LGBT equality same as black equality

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You say you are not defending Sodomy. I understand.

I have learned that when you say, “I understand,” that you are likely understanding something other than what I intend. If you truly understood (i.e. had read Post 144 in this thread), you would know the answer to your questions.

I notice that you have yet to respond to my simple question of clarification above in post 153…I cannot help but take this as significant. I understand your reticence to assist me in answering the question you posed as indicative of an unwillingness to actually know and/or engage with my answer. Let that be noted.

I notice that you introduce conditions which you wish to place upon my answers to your subsequent questions. You stipulate the words I may use, but also stipulate the ways in which I am to think about the question through the conditions you impose. I take this to be indicative of an unwillingness to actually engage with how I am thinking about these issues. Let that, too, be noted.

If you are neither interested in my answer, nor in my thinking, why are you asking? Particularly, why are you asking when I’ve already provided you with a response in Post 144 which should satisfy you?

All that having been said, let us look at your questions.

A male/male relationship that sodomizes is acceptable or not acceptable to you…without qualifiers.

This question is unanswerable because it is absurd. I have no idea what a relationship that sodomizes is. People sodomize. Relationships don’t.

E-prime is an attempt to eliminate prejudice in speaking and not meant to do anything other than clarify feelings rather than judgement.

Admittedly, a bit of a tangent, but E-Prime is Newspeak. I’ve seen “To be or not to be / That is the question” written as “To live or to die / I ask myself this,” in E-Prime which misses the point entirely. How would you write “My love is like a red red rose” in E-Prime? “My love resembles a very red rose”? But that’s not what Burns wrote! E-Prime is Newspeak.

two men, commit sodomy, is it sinful or not…without any outside parameters. Just the act itself…no issue about a committed relationship, one night stand, love, or any other parameter…just the act…

Without outside parameters, including reference to a moral system to which these actions can be referred, such an act would be meaningless, as all acts would be.

If I’m permitted to use a moral system as a standard against which I may weigh the morality of the act, I would say that according to the moral teaching of the RCC, such an act would be considered sinful. Since the context in which this discussion is taking place is the moral teachings of the RCC, I take the teaching as a given. I am also not arguing against it.

I see two men, engaging in sodomy…

I see a sinful act

What do you see?

Hopefully, I would have the decency to avert my gaze. I don’t know if seeing men engaging in sodomy is a typical part of your normal day, but it’s not a typical part of mine.

So the question for Mark is…

as an Anglican in the Anglo-Catholic tradition

I hope you don’t think I’m a spokesperson for Anglicanism–though such an assumption would be typical of a pattern of a certain reductionism in which you’ve engaged.

Believing as his monikor says…Deo Volente/GodWilling

We all depend on God’s gracious will: The eyes of all wait upon Thee, O Lord, and Thou givest them their meat in due season.

believing he is Under the Mercy,

Are not we all?

and that All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!/Thanks be to God

The universe shows forth the All-Graciousness and Mercy of God. Yes, I think that’s something to be thankful for. Do you seriously find that problematic?

does Mark agree that two men in a sodomite relationship are in a sinful relationship because sodomy is sin?

Is what you refer to as a “sodomite relationship”:
A–A relationship which is solely predicated on the commission of sodomitical acts (understood to be sexual acts in which a man achieves orgasm outside of vaginal penetration of his wife)?
B–A relationship in which sexual sin (including sodomy) may occur.

or

does Mark believe that Christ stands by two men in a sodomite relationship blessing it with grace, it is His Will and he shows Mercy because these two men love each other and for that God is to be thanked?

Is what you refer to as a “sodomite relationship”:
A–A relationship which is solely predicated on the commission of sodomitical acts (understood to be sexual acts in which a man achieves orgasm outside of vaginal penetration of his wife)?
B–A relationship in which sexual sin (including sodomy) may occur.

two men in a sodomite relationship without qualifiers are in a sinful relationship, because sodomy is sin…yes or no?

Is what you refer to as a “sodomite relationship”:
A–A relationship which is solely predicated on the commission of sodomitical acts (understood to be sexual acts in which a man achieves orgasm outside of vaginal penetration of his wife)?
B–A relationship in which sexual sin (including sodomy) may occur.

