MERGED--> He became straight + I despise...

[Irvine511]

AEON: it's 100% involuntary. it is not chosen. the phrase "if the causes is purely psychological" is complete garbage. no one but the precious Dr. Nicolosi and people like James Dobson contend this. why am i gay but my brother is straight? we grew up in the same household, same parents, same parenting values, and we share a whole lot in common. but not this.

ignoring the wild leap you're making to something like "natural selection," how is it a "disadvantage" to be a homosexual? it has existed since the beginning of time, in all cultures and societies throughout history.

this "natural selection" -- though nice to see you using science instead of prejudice and a Bible -- has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

people are homosexual. people are left-handed. there's no advantage or disadvantage to being left-handed. everyone in my family, grandparents included, are right-handed. but my brother is left-handed. everyone in my family, grandparents included, are heterosexual. but i am homosexual. my father has one cousin who was a lesbian. and my mother's cousin's son is gay.

 

[CTU2fan]

Didn't being a lefty used to signify some satanic influence or something? I swear I remember that from history class...back in the pilgrim/Puritan days, and I think they used to try to "make" them righty (tie the left hand to the chair, or beat them, or whatever).

Maybe Glatze is the gay equivalent of a lefty with his left hand tied?

 

[Vincent Vega]

It was common practice to re-educate left handed people until the 1960-somethings in some countries, such as Germany.

I'm left-handed, and who knows, maybe Satan lives inside me.

 

[anitram]

Didn't being a lefty used to signify some satanic influence or something? I swear I remember that from history class...back in the pilgrim/Puritan days, and I think they used to try to "make" them righty (tie the left hand to the chair, or beat them, or whatever).

When my grandmother was a child in the 1920s, she was forced to write with her right hand or she'd get hit by a stick. In art class, if she picked up a brush to paint with, they'd smack her. So she learned to write with her right hand, but she did everything else with her left. She cut meat with her left hand, ate with her left hand, reached for things with her left hand, potted plants with her left hand, etc. And her handwriting was pretty awful.

She said when her oldest daughter (born in 1950) started reaching for things with her left hand, my grandmother always gave her toys, bottles, etc into her right hand because while she didn't care that the baby was left-handed, she didn't want her to be humiliated in school like she was.

 

[Irvine511]

finally, let's talk a bit about what a homosexual is "for." AEON seems to think that homosexuals are useless from a biological standpoint. we can't naturally reproduce, and are therefore a disadvantage for the species.

let's stop for a moment and first understand that there's no difference bewteen a homosexual and a heterosexual who is infertile from AEONs fierce "natural selection" standpoint.

however, does society have a place for childless adults? does soceity produce more children than it can care for? can a homosexual devote more time to his/her given profession -- which is often teaching or coaching or mentoring, for example -- and that this devotion to profession or craft, something a heterosexual might not be able to do due to familiar responsibilities, is an objectively good thing? do we not all benefit from this? what about the clear evidence of homosexual men, in particular, excelling in the arts? is our world not more colorful, more interesting, more vibrant, because of homosexual men and their often unique creative capabilities? (i would argue that it's the exclusion by society at a young age pushing him into the role of observer/critic that augments a gay man's keenly discerning eye)

is difference among humans to be encouraged or discouraged? do we not all benefit by different viewpoints, different ideas, different understandings, different people in general? is human diversity an inherently good thing? what would be lost if we were all the same? if we all spoke the same language? if we all ate the same food? if we all had the same religion? would the world not only be less interesting but would we also lose a part of our humanness as well?

AEON what you've well exposed is your negative attitude towards homosexuality. you see it as a bad thing.

but ask yourself why. and ask yourself if what you've been taught is due to a superficial, aesthetic prejudice -- the way that, 50 years ago, a white southern man would have reacted to the thought of a black man having sex with a white woman -- and nothing else? that if you genuinely examine the lives and contributions of homosexuals, if you value the unique contributions offered by homosexuals due to the slightly different place in society they occupy, perhaps you'll start to see that homosexuals are a benefit to you and, yes, to your children.

