Homosexuality

[ladybri77]

Hi Ladybri and thanks for this post.

You misunderstand. We are discussing what God is commanding and whether the Catholic Church has got it right and, in the case of our last two points, whether you have interpreted what the Bible says about homosexuality correctly.

Of course if you have already decided that you know what God commands and you are not going to discuss it but simple say; “Follow what I know to be God’s law” then we cannot have a conversation. However I hope you will look again at my reasoning and deal with it, rather than just say it is wrong.

I look forward to that.

Regards

Laurie

PS One small point. According the official teachings of your Church Natural Law ethics IS God’s Law too.

Actually, there is no other way to interpret what the Bible says in Romans about homosexuality, it is black and white. You can interpret it anyway you want by twisting words and putting meaning in where there is none, but it’s there in black and white that homosexuality is a sin.

Also, I know first hand that homosexuality is wrong because of what I’ve been through from participating in it. I no longer do, but it was hell, and I felt a very strong conviction from the Holy Spirit within me that it was wrong, but I was trying to get my needs met my own way and not God’s way. So, one would feel naturally guilty partaking in it if they truly do have the Holy Spirit residing in them and would discover that the lifestyle is futile, and is a futile way of getting one’s needs met.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Ladybri,

Yes Paul is clearly opposed to homosexuality. He is also a supporter of slavery. On the latter we say that he was not inspired by God but wrongly influenced by the beliefs of his time. It took a long time for the church to realise this.

I think that the same is true for homosexuality. Beware of the literalism of the Evangelical Christian!

I am sorry that you had an unpleasant experience with homosexuality but you must be wary of false generalisation. [The only US citizen I know is a loudmouth therefore all US citizens are so] You probably are not gay or, if you are, your experience was not with a person who loved you…

Look again at my arguments. Unlike you, my daughter’s experience over 22 years has been very positive. Should I tell them to break up because they are ‘living in sin’ or should I say that the God of Love must bless their faithful and loving union.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[crazzeto]

Hello Ladybri,

Yes Paul is clearly opposed to homosexuality. He is also a supporter of slavery. On the latter we say that he was not inspired by God but wrongly influenced by the beliefs of his time. It took a long time for the church to realise this.

I think that the same is true for homosexuality. Beware of the literalism of the Evangelical Christian!

I am sorry that you had an unpleasant experience with homosexuality but you must be wary of false generalisation. [The only US citizen I know is a loudmouth therefore all US citizens are so] You probably are not gay or, if you are, your experience was not with a person who loved you…

Look again at my arguments. Unlike you, my daughter’s experience over 22 years has been very positive. Should I tell them to break up because they are ‘living in sin’ or should I say that the God of Love must bless their faithful and loving union.

Best wishes

Laurie

He is not a supporter of slavery, of course I guess one can read whatever the heck they want into the bible.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Paul said ‘Slaves obey your masters’ not ‘Masters release your slaves’ or ‘Slavery is wrong’. Clearly he does not object to slavery.

And for centuries Christians have used that fact + the fact that characters in the OT had slaves to say that God approved of slavery.

But Paul was a man of this time not a robot programmed by God and he was mistaken. Just like he was about homosexuality.

Best wishes

 

[ladybri77]

Hello Ladybri,

Yes Paul is clearly opposed to homosexuality. He is also a supporter of slavery. On the latter we say that he was not inspired by God but wrongly influenced by the beliefs of his time. It took a long time for the church to realise this.

I am sorry that you had an unpleasant experience with homosexuality but you must be wary of false generalisation. [The only US citizen I know is a loudmouth therefore all US citizens are so] You probably are not gay or, if you are, your experience was not with a person who loved you…

Look again at my arguments. Unlike you, my daughter’s experience over 22 years has been very positive. Should I tell them to break up because they are ‘living in sin’ or should I say that the God of Love must bless their faithful and loving union.

Best wishes

Laurie

Only if it’s the God of Love’s design for them. Where is it refuted that Paul was not inspired by God and was just writing for the time he was in?

 

[Bishop93]

Hi Cinette,

Small misunderstanding. In England, ‘Laurie’ short for Laurence is a man’s name as well as a woman’s!

So I am the father and I do not mind a jot. My daughter is happy blessed by her wonderful partner of 22 years +

And her mother has no problems either!

