Gays

[Slayd]

I’m probably going to regret this but I have a few questions.

I don’t understand why some people think that if gays are allowed to marry or have civil unions that somehow it lessens their own marriage vows. Do people think that marriages that are full of hate and abuse lessens a healthy marriage’s vows?

Why can an obviously straight woman walk down the street holding hands with her best friend and no one cares but if two gay women are doing the same they will be chastised?

I’ve heard that being gay is a choice. Why would anyone choose to live a life full of ridicule and anger toward them? And I don’t know about all gays but I know that I grew up with a very health and happy family life.

Most people say that all gays have an agenda of pushing their life onto others. I don’t have an agenda, I just want to understand why.

 

[JadeStarr]

Anxiously awaiting the responses here.

Great questions that I too have wondered about.

 

[Crash001]

I’m probably going to regret this but I have a few questions.

>>There is no reason to regret an honest question that has good answers. God Bless you for asking them.

I don’t understand why some people think that if gays are allowed to marry or have civil unions that somehow it lessens their own marriage vows. Do people think that marriages that are full of hate and abuse lessens a healthy marriage’s vows?

>> I guess since marriage is between a man and a woman and the marital act of sex, with the intent to unite the couple in marriage and be willing to accept the gift of children with God having a say in it, it’s hard for some to even accept the proposal that marriage or civil unions between two men or woman can even be on the table. I have a great friend “Joe” who I love dearly, but it doesn’t mean I’m committed to him for life as a partner.

Why can an obviously straight woman walk down the street holding hands with her best friend and no one cares but if two gay women are doing the same they will be chastised?

>>Whether they are a man or a woman, there is nothing wrong with holding hands while walking down the street. Adding the statement, “but if two gay woman are doing the same” changes the entire story. The assumption by Christians is that all sin should be addressed, whether it’s committing adultery, murder, or taking part in homosexual acts. Once you know you are in that state of sin, a person should go to reconciliation / confession and work towards stopping the sinful act so that they can be in union again with God.

I’ve heard that being gay is a choice. Why would anyone choose to live a life full of ridicule and anger toward them? And I don’t know about all gays but I know that I grew up with a very health and happy family life.

**>>Not sure, why would someone choose to be homosexual? I think acknowledging the tendency and understanding that it is your cross to bear is a good place to start. I was raised in a healthy home as well, but my brother has acknowledged that he is lazy and really has to work at not being lazy (sloth) or overeating (gluttony). As you know, we all carry our own cross and work towards becoming a better person. In my brothers case, he often gives into his laziness and overeating, but with courage and willingness to change, he is slowly overcoming his issues.
**
Most people say that all gays have an agenda of pushing their life onto others. I don’t have an agenda, I just want to understand why.

I would have to disagree with your statement that “Most people say…”, because that is just not true. Being a flaming public homosexual and pushing an agenda is one thing, acknowledging gay tendency’s or even acting on them for a period of time is something different. In the second situation, most people would hope that your intent/agenda is not to make everyone else be a homosexual or accept homosexual practices as a norm in society. Again, most people and Christians understand that you have your cross to bear like the rest of us and that you are making strides to becoming a better person. It’s a shame that media has labeled gays as “the artistic ones”, i.e. cake decorating, home design, clothing design, hair design, etc and spend all of their money making shows about these topics. In reality, some of the greatest cake, home, clothing, and hair designs have come from heterosexuals as well.

This is one perspective…hope it helps.

 

[Watchman]

I’m probably going to regret this but I have a few questions.

I don’t understand why some people think that if gays are allowed to marry or have civil unions that somehow it lessens their own marriage vows.

I’m not familiar with this argument being put forward by folks except as a strawman argument by those supporting same-sex marriage. Most of the folks I’ve heard speaking against same-sex marriage do so by pointing out that marriage is not something that we have the option to redefine at will.

Why can an obviously straight woman walk down the street holding hands with her best friend and no one cares but if two gay women are doing the same they will be chastised?

Not sure what an obviously straight woman might look like nor how they are differentiated from the obviously gay. Assuming the distinction could be made, I suppose that ithe different reactions would be because one couple is not in a sexual relationship and the other is.

I’ve heard that being gay is a choice. Why would anyone choose to live a life full of ridicule and anger toward them?