perhaps your child will have an inspirational music teacher, and perhaps this teacher is so good because he is gay -- because he was exluded as a youngster and found solace in music, and he is determined to share this joy with the world, and it is his lack of children at home that enables him to channel all of his parental instincts into his students. perhaps a lesbian couple adopts a child who might have spent more years in foster care, bouncing from home to home and winding up in jail or worse. perhaps a woman in an unhappy marriage can look at the genuine equality that is achieved by same-sex couples as a model to strive to, that simply because of her gender, she isn't automatically subservient to her husband, that there's another way for a couple to function

and finally, let's get to sexuality. i think most heterosexuals agree that there is more to sex than simple reproduction. and it's the removal of the possibility of reproduction that can help us unpack the magic and mystery of the sex act, of what it does for people in loving relationships and how it helps them bond, and connect, and strengthen the bonds -- intellectual, emotional, and physical -- that hold them together.

the existence of homosexuals, in some way, lets us know that, yes, we are more than animals. that we have a point beyond the continuation of our genes. that there is logic in disorder, and magic in mystery.

 

[AEON]

ignoring the wild leap you're making to something like "natural selection," how is it a "disadvantage" to be a homosexual? it has existed since the beginning of time, in all cultures and societies throughout history.

The evolutionary disadvantage is explained by the very definition of natural selection - as posted. (the validity of natural selection would perhaps be another discussion).

though nice to see you using science instead of prejudice and a Bible

I don't see science and the Bible as mutually exclusive. In most cases, I think they support each other.

 

[Irvine511]

The evolutionary disadvantage is explained by the very definition of natural selection - as posted. (to validity of natural selection would perhaps be another discussion).

what's the disadvantage? that's where your prejudice begins, right there, in that assumption.

 

[AEON]

finally, let's talk a bit about what a homosexual is "for." AEON seems to think that homosexuals are useless from a biological standpoint. we can't naturally reproduce, and are therefore a disadvantage for the species.

let's stop for a moment and first understand that there's no difference bewteen a homosexual and a heterosexual who is infertile from AEONs fierce "natural selection" standpoint.

however, does society have a place for childless adults? does soceity produce more children than it can care for? can a homosexual devote more time to his/her given profession -- which is often teaching or coaching or mentoring, for example -- and that this devotion to profession or craft, something a heterosexual might not be able to do due to familiar responsibilities, is an objectively good thing? do we not all benefit from this? what about the clear evidence of homosexual men, in particular, excelling in the arts? is our world not more colorful, more interesting, more vibrant, because of homosexual men and their often unique creative capabilities? (i would argue that it's the exclusion by society at a young age pushing him into the role of observer/critic that augments a gay man's keenly discerning eye)

is difference among humans to be encouraged or discouraged? do we not all benefit by different viewpoints, different ideas, different understandings, different people in general? is human diversity an inherently good thing? what would be lost if we were all the same? if we all spoke the same language? if we all ate the same food? if we all had the same religion? would the world not only be less interesting but would we also lose a part of our humanness as well?

AEON what you've well exposed is your negative attitude towards homosexuality. you see it as a bad thing.

but ask yourself why. and ask yourself if what you've been taught is due to a superficial, aesthetic prejudice -- the way that, 50 years ago, a white southern man would have reacted to the thought of a black man having sex with a white woman -- and nothing else? that if you genuinely examine the lives and contributions of homosexuals, if you value the unique contributions offered by homosexuals due to the slightly different place in society they occupy, perhaps you'll start to see that homosexuals are a benefit to you and, yes, to your children.

perhaps your child will have an inspirational music teacher, and perhaps this teacher is so good because he is gay -- because he was exluded as a youngster and found solace in music, and he is determined to share this joy with the world, and it is his lack of children at home that enables him to channel all of his parental instincts into his students. perhaps a lesbian couple adopts a child who might have spent more years in foster care, bouncing from home to home and winding up in jail or worse. perhaps a woman in an unhappy marriage can look at the genuine equality that is achieved by same-sex couples as a model to strive to, that simply because of her gender, she isn't automatically subservient to her husband, that there's another way for a couple to function

and finally, let's get to sexuality. i think most heterosexuals agree that there is more to sex than simple reproduction. and it's the removal of the possibility of reproduction that can help us unpack the magic and mystery of the sex act, of what it does for people in loving relationships and how it helps them bond, and connect, and strengthen the bonds -- intellectual, emotional, and physical -- that hold them together.

the existence of homosexuals, in some way, lets us know that, yes, we are more than animals. that we have a point beyond the continuation of our genes. that there is logic in disorder, and magic in mystery.

