The Republic of Heaven

How can an entity with no sex or gender have a sexual preference?

The angels mainly took the forms of humans to:
A) make it easier for the humans seeing them and
B) easier for readers.

It's way too late to be flicking through the books looking for quotes, so I'm afraid I'm gonna have to state all of the above with no actual proof... if anyone knows the passage by heart... or has the book handy, you're more than welcome to quote it...

They epitomise PLATONIC love
(http://www.dictionary.com...)

Transcending physical desire and tending toward the purely spiritual or ideal

Just because they take the form of men (buff men, albeit, didn't help...) and are deeply in love, doesn't mean they are gay. It means they are amorphous, spiritual entities who share a special bond and just happened to choose the form of humans.

Rargh!

While technically they arguably don't qualify as homosexual in any human sense, they are clearly meant to be perceived that way by the reader. Which is what matters.

i've argued angels sans genitalia and therefore no sexuality before, but for the sake of the argument...

from philip pullman's liber angelorum, a web feature on the random house website for the subtle knife,

liber angelorum wrote:Passions
Angels have no passions or affections, except one, which is curiosity, or intellectual passion. This is for them the highest of all things. However, others maintain that although they have few feelings for fellow angels, they are capable of love for creatures of other kinds. Some say that the Watchers fell in love with the daughters of men and had offspring by them. That was so long ago, and so many generations have mingled since, that we can all claim to be the descendants of angels.


Rebellion
...

Sex
Angels may be male or female.

so to answer your

Joss wrote:How can an entity with no sex or gender have a sexual preference?

in philip pullman's world of his dark materials (the world which we argue this insignificant detail in context of), angels do have a sex/gender and therefore can be sexual and therefore have a sexual presence.

and yea, what max said.

liber angelorum wrote:Passions
Angels have no passions or affections, except one, which is curiosity, or intellectual passion. This is for them the highest of all things. However, others maintain that although they have few feelings for fellow angels, they are capable of love for creatures of other kinds. Some say that the Watchers fell in love with the daughters of men and had offspring by them. That was so long ago, and so many generations have mingled since, that we can all claim to be the descendants of angels.

Interesting page that.. Angels of Curiosity - Spectres of Indifference? Sentient matter - Sentient void? Come from Dust - Come from Abyss? Gave humans spirit - Take human spirit? I'd never seen them as diametric counterparts like that before.

Don't forget that Baruch was once a man, and that Balthamos saved him from the world of the dead. Also, the idea that they're homosexual is against the Church.

As there are other, lengthy, threads covering this topic I'm locking this one.


La Gobbler- these other threads have vanished of the edge of the universes, so this thread is open once more.

Baruch was once a man so Balthamos must have also looked like a man to him. Baruch, being a man, would have looked like a man to Balthamos. To me, they are gay. Isn't it also hinted at that Baruch was disowned by his brother for some reason, being gay perhaps? I don't think being gay would prevent you from becoming an angel, the church is wrong about many things.

Don't forget that Baruch was once a man, and that Balthamos saved him from the world of the dead. Also, the idea that they're homosexual is against the Church.

But they are against the Church... Pullman is actually making a statement here.

Don't forget that Baruch was once a man, and that Balthamos saved him from the world of the dead. Also, the idea that they're homosexual is against the Church.

But they are against the Church... Pullman is actually making a statement here.

I think that was Dante's point for them being gay...

*waves at Dante*

Yes I think Baruch and Balthamos are gay. And as for the thing about angels not having a gender, I think you're wrong there

Metatron was seduced by Mrs. Coutler which proves that angels did have a gender and can feel lust or love.

But...why did the creator make them, angels, with gender, when theoretically he could have flawless, untemptable beings at his command?

I think the Creator stuffed up on that front again, although that's a pretty weak argument. In fact, very good point Silversong.

But...why did the creator make them, angels, with gender, when theoretically he could have flawless, untemptable beings at his command?

To let the plot thicken?

But...why did the creator make them, angels, with gender, when theoretically he could have flawless, untemptable beings at his command?

It's up for debate whether there was a creator at all.

If there was, he certainly wasn't a perfect one.

Pullman wanted to make a statement against the church. Baruch and Barthalmus ARE gay, even though lots of people have been saying that they aren't. It is sortof like giving the church the finger, since it is so against homosexuality.

They're not homosexual to spite the church, they just like each other.

Not sure whether they're actually gay or not, since Pullman's angels are different to those referred to in the biblical texts. If they were traditional angels, then they'd feel comradship, and maybe even love but not sexual feelings.

I don't see why it matters anyway, it's clear that they love each other, no matter if it's sexual or not. I highly doubt they were having a sexual relationship at any rate.

Baruch was a man BUT bartholmous(cant spell sorry ) was not a human. So technically they are not gay (I think)
Sorry if this is wrong

Well, of course they aren't just gay to spite the church. I meant Pullman wrote it that way to do that.

This was probably one of my favourite things about TSK.
Gay angels. It is beautiful.

While I know there is a deeper, less human meaning to their presences, and they do not stand as symbols of gay rights in the book, I felt that they showed what homosexuals have been fighting for in terms of having the right to be in love. They were Love, and that what they truly represented.

When Balthamos learned of the loss he was so deeply heartbroken, and I found it utterly beautiful. He could have faded into nothingness at that moment, but he carried on, and I just remember my own heart jolting at that part.

What this means to me in more world related terms is that it does not matter who you love--- even in the context of homosexuality. You cannot make definitions between what is right and wrong, because their love was so sincerely powerful that there is no reason for it to be.
If people could be that much in love, how could anyone want to stop it?
That's the way I interpreted it, anyway.


Gay angels. What more could you want in a book?

I'm sure this has been talked to death, but what the heck...

While it is technically true that neither were human, and one had never been human, Phillip Pullman IS human and wrote those characters fully intending the comparison to be made.

They are, by current societies lens of perception, gay angels. Whether they were capable of having physical relations or not is entirely, and deliberately, not important.

You can argue the mechanics if you'd like, but you'd be missing the point.