Mis Understanding Love Quotes

I understand only love and liberty.

When love touches us, it dissolves the walls of mis understanding and builds a bridge that helps us walk towards each other.

Is there anything between us?” “Oh, I think there’s much.” “Tell me…” “Well, I am determined to do anything I can to be there for you, and you are determined to break my heart. That heart-breaking business, it’s very serious.” She laughed at him. She felt his head drop forward to her shoulder and nuzzle her hair. A hand on her upper left arm gently squeezed and he said, “Brie… Tu creas un fuego en mi corazón.” Brie, you create a fire in my heart. She straightened a bit, but didn’t pull away. “What did you say?” she whispered. “You are lovely. You touch my heart,” he answered, pulling her back against him again. He slipped an arm around her waist gently, tenderly, cautiously holding her against him, very careful that she not feel confined. “Tu debes sentir estas manos amorosas así a ti.” You should feel loving hands on you. Her heart beat a little faster and she knew that it was not fear she felt. She wanted to say, “Deja a que sean sus manos.” Let them be your hands. But she wasn’t ready. Instead, she said, “Your language is beautiful.” “Te tengo en mis brazos,” he said. I will hold you in my arms. “Tell me what you said,” she urged him. “Nothing, really. Just an endearment. It is a very romantic language.” She could tell him now she spoke his language fluently, that she knew he lied. But she didn’t want to break the spell he had created in thinking she couldn’t understand him. He spoke his heart while he thought she was innocent of his desires. “Say something to me—something heartfelt,” she said, not turning around. He touched the hair at her temple, threading his fingers into it. “Te querido más te de lo tu hubieras.” I have wanted you for longer than you know. She let her eyes close. “What did you say?” she asked in a whisper. “You deserve all happiness,” he said—he lied. A small smile floated across her face. She was on to him. “No te merezco.” I don’t deserve you. “Te quiero en mi vida.” I want you in my life. “I think you seduce women with your language.” “When you are with me, you should know that I care about you as much as I care about any of my sisters. Or my mother, who is queen of the world.” She laughed a little. “I’m not sure that was entirely flattering.” “I want you to believe you are completely safe and protected when you’re with me. I promise you, you have nothing to fear from me. Not ever.” “I think you’re manipulating me.” “Do you, now?” he asked, humor in his voice. “You’re luring me into a false sense of security, trying to trick me so I forget my plan to break your heart a hundred times.” He laughed, stroking that long mane of hair that floated down her back. “I know you’re a very determined woman, and if breaking my heart is your goal, you won’t rest until it’s done.” “I’m going to make mincemeat out of you,” she said. “I have no doubt.” She

Bernard Law, the former cardinal of Boston, mistaking (or maybe understanding too well) the degree of authority bestowed on him by the signifier of his patronymic, denounced in 1996 proposed legislation giving health care benefits to same-sex partners of municipal employees. He did so by proclaiming, in a noteworthy instance of piety in the sky, that bestowing such access to health care would profoundly diminish the marital bond. "Society," he opined, "has a special interest in the protection, care and upbringing of children. Because marriage remains the principal, and the best, framework for the nurture, education and socialization of children, the state has a special interest in marriage." With this fatal embrace of a futurism so blindly committed to the figure of the Child that it will justify refusing health care benefits to the adults that some children become, Law lent his voice to the mortifying mantra of a communal jouissance that depends on the fetishization of the Child at the expense of whatever such fetishization must inescapably queer. Some seven years later, after Law had resigned for his failure to protect Catholic children from sexual assault by pedophile priests, Pope John Paul II returned to this theme, condemning state-recognized same-sex unions as parodic versions of authentic families, "based on individual egoism" rather than genuine love. Justifying that condemnation, he observed, "Such a 'caricature' has no future and cannot give future to any society." Queers must respond to the violent force of such constant provocations not only by insisting on our equal right to the social order's prerogatives, not only by avowing our capacity to promote that order's coherence and integrity, but also by saying explicitly what Law and the Pope and the whole of the Symbolic order for which they stand hear anyway in each and every expression or manifestation of queer sexuality: Fuck the social order and the Child in whose name we're collectively terrorized; fuck Annie; fuck the waif from Les Mis; fuck the poor, innocent kid on the Net; fuck Laws both with capital Ls and with small; fuck the whole network of Symbolic relations and the future that serves as its prop.

Here we pause. On the threshold of wedding nights stands a smiling angel with his finger on his lips. The soul enters into contemplation before that sanctuary where the celebration of love takes place. There should be flashes of light athwart such houses. The joy which they contain ought to make its escape through the stones of the walls in brilliancy, and vaguely illuminate the gloom. It is impossible that this sacred and fatal festival should not give off a celestial radiance to the infinite. Love is the sublime crucible wherein the fusion of the man and the woman takes place; the being one, the being triple, the being final, the human trinity proceeds from it. This birth of two souls into one, ought to be an emotion for the gloom. The lover is the priest; the ravished virgin is terrified. Something of that joy ascends to God. Where true marriage is, that is to say, where there is love, the ideal enters in. A nuptial bed makes a nook of dawn amid the shadows. If it were given to the eye of the flesh to scan the formidable and charming visions of the upper life, it is probable that we should behold the forms of night, the winged unknowns, the blue passers of the invisible, bend down, a throng of sombre heads, around the luminous house, satisfied, showering benedictions, pointing out to each other the virgin wife gently alarmed, sweetly terrified, and bearing the reflection of human bliss upon their divine countenances. If at that supreme hour, the wedded pair, dazzled with voluptuousness and believing themselves alone, were to listen, they would hear in their chamber a confused rustling of wings. Perfect happiness implies a mutual understanding with the angels. 2318 Les Miserables That dark little chamber has all heaven for its ceiling. When two mouths, rendered sacred by love, approach to create, it is impossible that there should not be, above that ineffable kiss, a quivering throughout the immense mystery of stars. These felicities are the true ones. There is no joy outside of these joys. Love is the only ecstasy. All the rest weeps. To love, or to have loved,—this suffices. Demand nothing more. There is no other pearl to be found in the shadowy folds of life. To love is a fulfilment.

Humans struggle with difference. We shape stereotypes and patterns of behavior that help us navigate an often perplexing and confusing world, but they often fail us by reducing the full humanity of others to a dull set of characteristics. When faced with difference, whether in regard to who someone finds sexually attractive or how someone conceives of their gender, we have often fallen back onto the well-worn belief that the problem is them. Psychology does not exist above and beyond our prejudices, no matter how much it aspires to scientific objectivity. It has too often started not with a concern for the mental health of others but rather our own discomfort, and mental illness becomes the label we use to classify that discomfort by reassuring ourselves that "they" are the problem. But "they" are also "us," of course. There are trans mental health professionals just like there were gay mental health professionals back when homosexuality was pathologized. Our understanding of gender and sexuality has grown significantly in just the past few decades, but our diagnoses and our nomenclature have proven slow to catch up. This is a matter not just of proper labeling but of justice; as long as gender dysphoria remains, trans people can still be diagnosed with a mental illness if some facet of them is uncomfortable with being trans, not a difficult task to accomplish in a still-transphobic world. This can impact their ability to be parents, to work the jobs they want, to work at all, to be housed, to be protected from discrimination. Gender dysphoria as a diagnosis is an improvement over gender identity disorder, but it is far from perfect, and it continues to give ammunition to the Rowlings and Singals of the world. Hopefully, in due time their arguments will appear as irrational and off-base as the belief that men became gay because their mothers loved them too much.