Question about Gay Marriage

[Ferde_Rombola]

where has it been well documented?
and do these studies include closeted gay men and women with a spouse and children?

There is much ‘opinion’ on the suject on the internet, most of it slanted to reflect the preference of the writer. I tried to find an unbiased source and came up with this:

"What About the Children?

American College of Pediatricians Warns Against Same-Sex Families

BY TOM MCFEELY

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

June 8-14, 2008 Issue | Posted 6/3/08 at 11:05 AM

See also:

“Support for Adult Children of Homosexuals”

“Forgotten Voice in the Marriage Debate”

LONDON, Ontario — Dawn Stefanowicz says she knows from personal experience that what the American College of Pediatricians recommends is true.

She is a Canadian woman who grew up in a homosexual household. She says Americans wouldn’t support same-sex “marriage” if they understood how it can harm children.

Stefanowicz, author of the book Out From Under: the Impact of Homosexual Parenting, rejects the claim of homosexual activists that same-sex households are just as healthy for kids as heterosexual homes.

“That hasn’t been my experience or the experience of people who have contacted me who have been raised in a similar situation,” said Stefanowicz. “We’ve all faced negative challenges in this kind of household.”

Brad Luna, director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, disagreed with critics of same-sex households with children.

“My response would be to look at every major psychological and child-welfare national organization,” he said, “who have all come out and said that children raised with same-sex parents have no less development than children who were raised in a heterosexual relationship.”

But one organization that does not endorse homosexual parenting is the American College of Pediatricians.

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development,” the college states in a position statement about homosexual parenting posted in the “Position Statements” section of its website, acpeds.org.

“Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation,” it says. “This position is rooted in the best available science.”

The American College of Pediatricians’ position statement references the many studies that have found that children thrive best in families with a married mother and father.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, a Rhode Island general pediatrician who is a board member of the American College of Pediatricians, said Luna is correct in saying that major medical groups have expressed support for homosexual parenting.

But she said that they have done so despite the fact that scientific research has not established that such families are as healthy for kids as married heterosexual families.

Faulty Comparisons

Cretella said that when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed same-sex parenting in 2002, it acted on the recommendation of a small committee that she says had an agenda.

The academy endorsed homosexual parents over the specific objections of some committee members who noted the flaws in the research studies that found same-sex parenting to be as healthy as heterosexual parenting, she said.

A key methodological flaw in those studies is that they compared the wellbeing of children in homosexual households to those raised in difficult circumstances such as single-parent households that resulted from divorce, Cretella said.

None of the studies compared children raised by homosexual parents to children with two heterosexual parents in a stable, loving marriage."

There’s more to the artlcle, but you get the point. Or should.

 

[Shlomey]

Hi all,
I’m from CA, where we barely got Proposition 8 (restoring the true definition of marriage) passed

Here’s where I’m in a bind: many of my friends, who are Catholic (or at least refer to themselves as such) voted against Prop 8 and are very unhappy with the results. For example, one of my friends writes as her status on Facebook, “[name of person] knows Jesus would never deny a human right & people that use the Bible to say yes on Prop 8 show their ignorance and uncompassionate heart for human rights.”

Jesus never condoned sin: He condemned it. Jesus never condoned adultery: He condemned it.
Jesus Himself defined marriage as being between man & woman.
St. Paul clarifies the issue further.
Jesus taught: “deny yourself”. He taught that we are to seek after the spiritual, not the worldly things.

So, I’m working on ways to present what the Church teaches about marriage and homosexuality (and gay “marriage”). The primary argument against Prop 8 frames marriage as an equality and civil rights issue.

I personally do not care about the “marriage rites” of any state or religion. I go by the teachings of the Church.

Here’s my question though:** is marriage definable as a “human right”? **I’m struggling to come up with a definite answer from a Catholic perspective. Also, if anyone has any general ideas for ways to explain TRUE Catholic teaching in this regard, I’d appreciate it.

No, marriage is a religious sacrament.

