Since there are so many threads about homosexuality

[Poseidon]

I have another question for the OP, or anyone else out there whoh would like to answer it. I am very curious what your thoughts on this blog post are.

joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

Pleasse understand that I am not at all trying to imply that everyone with SSA should marry someone of the opposite sex, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the article.

I think it’s an amazing story. He’s obviously got an incredible relationship with his wife, possibly more than most heterosexual couples have. She sounds like a wonderful woman, and I’m very happy for their happiness. It doesn’t sound like a practical solution for most people because of this reason though. What they have is extremely special, and most people won’t be able to find a relationship like that.

I especially liked this paragraph:

If you know and love somebody who is gay and LDS (or Christian), your job is to love and nothing more. Let go of your impulse to correct them or control them or propel them down the path you think is right for them. Do what you need to do to move past that impulse. Do not condemn the choices your loved one makes. Love. Only love. Show your love in word and deed. Embrace them, both literally and figuratively. I promise they need it—and they need to feel like they can figure out this part of themselves in a safe way without ridicule and judgment. It’s what Christ would do. It’s what your loved one needs. Accept them. Love them. Genuinely and totally.

I think that it pretty much sums up the biggest problem that gay Christians (and many non-Christians) have - lack of acceptance by their friends and family. If everyone listened to his advice I bet the suicide rates among gay teens would drop drastically.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, that’s a start.

Sometimes miracles happen slowly.

 

[Dale_M]

I have another question for the OP, or anyone else out there whoh would like to answer it. I am very curious what your thoughts on this blog post are.

joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

Pleasse understand that I am not at all trying to imply that everyone with SSA should marry someone of the opposite sex, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the article.

Josh Weed is a therapist who identifies as homosexual, yet has married a woman and is raising children from their union. His essay got quite a bit of attention a year ago when it first appeared on his blog. Its a lengthy read, at 6400 words, but it is well-written.

My take…

He is explaining his choices in life, and why he feels they have turned out well for him. I am not sure that he isn’t bisexual, despite his denial. I suspect bisexuality is a spectrum, with a range of feelings for men and women, with either possessing more degrees attractive than the other. And I suspect that every bisexual individual is different in the strength of his or her attraction to men and to women. Many heterosexuals say that the thought of having sex with someone of the same gender is repulsive to them. I have read homosexuals say the same about having sex with the opposite gender. That Josh Weed wasn’t repulsed by such sex, I think, indicates some level of bisexuality.

Anyways… let’s look at some of his essay

I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection.

.
I think this indicates tremendous sensitivity and caring. Its a rare quality, and his wife seems to share it as well. He also notes that most heterosexuals fail to achieve this degree of union.

I think his deep faith in the LDS religion has helped him find happiness in his choices. As he mentions, if you are Mormon you can’t be gay. And if you are gay, you can’t be Mormon. But his deep belief in LDS theology has convinced him that he is fulfilling God’s will. Again, quoting from the essay:

I believe the doctrine of the Mormon Church is true. One of the key doctrines of the church is that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” Another is that “children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” These are things I personally believe. I also believe, and my experience has shown me time and time again, that when I follow the teachings that I know to be true my life is blessed and I find immense joy and peace. I feel that this joy and peace is a direct result of my connection to God’s spirit as a result of living in a way He approves of.

Deciding not to give this up–these profound spiritual beliefs that I feel in the deepest parts of my soul to be true–in favor of my sexual orientation required a great deal of faith, but I can honestly say that, for me, it has been completely worth it. I have not regretted the decision one day of my life. My life is filled with so much genuine, real, vibrant joy that I would be remiss if I didn’t thank God for blessing me for my obedience and adherence to His guidelines as I understand them. I love the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the Mormon Church, which I consider to be His restored organizational unit. I did not want to give that up.

He also states that he is a traditionalist at heart and that too has shaped his values, choices and sense of fulfillment. In that, I think many conservative but closeted gays and lesbians have followed a similar path: getting married, procreating and raising a family. Many have found some measure of happiness in this. But there is a great amount of infidelity, too. The whole “down-low” phenomenon is rooted in a desire to conform to traditional values, but not finding contentment.