As I said our only worries relate to difficulties she might have with bigots but fortunately the majority of people in the UK - including most Catholics ‘off the record’ - accept gay partnerships as OK

Sorry for misunderstanding.

Laurie

Mr. Laurie I love you’re argument and I think you are absolutely correct sir.

I admire your fatherly love and can only pray to be a great parent like you one day

It is funny how alot Christians pick and choose what is a HUGE sin and what isn’t huh?

“Off the record,shh don’t tell anybody”…Most Catholics I know also support gay marriage and most of them use contraceptives as well:thumbsup:

 

[Bishop93]

Only if it’s the God of Love’s design for them. Where is it refuted that Paul was not inspired by God and was just writing for the time he was in?

What if homosexuality was only wrong in the time they were writing in?

Same argument.

 

[davidv]

Mr. Laurie I love you’re argument and I think you are absolutely correct sir.

I admire your fatherly love and can only pray to be a great parent like you one day

It is funny how alot Christians pick and choose what is a HUGE sin and what isn’t huh?

“Off the record,shh don’t tell anybody”…Most Catholics I know also support gay marriage and most of them use contraceptives as well:thumbsup:

True love does not confirm one in their sin.

Morality is not defined by popular vote. First you need believable evidence of your claim of “most Catholics”. And, even if true, all it means is that they have lost their way.

 

[Bishop93]

True love does not confirm one in their sin.

Morality is not defined by popular vote. First you need believable evidence of your claim of “most Catholics”. And, even if true, all it means is that they have lost their way.

Of course

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Bishop - thanks for your kind remarks. I’m sure you will be a great parent. Don’t know how good I am - I just love my daughter - which I suppose is half the battle?

Ladybri - Paul was mistaken about slavery. Why? Because he was a man of his time. That does not mean that he was always mistaken just that sometimes he was. Therefore it is not enough to say that Paul is against homosexuality because we still have to ask if he was right or not. Now, for the reasons given, it seems likely he was not.

You still have not told me what I ought to say to my daughter. You know in your heart that for me to say, “My child, you have lived in happiness for 22 years with your partner and your mutual love has brought joy to all who know you, but I’m sorry, your genitals are the same so you must separate. I know that neither of you will be able to marry someone of the opposite sex so you will just have to endure a loveless lonely life. Don’t worry - the God of Love decrees it. You see he has this rule that you must not use your genitals in such a way as to ‘frustrate their natural purpose’ and this is far more important than any love you might feel”, would be a terrible wrong.

Best wishes

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Our reproductive parts were made to do just that, reproduce.

does not benefit the survival of either the individual organism or the species and in fact militates against it.

Actually this would appear to be inaccurate claims. Sexuality would appear to be “for” more than just reproduction. There are many arguments for this such as the fact that sexual expression is a strong factor leading to intense emotional bonding between those that practise it and much the same bonding hormones are released in its practice as are released during normal human contact, breast feeding and more.

The ratio of practise to conception too would suggest that it is not just “for” reproduction. Evolution would have more reason to select for a much stronger ratio of success were that to be so. We see this in certain types of Salmon for example who mate only once and so that one time has to be successful.

In humans however there is a much smaller window for success and therefore the ratio of intercourse to successful conception is much much lower. Evolution has clearly selected for this for some reason and if sex were just “for” reproduction there would be no good reason for it to have done this.

Further to this we see across nature that species are in fact strengthened by their non-reproducing elements, not weakened by them. Species from ants and wasps in the insect world to many examples such as the bald mole rat in the mammal world benefit greatly rather than suffer from the existence of non-reproducing elements in their hierarchy.

Such beneficial non-reproduction is achieved in a variety of ways from the simple one of making those elements sex less and so removing the element of reproduction from them, but in others it can be achieved by re-directing the sexual impulse to non-reproductive ends (such as homosexuality) while still retaining the beneficial aspects of the act (such as social commitment and bonding).

On top of all this, no one here argues that people who are incapable of reproducing should not be engaging in sex. Some couples are too old, some are just infertile. No one here is saying that because the act can not cause reproduction that they therefore should not engage in it. In these cases the “other” reasons for having sex are respected. Alarm bells should always go off in your head if you hear an argument that could be applied to groups A and B, but the speaker only chooses to apply it to one group and not the other. This is a sign of “argument from bias” and should be avoided. The application of an argument where it is convenient and not where it isn’t is not an intellectually honest position to be duped by.

