The issue of gay intolerance

[greggy53]

Oh, Also, if all of the Catholic God’s rules were enforced, divorce would be illegal and people would have their eyes pecked out by various wild birds for making fun of their mother.

If it weren’t for the “Catholic God’s rules” you wouldn’t be able to have a conversation, or free opinion about the matter. and we wouldn’t be obliged to tolerate your opposing views.

 

[fbr1221]

I am a faithful Catholic. I believe what the Church teaches about homosexuality.
If one does not differentiate between
“homosexual acts” - objectively evil
“homosexaul persons” (persons with same-sex attractions) morally nuetral
and “Gay people” a term that is politically charged, one will never get through this debate about “Gay Marrage”.
The fact is, we should love, and serve our fellow human beings, whether or not they suffer from same-sex attracton. They are us, members of our human family. We must not pass judgement on their internal disorder (being homosexual), without knowing the reasons for it. There are countless reasons that person ends up being homosexual, and the psychological causes run deep. Who are we to judge?
We as a Church however, must proclaim the truth about “homosexual acts” as being contrary to God’s will.

Further, the debate about same sex marriage is not a religious one, primarily. If we want to be heard it must be a logical debate based on reason and natural law. If we (believers in normal marriage) argue the point of same sex marriage on the basis of divine revelation we will not be heard by the general public.

 

[fairytail3982]

Who knows where this legalizing same sex marriage will lead to next in the U.S. Maybe legalizing polygamy? Incest? We have a moral obligation to stand up for morality and vote against laws which stand for immorality and against the common good. Civilized rings a bell.

This is a slippery-slope argument. At least you didn’t mention bestiality, as others (including earlier in this thread) have done. But the fear that one type of legislation will lead to another is, in itself, not a reason to vote against marriage rights for same-sex couples. It is a specious argument. Either the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are, like the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were, a violation of the Constitutional right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” in which case, they ought to be struck down for the sake of social justice, regardless of any other doors this might potentially open; or the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are just, in which case they ought to be upheld, again, regardless of any other types of legislation that might follow.

And if you accept the premise that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are just and fair, then you need to justify this based on secular law and secular society - not just Church teachings. Why? Because as others have pointed out, the laws affect people beyond the scope of the Catholic Church’s authority. It is unfortunate that the same term, “marriage,” is used to refer not only to the religious sacrament, but also to the secular legal contract. But that is the reality of it. And while the Church certainly does have the right and authority to regulate sacramental marriage, that authority should not extend to regulating the secular legal contracts of others. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” would apply.

Someone else brought up the concept of Civil Unions. If that truly were the equivalent of a secular marriage’s legal contract, then it would be a valid argument - and, at that point, it would make the most sense for all secular marriage legal contracts to be deemed civil unions, thereby reserving the title of marriage for a sacrament recognized by a religious institution. However, civil unions are not only not equivalent with each other - the term, along with domestic partnership registry, can refer to many different sets of rights and regulations in different states and cities - they are not uniformly recognized, and are not governed by the interstate trade laws in the way that legal marriage is. The disparity goes far beyond the few examples given earlier in this thread, such as the right to sponsor a non-citizen spouse for citizenship. In fact, a 1997 report generated a list of 1,049 rights that are automatic with marriage, but not with civil unions. Among these were portability (recognition in other states and municipalities, and even other countries), federal rights (including sponsoring a spouse for citizenship, but also things which apply to more people, such as a spouse’s social security or pension benefits) and next-of-kin rights. Also, by having two different terms for the same legal contract, even if the two (marriages and civil unions) were to be made equivalent at one point in time, the moment any new legislation affecting marriage was put into the law, the two would no longer be equivalent, thus creating a nightmare of both retroactive and future legal entanglement in defining the two.

So, clearly, from both a practical and an economic viewpoint, civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage, is neither viable nor sustainable. And denying civil marriage rights to same-sex couples simply because the word marriage is also used to describe a religious sacrament, boils down to a game of semantics. To put it simply, there is no real way to justify supporting civil unions as an alternative to civil marriage for same-sex couples. It just becomes a costly and time-consuming euphemism. And, frankly, it won’t stop couples from using the term marriage to describe their legal relationship to one another, nor will it stop them from seeking sacramental marriage in a church that does allow same-sex marriage (such as the MCC). So at that point, the only real choices are to allow same-sex couples the same equal civil marriage rights, or not. But doing so will have absolutely no effect on sacramental marriage.