 

[Dale_M]

I think Josh Weed offers two good pieces of advice

I have two general recommendations:

1. If you know and love somebody who is gay and LDS (or Christian), your job is to love and nothing more. Let go of your impulse to correct them or control them or propel them down the path you think is right for them. Do what you need to do to move past that impulse. Do not condemn the choices your loved one makes. Love. Only love. Show your love in word and deed. Embrace them, both literally and figuratively. I promise they need it—and they need to feel like they can figure out this part of themselves in a safe way without ridicule and judgment. It’s what Christ would do. It’s what your loved one needs. Accept them. Love them. Genuinely and totally.

1. If you are gay and Mormon (or Christian), I want you to know how much love I feel for you, and how much I admire you. I know how hard it is to be where you are. I want you to do me a favor. I want you, right now, to take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and accept yourself as you are in this very instant. You are you. And your attractions are part of you. And you are totally okay! I promise. I want you to stop battling with this part of you that you may have understood as being sinful. Being gay does not mean you are a sinner or that you are evil. Sin is in action, not in temptation or attraction. I feel this is a very important distinction. This is true for every single person. You don’t get to choose your circumstances, but you do get to choose what you do with them.

I want you to know that God loves you, and that even though you are attracted to people of the same gender, you are a completely legitimate individual, worthy of God’s love, your family’s love, and the love of your friends. You are no more broken than any other person you meet. You are not evil. You are a beautiful child of God. Please don’t be ashamed. Know that you can be forgiven for any mistakes you have made, and that God is not judging you. He loves you. Turn to him. He has a plan specifically for you. He wants you to be happy, and he will take you by the hand, and guide you step by step to where you need to be if you trust Him. He is not angry with you, and He knows you completely, every part, even the parts you wish you could keep hidden. He knows it all, and he still loves you! He couldn’t love you any more, and he is proud of you for your courage. I wish you could know of my sincerity as I write these words, and how deeply I feel compassion for you.

joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

 

[thewanderer]

Grace & Peace!

Wanderer, for me, the question is: what is it that’s worth caring about? I have a very dim view of government and believe all governments are doomed to failure–all will disappoint, all will make and break promises, all will behave inhumanly and will do so in the name of the people they claim to represent, all will use evil means to accomplish supposedly good ends, or pervert good means to further wicked ends. And in the end, all empires fall, all governments change, and all things mortal pass away–human government included. The answer to the question “what should government be doing?” is a list so absurdly long and impractical (in terms of practical governance or the exigencies of realpolitik) that the question itself becomes farcical or useless.

Trust me, I am well aware that they are all doomed to failure eventually, but that is no reason to avoid making an effort to get them to come as close to succeeding as possible for as long as possible.

As for the list being too long to be practical… well of course I am never going to be able to implement all the ‘shoulds’ that I see. Does that really mean that I should stop trying to have an understanding of what is good and not, of what ‘should’ be? Even if it will never be accomplished, isn’t it better to know.

(Also, whenever I hear people saying, “Government should do x y or z,” it’s usually just another way of saying, “Why does reality not conform to my vision for it, given that my vision is preferable to reality?” So the subjunctive “should” carries with it a sense of principled and delusional impotence to me. In the end, nothing “should” be anything other than what it actually is. )

Point taken, but isn’t it still necessary, as humans, to determine ‘shoulds’ that we aim for? Otherwise how could we even begin to go anywhere in any aspect of our lives? We will never all agree on what the ‘shoulds’ are. But that is no excuse for the denial of the importance of these ‘shoulds’. Without them all that is left is an apathetic and motionless existence. And what is life without motion of some sort?

But if we believe that government is capable of some good, then instead of asking, “what should government be doing?” I think we’re better off with the following: 1) coming to a realistic understanding of current realities; 2) compellingly articulating a reasonable and actionable alternative which starts from and takes into account current realities; 3) describing the actionable steps needed to accomplish the articulated alternative, showing in the process how the various conflicting claims made on public resources are better or more reasonably harmonized in this alternative and are more clearly directed to serve the interests of the common good.

