I have two very quick questions.

[CrazyCatLady]

1. Is it wrong to love someone, if there is now way under any circumstance, you can be with them?

 

 

 

2. If you could have all the money in the world or true love, which would you choose?

 

 

 

 

 

Mature replies please.

 

 

 

Thanks.

[the_drunk_dude]

You either watch too many chick flicks (er... 'romantic comedies' is it?) or not enough. The former is likely where you got your questions from and the latter would explain why you haven't had them answered.

[angryjoe]

Of course it isn't wrong but it is seemingly a bit of a ballache.

 

 

 

And I would have all the money in the world so that I could share it out between the entire world, that is more importand than me, just one person, finding true love.

 

 

 

 

 

So chin up, worse things happen at sea.

[Wallettheif]

True love. :

[dwarfdude3]

1. depends on the circumstance

 

2. true love duh.

[AThousandLies]

I don't think there is such thing as "true love". But I'm just a bitter cynic.

[Giordano]

1. Is it wrong to love someone, if there is now way under any circumstance, you can be with them?

 

Not wrong at all.

 

 

 

2. If you could have all the money in the world or true love, which would you choose?

 

All the money in the world. I would not rather make someone love me by an magical-process for my own pleasure.

[Necromagus]

These are 'quick' questions...? Seriously, you could go on for hours about this kind of stuff, it's not something that I could answer in one or two lines.

[rushrock]

1. What the hell do you mean? Re-word pleaseeee.

 

2. True love. Duh.

[Lionheart_0]

1. It's not wrong to love a person you are not able to be with. The only thing is, that you must realize that at one point that there will be connection.

 

 

 

Think of it this way, If you continue to obsess over them, and never be able to be with them, what is the point? You might as well find someone else to love as there is more of a chance that you can be with them.

 

 

 

2. Neither really... I have no need for money, and I want love to come to me, not magically be at my feet nor do I want to go looking for it.

 

 

 

I like these questions. Welcome to the boards and I hope you stay.

[spikerkid]

True love, being with someone you can't live without beats any amount of cash.

[meol]

I suppose you want quick answers. Very well,

 

1) It's not wrong, but you're only seeking pain in such a situation.

 

2) If I had all the money in the world, it'd be valueless; as money is nothing but a way to trade, so I'd pick the true love. Dunno what that is, but sounds good, albeit a bit cheesy. :wink:

[rushrock]

Oh sorry, I get it now.

 

 

 

1. Yes because you're just torturing yourself if you truly can never be with him/her. Move on.

[CrazyCatLady]

Alright everyone. Keep em coming! :thumbsup:

[Lenin64]

1. No, it is morally wrong to love someone you can;t be with. You will burn in Hell for all eternity. :roll: Seriously, what kind of question is this?

 

 

 

2. Depends, really. What is "true love" and how is it any different than a best friend? Would a friend like that and a cheap, but good, hooker be able to take the place? if so, I'd choose the money, but if not, it's tough

[llamster]

1. Is it wrong to love my siblings? Is it wrong to love my grandparents? Of course, I'm playing dumb here, but please restate your question. And no, it's not wrong.

 

 

 

2. Really, it depends on the details. Would choosing the money mean that I can't be loved? If that's the case, I'd go with the love. With just money, I can't have happiness. I'll just be bringing myself down the path of darkness.

[fgfuyfyuiuy0]

1. Is it wrong to love someone, if there is now way under any circumstance, you can be with them?

 

 

 

Not at all. Love is a human emotion and I see nothingwrong with it. BEtter to be in love with someone then not be at all.

 

 

 

2. If you could have all the money in the world or true love, which would you choose?

 

 

 

True love. It overcomes all money and I see it as better, anyways.

[Nadril]

I'll be damned if these aren't cheesy questions. None the less:

 

 

 

 

 

1. Don't exactly see how anything could be impossible to not be with someone.

 

 

 

 

 

2. Money. This is a poor question, 'all of the money in the world' is too stupid sounding.

[yaff2]

1. No, i :oops: dated this one girl, and then we broke up. for a reason i cannot say. and i still to this day love her, and always will, and me and her are best friends. but, me and her will never happen again, no matter how hard i try. when we talk, we both say like i love you, etc, but we will never happen again, but this will not stop me from loving her.

 

 

 

"love" means many things. i want to keep her as close as she is, i dont want to lose her, and she means the world to me, but, i cant have her back, thats not going to stop meh.

 

 

 

just because you cannot be with them, doesnt mean you cant care about them, and sometimes, thats what true love is.

 

 

 

 

 

2. Love although, money is nice

[ExcelBlue]

1) No.

 

 

 

2) Money. End of discussion.

[Nero]

No and definitely the money.

[underu2000]

1) Um no.

 

2) Been there, done that.

[Scorchedrose]

1. Is it wrong to love someone, if there is now way under any circumstance, you can be with them?

 

 

 

2. If you could have all the money in the world or true love, which would you choose?

 

 

 

 

 

Mature replies please.

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

1) It's definitely not wrong. I actually still love my one ex boyfriend, but we realized that it would be impossible for us to stay together without one of us completely giving up our life and life desires.

 

 

 

2) As often as I doubt that true love exists, I'd choose true love over money.

[BlueLancer]

Why would I want 'all the money in the world', thus crippling the whole world economy, leaving everyone without a job and I couldn't spend it before everyone went out of business? :lol:

 

 

 

But yeah.. I'd easily take even like 100mil over true "love". "Love" is a chemically altered state of mind. Yeah I experienced it, but I'd much rather have kids and secure their lives financially, than struggle and fight with a wife that eventually turns against you and starts arguing.

 

 

 

I seriously doubt there even is "true love". My grandfather has been married for 30 years and and outsider could think it's a perfect marriage of love... But really, my grandmother told me how he gets angry about small things, goes into rage and breaks stuff, how they barely care about each other most of the time etc...

 

 

 

Just look at the pitiful divorce statistics in the USA: http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

 

 

 

Median age at first marriage: Males: 26.9

 

Females: 25.3

 

 

 

Median age at first divorce: Males: 30.5

 

Females: 29

 

 

 

On average people stay married for less than 5 years before finding someone else to live with, then possibly re-divorce (!!!). Why commit yourself to "till death do us apart" when humans aren't obviously physically meant to live with only 1 partner. Just about nobody in real life stays married to their husband/wife until death.

[Master_the_Great]

1. No it is not wrong, but you would just be wasting time fantasizing over something that will never happen.

 

 

 

2. True love.