You certainly make many excellent points in this post. At the personal level, I am thankful for the diversity. I am thankful for you and the insights you have given me.

But I am also someone who tries to understand the cause and sources of societal attitudes (even prejudices). I want to know why God forbids it (yes, even if it is only Male Temple Prostitution or Male on Male Rape as Ormus would argue. Why is this immoral? How does this hurt society?). I want to know why a group of heterosexual men will stand around and make fun of feminine qualities. Is this bad? Good? Neutral? Necessary at some level? Is such a behavior completely wrong or is there a evolutionary need for humans to have a percentage of men built that way? Is part of the diversity you speak of include men and women who see homosexuality as bad because they think universally (meaning - if everyone was gay...etc)? These are just some questions. I don't claim to have all of the answers.

However, why should we dismiss entire groups of people as simply bigoted? Do you like to be dismissed simply because you are a liberal? Don't you post here because you think there is value in what you say?

I am not some ignorant automaton. Like you, I am a well read, educated, thoughtful, and (believe it or not) compassionate person. Perhaps there is something you can learn from me - as I have learned from you.

 

[anitram]

However, why should we dismiss entire groups of people as simply bigoted?

How would we deal with a group of people who maintains that blacks are an inferior race? Who support it with research re: IQ levels or earning potential tables? Who believe that segregation is necessary because it is immoral and disadvantageous to our society to have blacks and whites mixing blood? Who wonder whether there is a necessity or social benefit to white men standing around, making fun of nappy hair?

Would you not say this group of people is bigoted?

 

[Irvine511]

why would a group of white people sit around and make fun of black people? why would a group of heterosexual men sit around and make fun of women? is this bad? good? neutral? necessary at some level?

would we not dismiss these people as racist and sexist?

i believe you are an educated, thoughtful, and compassionate person. but i also think that you're subjected to the same prejudices as everyone else, and i also think that you use religion to justify some of these prejudices, and then try to make science buttress the existing prejudice.

i guess i don't know why i have to explain myself when a black person or a woman would never have to "explain" in the same manner.

but i am happy to do so. because i have to.

 

[phillyfan26]

I want to know why God forbids it (yes, even if it is only Male Temple Prostitution or Male on Male Rape as Ormus would argue. Why is this immoral? How does this hurt society?).

Is this even a question? Prostitution is unloving sex, as is rape. Rape is also using sex to show power over someone. They are both very immoral. And have nothing to do with homosexuality.

I am a well read, educated, thoughtful, and (believe it or not) compassionate person. Perhaps there is something you can learn from me - as I have learned from you.

I can see that you are. But try to understand this. As Ormus said, scientists agree that is not a choice. Unfortunately, because they want to find the exact combination of genes, it is technically still under "dispute." Those who are against homosexuals have jumped on this and used it to spread ignorance. Many people, as you stated yourself earlier in the thread, believe the entire issue is still in dispute, when in reality it is only the details. This is because of those people who don't want to acknowledge the truth. They want to continue to be bigoted. There are so many that are set in their beliefs because of misinterpretations of the Bible which were shoved down their throats, that they don't want to give up. That or they just hate homosexuals. But all of these people are ignoring the most important thing in the entire debate:

It is a fact. Homosexuality is not a choice.

 

[AEON]

why would a group of white people sit around and make fun of black people? why would a group of heterosexual men sit around and make fun of women? is this bad? good? neutral? necessary at some level?

would we not dismiss these people as racist and sexist?

i believe you are an educated, thoughtful, and compassionate person. but i also think that you're subjected to the same prejudices as everyone else, and i also think that you use religion to justify some of these prejudices, and then try to make science buttress the existing prejudice.

i guess i don't know why i have to explain myself when a black person or a woman would never have to "explain" in the same manner.

but i am happy to do so. because i have to.

While I also apply the label of "racist" to these folks, that doesn't mean I dismiss them as people or completely ignore everything they have to say. With such people - I am still interested to know WHY they think this way or that way. Perhaps somewhere along the line racism (or various forms of it) was necessary for tribes to survive. Perhaps.