Why are these opposed? Why can’t one do all of the above?

To me, though, the better questions are these: what are my responsibilities to the people around me? How can I meet those responsibilities and serve others best? What is hindering me from loving my neighbor as God loves him or her? How can I remove those hindrances?

Ah, but you see, a part of my responsibilities to those around me is to help make our society to be the best that it can be. And how can I aim towards that goal if I do not have a clear idea of what such a thing would look like. The knowledge, or at least conviction of a correct goal is necessary for the beginning of any action to take place. I just don’t see how these are opposed at all.

As for that post, I’ve very little to say–they sound like they have a really beautiful family built on love, honesty, understanding… It’s wholly unobjectionable and is entirely worthy of praise. Is such a life for everyone in a similar situation to that of the principal author? Of course not. And the author is decent and honest enough to say so! It’s lovely.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I agree, I find it to be an inspirational story, actually. But I thought it might be interesting to hear the opinions of others with SSA as to their understanding of the possibility of the existence of such a ‘unicorn’. Do they see it as truly possible? Or are they convinced that Josh is in some way deceived in claiming to be entirely homosexual yet entirely happy in his life married to a woman. I think it could be a very interesting conversation.

 

[thewanderer]

. . .
He is explaining his choices in life, and why he feels they have turned out well for him. I am not sure that he isn’t bisexual, despite his denial. I suspect bisexuality is a spectrum, with a range of feelings for men and women, with either possessing more degrees attractive than the other. And I suspect that every bisexual individual is different in the strength of his or her attraction to men and to women. Many heterosexuals say that the thought of having sex with someone of the same gender is repulsive to them. I have read homosexuals say the same about having sex with the opposite gender. That Josh Weed wasn’t repulsed by such sex, I think, indicates some level of bisexuality.

This is precisely why I brought up this article. I thought it could lead to an interesting discussion about the nature of SSA. I am going to be honest and say that I actually tend to believe him. That he is not bisexual and yet has a wonerful, loving marriage with his wife Lolly.

Disclaimer: For those of you who are unable to suspend certain aspects of reality to come to a deeper understanding about reality as it currently is you are going to a) come to the belief that I am a bizarre, messed up, un-catholic, person, you will possibly even come to the belief that I am secretly bi-sexual. b) you will completely misunderstand what I am about to say and what it really means)

ok, with that disclaimer, I am going to admit that if I were to believe, with all my heart and soul, that there was something special about same-sex relationships that did not exist in heterosexual relationships, that there was something more real, more beautiful, more natural etc and that there waas something inherently wrong with heterosexual relationships, I can actually imagine that I would be willing to enter into a homosexual relationship. This is despite the fact that I have never in my life experienced any level of attraction to women (I am a woman, in case you didn’t guess ). People are drawn to those actions that they see as good and beautiful and can find them fulfilling precisely because of the goodness and beauty which they see in them. This is part of the reason that I am willing to believe that Josh is truly not bisexual yet is still able to have a healthy and loving marriage to a woman.

Also, another point that I found interesting is that Jossh seems to define ones exual orientation by the gender one is physically/visually attracted to. 1) do you all think this is a fair analysis of what he is saying? and 2) do you all think this is an accurate way of defining ones sexual orientation?

I mean, obviously there is more to a healthy, deep, loving, sexual relationship than simply the physical/visual attraction, there are also deep emotional and spiritual connections. But in a way it does seem that sexual orientation should be defined according to this visual aspect because we are able to have have extremely deep emotional and spiritual connections with those of our own gender even if we are 100% straight. What do people think? Is there some intrinsic distinction between the kind of emotional ties that are possible such that one kind is specifically reserved for those we are sexually attracted to? Or are the emotional ties to ones love merely strenghtened and brought to a new level because of the sexual relationship they then share?

I am mostly just throwing out musings here for consideration. I am not 100% on any of this really, but thought it would be a very interesting conversation.