 

[fairytail3982]

We must not pass judgement on their internal disorder (being homosexual), without knowing the reasons for it. There are countless reasons that person ends up being homosexual, and the psychological causes run deep. Who are we to judge?

By calling homosexuality an “internal disorder,” you are passing judgment. I’m not saying you are wrong to do so, but I think there is a danger in furthering the notion that you aren’t being judgmental. The American Psychological Association corrected their stance on homosexuality being a psychological disorder about 35 years ago. That doesn’t mean that you have to think that it is okay to be homosexual, or to engage in homosexual romantic relationships. But what it does mean is that homosexuals are people who are not “disordered” but who simply have different desires and on at least one issue, different values than you do. If you truly believe that it is not your place to judge, then you will simply live and let live, and accept that people can be “normal” and still disagree with you on this.

 

[GratefulFred]

I hope others will take time to reread the several LadyBri77 and KathleenMary posts above.

The basis that the vast majority of Christians come from is that sex is a gift from God. It’s PRIMARY purpose is to continue life. The thrill of it is part of the reward for making and rearing new life. The Bible at Gn 2, Mat 19, Eph 9 clearly implies that marriage is between a man and a woman.

ONLY that marriage has the possibility of making new life with male and female parents to properly rear any children that are produced. Making and rearing new life is SO IMPORTANT to mankind, that no other union should have the use the term “marriage.”

Procreation and recreation can be separated in sex. Fornication, adultery, gay sex, birth control, abortion violate Judeo-Christian principles. To the degree and frequency each of us are violators, we are sinners. We should not compound our sin by trying to justify our sin as being OK for me (the pick & choosers). Nor should we demand others approve of our weakness by changing the law.

America is based on majority rule with tolerance of minorities. But we remain a Christian nation. The best we can do is to tolerate gay civil unions while defending the time honored definition of marriage.

 

[Newbie2]

The above quotes are not from my post.

They’re from me. I’ll take it from here.

Yes… and your point is?
It’s been used for decades because its a valid argument. Just because its used by “homosexual advocates” doesn’t make it wrong.

No, but it’s an argument without merit. It’s tired, it’s old, and it doesn’t hold water. It’s relativism. “This sin isn’t as bad as X, Y or Z sin”. Problem is that it’s still sin, and we should have nothing to do with encouraging or enabling sin.

Surely divorce is worse than homosexuality? Divorce implies the absence or breakdown of love. Gay men and women wanting their social partnership to be legally (not spiritually) recognised are asking for their love to be recognised. We may not agree with their actions, but the presence of love is undeniable, thus the presence of God is undeniable.

Where does the legal system recognize “love”?? Love is a spiritual concept, not a legal one, but you wrote that homosexuals want do not to be spiritually recognized.

This is a non sequitur.

You also state a priori that divorce is worse than homosexual marriage and that God is present in these relationships where there is love. Where is your evidence that “love is undeniable” in these relationships?

It appears that you have misunderstood what true love is. Two homosexual people can love one another in a chase manner, and that is consistant with Catholic teaching. They can have a brotherly relationship that needs not include sex and as such neither does it suggest the need for a “marriage”.

Two people, a man and a boy, can love one another, according to NAMBLA (the National Man Boy Love Association, for those who aren’t familiar with the acronym). Is God present in these relationships too, and as such would you say that these relationships have God’s stamp of approval?

It is also the worst kind of relativism, not to mention a non sequitur, that divorce is bad so homosexual marriage must be good. VERY confused thinking.

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance of homosexuals as fellow human beings and (hopefully) fellow Christians is not anywhere near fostering and encouraging homosexual relationships that include homosexual sex as we would do if we didn’t oppose “homosexual marriage”.

When someone is on fire, you don’t do them any favor by handing them a bucket of gasoline to put it out.