I refer you to Post 144 of this thread.

Sodomitical acts are sins according to RC teaching. I’m not arguing with that teaching. Would it make it easier for you, though, if I were?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think you dismiss the option that same sex attraction is a disorder.

On the contrary, I don’t dismiss the option at all–I want to engage with it, understand it, and see if it actually works as an understanding by which one can live one’s life.

The question is this: What does a narrative of same-sex attraction as objective disorder look like, and what is the shape of a life led in witness to this narrative? Agree or disagree–it doesn’t matter. Opinions are immaterial. What matters is how you engage, how you think about the question. The quality of thought is what matters. And you can only engage the question if you take it seriously.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

If I’m permitted to use a moral system as a standard against which I may weigh the morality of the act, I would say that according to the moral teaching of the RCC, such an act would be considered sinful. Since the context in which this discussion is taking place is the moral teachings of the RCC, I take the teaching as a given. I am also not arguing against it.

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

This has been a difficult thread to catch up with, coming into the thick of it so late in the game.

Mark, if you are clear on the Catholic Church’s teachings on these matters, and take the teachings as a given, what are you arguing?

A person with same-sex attraction who is not engaging in same-sex sexual activities (including fantasy, masturbation, etc) is committing the sin of homosexual acts.

A person who is engaging in same-sex activities is, in fact, committing the sin of homosexual acts regardless of the love or affection or committment of the parties involved.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

In your argument and in defense of Mark’s position in this thread, do you wish to erase, to break the concept that the homosexual act is unnatural?

I think you’ll find, InSearch, that Dakota was not defending any position which denied that homosexual acts are sinful or unnatural. For what it’s worth, I was also not stating such a position. In speaking up for me, Dakota could not have been defending a position I was not articulating. I believe he found Coptic’s posts to me an expression of a personal animus against me. I can’t say I disagree with him when all is said and done.

Dakota, while you admit to being same sex attracted yourself, you disclaim on the outset that homosexual act is wrong and that same sex ‘marriage’ is wrong. ; yet, you buoy the reasoning of Mark who has yet to admit that sodomy is sinful. Admiring his manner of argumentation is one thing, but alignment with his reasoning is another. Are you conflicted that the homosexual act is sinful?
,

It is amazing to me that someone who is as explicitly and demonstrably orthodox as Dakota should be so mistrusted because I don’t feel my opinion one way or the other is material to the discussion. If that’s how a faithful Roman Catholic with same-sex attraction is treated (i.e., distrusted or not taken at their word), what sort of treatment can those of us who are same-sex attracted but not Roman Catholic expect?

Can you explain to me why my opinion is crucial to an affirmation of Dakota’s already-expressed orthodoxy? Can you explain, in light of Post 144 in this thread, why my opinion on sodomy is material in the first place? That would be much-appreciated.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If I may,

Anal sex or oral sex is not what comes to mind when someone speaks of the marital act, regardless if a percentage of sexually active heterosexuals engage in said acts as foreplay or to orgasm of the partners.

When done in the context of lust (which is not the same as desire) as replacement to the marital act, i.e., penis-in-vagina sex, anal and oral sex are sins and misuse of the sexual organs. In fact, anal sex in particular is known to present more health risks than any other sexual act that condom use is more if not always associated with it for it to be performed safely.

A CAF member, an admitted homosexual, asserted that sodomy (anal penetration) is not the sine qua non of homosexual relationships, as not all homosexuals in same sex relationships engage in it. This is not hard to believe, because, one would think, any homosexual who is protective of his own health would avoid such habit or practice.

Regardless, in referring to two males performing a homosexual act, what comes to mind is anal sex, more than not, not excluding oral sex, mutual masturbation, or other ways to arouse the other, to the end of achieving orgasm. Each act and all of it is disordered and sinful.

Of course, when unmarried heterosexuals engage in sodomia imperfecta, it is as wrong, disordered, sinful. Sodomia imperfecta between a man and a woman not married to each other, taken to its full sexual conclusion, is wrong and sinful, but NOT unnatural.