What the arguments are therefore for suggesting reproduction is “the” function of sex let alone the “primary” function of it is beyond me, nor have I heard a single argument to suggest that even if it was the primary function of the act that it is somehow immoral to use something for anything but its “primary” function. We, as a species, in fact do it ALL the time and I have never, ever ever, heard anyone make an argument sounding like “The primary function of that bodypart/item/object/idea is X and therefore it can only be used for X”.

I would be agog to hear such an argument adumbrated here, I really would, as I would instantly have to stop using my ears for listening to music, and never again use the blunt end of a screw driver as a make shift hammer. I never realised they were immoral acts.

 

[phoooiee]

Paul said ‘Slaves obey your masters’ not ‘Masters release your slaves’ or ‘Slavery is wrong’. Clearly he does not object to slavery.

And for centuries Christians have used that fact + the fact that characters in the OT had slaves to say that God approved of slavery.

But Paul was a man of this time not a robot programmed by God and he was mistaken. Just like he was about homosexuality.

Best wishes

“Slavery” was quite different at that time- it wasn’t the chattel slavery in which people were treated as property, which came about much later. Furthermore, Christianity encourages people to lead a simple life with few possessions- this would in and of itself encourage people to give up slaves.

Christianity as it is meant to be encourages us to perfect our own lives rather than attempting to change our external situation.

According to Catholic scholars, this was the WHOLE POINT of the coming of Christ. At the time of Christ, the Jews were expecting a new Moses as the Messiah, who would lead a new Exodus for the Jewish people. When Christ came, he did exactly that- but it wasn’t what the Jews were expecting- instead He led all people out of their slavery to their own sinful natures.

Paul’s statement that slaves should obey their masters is an affirmation that one’s EXTERNAL situation is usually not what one must focus on changing; in fact it usually can’t be changed. It is one’s INTERNAL response that must be perfected. Therefore, if one is a slave, nothing is solved by revolting. But a true Christian can live joyfully under any conditions, as long as he has love.

I will be the first to admit that many, many Catholics do not always practice this inward purification; we often fall into sin by focusing on the sins of others instead of our own. I would stress that this is true of EVERY HUMAN BEING on earth, as it is one of the most marked attributes of our fallen human nature. Catholicism is meant to be the path that frees us from this fallen human nature. The inescapable fact that no one follows it perfectly does not negate it.

Here is my personal summary of what Catholic belief is concerning your daughter and her relationship, as well as my personal apology and sympathy that it is not always put it into practice.

1. Your daughter is likely a very good person and that is the MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT HER.
2. Your daughter’s relationship with her partner is likely also wonderful.
3. We cannot agree with you that the sexual elements of her relationship are wonderful. We also cannot recognize these sexual elements as being in any way comparable to heterosexual relations.
4. This in no way negates numbers one and two, as sexual relations are in fact a very small part of your daughter’s life, who she is as a person, and her total morality.
5. Starting a conversation in which a Catholic is asked to agree that sexual relations between two people of the same sex are morally acceptable will cause a Catholic to disagree with you, which may create the impression that the Catholic is being unkind or disapproving when in fact the Catholic is only failing to agree. (as long as the Catholic is actually following Catholic teaching)

I’d like to stress that I myself was a practicing homosexual for many years and I remember being the recipient of a lot of disdain and unkindness at the hands of so-called religious people (see my earlier post). This is completely wrong and should never happen. Anyone who behaves this way is, in my opinion, guilty of sin which is much, much more serious than any same-sex relations could be.

 

[ladybri77]

What if homosexuality was only wrong in the time they were writing in?

Same argument.

I know because of the Holy Spirit living within me giving me His truth and God’s Word, that’s how I know. Not to mention the teachings of the Holy Catholic church.

The reason we are so outspoken about homosexuality is that people are trying to normalize it when it shouldn’t be, and they are essentially trying to legalize perversion by mocking the long-standing institution of marriage given to us by God which was ordained to be between one man and one woman.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think we all might benefit from a more careful exegesis of St. Paul’s letter to Philemon, as well as a more thorough understanding of the difference between slavery in 1st century Israel and 19th century America.