 

[brandymmiller]

I agree - but since when did “look after” mean “restrict the human rights of”? You’re not talking about feeding the poor or clothing the naked here. You’re talking about an imposition of your own beliefs on someone who doesn’t share your values. Essentially forcing someone to live by Christian standards by denying our God-given free will to choose or reject him. You can’t win people to Christ through legislation.
\QUOTE]

Okay, so by your logic if I want to kill someone nobody should be able to stop me - after all, if my morality says it’s okay it should be okay and who are you to tell me differently? This argument is used to justify and excuse every manner of self-destructive and just down right destructive behavior ever conceived of by man, and it makes it not one whit more acceptable. Your free will to do with your body and your possessions whatever you please stops right at the border where it begins to infringe upon mine! It’s not a human right to do with your body whatever you please any more than it is a human right to do with someone else’s body whatever you please, especially when what you choose to do with your body is destructive.

Setting a law establishes order for the good of the whole of society - it doesn’t impose a religious belief upon you. You are still free to believe what you like, but you are NOT free to act in a manner that hurts yourself, others, or the society in which you live.

Homosexual relationships, pornography, adultery, fornication, masturbation, polygamy, and all of these things the Church teaches against are not taught against because the Church is run by a bunch of nosy individuals who want to control everyone. They are taught against because these are behaviors that are destructive to the unity of society, destructive to relationships, and harmful to the innocent. Homosexual relationships are NOT loving. Love requires that you seek the highest good of your partner - the HIGHEST good. Anything less than that is pure selfishness. If you believe in God and you believe in Heaven and you believe that Christ is the way to get into Heaven but you take up a homosexual relationship and risk condemning yourself and your partner to Hell as taught by the Bible that is NOT love that is selfishness and pride. You are making yourself an idol. You are in essence requiring your partner to put you above God and make you a god, and what a poor god you will prove to be as you are neither perfect nor capable of giving that perfect love your partner desires and deserves. Furthermore, any children you might adopt into that relationship are cheated the gift of a father and a mother, something every child has a right to and needs because only a father and a mother can teach a child everything they need to know about who they are and how to relate to the opposite sex. If the one who suffers from same sex attraction truly LOVEs children then they would choose THE CHILD’s highest good and not put them in a situation that cannot ultimately give them what they need.

 

[fairytail3982]

They’re from me. I’ll take it from here.

Two people, a man and a boy, can love one another, according to NAMBLA (the National Man Boy Love Association, for those who aren’t familiar with the acronym). Is God present in these relationships too, and as such would you say that these relationships have God’s stamp of approval?

Wow. I can’t believe it took this long for someone to bring out the NAMBLA card. For the record, NAMBLA has nothing to do with consenting adult relationships. It is about pederasty, aka statutory rape. The vast majority of homosexuals and bisexuals are not supportive of this organization, and furthermore, resent its stigma being applied to consenting adults, as if all homosexuals and bisexuals are child abusers. (BTW, the majority of pedophiles are actually self-identified heterosexual males.) And, to bring it back to the topic at hand, granting homosexual and bisexual consenting adults to legally (not sacramentally) marry other consenting adults of the same sex would in no way serve to legalize pederasty - just as the right of heterosexual adults to marry consenting other-gender adults does not legalize heterosexual statutory rape.

 

[COLLINGE]

There is no such thing as gay marriage regardless of what any country does in its civil law.

That however doesn’t mean that a country becomes better by enshrining into law the insacred bond of two mortal sinners living in mortal sin together and blessing such an abomination.

Sodom and Gommorrah were dealt with by God.

Does anyone even read the bible?

Exactly what part of “abomination” and “will not inherrit” do people not understand?

If Jesus wouldn’t marry two gay people then it shouldn’t be the law of any country.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Many of the same people who can’t understand something as simple as that also can’t understand that it is wrong to murder the unborn.

But I really don’t think any of those two groups are invicibly ignorant and can’t fathom the natural law that is written on every human heart.

People need to pray for our nation–when it gets to the point where you have to explain why such abominations are wrong–then you know that Satan is alive and well in the USA.

Satan supports gay marriage.

Why would anyone want to be on his side?