 

[iamme]

The Church holds homosexual practice sinful because (1) It’s an obvious abomination and a corruption of the intended uses of the human body, and (2) Scripture says it’s an abomination and sinful. The Church doesn’t condemn same sex attraction because she understands the inclination is not a choice in some homosexuals. Would you rather the Church condemn the inclination as well? That’s what it sounds like.

its not scripture…

jesus did away with all levitican laws, and never once spoke about gays, and whether or not they should marry.
there is nothing in the bible, that has any bearing on current events that says homosexuality is a sin.

i say that that the church either needs to say outright what it actually means, because it DOES condemn the inclination, but is very careful to not have to actually say it.
its truly masterful.

 

[iamme]

None of the studies compared children raised by homosexual parents to children with two heterosexual parents in a stable, loving marriage."

There’s more to the artlcle, but you get the point. Or should.

yeah, the last bit i quoted is kinda the point.
there are no well performed studies, and again, while studies are nice to have to show to people, by and large, theyre not that reliable, because they study what they want to, and not what they should. also, if you want to be really technical, if youre going to compare loving hetero-sexual married folks to anything, the n it should be to healthy, loving MARRIED homosexual folks, otherwise, there will never be an apt comparison, making any totally incomplete and pointless.

 

[Shlomey]

its not scripture…

jesus did away with all levitican laws, and never once spoke about gays, and whether or not they should marry.
there is nothing in the bible, that has any bearing on current events that says homosexuality is a sin.

i say that that the church either needs to say outright what it actually means, because it DOES condemn the inclination, but is very careful to not have to actually say it.
its truly masterful.

May I point out 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1?

Furthermore, the New Testament defines marriage as between a MAN and a WOMAN, male and female.

Adultery is forbidden. The ten commandments are not gone.
Fornication, masturbation are forms of adultery: they are the abuse of the sexual vices that are FOR married people only.

Even St. Paul warns that it is better to marry than to be burnt.

Moreover, sex itself has two purposes: union and procreation.
I would argue that the latter is the perfection of the former.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation,** God made them male and female**. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

When a child is born, the two are “in one flesh”.
This is not possible with masturbation or homosexual actions.

Further references in the Bible regarding marriage only deals with heterosexuals:

1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger** should marry, bear children**, be mistresses of families, give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil.

1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

And BTW the “it’s not Scripture” is a VERY weak argument.
We are commanded to follow both written and oral tradition.
The Christian Church - throughout history - has been against homosexual actions.

There is no way the Christian Church may accept that which is obviously against Divine Law.

 

[iamme]

NoMoreGames, please, no games here. I don’t know what the ‘/sarcasm’ is supposed to mean, but if you don’t know what the homosexual agenda is, you’re either impossibly ignorant or a liar. And you’re not ‘gay.’ You’re a homosexual. ‘Gay’ means carefree and light-hearted, about the last words I’d use to describe 99% of the homosexuals I’ve known.

youve known “teh ghey people”?!?
i bet theyre big fans of you.

and lets see what a group agenda, which this “gay agenda” youre so fond of, would actually mean…

Main Entry:
1group Listen to the pronunciation of 1group Pronunciation:
\ˈgrüp\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
French groupe, from Italian gruppo, by-form of groppo knot, tangle, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German kropf craw — more at crop
Date:
1686

1: two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition2 a: a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship b: an assemblage of objects regarded as a unit c (1): a military unit consisting of a headquarters and attached battalions (2): a unit of the United States Air Force higher than a squadron and lower than a wing

Main Entry:
agen·da Listen to the pronunciation of agenda Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈjen-də\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, neuter plural of agendum, gerundive of agere
Date:
1871

1 : a list or outline of things to be considered or done 2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program

here is the most recognized gay groups mission statement;

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

now, i dont know if theres some sort of gay illuminati out there, where elton john, ellen degeneres, oprah (whos also in the black illuminati), the ghost of matthew sheperd , and others, sit around plotting the downfall of the human world, but the above to me sounds incredibly similar to the mission of another, not to distant time, when certain people couldnt go to schools, get married to certain people, and were discriminated against a lot of the time, by most of the country. it doesnt sound like mein kampf…

 

[iamme]

May I point out 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1?