Many (if not most) of the sources of pain in our lives are a direct result of our ongoing choices. I’m not saying that this proves homosexuality is a choice, only that resultant pain doesn’t prove that it’s not.

 

[Slayd]

>>Whether they are a man or a woman, there is nothing wrong with holding hands while walking down the street. Adding the statement, “but if two gay woman are doing the same” changes the entire story. The assumption by Christians is that all sin should be addressed, whether it’s committing adultery, murder, or taking part in homosexual acts. Once you know you are in that state of sin, a person should go to reconciliation / confession and work towards stopping the sinful act so that they can be in union again with God.

See my issue is with the word “assumption”. Just because two people appear one way does not make it so. Am I to assume that a teenage couple holding hands walking down the street are also having premarital sex and look at them with disdain and address the assumed sin? I hope that people keep in mind the old saying about what happens when you assume.

 

[Slayd]

**Not sure what an obviously straight woman might look like nor how they are differentiated from the obviously gay. Assuming the distinction could be made, I suppose that ithe different reactions would be because one couple is not in a sexual relationship and the other is. **

Are they? Can other people tell when someone else around them has been having sex with someone? I would think not unless that person was in the other couples bedroom and saw it with their own eyes.

 

[Watchman]

Are they? Can other people tell when someone else around them has been having sex with someone? I would think not unless that person was in the other couples bedroom and saw it with their own eyes.

The question made several assumptions beyond what we could naturally discern. It’s the nature of hypotheticals. Let’s ask the original poster what they meant.

Did you mean to ask “Why can heterosexual women hold hands when non sexually active female homosexuals are chastised for it?”

 

[Thoughtfulone]

1.) People who are against gays being married in a civil union need to find something better to do with their time and moral outrage. A civil marriage is just that, a marriage in the eyes of the law. Why should I care about that one way or the other? The only true marriage I am concerned about is that within the Catholic Church because it is blessed and sanctioned by God. I couldn’t care less if 2 gay men or women want to “make it legal”.

2.) I don’t know of any straight females who aren’t children who walk around holding hands. Even so, people should shut up and mind their own business either way. What is anyone going to accomplish by telling a gay couple that they are being immoral? What are they going to say? “Really? I had NO idea that my lifestyle choices are frowned upon by some members of the Christian community! Had I had any IDEA that some people feel this way, then I would NEVER have practiced homosexuality to begin with! Thanks for the insight buddy!” Please. Homosexuals are all too aware of the way a great number of people feel about their personal choices. They are all too aware that some religions believe that homosexuals go to Hell. Bringing it up or trying to make them feel bad about their lives is self-serving and has nothing to do with charity or with trying to help them “see the light”. People need to mind their own business.

3.) People who say being gay is a choice have obviously never known a gay person. Yes, PRACTICING homosexuality is a choice. Being gay is not. If someone told any of the straight people out there that their “choice” is immoral and that they need to start being attracted to and having sexual relations with people of the same sex, I guarantee that suddenly it wouldn’t seem like so much of a “choice”. Not to mention that scientists have already found the portion of the brain that determines sexual orientation.

 

[Slayd]

The question made several assumptions beyond what we could naturally discern. It’s the nature of hypotheticals. Let’s ask the original poster what they meant.

Did you mean to ask “Why can heterosexual women hold hands when non sexually active female homosexuals are chastised for it?”

Alright well let’s ask it like that then.

Why can heterosexual women hold hands when non sexually active female homosexuals are chastised for it?

 

[JohnDamian]

My dear Slayd - the reason many people oppose same-sex marraige or partnerships is that it encourages people to indulge in sin.

Why can an obviously straight woman walk down the street holding hands with her best friend and no one cares but if two gay women are doing the same they will be chastised?

It does not matter where one indulges in an act; but for homosexuals or anyone else to encourage, solicit or in any way hint at the “normalacy” of homosexual relationships it is indeed drawing people towards an acceptance of sin. Homosexual activity serves only to fulfil physical lust and (on occasion) unitative embrace - it severs procreative values, and in the same way as contraceptive heterosexual sex, or masturabation it serves to nullify ones own, and others value as human beings down to a mere object of physical pleasure - it is opposed to values of love and charity.

I’ve heard that being gay is a choice.