 

[COLLINGE]

COLLINGE:
I very much agree with you on this issue, I myself tried to explane this to a group of leftists on a Right wing group. Someone sent a letter to my employer and since Thursday last week i have been suspended ! from my work because of Homophobic comments !!! Britian has LOST her FREEDOM of SPEECH due to the Very Left wing goverment that sits in the commons at the moment. GARY COLLINGE

 

[davidrasch]

After finishing Fr. Groeschel’s book on Augustine, I read more recommended books. For Augustine, and for me as I grow, there is no dividing line between faith and works; in this case the laws and manners in our society. Because we have such division in our society as a compromise, the difficulty comes in determining where that line is. Loving a person as God loves us DEMANDS we inform (evangelize) them of the Christian position. Silently or actively enabling behavior to God’s revealed law id sin. Jesus places the GREATER burden on those who know and approve, silently or actively, the behavior. Following this path becomes narrower and narrower. The choices increase in cost. And so we grow, in wisdom.
Look how far we’ve come. A Catholic Bishop, under the guise of ‘pastoral’ position, gives Eucharist to openly sinning Catholics.! Why is he not disciplined? Are there a dearth of candidates? Are there two churches? We will divide? Here in the USA.
I can say, based on my 15 years at the U of Minn, that the housing lends and as far as possible, supports the gay agenda. Woe be it to the person who disagrees. Moral, ask direct questions when seeking housing at a school or university.
Michael O’Brein’s ‘Eclipse of the Sun’ explores this very issue, intolerance’. Maybe this is a good title for a Catholic Book Reading Club.

David B rasch

 

[buffalo]

Wow. I can’t believe it took this long for someone to bring out the NAMBLA card. For the record, NAMBLA has nothing to do with consenting adult relationships. It is about pederasty, aka statutory rape. The vast majority of homosexuals and bisexuals are not supportive of this organization, and furthermore, resent its stigma being applied to consenting adults, as if all homosexuals and bisexuals are child abusers. (BTW, the majority of pedophiles are actually self-identified heterosexual males.) And, to bring it back to the topic at hand, granting homosexual and bisexual consenting adults to legally (not sacramentally) marry other consenting adults of the same sex would in no way serve to legalize pederasty - just as the right of heterosexual adults to marry consenting other-gender adults does not legalize heterosexual statutory rape.

So then the gays and straights would be allied in fighting this. However, the Supreme Court would look at this as an issue of civil rights, make law and before long it would be legal. (shoved down our throats) The same tactics would be used.

 

[ladybri77]

This is a slippery-slope argument. At least you didn’t mention bestiality, as others (including earlier in this thread) have done. But the fear that one type of legislation will lead to another is, in itself, not a reason to vote against marriage rights for same-sex couples. It is a specious argument. Either the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are, like the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were, a violation of the Constitutional right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” in which case, they ought to be struck down for the sake of social justice, regardless of any other doors this might potentially open; or the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are just, in which case they ought to be upheld, again, regardless of any other types of legislation that might follow.

You are mistaken. Homosexuals have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we do. They have the same marriage rights as I do if marriage were to hold its “true” meaning, one man and one woman. Really, the same definition of marriage has always applied to the state as well as the church - one man and one woman, so even if you don’t look at it from a religious point of view, this definition has been the foundation of our country for thousands of years, from the begining of time.

And, like I said before, as Catholic Christians we have a moral obligation to stop the spread of immorality from running rampant in our society. This has been the case with the legalization of marriage in a few states already with numerous others trying to pass the same legislation. Immorality is already trying to rear its ugly head in Europe where incest is being legalized with more legislation in the works for the U.S. such as a multiple partners bill or something like that that Gloria Steinam is involved in. Not sure exactly what that is, but I read it in another post. What I’m saying is that things are already happening toward that end everywhere. There is a famous quote (not sure the exact words)…A nation given over to immorality will eventually destroy itself.

Gay “marriages” are not really true marriages anyway no matter what the rights the state gives the couple since the only true definition of marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

[antunesaa]

Pretty much all of Scandinavia. Consistently ranked by the UN as the best countries in the world to live in.