He also states that he is a traditionalist at heart and that too has shaped his values, choices and sense of fulfillment. In that, I think many conservative but closeted gays and lesbians have followed a similar path: getting married, procreating and raising a family. Many have found some measure of happiness in this. But there is a great amount of infidelity, too. The whole “down-low” phenomenon is rooted in a desire to conform to traditional values, but not finding contentment.

I think a large factor in the success of his marriage versus the failure of others often lies in either a) using the marriage as a way of trying to hide from their sexual orientation, ie, hiding their orientation from themselves b) hiding their orientation from their spouses and c) their spouses hiding the full truth about this orientation from themselves. But then again, I could be wrong.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[thewanderer]

I think Josh Weed offers two good pieces of advice

joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

Agreed!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I can’t imagine homosexuals having an issue with the article. I’m MUCH more interested in Catholic reactions personally, which I think will be far more diverse and interesting.

For example:

Obviously, I don’t actually think a family with non-biological members is counterfeit in any way. I also don’t feel that my sex-life is counterfeit. They are both examples of something that is different than the ideal. I made that joke to illustrate a point. If you are gay, you will have to choose to fill in the gaps somewhere. She chose to have a family in a way that is different than the ideal. I choose to enjoy sex in a way that is different than the ideal for a gay man. It all comes down to what you choose and why, and knowing what you want for yourself and why you want it. That’s basically what life is all about.

So what do you all think about his idea of doing what you want because you want it, as long as you know why?

I’m happy for Mr. Weed’s wonderful, fulfilling life but I do have some reservations with statements like that.

 

[Faithdancer]

Catholics have no problem with homosexuals. We have a problem with practicing homosexuals who try to act like it’s normal and should be accepted. Some of them even demand that everyone accept them.There’s a huge difference.

:thumbsup:That is absolutely the point, Anthony. A homosexual inclination in an individual who lives in total chastity is totally acceptable within the faith. Continuing homosexual activity is completely unacceptable. Holy matrimony is between a man and a woman only. Same sex couples are denied holy matrimony, period.

 

[Crescentinus]

:thumbsup:That is absolutely the point, Anthony. A homosexual inclination in an individual who lives in total chastity is totally acceptable within the faith. Continuing homosexual activity is completely unacceptable. Holy matrimony is between a man and a woman only. Same sex couples are denied holy matrimony, period.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This is precisely why I brought up this article. I thought it could lead to an interesting discussion about the nature of SSA. I am going to be honest and say that I actually tend to believe him. That he is not bisexual and yet has a wonerful, loving marriage with his wife Lolly.

Wanderer, I’m a same-sex attracted guy, by the way, and I agree with you. I don’t think Josh is bisexual. Heterosexual men are known to have and to gain pleasure from homosexual sex in the absence of women (such as in prison), and while such a situation is a far cry from that described in the blog post, I’ve known of same sex couples in which one of the members of the couple identifies as heterosexual but is clearly in love with his same sex partner, enjoys sex with him, and finds the relationship fulfilling. Nonetheless, he’s attracted to the opposite sex. Such relationships are certainly rare (for a variety of reasons), but they clearly occur. The point is: a heterosexual who engages in homosexual sex does not become a heterosexual any more than a homosexual who engages in heterosexual sex magically becomes a heterosexual. I would imagine, though, that absent the love, mutuality and honesty evidenced in Josh’s relationship/post that similar relationships could prove confusing to the participants at best, and at worst cause a variety of psychological stresses that could prove destructive.

Also, another point that I found interesting is that Jossh seems to define ones exual orientation by the gender one is physically/visually attracted to. 1) do you all think this is a fair analysis of what he is saying? and 2) do you all think this is an accurate way of defining ones sexual orientation?

My thinking is: 1) yes, that’s a fair analysis; and 2) yes, that’s accurate.

Is there some intrinsic distinction between the kind of emotional ties that are possible such that one kind is specifically reserved for those we are sexually attracted to? Or are the emotional ties to ones love merely strenghtened and brought to a new level because of the sexual relationship they then share?