Same Sex attraction (SSA) is not always a choice, although some people with bisexual leaning can prefer and reinforce one over the other. Nonetheless we should NOT EVER discriminate against anyone with SSA, the Catechism teaches us this.

However, **engaging **in physical activities related to ones disposition is a choice. In the same way as a heterosexual priest is chooses not to engage in heterosexual relations.

Most people say that all gays have an agenda of pushing their life onto others

I think there is certainly an agenda in media to give homosexual people “rights” to do as they please. Although not all gay people push for these rights, and not everyone who pushes for them is gay.

 

[Slayd]

1.) People who are against gays being married in a civil union need to find something better to do with their time and moral outrage. A civil marriage is just that, a marriage in the eyes of the law. Why should I care about that one way or the other? The only true marriage I am concerned about is that within the Catholic Church because it is blessed and sanctioned by God. I couldn’t care less if 2 gay men or women want to “make it legal”.

2.) I don’t know of any straight females who aren’t children who walk around holding hands. Even so, people should shut up and mind their own business either way. What is anyone going to accomplish by telling a gay couple that they are being immoral? What are they going to say? “Really? I had NO idea that my lifestyle choices are frowned upon by some members of the Christian community! Had I had any IDEA that some people feel this way, then I would NEVER have practiced homosexuality to begin with! Thanks for the insight buddy!” Please. Homosexuals are all too aware of the way a great number of people feel about their personal choices. They are all too aware that some religions believe that homosexuals go to Hell. Bringing it up or trying to make them feel bad about their lives is self-serving and has nothing to do with charity or with trying to help them “see the light”. People need to mind their own business.

3.) People who say being gay is a choice have obviously never known a gay person. Yes, PRACTICING homosexuality is a choice. Being gay is not. If someone told any of the straight people out there that their “choice” is immoral and that they need to start being attracted to and having sexual relations with people of the same sex, I guarantee that suddenly it wouldn’t seem like so much of a “choice”. Not to mention that scientists have already found the portion of the brain that determines sexual orientation.

Thank you for brightening my day Thoughtfulone. It’s really nice not to feel so alone with this.

 

[Rascalking]

It’s really nice not to feel so alone with this.

Remember my friend, some people use homosexuals as the “whipping boys” for what is wrong with the culture. That’s repulsive.

For what it’s worth, I think the majority of Catholics do love our homosexual neighbors, and wish nothing but the best for them. A dear friend of mine is gay, and I would lay down in traffic for him~I’m sure there are other catholics who feel the same way.

Good questions, by the way. I agree with several things you said. I don’t think being gay is a choice, I think your born that way. It’s just my opinion though.

You are NOT alone, not by a long shot.

 

[Slayd]

Remember my friend, some people use homosexuals as the “whipping boys” for what is wrong with the culture. That’s repulsive.

For what it’s worth, I think the majority of Catholics do love our homosexual neighbors, and wish nothing but the best for them. A dear friend of mine is gay, and I would lay down in traffic for him~I’m sure there are other catholics who feel the same way.

Good questions, by the way. I agree with several things you said. I don’t think being gay is a choice, I think your born that way. It’s just my opinion though.

You are NOT alone, not by a long shot.

Thank you!

And thanks to everyone for your responses!

 

[PaulinVA]

1.) People who are against gays being married in a civil union need to find something better to do with their time and moral outrage. A civil marriage is just that, a marriage in the eyes of the law. Why should I care about that one way or the other? The only true marriage I am concerned about is that within the Catholic Church because it is blessed and sanctioned by God. I couldn’t care less if 2 gay men or women want to “make it legal”.

The deal is, there is no reason for the government to sanction gay marriage. There is no overriding reason. No societal reason.

It is so important to provide a stable platform for the raising of children (and the protection of women) that, in the past, if a couple lived together they were considered married after a certain number of years.

Why is that? To give them tax breaks? Of course not. To protect the children and to protect the wife. To put a legal framework of responsibilities around the raising of children.

Gay couples can never naturally have children. There is no reason for society to desire that they be married for the protection of the children or the weaker partner. There is only this notion of “fairness” or equality. There is only this notion of “declaring our love in public.”

Well, that is why people want to get married. That is not why society instituted marriage.

 

[musicality]

I’m probably going to regret this but I have a few questions.