This is true, but personally I think Scandinavia is, among the developed regions, one of the worst to live in. On surface it’s clean, public services are good, etc. But then it’s so depressing… Take the issue of abortion. It has been revealed this week that in Sweden you can abort your perfectly formed half-term baby for any reason whatsoever, including when you want a boy and the baby is a girl. Now, I think this is monstrous. Ideas of genetic selection and other eugenic practices (like sterilizing “unfit” people), now with subtler vocalizations, surface regularly and are discussed by policymakers. Did you know that well into the 70s there were still in place public programs forcing people to submit to sterilization because they were mentally ill?

I think dr. Mengele’s spirit is alive and kicking in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. And where do you think Hitler’s ideas about races and white supremacy came from? From the Nordic origins of the glorious German white race, of course…

I dare to say that God is already punishing them with that ugly, cold, gray climate…

 

[antunesaa]

The American Psychological Association corrected their stance on homosexuality being a psychological disorder about 35 years ago.

…

But what it does mean is that homosexuals are people who are not “disordered” but who simply have different desires and on at least one issue, different values than you do.

The APA saying that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder doesn’t mean it isn’t: assuming they are right now means they have been wrong for decades. So they are not infallible. I don’t know whether homosexuality is a disorder or not; what I do know is that it should not affect (in the sense of being relevant to) a large fraction of the population. Therefore, a directed solution should be found for the group’s problems, just as there are special programs for special groups, like immigrants, left-handed people, super-intelligent people, etc. I don’t see why an old institution like marriage, which is completely mainstream and directed to hetero couples, should be changed to conform to this special group’s desires. Why not a “special civil contract”, flexible enough to accommodate several types of arrangements that are not marriages in the mainstream sense? Forcing the definition of marriage to include any union other than that of a man and a woman is going to decrease the value of civil marriage.

 

[rossum]

The “problem” is that our laws are Judeo-Christian, and as such, they reflect our beliefs. A repudiation of our laws is a repudiation of our beliefs.

Your law on marriage changed in 1967 because of Loving v Virginia. Was that a repudiation of your beliefs, or was the law prior to 1967 a repudiation of your beliefs? The laws of the USA allow divorce, and also allow divorced people to remarry. Those laws are a repudiation of Catholic beliefs. The laws of the USA reflect a consensus of views of the people of the US, that consensus usually does not reflect the religious beliefs of all of the people.

And who is the state? They are “we, the people.” Or did they not teach you that part in American History?

Where I went to school I did British History; I live in the UK.

Yes, the gays war on religion is on two fronts:

• legal - change laws to allow it
• social - change minds to accept it

Looks like they are winning on both counts, doesn’t it?

We can agree on that.

It’s “nonsense” because they deliberately intend to deceive people like you into believing that the argument is about “all men are created equal”, which is exactly what you believe. The fact is, they ARE equal as humans, but they are UNEQUAL as moral equivalents. They are NOT morally equivalent to Christian ideals.

Again I agree, which is why I made the separation between religious marriage, r-marriage, and legal marriage, l-marriage. Gays have had r-marriage available for some time; the current debate is about l-marriage.

rossum

 

[ladybri77]

Your law on marriage changed in 1967 because of Loving v Virginia. Was that a repudiation of your beliefs, or was the law prior to 1967 a repudiation of your beliefs? The laws of the USA allow divorce, and also allow divorced people to remarry. Those laws are a repudiation of Catholic beliefs. The laws of the USA reflect a consensus of views of the people of the US, that consensus usually does not reflect the religious beliefs of all of the people.

Where I went to school I did British History; I live in the UK.

We can agree on that.

Again I agree, which is why I made the separation between religious marriage, r-marriage, and legal marriage, l-marriage. Gays have had r-marriage available for some time; the current debate is about l-marriage.

rossum

MOST people who have ever lived and are living now have always believed in marriage as one man and one woman. And WE THE PEOPLE have spoken in most states INCLUDING California. We, there, upheld proposition 8 and shot down gay marriage. I believe the majority of Americans believe in marriage as what it is, what it has always been and what it is meant to be - One man and one woman. Period. Which, by the way, will always be the definition of marriage in its truest form.

Your quote - The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth - is so inherently wrong! There is “Ultimate Truth” and He is the man, Jesus Christ! There is also ABSOLUTE truth, so get used to it.

I will pray for you.