In your argument and in defense of Mark’s position in this thread, do you wish to erase, to break the concept that the homosexual act is unnatural? If so, are you not contributing to the effort of homosexualists to normalize the homosexual act, for it to be at par with heterosexual sex? This is the bottom of it all, the underlying reason why gays insist on legislation no less than homosexual ‘marriage’ that would be completely at par with heterosexual marriage.

Dakota, while you admit to being same sex attracted yourself, you disclaim on the outset that homosexual act is wrong and that same sex ‘marriage’ is wrong. ; yet, you buoy the reasoning of Mark who has yet to admit that sodomy is sinful. Admiring his manner of argumentation is one thing, but alignment with his reasoning is another. Are you conflicted that the homosexual act is sinful?
,

heterosexual acts ≠ marital act
If all sex done between two people of the same sex is homosexual acts then logically all sex done between two people of the same sex is heterosexual acts .he marital act is in fact a subset of “heterosexual acts”

Why do you say “A CAF member” not “Deo Volente” or “Mark”? A quarter of gays have never engaged in anal sex.

What people think a small minority does does not necessarily reflect what that small minority does.

sodomia imperfecta is still sinful between two ecclesiastically married people. The reason anal sex is “unnatural” is that it is misusing things, whether it is being done by a man and a woman or two men does not change that.

Why on earth would you jump to that conclusion?

That sounds like cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

This has been a difficult thread to catch up with, coming into the thick of it so late in the game.

Mark, if you are clear on the Catholic Church’s teachings on these matters, and take the teachings as a given, what are you arguing?

A person with same-sex attraction who is not engaging in same-sex sexual activities (including fantasy, masturbation, etc) is committing the sin of homosexual acts.

A person who is engaging in same-sex activities is, in fact, committing the sin of homosexual acts regardless of the love or affection or committment of the parties involved.

The question is this: What does a narrative of same-sex attraction as objective disorder look like, and what is the shape of a life led in witness to this narrative? Agree or disagree–it doesn’t matter. Opinions are immaterial. What matters is how you engage, how you think about the question. The quality of thought is what matters. And you can only engage the question if you take it seriously.

That appears to be why he is here.

 

[Brendan]

sodomia imperfecta is still sinful between two ecclesiastically married people. The reason anal sex is “unnatural” is that it is misusing things, whether it is being done by a man and a woman or two men does not change that…

Technically no.

Fr, Herbert Jones’ “Moral Theology” was the principle manual on Moral Theology in the Pre-Vatican II days It was published in 18 different languages in 17 printings over 50 years. The last English printing was in 1961 with an Imprimatur from + John Wright of Pittsburg.

. It was designed for a priest to have in the confessional to look up sins with which he was unfamilar to understand the gravity and the conditions for sin.

Para 757 is on Sodomy within Marriage and states.

“It is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of consumating it naturally or if some sodomic action is positied without danger of pollution”

Personally, it would seem unhygenic as all get out, but unhygenic ≠ sinful.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Technically no.

Fr, Herbert Jones’ “Moral Theology” was the principle manual on Moral Theology in the Pre-Vatican II days It was published in 18 different languages in 17 printings over 50 years. The last English printing was in 1961 with an Imprimatur from + John Wright of Pittsburg.

. It was designed for a priest to have in the confessional to look up sins with which he was unfamilar to understand the gravity and the conditions for sin.

Para 757 is on Sodomy within Marriage and states.

“It is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of consumating it naturally or if some sodomic action is positied without danger of pollution”

Personally, it would seem unhygenic as all get out, but unhygenic ≠ sinful.

You are aware that doesn’t refute my point right?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

heterosexual acts ≠ marital act
If all sex done between two people of the same sex is homosexual acts then logically all sex done between two people of the same sex is heterosexual acts .he marital act is in fact a subset of “heterosexual acts”

Did I posit any different?

…A quarter of gays have never engaged in anal sex.