Furthermore, the New Testament defines marriage as between a MAN and a WOMAN, male and female.

no,. it doesnt. it mentions man and woman, yes, but it does NOT say ONLY a man and a woman, or those icky gays are outta luck. omission is not condemnation, because really, it doesnt say that marraige is between a BLACK man and BLACK woman, so, obviously thats imooral and gross.

Adultery is forbidden. The ten commandments are not gone.
Fornication, masturbation are forms of adultery: they are the abuse of the sexual vices that are FOR married people only.

Even St. Paul warns that it is better to marry than to be burnt.

Moreover, sex itself has two purposes: union and procreation.
I would argue that the latter is the perfection of the former.

and the fact that it feels absolutely great (sometimes) has absolutely nothing to do with it, im sure.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation,God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

you bolded the wrong parts, so i fixed it for you. the former is basically an enticement for man to move out of moms basement, while the latter doesnt even have to be literal, unless you dont plan on ever leaving the honeymoon suite. its what people call “symbology” as in, youre no longer individuals, but are now in it together, unless the tearing asunder is meant for literal interpretation too, which, who knows?

When a child is born, the two are “in one flesh”.
This is not possible with masturbation or homosexual actions.

its also not possible with infertile women, and couples who dont want kids, those dirty sinners!

Further references in the Bible regarding marriage only deals with heterosexuals:

1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger** should marry, bear children**, be mistresses of families, give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil.

men should be mistresses to families?!?
oh, wait, that is a verse obviously meant toapply to women!

1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

And BTW the “it’s not Scripture” is a VERY weak argument.
We are commanded to follow both written and oral tradition.
The Christian Church - throughout history - has been against homosexual actions.

There is no way the Christian Church may accept that which is obviously against Divine Law.

and btw, if thats the case, then, “its scripture” is also a weak argument… tit for tat, if one applies, so does the reverse, yadda yadda.

and my favorite line, which is very much in favor of any and ALL marraige;
1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

now, can you find me a verse, a throwaway line, anything, where it says “thall shalt not let the gays marry, because only a dude and a chick can do it.”?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I have an education: 4 yrs BA; 2 Yrs Grad Masters; 1/2 year Graduate; 2 yrs supervised practice; hundreds of hours of seminars and in service training.

And…

"The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber

Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.

During this time, the profession was…claiming that if we do not readily see “distress, disability and disadvantage” in a particular psychological condition, then the condition is not disordered.

…such a theory sounds plausible. However we see its startling consequences when we apply it to a condition such as pedophilia. Is the happy and otherwise well-functioning pedophile “normal”? As Dr. Bieber argues…psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; and social effectiveness “may coexist with psychopathology, in some cases even of a psychotic order.”

…Indeed,…the political drive toward ever-greater equality has turned Americans against any conclusion which entails values and consequences - resulting in our culture’s trend toward rejection of all evaluative conclusions as unkind and “undemocratic.” Robert Bork sees this as a natural consequence of democracy untethered from its Judeo-Christian roots of self-restraint and responsibility…

Dr. Bieber describes the deletion of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual as “the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals.”

Gay activist groups believed that prejudice against homosexuals could be extinguished only if…they were accepted as normal. “They claimed that homosexuality is a preference, an orientation, a propensity; that it is neither a defect, a disturbance, a sickness, nor a malfunction of any sort.” To promote this aim, Dr. Bieber reports, “Gay activists impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal.”

…Dr. Bieber found that homosexuality can develop without the frequently occurring close-binding-intimate, mother-son bond.

But the most significant finding was that of the detached father. “The father-son relationship was almost the diametrical opposite of that between mother and son. The paternal portrait was one of a father who was either detached or covertly or overtly hostile,” he reported.

"The father-son relationship revealed uniformly an absence of loving, warm, constructive paternal attitudes and behavior. In my long experience, I have not found a single case where, in the developing years, a father had a kind, affectionate, and constructive relationship with the son who becomes homosexual. This has been an unvarying finding… Dr. Bieber’s study in fact found a continuity of poor relationships with males, beginning with the father, older brothers, and same-sex peers in childhood. He concludes,

“The consistent history of unremitting fear of and hostility to other males throughout childhood has led me to conclude that male homosexuality is basically an adaptation to a disorder of a man’s relationship with other men.”