I don’t understand why some people think that if gays are allowed to marry or have civil unions that somehow it lessens their own marriage vows. Do people think that marriages that are full of hate and abuse lessens a healthy marriage’s vows?

***As far as I know the Catholic Church does not have a position on civil union.

Now, to address the issue of marriage. Marriage has long been significant in culture, religion, and civilization. Marriage has been the union of a husband and wife in order to start and raise a family.
The Church’s opposition to homosexual marriages has to do with the teachings on sexual intimacy as well as the implications it has in family life.

EDIT: I should mention before someone else say so–marriage was also often a financial arrangement for families.

A homosexual marriage is objectively different from a heterosexual marriage. There can be no sexual reproduction and therefore no biological creation of a family. By trying to expand the definition of marriage, people are in fact redefining marriage. They are making it to be what it has never been.

Although I am morally opposed to sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage as defined by the Church, I’m not sure that I would be opposed to a civil institution, with another name, for homosexual couples.***

Why can an obviously straight woman walk down the street holding hands with her best friend and no one cares but if two gay women are doing the same they will be chastised?

They should not be. It is not immoral to hold someone’s hand in public.

I’ve heard that being gay is a choice. Why would anyone choose to live a life full of ridicule and anger toward them? And I don’t know about all gays but I know that I grew up with a very health and happy family life.

I have several gay friends. I sincerely doubt that any of them made a choice to be gay.

Most people say that all gays have an agenda of pushing their life onto others. I don’t have an agenda, I just want to understand why.

I would have to say that there is an overwhelming amount of material in mass media promoting or exhibiting the homosexuality. More than ever before. People frankly are just not used to it, and will resist change. I hope that people will resist immoral behavior (homosexual or heterosexual), but recognize that everyone is worthy of our love. Let the one among us who has not sinned cast the first stone.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

***As far as I know the Catholic Church does not have a position on civil union. ***

The Church DOES have a quite clear position on civil unions, available here.

Now-Pope Benedict explains the rationale better than I could ever home to within the document, but the short answer is this: there’s nothing wrong with providing benefits towards non-marital relations. But those benefits shouldn’t be structured in a way that favors or benefits homosexuality, or else it uses the apparatus of the law in a way hostile to family values.

Take the example of hospital visitations, for example. Bob discovers that Alex has been in a serious car accident, and rushes to the hospital right away. Now, imagine the following hypothetical scenarios to describe A & B’s relationship:

1. 
   *]Alex is Bob’s wife.
   *]Alex and Bob are non-romantic friends.
   *]Alex and Bob are non-exclusive heterosexual partners
   *]Alex and Bob are non-exclusive homosexual partners
   *]Alex and Bob are exclusive heterosexual sexual partners
   *]Alex and Bob are exclusive homosexual sexual partners
   *]Alex and Bob are exclusive homosexual sexual partners in a civil union
   *]Alex and Bob are exclusive homosexual sexual partners in a gay “marriage.”
   
   Under some hospital policies (apparently), Bob will be admitted only if he’s Alex’s lawful husband or blood relative. So only #1 (and perhaps #8, depending on state) result in admittance. In #2-7, Bob’s out of luck.
   
   Gay activists are right that this seems pretty anachronistic. I realize that the hospital doesn’t want things to turn into a madhouse, but this seems just inflexible. And besides, there’s no particular reason to tie hospital visitation rights to matrimony and genetic relations. Alex may be much closer to Bob than his/her sister Carol, for example. Bob may be worried sick, while Carol hasn’t bothered to even check on him. So I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say some or all of #2-7 should be permitted the right to visit Alex in the hospital.
   
   But here’s where Catholics like myself disagree with GLBT activists: we don’t see any reason to tie hospital visitations to civil unions, either. In other words, why give #7 the benefit over #2, or any of the other choices? That seems arbitrary. And worse than arbitrary, this actually creates a legal incentive for homosexuals to enshrine their sexual relationships into law. And from a Catholic perspective, that’s completely backwards. By creating a legal bond, it makes it harder for those homosexuals who repent to be able to end their relationships, etc.
   
   So long story, there’s nothing wrong with providing certain benefits (like hospital visitation) to non-marital partners – to disassociate the benefit from marriage, in other words. But don’t then tie it to civil unions, and privilege gay civil unions over other relations.
   
