Love or Romance... Possibilities between sexes

You might have heard it a number of times from different people, "A girl and a boy can never be friends. Love always blooms" (ek ladka aur ladki kabhi dost nahi ho sakte. Pyar beech mein aa jaata hai.) And this is said to emphasize the romantic connection. I differ on this on the grounds that I think love are two different emotions. 

Romance is based on love but Love may not end up in a romantic angle. If I agree to the said notion than it would mean that I don't love my male friends; because as a corollary that would mean that since its a male-male friendship there is no chance of love blooming. Some of my friends suggest that its different because there is no sexual connection in this case whereas there will always be one male-female friendship. I agree to it to some point BUT the point in discussion is whether love is same as romance in a boy-girl friendship. 

I agree that there will always be love but I also stress that it will be there regardless of friend's gender. If I be friends with a girl for as long as I am with Nikhil, Cheenu, Jassi or Prabh I would love her the same as I love these guys. Wouldn't I ? Does it mean that since Nnc, Plv or Mns are girls, I don't love them. I believe that love is strong emotion and is to be held and understood very diligently and carefully. Love, like any other explosive material should be handled with care. 

There will always be a possibility of developing a romantic angle anyways. What I am trying to decipher is that will it be a determining factor? By definition, I should be romantically involved with many of  the girls I know because I am a good friend. Shouldn't I?

Content Versus Form... any takers ???

I had this thought in mind for quite sometime, but I wanted to discuss it with someone before writing about it. I am glad I delayed writing about it because I had another connecting thought that was on same lines yet on a different tangent.

   I am wondering if we are more concerned about 'Form' than 'Content'. In context to Sikhism, the original thought, it feels like that the leadership and the following by extension, are more concerned about the Form. Why else would otherwise there be a debate about supremacy of Dasam Granth over Adi Granth and/or vice-versa. Isn't it a direct contradiction to one of the basic principles of the rulebook, Non-Idolism. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the Bani collected in the books rather than which Book to consider as Guru. Moreover, what use it to have a Guru if we are not going to follow the Content. This way it doesn't come close to a decent reference book.    

   I will share another tangent to drive my point and keep it secular. We used to recite a pledge in our school. I choose to say recite because that is how it was.  It had a line that went like ,"and all Indians are my brothers and sisters.". ALL of the boys in senior classes used ti skip repeating this line after the primary orator(Yours truly), for the reason obvious enough. No one, however, realized that it did not mean what it said. It was not to be taken literally but in fact was a metaphor. It referred towards the understanding and feeling of mutual harmony and unity among fellow citizens. To consider all others as brothers and sisters was to promote better treatment of others as you would with your own people. 

What do you say Deshveer???