in love?

[elevate]

Well, i just mean romantic love. I can't explain what regular love is, although we have all felt it. I just think that gay, straight, and bi, relate to a romantic and sexual kind of love. I was just wondering if omnisexual revolved around the same principles, or if it was a different type of love. I'm sorry I can't give you a good dictionarty definition of the different types of love. I would just contradict myself and be confusing. I would consider "falling in love" loving somebody in a romantic way. And in a sexual way. I can love somebody without being in love with them.

[Rakesh]

Ah, and I can fall in love with someone without feeling atracted inna sexual way (expect, perhaps, for the little mermaid, I never quite got to tactical approaches when I was a kid).

But sure, even romantic love. Leaving aside what I'm assuming you call "general love" family and friends. I find no other limitations in whom or what to love.

[elevate]

Well, I guess everybody has their own personal ideas on what love is. I personally don't think you can fall in love with somebody without being romantically or sexually interested in them, because that is what I personally consider "falling in love". Basically, omnisexual. Does that mean you love things in romantic ways. In MY definition of a romantic way, because I feel like I may not be able to understand it exactly in your terms, because we are speaking through our computers here, and I feel like we need voices and hand gestures for this.