   Again, though, Ratzinger puts me absolutely to shame in his treatment of this. It was this document that made me understand the Church’s position on civil unions for the first time.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I’m probably going to regret this but I have a few questions.

I don’t understand why some people think that if gays are allowed to marry or have civil unions that somehow it lessens their own marriage vows. Do people think that marriages that are full of hate and abuse lessens a healthy marriage’s vows?

That’s not what that “sanctity of marriage” argument is about. It isn’t like a married couple wakes up one day to find their marriage in tatters because the two gay guys down the street eloped.

No, what’s meant is this. Marriage is a uniquely religious and civil institution, and it exists in both spheres for particular reasons. There are plenty of reasons why people get married, but only one major, overriding reason that the state is concerned with marriage: procreation, and the subsequent raising of children. The state has a strong interest in ensuring that the next generation of children are born in stable, happy, healthy homes. Everything else (romance, convenience, doing right by one’s family, etc.) is irrelevant.

One (imperfect) way of achieving the state’s goal is by helping to ensure that children are born to two biological parents who are stable, and capable of taking care of them. Kids born into this environment outperform their peers, have fewer developmental and social issues, etc. Marriage is the tool which the state uses to encourage these stable unions. Certain incentives are added to “reward” individuals for creating these stable bonds, and there are strong deterrents to ending marriages. Even though divorce has gotten easier, it’s still a headache. It’s not like a breakup – you don’t appear before a judge to apply for a breakup.

Now marriage, as I’ve just described, is both entirely secular in focus, and entirely heterosexual. If two people have 0% chance of having children with one another, the state has no particular reason to favor their relationship.

Gay marriage fundamentally destroys this entire rationale. The state has no procreative interest in gay marriage, and so it reduces the state’s role to being the official scribe of “I love you very much for every and always,” a trivial and absurd role for the state to be occupying. It’s inappropriate for the mechanism of the state to even enter that. Interested homosexual couples can have a private, non-legally binding ceremony.

The Church’s interest is similar to the State’s. And the Catholic Church is actually 100% consistent on this issue. It’s not a gay or straight issue for us. It’s an issue of whether a couple is biologically bringing new life into the world together. Thus, paraplegic men who have irreversibly lost the ability to have sex are denied marriage as well. Not because the Church hates the disabled (obviously), but because the Church’s interest isn’t in the romance.

I recognize that this isn’t what you’re wanting to hear, but I assure you that I’m just sharing this out of love, and hope it helps. I really appreciate your openness on this issue.

 

[Irish_Girl_68]

I’m probably going to regret this but I have a few questions.

I don’t understand why some people think that if gays are allowed to marry or have civil unions that somehow it lessens their own marriage vows. Do people think that marriages that are full of hate and abuse lessens a healthy marriage’s vows?

Why can an obviously straight woman walk down the street holding hands with her best friend and no one cares but if two gay women are doing the same they will be chastised?

I’ve heard that being gay is a choice. Why would anyone choose to live a life full of ridicule and anger toward them? And I don’t know about all gays but I know that I grew up with a very health and happy family life.

Most people say that all gays have an agenda of pushing their life onto others. I don’t have an agenda, I just want to understand why.

1. I don’t believe gay marriage has anything to do either positively or negatively with my own marriage (or any other Christian marriage for that matter). To me, the two are mutually exclusive.
2. I don’t know how you identify “obviously straight” any more than you identify “obviously gay.” Without actually speaking to people and determining their sexual orientation by their own verification, it’s quite a leap to presume sexual preferences by appearance.
3. I do not believe being gay is a choice any more than I believe being straight is; a gay co-worker once said to me (I am straight), "did you ever know WHY you were attracted to men? When I said “no” he said, “Well, I can’t tell you why I am either.” As you indicated, he said it would have been easier to have traditional, heterosexual attractions.This said, one’s actions are always a choice.
4. I don’t think all gays have an agenda. I personally think most gays simply wish to live in peace. The problem is, the most press is often given to gays who behave in outlandish, distasteful ways. Gay pride parades featuring leather-clad men bound by chains or drag queens dressed as nuns do nothing to help further acceptance or tolerance.

I think most people here know what the Bible says about homosexuality. But, we also must be cognizant of what the Bible says about loving our neighbor. There is a God and we all have fallen short of His expectations. Just as He will judge a gay man or woman’s actions, He will certainly judge me for how charitably or uncharitably I’ve behaved towards them.