The point is this - I think people should be free to express these views even if they are not seen as politically correct in this day and age. Even better if they can offer up their views in a non-combatitive and non-hostile environment.

 

[Irvine511]

While I also apply the label of "racist" to these folks, that doesn't mean I dismiss them as people or completely ignore everything they have to say. With such people - I am still interested to know WHY they think this way or that way. Perhaps somewhere along the line racism (or various forms of it) was necessary for tribes to survive. Perhaps.

would you dismiss the racism itself, though? i agree that where racism comes from is a good thing, and i'd agree with that about homophobia and sexism (which i actually think is the most interesting).

but it's the attitudes expressed that are simply false and not worthy of debate, no? blacks aren't all criminals, women shouldn't be treated like sexual recepticles, and gays have no choice in their sexual orientation.

The point is this - I think people should be free to express these views even if they are not seen as politically correct in this day and age. Even better if they can offer up their views in a non-combatitive and hostile environment.

i agree that people should be free to express any views they want, but isn't the expression of a racist, sexist, or homophobic view going to likely engender a combative and hostile response?

thus, debating the orgins of racism vs. debating the validity of a racist viewpoint are two very differnet things.

if i said to you that all Christians were sexist racist homophobic fascists and that their religion was deomonstrably wrong and that Jesus Christ was little more than some charismatic Jewish carpenter who was little more than a pest at the time so the Romans squashed him like the little bug he was, is that not going to engender a passionate response? if i said that white people were the devil, or that each and every person who had sex before they were married was going to hell, would that not engender a passionate response?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I thought the scientific community is still debating the causes/origins of homosexuality.

Also, if it is not a "choice" - are you then insisting that it is a birth defect? A genetic mutation?

Variation within a population is the engine of survival.

 

[AEON]

thus, debating the orgins of racism vs. debating the validity of a racist viewpoint are two very differnet things.

I agree. But I consider both worthy discussions.

if i said to you that all Christians were sexist racist homophobic fascists and that their religion was deomonstrably wrong and that Jesus Christ was little more than some charismatic Jewish carpenter who was little more than a pest at the time so the Romans squashed him like the little bug he was, is that not going to engender a passionate response? if i said that white people were the devil, or that each and every person who had sex before they were married was going to hell, would that not engender a passionate response?

Well, I have heard that quite a bit over the years. It is certainly inferred by many posts here in FYM. The key, as always, is to respond with grace. Not easy. I admit. And I have failed often. But I believe that either side of a discussion have something to learn from the other. And I don’t necessarily mean gathering ammunition for the next debate. I mean the ability to empathize with those that hold even the most extreme views.

 

[AEON]

Variation within a population is the engine of survival.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I though Natural Selection requires variation along with the ability to produce offspring. Without the ability to create offspring, the variation cannot benefit the survival of the species.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Understanding the cause is still important. If the cause is purely psychological - then it would be possible for people to address it and "cure" it there. If it is purely genetic, then I suppose it opens up the debate of Natural Selection. Meaning, it is a decisively genetic disadvantage to be a homosexual and that the societies and cultures inherently understand this and perhaps that is why they tend to react negatively toward it.

Natural Selection Requires...

For natural selection to occur, two requirements are essential:

1.There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.

2.There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.

Unless both these requirements are met, adaptation by natural selection cannot occur.

SOURCE: Natural Selection

Wheres the nuance?

Natural selection depends on a traits relative abundance within a population, for something that is multifactorial like homosexuality the adventageous elements of the causes may not be the actual behaviour in the individual but the overall fitness of the species (i.e. the ability to survive and reproduce). The statistics linking homosexual siblings to fecundity and the altruistic benefits of a gay sibling to rearing young (thus increasing the chance that the genetic material gets replicated) are examples where evolution could favour a few genetic cul de sacs for the reproductive advantage of siblings (since they share a high proportion of common genetic material).

Other examples where behaviour that seems to be a disadvantage at first glance are things like siblicide in some species of bird where the parents will stand by while one sibling knocks another out of the nest but when looked at statistically that one sibling that gets more resources will breed more than two weak siblings that have to share resources.

Evolution red in tooth and claw is archaic and wrong in may instances, looking at the mechanisms in populations and how effectively genes get passed on is very powerful and the modern synthesis has yielded tremendous insights over the decades.