 

[crazzeto]

Paul said ‘Slaves obey your masters’ not ‘Masters release your slaves’ or ‘Slavery is wrong’. Clearly he does not object to slavery.

And for centuries Christians have used that fact + the fact that characters in the OT had slaves to say that God approved of slavery.

But Paul was a man of this time not a robot programmed by God and he was mistaken. Just like he was about homosexuality.

Best wishes

Then for some inexplicable reason, the releasing of slaves from the earliest days of Christianity is considered to be one of the highest corperal works of mercy a Christan can perform. Paul isn’t saying “Slavery is fine and dandy”, he is saynig however that we should accept our position in life, indeed even if we find our selves slaves (in an ancient sense certainly) we should not riot against our masters.

Here are some relivent writings on the passage:

St John Crysostom:

Ver. 9. “Exhort servants to be obedient to their own masters, and to please them well in all things.”
Dost thou see what he has previously said, “that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.” He therefore is deserving of condemnation, who under pretense of continence separates wives from their husbands, and he who under any other pretext takes away servants from their masters. This is not “speech that cannot be condemned,” but it gives great handle to the unbelieving, and opens the mouths of all against us.

Fr George Leo Haydock

Ver. 9. Servants to be obedient. Servants owe respect and submission to their masters** in every thing not contrary to the law, or the will of God**. Hence they are strictly forbidden to murmur at their commands, to show any repugnance to obey them, or to censure their conduct. To avoid these evils, they ought to consider their masters as Jesus Christ himself, and their commands as those of God himself: which St. Paul often inculcates in other places in his epistles. (Ephesians vi. 5, 6.; Colossians iii. 23.) (St. Jerome)

St. Thomas Aquinas:

Objection 4: Further, servants are under their master’s power, according to Titus 2:9: “Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters.” Now they may lawfully do anything that will profit their masters: and this would be especially the case if they gave alms for them. Therefore those who are under another’s power can give alms. [R]
On the contrary, Alms should not be given out of another’s property; and each one should give alms out of the just profit of his own labor as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xxxv, 2). Now if those who are subject to anyone were to give alms, this would be out of another’s property. Therefore those who are under another’s power cannot give alms.
I answer that, Anyone who is under another’s power must, as such, be ruled in accordance with the power of his superior: for the natural order demands that the inferior should be ruled according to its superior. Therefore in those matters in which the inferior is subject to his superior, his ministrations must be subject to the superior’s permission.
Accordingly he that is under another’s power must not give alms of anything in respect of which he is subject to that other, except in so far as he has been commissioned by his superior. But if he has something in respect of which he is not under the power of his superior, he is no longer subject to another in its regard, being independent in respect of that particular thing, and he can give alms therefrom.
Reply to Objection 1: If a monk be dispensed through being commissioned by his superior, he can give alms from the property of his monaster, in accordance with the terms of his commission; but if he has no such dispensation, since he has nothing of his own, he cannot give alms without his abbot’s permission either express or presumed for some probable reason: except in a case of extreme necessity, when it would be lawful for him to commit a theft in order to give an alms. Nor does it follow that he is worse off than before, because, as stated in De Eccles. Dogm. lxxi, “it is a good thing to give one’s property to the poor little by little, but it is better still to give all at once in order to follow Christ, and being freed from care, to be needy with Christ.”

Another interesting thing to note, the CC forbade Catholics from participating in the slave trade. This isn’t to say Catholics didn’t do so anyway, or try to find lame justifications for doing so, but the Church since long before slavery as we know it had started tackling this problem.

You’ll see this play out in Latin America, with the Jesuits going into open rebellion (for instance) against the spanish and portugese who were trying to keep an illicite slave trade of natives going.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Friends, however you play it:

1] Paul did not condemn slavery.
2] Yet slavery is very wrong.
So 3] Paul’s opinions on morality are not necessarily correct.

Nothing you say goes against that simple piece of reasoning. I know that some slaves were treated well and I know that the church much later condemned slavery etc etc but none of that is to the point. Which of 1], 2] and 3] is incorrect?