Dr. Bieber discussed the issue of the definition of normality. Because homosexual fantasies and behavior are fear-based, he concluded, we cannot call them normal.

The A.P.A. at that time had adopted a new set of criteria for defining psychological disorder. To be disordered, a condition must:

regularly cause distress, or

interfere with social effectiveness.
The Psychiatric Association pointed to the excellent occupational performance and good social adjustment of many homosexuals as evidence of the normalcy of homosexuality. But such factors do not, Dr. Bieber countered, exclude the presence of psychopathology. Psychopathology is not always accompanied by adjustment problems; therefore, the criteria are in reality, inadequate to identify a psychological disorder…

A task force was set up to study homosexuality, but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation. There followed riots at scientific meetings by gay activists who increased the pressure on the Psychiatric Association.

Will preventive therapy for homosexuality be prohibited, Dr. Bieber wondered, when homosexuality is normalized?

Furthermmore–is it the proper domain of psychiatry to remove diagnoses to eliminate prejudice?

Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.'s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II – and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.

The factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:

Gay activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.
A sincere belief was held by liberal-minded…psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder…reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act…

Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."

 

[PRmerger]

jesus did away with all levitican laws, and never once spoke about gays, and whether or not they should marry.

Well, that is categorically untrue. When He told His apostles, “He who hears you, hears Me,” it’s pretty obvious what He meant.

So, when the apostles (that is, the magisterium) say, “Homosexuality is disordered”, Jesus is saying “Homosexuality is disordered.”

 

[Shlomey]

no,. it doesnt. it mentions man and woman, yes, but it does NOT say ONLY a man and a woman, or those icky gays are outta luck. omission is not condemnation, because really, it doesnt say that marraige is between a BLACK man and BLACK woman, so, obviously thats imooral and gross.

and the fact that it feels absolutely great (sometimes) has absolutely nothing to do with it, im sure.

you bolded the wrong parts, so i fixed it for you. the former is basically an enticement for man to move out of moms basement, while the latter doesnt even have to be literal, unless you dont plan on ever leaving the honeymoon suite. its what people call “symbology” as in, youre no longer individuals, but are now in it together, unless the tearing asunder is meant for literal interpretation too, which, who knows?

its also not possible with infertile women, and couples who dont want kids, those dirty sinners!

men should be mistresses to families?!?
oh, wait, that is a verse obviously meant toapply to women!

and btw, if thats the case, then, “its scripture” is also a weak argument… tit for tat, if one applies, so does the reverse, yadda yadda.

and my favorite line, which is very much in favor of any and ALL marraige;
1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

now, can you find me a verse, a throwaway line, anything, where it says “thall shalt not let the gays marry, because only a dude and a chick can do it.”?

Way to argue falsely.

1. Your argument regarding the “tit for tat” is useless.
   The Catholic teaching is in line with Scripture and Extra-Scriptural tradition. The same standard applied to your position reveals a BIG problem.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:10 For fornicators, for** them who defile themselves with mankind**, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their** women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature**. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

Have you even read the Bible?

and the fact that it feels absolutely great (sometimes) has absolutely nothing to do with it, im sure.

The great feeling is an aspect, a part of the sexual act, not its purpose.

and my favorite line, which is very much in favor of any and ALL marraige;
1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 10 But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her** husband**.

Have you ever heard of the statement “to read in context”???

marriage = husband (male) and wife (female): as Jesus taught in the Gospel according to Mark.

Can you show me anything in the Bible or in Scripture that supports YOUR views???

May I also remind you that Jesus was a Jew and Jews did not allow any “homosexual marriages”.

 

[sedonaman]

Gay activist groups believed that prejudice against homosexuals could be extinguished only if … they were accepted as normal. “They claimed that homosexuality is a preference, an orientation, a propensity; that it is neither a defect, a disturbance, a sickness, nor a malfunction of any sort.” To promote this aim, Dr. Bieber reports, “Gay activists impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal.”

If it’s a preference, as homosexuals say, wouldn’t it be a lot easier for them to change their preference than the minds of the other 98 percent of the population?