This/your claim is not being challenged. You brought up heterosexual sodomy, in and outside of marriage, saying it is fairly common. I have always doubted that, and researched on it. The percentage of prevalence of heterosexual practitioners of sodomy, specifically, anal sex, is lower than what is being bandied or the impression being made in this forum. Under 10% is the figure, which is not trivial, but I would not say anal sex is fairly common among active heterosexuals. There are other studies with similar information, but here is an NCBI study: Prevalence of anal sex among heterosexuals in California …, which says 7% of heterosexuals practice anal sex. Compare that to the 75% of gays who have engaged in sodomy (using your statement that 25% have not engaged in sodomy.)

I think if you are using a comparative approach, narrowing to the anal sex practice by homosexuals v heterosexuals, you will have to agree that the statistics suggest that a majority of homosexuals engage in this sodomitical act and a minority of heterosexuals engage in same.

I would venture to say that this explains why sodomy committed by heterosexuals is not mentioned as much as sodomy committed by homosexuals. Bringing up the argument that heterosexuals also engage in sodomy is a tu quoque approach to justify that they are equal acts.

Further, there is a self-evident explanation: would not a man and a woman, amorous but their instinct and senses not taking leave of them, do what is natural, how their bodies are designed? The end is nevertheless achieved without taking unnecessary risks involved in anal sex.

Why on earth would you jump to that conclusion?

Please look at and read the last two paragraphs of my post, where I have question marks, meaning they were queries, not declaration. In short, the question posed was, are you conflicted or not conflicted about sodomy being sinful. I am asking you, not Mark.

That sounds like cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

That sounds like you misunderstood the substance of my post.

 

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

The question is this: What does a narrative of same-sex attraction as objective disorder look like, and what is the shape of a life led in witness to this narrative? Agree or disagree–it doesn’t matter. Opinions are immaterial. What matters is how you engage, how you think about the question. The quality of thought is what matters. And you can only engage the question if you take it seriously.

I want to be clear, Mark, in order to talk about this. and I apologize if I’m being dense, but would you please ask your question in plain English? Did you read my article in this month’s issue of Catholic Answers Magazine? If so, did that article address the question of the first line in the quote above or not? thank you

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Did I posit any different?

This/your claim is not being challenged. You brought up heterosexual sodomy, in and outside of marriage, saying it is fairly common. I have always doubted that, and researched on it. The percentage of prevalence of heterosexual practitioners of sodomy, specifically, anal sex, is lower than what is being bandied or the impression being made in this forum. Under 10% is the figure, which is not trivial, but I would not say anal sex is fairly common among active heterosexuals. There are other studies with similar information, but here is an NCBI study: Prevalence of anal sex among heterosexuals in California …, which says 7% of heterosexuals practice anal sex. Compare that to the 75% of gays who have engaged in sodomy (using your statement that 25% have not engaged in sodomy.)

I think if you are using a comparative approach, narrowing to the anal sex practice by homosexuals v heterosexuals, you will have to agree that the statistics suggest that a majority of homosexuals engage in this sodomitical act and a minority of heterosexuals engage in same.

I would venture to say that this explains why sodomy committed by heterosexuals is not mentioned as much as sodomy committed by homosexuals. Bringing up the argument that heterosexuals also engage in sodomy is a tu quoque approach to justify that they are equal acts.

Further, there is a self-evident explanation: would not a man and a woman, amorous but their instinct and senses not taking leave of them, do what is natural, how their bodies are designed? The end is nevertheless achieved without taking unnecessary risks involved in anal sex.

Please look at and read the last two paragraphs of my post, where I have question marks, meaning they were queries, not declaration. In short, the question posed was, are you conflicted or not conflicted about sodomy being sinful. I am asking you, not Mark.

That sounds like you misunderstood the substance of my post.

I was just making sure

Those are two fairly different sets of data, mine, the 3/4 figure refers to even once in the entire life, yours is did they do it at least once a month in the past twelve months. 3/4 over the entire life does not a sine qua non make. I’d like to point out that 40% of men have engaged in heterosexual anal sex which can be compared directly with my 75% statistic. 40% isn’t exactly a small minority

Some men like anal sex more, I’ll spare your mind an explanation why.

I am not conflicted.

I was referring to the 2nd and 3rd to last sentences.