Personally I feel that the cause of homosexuality is biological since everything is grounded in the real world but as intellectually stimulating that cause may be it is inconcequential to the notion of sexual liberties and the freedom for people to engage in consensual sex with whom they wish.

 

[Irvine511]

I don’t dismiss racism. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t dismiss it because it is such a powerful force. I think if it is to ever be defeated, if it can be, the cause of it must be understood. One simply cannot dismiss racist as something only ignorant white trash subscribe to. I have heard racist statements and witnesses racist attitudes from just about every class in society. The same with “homophobia” and sexism.

but if i were to say, "blacks are less intelligent than asians," wouldn't you dismiss that thought? if i were to say, "women should be subservient to their husbands," wouldn't you dismiss that thought?

this is different than dismissing the *thinker* or trying to understand where such attitudes come from. i agree that this is a worthy pursuit and a more noble way to combat racism or sexism than to call people stupid. i can call an attitude or thought stupid, but i agree that calling the individual stupid isn't productive.

which is what i try to do here.

it just occured to me that i have to spend a great deal of time in these threads discussing myself in order to combat some of the various beliefs about homosexuality. i talk about how i have a father who wasn't distant and a mother who wasn't too overbearing. i talk about my struggles, the difficulty of the coming out process, the naturalness with which i relate to the same gender, and the utter "normalcy" of my relationship. i have to stress that i am mongamous and committed and that my attraction to men is more than just to a penis, that it's constitutional, which is to say emotional and physical.

and i also notice that macocksean never has to explain that he isn't a criminal or that he did, in fact, graduate from high school. we would never assume that because he's african-american that these two misconceptions apply to him. yolland never has to talk about how she isn't actually pushy and money-grubbing nor does she drink the blood of Muslim children every morning. AngelaHarlem, i'm pretty sure, doesn't wrestle crocodiles and i'm fairly certain that Judah isn't going to be strapping any bombs to his chest in the near future.

we would never assume these things. we'd never expect them to discredit the assumption at the outset in the way that i feel -- and perhaps i'm wrong -- that i have to discredit whatever stereotypes about gay people exist.

simply, it seems far more acceptable to hold homophobic stereotypes than it does for any other kind of stereotype. diamond will write essays about the evils of racism across the world, and then turn around and dish out the same stuff as racism, only in the guise of homophobia.

it can be a lot of pressure, and there are times when i wonder if i'm not putting too much of it on myself to have to "represent the community," or as we might have heard in the past, "elevate the race." i have problems like everyone else, there are elements of the gay community that i don't like, much in the way that there are elements in the Christian community that i'm sure you don't like.

and i'm not totally sure where i'm going with this.

but this all starts with the refusal to agree with a fairly basic fact: sexual orientation is involuntary. and this is why the homophobes hold onto that notion so mightily. without any sort of doubt, they have no case whatsoever to support the beliefs that have formulated decades of political posturing.

it would be very, very embarassing.







[q]Also, as with all things, there are varying degrees of attitudes. You may consider me homophobic because I believe homosexuality is immoral, but I would consider it an honor to risk my life for you. There are other “homophobes” that would just rather see you dead. Just as you do not like to be lumped into a group considered ignoramuses, neither do I.[/q]

sure, there are degrees of homophobia, just as there are degrees of racism. i would hardly put, say, Memphis's extended family and a KKK Grand Wizard on the same page. but both hold racist attitudes to some degree.

 

[AEON]

but if i were to say, "blacks are less intelligent than asians," wouldn't you dismiss that thought? if i were to say, "women should be subservient to their husbands," wouldn't you dismiss that thought?

I would still be curious to the reasons why someone would think this. What if there was actual scientific data to back up such an opinion? (I am not saying there is, I am saying "what if?") What if certain populations need such an attitude to survive? (Again - "what if"). It seems that an opinion held on the need for survival would have a bit more weight than one which is merely a response to Archi Bunker's tirades. Does it make it right? Not necessarily, but it makes it easier to understand.

it just occured to me that i have to spend a great deal of time in these threads discussing myself in order to combat some of the various beliefs about homosexuality.

Do you need to defend your orientation on other topics? When we discuss the Iraq war I don't think, "Well, that's Irvine - the nice monogomous gay guy." I simply think, "That's Irvine, the intelligent but misguided and under-informed Liberal "

However, I think in threads regarding homosexuality, you would naturarally feel the need to discuss yourself. As I do in Christian related threads.