Of course that does not show he was wrong about homosexuality just that he might be and we need to look deeper into the subject and cannot say, ‘Paul is against it so it’s wrong’

Phooie person – you say:

1. Your daughter is likely a very good person and that is the MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT HER.
2. Your daughter’s relationship with her partner is likely also wonderful.
3. We cannot agree with you that the sexual elements of her relationship are wonderful. We also cannot recognize these sexual elements as being in any way comparable to heterosexual relations.
4. This in no way negates numbers one and two, as sexual relations are in fact a very small part of your daughter’s life, who she is as a person, and her total morality.
5. Starting a conversation in which a Catholic is asked to agree that sexual relations between two people of the same sex are morally acceptable will cause a Catholic to disagree with you, which may create the impression that the Catholic is being unkind or disapproving when in fact the Catholic is only failing to agree. (as long as the Catholic is actually following Catholic teaching)

You are obviously a very caring person and have stated the Catholic view in a very gentle way. But your church does not say of the sex in a gay relationship that it is a very minor part of the union they say it is a terrible sin and that the relationship should cease! And of course I am challenging the Catholic view on this matter and suggesting it is very mistaken.

It is odd, don’t you think, that you are able to accept the loving relationship that my daughter has, but to put it bluntly, you think it is wrong that in the privacy of their own bedroom they express their love by giving each other pleasurable caresses. It is also very odd and wrong that a religion that majors on God being Love denies physical expression to a love between two people that would do no harm to them or anyone else.

Ladybri
You know because of the Holy Spirit! This is the last refuge of the person who has run out of sensible reasons [Sorry to be blunt!] Over the centuries thousands of people, many Protestant, have claimed the backing of the Holy Spirit for views we now know are wrong. If you think the Holy Spirit, who is love, is telling you to condemn the wonderful love my daughter has for her partner, perhaps you have misinterpreted what you reckon it is saying?

You also very hurtfully say:

The reason we are so outspoken about homosexuality is that people are trying to normalize it when it shouldn’t be, and they are essentially trying to legalize perversion by mocking the long-standing institution of marriage given to us by God which was ordained to be between one man and one woman.

First – will you please read the first post that I wrote where I described my daughter’s relationship with her partner and then, consulting your conscience, the Holy Spirit and your common sense – will you please kind enough to withdraw your description of it as a ‘perversion’. This is a better description of those who pervert a religion of love into one of condemnation of love.

Second – would you be kind enough to tell me where I have tried to mock marriage? I am happily married myself and am very much in favour ot it.

Sorry to speak harshly – no offence intended to you.

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Friends, however you play it:

1] Paul did not condemn slavery.
2] Yet slavery is very wrong.
So 3] Paul’s opinions on morality are not necessarily correct.

Nothing you say goes against that simple piece of reasoning. I know that some slaves were treated well and I know that the church much later condemned slavery etc etc but none of that is to the point. Which of 1], 2] and 3] is incorrect?

Of course that does not show he was wrong about homosexuality just that he might be and we need to look deeper into the subject and cannot say, ‘Paul is against it so it’s wrong’

Phooie person – you say:

1. Your daughter is likely a very good person and that is the MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT HER.
2. Your daughter’s relationship with her partner is likely also wonderful.
3. We cannot agree with you that the sexual elements of her relationship are wonderful. We also cannot recognize these sexual elements as being in any way comparable to heterosexual relations.
4. This in no way negates numbers one and two, as sexual relations are in fact a very small part of your daughter’s life, who she is as a person, and her total morality.
5. Starting a conversation in which a Catholic is asked to agree that sexual relations between two people of the same sex are morally acceptable will cause a Catholic to disagree with you, which may create the impression that the Catholic is being unkind or disapproving when in fact the Catholic is only failing to agree. (as long as the Catholic is actually following Catholic teaching)

You are obviously a very caring person and have stated the Catholic view in a very gentle way. But your church does not say of the sex in a gay relationship that it is a very minor part of the union they say it is a terrible sin and that the relationship should cease! And of course I am challenging the Catholic view on this matter and suggesting it is very mistaken.

It is odd, don’t you think, that you are able to accept the loving relationship that my daughter has, but to put it bluntly, you think it is wrong that in the privacy of their own bedroom they express their love by giving each other pleasurable caresses. It is also very odd and wrong that a religion that majors on God being Love denies physical expression to a love between two people that would do no harm to them or anyone else.