I want to be clear, Mark, in order to talk about this. and I apologize if I’m being dense, but would you please ask your question in plain English? Did you read my article in this month’s issue of Catholic Answers Magazine? If so, did that article address the question of the first line in the quote above or not? thank you

Ooh please post or link it here

 

[fix]

Those are still “heterosexual acts”

I implied only licit acts.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I implied only licit acts.

I didn’t see any implication.

 

[fix]

I didn’t see any implication.

I used the phrase marital act. I did not mention any other act nor did I mention foreplay, modest or immodest.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I used the phrase marital act. I did not mention any other act nor did I mention foreplay, modest or immodest.

Originally you said heterosexual sexual acts.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

On the contrary, I don’t dismiss the option at all–I want to engage with it, understand it, and see if it actually works as an understanding by which one can live one’s life.

The question is this: What does a narrative of same-sex attraction as objective disorder look like, and what is the shape of a life led in witness to this narrative? Agree or disagree–it doesn’t matter. Opinions are immaterial. What matters is how you engage, how you think about the question. The quality of thought is what matters. And you can only engage the question if you take it seriously.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Here is what you say in post #141

All of that would be pertinent to the conversation if we were talking about sodomites. I was under the impression that we were talking about same-sex attracted folks. Now, same-sex attracted folks can be sodomites. So can opposite-sex attracted folks. But neither are sodomites by virtue of their attraction to one sex or the other. If two same-sex attracted folks are in a relationship, they do not engage in sodomy unless they actually engage in a sodomitical act. The fact of their relationship does not necessitate the commission of any particular act any more than a dating man and woman are necessarily fornicating simply because they’re in a dating relationship.

But here’s the problem: you assume that two same-sex attracted people in a relationship are sodomites. You assume that every same-sex attracted person desires not a loving relationship with another person of the same sex but that they necessarily desire to commit sexual sin by virtue of their same-sex attraction.

Same sex attracted folks…

Same sex attracted folks that engage in any physical activity, kissing, kissing body parts, using body parts for sex, whatever it is you can imagine that a same sex attracted person does in a relation is sin…Do you agree or not agree and why?

Same sex attracted folks desire a loving relationship. If that relationship is desired in a physical way or manifested in a physical way as described in the prior paragraph is sin. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Alcohol is not sin. It is the result of fermentation. I desire to drink it. No sin. I desire to get drunk, bordering on sin, I drink it and get drunk and continually drink, then this is sin. The alcohol is not sin.

Sodomy, any physical relation between two men is sexual is sin. The desire for happiness, the desire for a loving relation, the desire for love, forgiveness and grace in any same sex relationship or the accomplishment of physical acts in a same sex relationship wanting grace, love, forgiveness, intimacy, self giving or anything else you can think of in a same sex physical relationship is sin. The same sex relationship is sin by desire and by action. Do you agree or disagree and why?

 

[fix]

Originally you said heterosexual sexual acts.

Yes, licit acts.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Explain the difference. If I want to indicate that I am responding to something you’ve written and I wish to quote you, either I’ll use the quote function or quotation marks. They serve the same basic function: i.e., they indicate that something is being quoted. That’s one of the reasons why the code for the quote function includes the word quote.

See posts 138, 140, 142, 143 and 144 in this thread. In post 140, you responded to my post 138 as if I had launched a defense of sodomy. I had done no such thing. I am doing no such thing. I do not plan to do any such thing. You subsequently started a separate thread which was based on your misapprehension. I attempted to clear things up for you in post 142. Your post 143 indicated that you were still misunderstanding what was happening. My post 144 sought to further clarify. Your most recent post is indicative of a persistent misapprehension which, at this point, I can only characterize as willful.

I’ve not stumbled on (or onto) General Semantics: what I wrote is a basic principle of semiotics. Moreover, I would distrust any “movement” such as GS that attempted to disallow the use of certain types of words through such linguistic programs as E-Prime or Basic English, both of which sound like steps towards Newspeak to me and indicative of an attitude which is fundamentally opposed to the poetic or artistic impulse in humanity. That GS informed the pseudo-science of Neuro-Linguistic Programming certainly does not recommend it either. However, and in light of your misapprehensions and your insistence on people writing things in simple terms, your invocation of General Semantics is illuminating.