 

[Polaris]

Well, that is categorically untrue. When He told His apostles, “He who hears you, hears Me,” it’s pretty obvious what He meant.

So, when the apostles (that is, the magisterium) say, “Homosexuality is disordered”, Jesus is saying “Homosexuality is disordered.”

That’s a problem with the magisterium though. They just keep changing their view and how they interpret things keep changing. A good example look to what the popes before 1900 on salvation outside the church or you can look at usury and even baptism. Either way it is clear that they did not have the same understanding the magisterium currently believes. You can say the culture changed since than, or that it was a development, but why is it so hard to believe that marriage will not stay they same as it is now. Is it to believe that we have come to a perfect understanding of our teachings. Are you sure? After all we can easily site There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Its a development in doctrine where we come to a fuller explanation. It is not going against its nature, stop looking at in a negative way but from a positive light. I here this explanation all the time.

 

[Shlomey]

If it’s a preference, as homosexuals say, wouldn’t it be a lot easier for them to change their preference than the minds of the other 98 percent of the population?

Please do nto come with that question…

A homosexual may change his orientation the day you can choose to change your orientation by personal choice.

 

[sedonaman]

A task force was set up to study homosexuality, but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation. There followed riots at scientific meetings by gay activists who increased the pressure on the Psychiatric Association.

So much for Polaris’ and Malachyone’s “science” and “education” as authorities.

 

[Shlomey]

That’s a problem with the magisterium though. They just keep changing their view and how they interpret things keep changing.

The Magisterium never has changed any official doctrine.

This is a position held by those who do not understand the dogma of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”.

Either way it is clear that they did not have the same understanding the magisterium currently believes. You can say the culture changed since than, or that it was a development, but why is it so hard to believe that marriage will not stay they same as it is now. Is it to believe that we have come to a perfect understanding of our teachings. Are you sure? After all we can easily site There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Its a development in doctrine where we come to a fuller explanation. It is not going against its nature, stop looking at in a negative way but from a positive light. I here this explanation all the time.

Faulty conclusions from faulty argumentation.

Dogma = truth: unchangeable, infallible

[/QUOTE]

 

[Polaris]

Polaris;4643403:

That’s a problem with the magisterium though. They just keep changing their view and how they interpret things keep changing.

The Magisterium never has changed any official doctrine.

I do not want to side track the thread but for you own purpose listen to the popes and bishops at the time and see what they meant. In no way does it resemble what the magisterium currently says.

 

[Shlomey]

Shlomey;4643426:

Polaris;4643403:

That’s a problem with the magisterium though. They just keep changing their view and how they interpret things keep changing.

I do not want to side track the thread but for you own purpose listen to the popes and bishops at the time and see what they meant. In no way does it resemble what the magisterium currently says.

Study the dogma, its history and the other statements of the very popes and bishops who made such remarks.

anyhow, back to topic

 

[sedonaman]

Please do nto come with that question…

A homosexual may change his orientation the day you can choose to change your orientation by personal choice.

But they [gay activist groups] said it is a choice, not me. You are contradicting the gay activists. So why is my question verboten?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

its not scripture…

jesus did away with all levitican laws, and never once spoke about gays, and whether or not they should marry.
there is nothing in the bible, that has any bearing on current events that says homosexuality is a sin.

You’re wrong. In spades!!

“God delivered them up in their lusts to unclean parctices; they engaged in mutual degradation of their bodies…God therefore delivered them up to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men and thus received in their own persons the penalty for their perversity.” Rom. 2:24-27.

1 Tim. 10 condemns ‘sexual perverts’ which refers to those mentioned in Romans above. Jesus didn’t speak about ‘gays’ because ‘gay’ wasn’t a noun then. He certainly spoke up about sin and if you really think he didn’t consider homosexual practice a sin, your fantacies are out of control.

 

[Kevin42]

But they [gay activist groups] said it is a choice, not me. You are contradicting the gay activists. So why is my question verboten?

They said it was a preference (among other things). Just because I prefer something does not mean that I willfully chose to like it. I am quite sure most of us don’t choose which sex we are physically aroused by and attracted to. Anyhow, back on topic.

Peace and good.