Ladybri
You know because of the Holy Spirit! This is the last refuge of the person who has run out of sensible reasons [Sorry to be blunt!] Over the centuries thousands of people, many Protestant, have claimed the backing of the Holy Spirit for views we now know are wrong. If you think the Holy Spirit, who is love, is telling you to condemn the wonderful love my daughter has for her partner, perhaps you have misinterpreted what you reckon it is saying?

You also very hurtfully say:

The reason we are so outspoken about homosexuality is that people are trying to normalize it when it shouldn’t be, and they are essentially trying to legalize perversion by mocking the long-standing institution of marriage given to us by God which was ordained to be between one man and one woman.

First – will you please read the first post that I wrote where I described my daughter’s relationship with her partner and then, consulting your conscience, the Holy Spirit and your common sense – will you please kind enough to withdraw your description of it as a ‘perversion’. This is a better description of those who pervert a religion of love into one of condemnation of love.

Second – would you be kind enough to tell me where I have tried to mock marriage? I am happily married myself and am very much in favour ot it.

Sorry to speak harshly – no offence intended to you.

Laurie

Sorry if I offended you. I didn’t mean you mock marriage. I was referring to those trying to legalize homosexual marriages based on what I believe, according to God and the scriptures, defines marriage to be.

Even if Paul didn’t speak against homosexuality as being wrong, I believe it is still wrong and that God did not intend it to be that way which is why in Genesis He said, “God made them male and female…that the two shall become one flesh”, followed by His command to “go and multiply”. I think this is God’s design for mankind. Homosexuality is not His best for us as He never intended it to be that way. The Church is against such a union that does not inherently produce life.

I don’t think we can change each other’s minds here. Based on the knowledge the Lord has given me, my experience and what scripture and the Catholic church teaches, I will hold true to what I know, and it sounds like you will do the same.

Peace

 

[phoooiee]

Friends, however you play it:

1] Paul did not condemn slavery.
2] Yet slavery is very wrong.
So 3] Paul’s opinions on morality are not necessarily correct.

There are many things that Jesus also did not condemn that are also very wrong. That’s because Christ fulfilled the law, focusing on love rather than condemnation. When Paul was addressing slaves in this passage, he had a choice.

1. State that slavery is wrong and thus advise slaves to fight against their situation, shifting their focus from internal to external (a move that would most likely cause them more hardship).
2. State that slaves should obey their masters and thus advise slaves to focus on themselves rather than on any injustice in their situation.

(Paul also advised slave owners to treat their slaves as their brothers).

Others have posted a lot about the nature of slavery at the time and also the attitude of the Church discouraging slavery from the earliest days.

 

[phoooiee]

You are obviously a very caring person and have stated the Catholic view in a very gentle way. But your church does not say of the sex in a gay relationship that it is a very minor part of the union they say it is a terrible sin and that the relationship should cease! And of course I am challenging the Catholic view on this matter and suggesting it is very mistaken.

Laurie

The Church encourages chaste friendships. If the two could remain chaste the Church would absolutely encourage the relationship. I think that our difference of opinion here is in whether the positive aspects of the relationship can or should be separated from the sexual aspects of the relationship.

I have a direct question, then.

Why is a physical expression necessary for a homosexual relationship?

 

[phoooiee]

It is odd, don’t you think, that you are able to accept the loving relationship that my daughter has, but to put it bluntly, you think it is wrong that in the privacy of their own bedroom they express their love by giving each other pleasurable caresses. It is also very odd and wrong that a religion that majors on God being Love denies physical expression to a love between two people that would do no harm to them or anyone else.

Christianity views God as being Love, yes, but love and physical pleasure are not the same thing. I believe that the philosophy that equates love to physical pleasure is what is wrong, and it hurts anyone who embraces it, not just homosexuals.

I do think that the sexual aspect of their relationship hurts them, but in a more subtle way, not in a way that does direct harm to someone else like murder or theft.
I know this because I was in such a relationship for so long. I also don’t understand why it bothers you or anyone else that I or the Church believe this is wrong. Does it affect you, or your daughter?