I think the answer to both questions is yes. We’re more likely to fall in love with the sort of person to whom we’re attracted, but regardless of how we fall in love and with whom, if our love is returned and our relationship is truly predicated on this love (i.e., it’s not merely lustful) and is further characterized by mutuality and honesty, then it is entirely possible that sex within such a relationship will strengthen the relationship and the emotional ties therein.

I think a large factor in the success of his marriage versus the failure of others often lies in either a) using the marriage as a way of trying to hide from their sexual orientation, ie, hiding their orientation from themselves b) hiding their orientation from their spouses and c) their spouses hiding the full truth about this orientation from themselves.

Agreed. I also think that, given the nature of the relationship, that the tendency for Josh (at any rate) to objectify his wife through lust is significantly diminished and the extent to which such lust is lessened or absent in any relationship, that relationship will naturally be better off.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The thing is, this guy is saying that having a family is good because it “works” for him. But he also said that it is okay to raise children through IVF while living in a homosexual relationship because it “works” for her-she “wants” it.

I disagree with this. IVF is inherently wrong. Homosexual relationships are inherently wrong. I’m pretty sure Mr. Weed is contrary to Mormon teaching as well on tthis, although that’s their call, not mine.

 

[Faithdancer]

The thing is, this guy is saying that having a family is good because it “works” for him. But he also said that it is okay to raise children through IVF while living in a homosexual relationship because it “works” for her-she “wants” it.

I disagree with this. IVF is inherently wrong. Homosexual relationships are inherently wrong. I’m pretty sure Mr. Weed is contrary to Mormon teaching as well on tthis, although that’s their call, not mine.

 

[thewanderer]

The thing is, this guy is saying that having a family is good because it “works” for him. But he also said that it is okay to raise children through IVF while living in a homosexual relationship because it “works” for her-she “wants” it.

I disagree with this. IVF is inherently wrong. Homosexual relationships are inherently wrong. I’m pretty sure Mr. Weed is contrary to Mormon teaching as well on tthis, although that’s their call, not mine.

Yes, and that is something that we could talk about, but there already has been a thread here on CAF that went on for a very long time where this was discussed ad nauseum. I thought it would be interesting to ask people with SSA about my above questions to gain a better understanding of their understanding of SSA, I mean, after all, they are the ones who have it. After all, isn’t this thread the ‘ask a homosexual’ thread?

 

[Elric]

I disagree with this. IVF is inherently wrong. Homosexual relationships are inherently wrong.

Why are they inherently wrong?

What makes them inherently wrong?

 

[Faithdancer]

Why are they inherently wrong?

What makes them inherently wrong?

:banghead:

 

[Elric]

:banghead:

There isn’t a need to be rude, I was only asking questions.

I understand what the church states on theses subjects, I understand what scripture appears to state on the subject of homosexuality. That doesn’t mean I wont ask people to support what they say.

If you don’t like me asking questions, or my questions appear stupid to you, that’s fine. If you think that I missed something and I am a little slow, that’s OK. But you are only letting yourself down by putting yourself in a position where you appear to be rude.

 

[TimeEntrance]

…why not ask questions of an actual homosexual? As long as they’re, you know, clean.

I wasn’t sure where to put this thread. It didn’t seem appropriate for the non-Catholic religions board (unless I was to change it to be about GLBT+ Pagans) or the Back Fence, so I’m sticking it here.

Why not openly support Catholic socio-political goals under social justice that tend to be on the left side of politics?

Actually, maybe my question is somewhat dumb given there are homosexuals on the political right as Libertarians and Republicans.

To be honest with you, Loka, in general I don’t really care what people do. If it’s harming someone else then I suppose it bothers me to a greater extent. Although I don’t think aborting a child early in a pregnancy is the same thing as abducting a some girl strolling on her way home from school, and then raping and strangling her to death, let alone dismemberment, I do have more of a problem with abortion than with practicing homosexuality.

Life being complex there are always degrees and a context to consider. Masturbation may not be the most evil thing in the world but it might be getting close to it if you’re fantasizing over images of very little kids being stripped of their innocence and molested.