 

[phillyfan26]

But after you find out the reasoning, AEON, how do you try to rationalize with these people? Do you believe it to be possible?

 

[Irvine511]

i would like to know exactly why homosexuality is "immoral."

that's a very specific word. so i'm looking for a very specific answer.

 

[deep]

The only way "homosexuality" will cease to be immoral for religious people
is for gay people to be held to the same standard as straight people.

And that standard is sex outside of a legal , committed, monogamous relationship is immoral.


Aeon, you did say a few pages back that you do support "Civil Unions" be provided for all and "Marriage" be reserved for religious institutions.

With that in mind, would you consider people living monogamously under a Civil Union immoral?

 

[Diemen]

I just have to say that this is a really fascinating discussion, even viewed from the sidelines. I am in awe of your patience and eloquence, Irvine.

 

[AEON]

But after you find out the reasoning, AEON, how do you try to rationalize with these people? Do you believe it to be possible?

Well, it is definitaly a challenge to rationalize with anyone with a viewpoint which is extremely different from my own. However, it is worth the effort.

As long as myself and the other person can control our emotions, I can usually have a decent, respectful discussion with people with very different viewpoints - even those that are racist or sexist. Understanding how people reach conclusions is core to solving the real issue. For instance, I disagree with most of aspects of socialism, but through discussing with socialist leaning people I now understand how people desire such a system. I still don't agree with them, but I understand it. I don't agree with racists, but I can understand how people that are having the livelyhoods threatened feel that way. You can see it almost all throughout history. As long as times a prosperous, the society is very accepting of immigrants and other cultures. However, as soon as the economy takes a turn for the worst, those races and cultures not established will be the first to get targeted.

 

[deep]

I just have to say that this is a really fascinating discussion, even viewed from the sidelines. I am in awe of your patience and eloquence, Irvine.

And I would like to give credit to Aeon for his willingness to participate in the discussion.

 

[Lila64]

I admittedly have not read most of this thread, but the last page or so I just don't believe that homosexuality is a "choice" or immoral. Why does homosexuality have to always make certain groups of people think it's about sex? (the act of it, not the gender). If two men (or women) are happy together, isn't that all that matters?

sidenote:
I think part of the interesting thing about forums (this is the only one I frequent) is that you get to know people based on their responses, which in turn tells you something about them. You don't necessarily know the color of their skin, appearance, economic background, lifestyle, age, beliefs, etc. Yes, you find that out over time thru discussions, etc. I don't know where I was going with that, but it came out. I tried to point this out to my daughter the other day that she is meeting people of all ages and all walks of life from all over the world online, and judging them solely on conversing, not appearance or who is sleeping with whom.

 

[Lila64]

I just have to say that this is a really fascinating discussion, even viewed from the sidelines. I am in awe of your patience and eloquence, Irvine.

I concur

 

[AEON]

i would like to know exactly why homosexuality is "immoral."

that's a very specific word. so i'm looking for a very specific answer.

I use the word i"immoral" in a spiritual sense. My Biblical understanding of the topic disagrees with Melon's. I would rather not go down that path yet again. If you would like, please do a search on all of those posts I made several months ago.

Many people share Melon's interpretation. Many people (outside of interference.com) share my interpretation. I tend to believe that my own interpretation is more “objective” because I have nothing to gain or lose in the result of the research (since I am not gay). But I’m certain that Melon would think he is more objective because he is not brainwashed by the Conservative Christian scholars.

In summary, anything that misses the God’s mark is immoral. Homosexual behavior is only way of missing the target. There are many others – and I have certainly missed the mark many times in my own life.

 

[AEON]

oops

 

[Irvine511]

As long as myself and the other person can control our emotions, I can usually have a decent, respectful discussion with people with very different viewpoints - even those that are racist or sexist.

let me try this on you.

could you have a discussion with someone who insisted that it was immoral to be left-handed?

racism and sexism are beliefs -- for lack of a better word -- whereas a sexual orientation, like being left-handed, is an immutable condition -- for lack of a better word -- where words like "immoral" or phrases like "i disagree with" are logically absurd.

does that make sense?