 

[flores81]

1. I don’t believe gay marriage has anything to do either positively or negatively with my own marriage (or any other Christian marriage for that matter). To me, the two are mutually exclusive.
2. I don’t know how you identify “obviously straight” any more than you identify “obviously gay.” Without actually speaking to people and determining their sexual orientation by their own verification, it’s quite a leap to presume sexual preferences by appearance.
3. I do not believe being gay is a choice any more than I believe being straight is; a gay co-worker once said to me (I am straight), "did you ever know WHY you were attracted to men? When I said “no” he said, “Well, I can’t tell you why I am either.” As you indicated, he said it would have been easier to have traditional, heterosexual attractions.This said, one’s actions are always a choice.
4. I don’t think all gays have an agenda. I personally think most gays simply wish to live in peace. The problem is, the most press is often given to gays who behave in outlandish, distasteful ways. Gay pride parades featuring leather-clad men bound by chains or drag queens dressed as nuns do nothing to help further acceptance or tolerance.

I think most people here know what the Bible says about homosexuality. But, we also must be cognizant of what the Bible says about loving our neighbor. There is a God and we all have fallen short of His expectations. Just as He will judge a gay man or woman’s actions, He will certainly judge me for how charitably or uncharitably I’ve behaved towards them.

totally agreed with u

 

[Thoughtfulone]

That’s not what that “sanctity of marriage” argument is about. It isn’t like a married couple wakes up one day to find their marriage in tatters because the two gay guys down the street eloped.

No, what’s meant is this. Marriage is a uniquely religious and civil institution, and it exists in both spheres for particular reasons. There are plenty of reasons why people get married, but only one major, overriding reason that the state is concerned with marriage: procreation, and the subsequent raising of children. The state has a strong interest in ensuring that the next generation of children are born in stable, happy, healthy homes. Everything else (romance, convenience, doing right by one’s family, etc.) is irrelevant.

One (imperfect) way of achieving the state’s goal is by helping to ensure that children are born to two biological parents who are stable, and capable of taking care of them. Kids born into this environment outperform their peers, have fewer developmental and social issues, etc. Marriage is the tool which the state uses to encourage these stable unions. Certain incentives are added to “reward” individuals for creating these stable bonds, and there are strong deterrents to ending marriages. Even though divorce has gotten easier, it’s still a headache. It’s not like a breakup – you don’t appear before a judge to apply for a breakup.

Now marriage, as I’ve just described, is both entirely secular in focus, and entirely heterosexual. If two people have 0% chance of having children with one another, the state has no particular reason to favor their relationship.

Gay marriage fundamentally destroys this entire rationale. The state has no procreative interest in gay marriage, and so it reduces the state’s role to being the official scribe of “I love you very much for every and always,” a trivial and absurd role for the state to be occupying. It’s inappropriate for the mechanism of the state to even enter that. Interested homosexual couples can have a private, non-legally binding ceremony.

The Church’s interest is similar to the State’s. And the Catholic Church is actually 100% consistent on this issue. It’s not a gay or straight issue for us. It’s an issue of whether a couple is biologically bringing new life into the world together. Thus, paraplegic men who have irreversibly lost the ability to have sex are denied marriage as well. Not because the Church hates the disabled (obviously), but because the Church’s interest isn’t in the romance.

I recognize that this isn’t what you’re wanting to hear, but I assure you that I’m just sharing this out of love, and hope it helps. I really appreciate your openness on this issue.

WHAT? Are you telling me that the Church will deny marriage to a paraplegic because he cannot procreate? What about a woman with a hysterectomy? What about 2 people past their child-bearing years? What about a man with erectile dysfunction? This cannot be true. If it is, how absurd. The Bible itself is very clear that marriage does not necessitate children and that a marriage without children can still be wonderful and fulfilling. It also teaches that love between a husband and wife is of huge importance. To diminish that and say that it’s all about procreation and stable families I think is missing the point of why people want to get married in the first place. They want God to bless their love and their union, and IF HE IS WILLING to provide them with children. If the Church wouldn’t marry 2 paralyzed people because they cannot procreate, then would they allow a woman an annulment if her husband has his testicles destroyed in an accident? I cannot imagine that this position is actually true.