I don’t think homosexuals have any more greater insight into human sexuality than heterosexuals. I also doubt anyone is purely homosexual or heterosexual. But one issue I strongly oppose is biological or genetic determinism. And modern neuroscience tends to champion determinism and oppose the conception of free will.

I will cede that free will is contingent on a healthy brain.

And I think we toss around the word choice with more ease than we should at times. I don’t think homosexuals - or heterosexual pedophiles for that matter - necessarily have a choice per se in their attractions. But I also object to the politicized rhetoric that it’s cause is genetically inherited. I don’t think genes code for homosexuality. I don’t think the absence of X gene causes homosexuality. I don’t think its cause is biological from hormones while still being carried in the mothers womb. What I think is that homosexuality should primarily fall under the inquiry of psychology, philosophy, and for those that are influenced by religion then theology as well.

In my opinion the most objective - and most accurate - thing we can say biologically, is that the human body is built heterosexual. What I mean by that is that in terms of the concept of fitness the human body is designed for sexual reproduction through the conjugal union of male and female.

We may never know the exact cause(s) of homosexuality just as we may never know the reason why so many forms of life reproduce through the costly means of sex or why life and the universe exists at all.

My personal opinion - at the risk of offending - is that same sex attractions result and are maintained through some form of sexual immaturity (psychologically). But people are more than the sum of their sexual attractions or fetishes. One of the men I’ve most admired online is a bisexual man that converted to the Episcopalian Church from Catholicism. He has a great mind, takes care of his biological daughter with husband he married (in Canada I believe), and practices law in Montana. Overall he has great morals. Hey! he defended and prevented the possible beating death of a adult, male, drug addict from a much larger male, drug addict. He doesn’t use drugs but he responded bravely.

You can be heterosexual and have poor morals in certain areas of your life. That is not meant by me to justify homosexuality or bisexuality. I’m merely pointing out that humans are complex and often have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Faithdancer]

There isn’t a need to be rude, I was only asking questions.

I understand what the church states on theses subjects, I understand what scripture appears to state on the subject of homosexuality. That doesn’t mean I wont ask people to support what they say.

If you don’t like me asking questions, or my questions appear stupid to you, that’s fine. If you think that I missed something and I am a little slow, that’s OK. But you are only letting yourself down by putting yourself in a position where you appear to be rude.

No one is saying you are slow, but Elric, as I suggested before, you just need to review the previous posts on this thread. Since as you say, the Catholic position is clear, then why ask a Catholic to further explain him or herself? Orthodox Catholics believe the Church teachings on these matters, and many of the previous posts here illuminate that fact.

 

[TimeEntrance]

concentrates really hard Come on, like men already! blinks I mustn’t be trying hard enough…tries again

Nope, sorry, I don’t think I can. I’ve tried before, it didn’t work then either…

Sorry.

Lesbian women can be made sexually aroused and therefore capable of having sex with men etc.

Consider that during heterosexual rapes it’s not unknown for the female victims to - let’s say… - be “stimulated” to put it in more PG terms.

Homosexual men have lived closeted for years with wives and produced children. That process requires the men to reach a point of “stimulation” as well. That’s basically the only way men can have sex. You know it by the term that begins with the letters “er.”

And even presuming homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual pedophilia are genetically heritable, the genetic heritability of it does not automatically justify those things as morally right or even amoral. Likewise, it follows, neither genetic heritability or the difficulty of something, necessarily justifies homosexuality as morally right or amoral.

Some in science have begun to investigate homosexuality in relation to the neuroscience involved in pedophilia, alcoholism, and drug addiction I believe. All those things are known to be difficult things to overcome too. They also shed light on issues of “choice” or degrees of choice and free will. But as I said… neuroscience tends to deny free will exists and proposes it’s only an illusion.

Determinism is an old song that constantly tries to raise its head. It found it’s greatest supporters during the 1940’s in the National Socialist Party of Germany. It was widely believed by most liberals in Europe and the U.S. until the Nazis ran with it. Admittedly, socially the Nazis were conservative.

Today… it’s being promoted by the socio-political left under humanitarian causes and humanism. But it’s implications are far deadlier.