Not necessarily a simple yes/no question. Before I can attempt to answer it to either your or my satisfaction, I need to know the following:

Is what you refer to as a “sodomizing relationship”:
A–A relationship which is solely predicated on the commission of sodomitical acts (understood to be sexual acts in which a man achieves orgasm outside of vaginal penetration of his wife)?
B–A relationship in which sexual sin (including sodomy) may occur.
Clear this up for me, and I’ll attempt an answer to your question. In the meantime I would refer you to posts 142 and 144 of this thread.

That’s just the General Semantics and NLP “training” talking. Try actually engaging with what people write, and I’m sure you’ll be able to keep track of their answers.

I’m all for nuance, Coptic. And while the map may not be the territory, I’m interested in knowing by what maps people navigate. I may be at point D and my friend at point A, and we both may be using different maps, but if we can share with each other what our maps look like, maybe we’ll eventually be able to find our way to each other.

I have never stated anything to the contrary. Nor will I. See post 142 of this thread.

But I will affirm: simply because two biases are different does not mean they are not analogous.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

You asked for clarity on these issues in post 143 and again here. You state clarity will provide a response from you.

Regardless of my mere opinion on the matter, it is immaterial for two related reasons:

1–I have (in this and recent threads) taken the teaching against extra-marital sex (including fornication and same-sex sexual activity) for granted, which means that
2–I have not been talking about sodomitical relationships when I have been talking about relationships between same-sex attracted folks.

Lets just generalize that any physical relation between two same sex attracted people is sin. This includes sodomy, oral, manual whatever that may be or you can imagine and if a same sex attracted couple is committing any physical acts it is sin. The desire for physical completion between two same sex attracted people is a sin.

So let’s just change the focus from sodomizing relationship to a relationship between two same sex attracted folk that desire or accomplish completion of that desire. This is always sin.

I understand that I may have been too specific concerning sodomy and that to cause you to focus on sodomy, forcing you to corner your thinking on sodomy, making it your concern about sodomy imagined or completed really makes the discussion less than useful. I can imagine, you can imagine sodomy in whatever form is only part of the sinful relation between two same sex attracted people and to make the sin of sodomy the focus makes it difficult. So let’s just say that sodomy is sin always however sodomy is only part of the sinful relationship and I don’t want you for one minute to imagine or think that sodomy is the only sin between two same sex attracted folk. Stop thinking about sodomy.

Sodomy is sin. Let’s just agree with that and now you can answer the question posed without giving one thought and any reference to sodomy. So don’t even discuss sodomy. Just discuss physical accomplishment of a desired same sex urge between two same sex attracted people without discussing the always evident sin of sodomy. Ok:thumbsup:

 

[michelleds]

Ooh please post or link it here

I cannot. It’s in the print magazine and CA Magazine owns the rights to reproduction.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Ooh please post or link it here

Newsflash:

“The internet” is not the sum total of recorded human knowledge. The younger the person, the more difficult, it seems, to understand or accept that.

(1) Thousands of volumes of information – scientific, authoritative, and otherwise factual – have never been uploaded onto the World-Wide-Web. This includes much that is modern, not to mention what pre-dated the widespread use of personal computers and has not been scanned or digitalized (and may never be).

(2) “The internet” is one source, some of it verifiable and cross-referencable, some of it fabricated.

The internet is NOT equivalent to an Absolute. It is a source, the quality and accuracy of which is subject to verification.

You once claimed on CAF that if a poster can’t produce a link to something, it must not exist.

 

[Crescentinus]

Newsflash:

“The internet” is not the sum total of recorded human knowledge. The younger the person, the more difficult, it seems, to understand or accept that.

(1) Thousands of volumes of information – scientific, authoritative, and otherwise factual – have never been uploaded onto the World-Wide-Web. This includes much that is modern, not to mention what pre-dated the widespread use of personal computers and has not been scanned or digitalized (and may never be).

(2) “The internet” is one source, some of it verifiable and cross-referencable, some of it fabricated.

The internet is NOT equivalent to an Absolute. It is a source, the quality and accuracy of which is subject to verification.

You once claimed on CAF that if a poster can’t produce a link to something, it must not exist.