 

[Newbie2]

Wow. I can’t believe it took this long for someone to bring out the NAMBLA card. For the record, NAMBLA has nothing to do with consenting adult relationships. It is about pederasty, aka statutory rape. The vast majority of homosexuals and bisexuals are not supportive of this organization, and furthermore, resent its stigma being applied to consenting adults, as if all homosexuals and bisexuals are child abusers. (BTW, the majority of pedophiles are actually self-identified heterosexual males.) And, to bring it back to the topic at hand, granting homosexual and bisexual consenting adults to legally (not sacramentally) marry other consenting adults of the same sex would in no way serve to legalize pederasty - just as the right of heterosexual adults to marry consenting other-gender adults does not legalize heterosexual statutory rape.

If you had read my post carefully, and not knee-jerked to the NAMBLA reference, I’m referencing the other forumite’s reference to God and love, not connecting any dots between homosexuality and pedophilia.

You missed my point entirely.

 

[rossum]

MOST people who have ever lived and are living now have always believed in marriage as one man and one woman.

I would need to see some support for that statement. Muslims believe that marriage is between one man and up to four women. Abraham and Solomon also had multiple wives. Many cultures have accepted polygamy, and a few polyandry. While the one man one woman formula is common it is not universal and I am not sure that it is a majority.

And WE THE PEOPLE have spoken in most states INCLUDING California. We, there, upheld proposition 8 and shot down gay marriage. I believe the majority of Americans believe in marriage as what it is, what it has always been and what it is meant to be - One man and one woman. Period. Which, by the way, will always be the definition of marriage in its truest form.

The legal definition of US marriage changed in 1967 from “one man and one woman of the same race” to “one man and one woman”. That was a change in the legal definition of marriage. The legal definition has changed in the past and can change in the future. Some states have changed to allow legal gay marriage and others allow legal recognition of gay pertnerships.

Your quote - The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth - is so inherently wrong! There is “Ultimate Truth” and He is the man, Jesus Christ! There is also ABSOLUTE truth, so get used to it.

There may possibly be an absolute truth, but I have yet to see any absolute way of determining what that truth is. For example, is marriage monogamy (Catholic), serial monogamy (Protestant) or polygamy (Muslim)? All three claim to have ABSOLUTE TRUTH for their interpretation of their Holy Book. Your opinion is just one among many. How do I determine, absolutely, who is correct and who is mistaken?

For the moment I am content to follow a truth that works; I have no way to tell what truths, if any, are absolute.

I will pray for you.

Thank you.

rossum

 

[ladybri77]

I would need to see some support for that statement. Muslims believe that marriage is between one man and up to four women. Abraham and Solomon also had multiple wives. Many cultures have accepted polygamy, and a few polyandry. While the one man one woman formula is common it is not universal and I am not sure that it is a majority.

The legal definition of US marriage changed in 1967 from “one man and one woman of the same race” to “one man and one woman”. That was a change in the legal definition of marriage. The legal definition has changed in the past and can change in the future. Some states have changed to allow legal gay marriage and others allow legal recognition of gay pertnerships.

There may possibly be an absolute truth, but I have yet to see any absolute way of determining what that truth is. For example, is marriage monogamy (Catholic), serial monogamy (Protestant) or polygamy (Muslim)? All three claim to have ABSOLUTE TRUTH for their interpretation of their Holy Book. Your opinion is just one among many. How do I determine, absolutely, who is correct and who is mistaken?

For the moment I am content to follow a truth that works; I have no way to tell what truths, if any, are absolute.

Thank you.

rossum

Yes, the legal definition of marriage has changed, but whether it was between many women or men or white or black men or women, it has always been between men and women! That’s my point, it has never been between the SAME sex before which is one reason why so many people are against it, obviously. Our nation was formed on Judeo-Christian values for hundreds of years (as well as societal and legal norms), now they are being challenged. We will not sit idly by and watch a basic foundational institution/sacrament go unchallenged and see our country dissolve into hedonism along with the family.

I would suggest you ask God to tell you what truth works and which are absolute. Truth is absolute as much as the air I breathe is. For instance, if you drink poison, you will die. If you stand in the road long enough, you will be hit by a car. Absolute truth. If a man has sex with another man, he cannot biologically produce children, the same with two women. Absolute truth.

You’re welcome.