Gender and Intrinsic Order
While the subject matter “intrinsic disorder” is under discussion under another strand (Everything under the Sun) it might be helpful to introduce here a discussion of “intrinsic order” from the perspective of social gendering.
Sometimes subject matters become so freighted with ideology that words themselves are distorted by meanings acquired in the context of conflicting ideologies. This may be what is happening in the joined context of “intrinsic disorder” and personal gender, whether, heterosexual, bi-sexual or homosexual.
In this strand, I suggest we step back and disconnect words from the ideologically loaded objectivities of personal/ social subjectivity. To do this, we need from the beginning to define words and use them in the context of agreed meanings. To this end, I propose to introduce some words here by which understandings might be liberated from preconditions of context, and to provide definitions that may enable an untrammeled discussion of intrinsic order and gendering. These are some of the troubling words, and no doubt, there are others:
ORDER: relationships that pertain to wellbeing, personal and social;
INTRINSIC: relationships that are disposed from within by nature, i.e,, by the in-tensions of cosmic energy and by the intentions of reflective consciousness;
NATURE: the holistic physical/ biological context of interdependent life, symbiotically disposed in sustainable environments, physically determined and psychologically open;
NURTURE: intercultural relationships that impose socially, naturally in organically mixed environments that seek the balance of relationships in the wellbeing of organisms, individually and collectively;
CULTURE: physical and psychical dispositions that impose on interdependent organisms and drive inter-relational, symbiotic transformations;
SYMBIOSIS: interactive relationships that accommodate in-tensionally and intentionally to natural differences, whether environmental factors, or whether genetically developed differences;
GENETICS: internal biological coding (DNA) that transmits inter-generationally the texts that qualify personal characterization and the unfolding of personal growth;
MEMETICS: the culturally open codes of intentional ordering that intend personal/ social wellbeing/ sustainability;
SEXUALITY: nature’s division of the sexes into male and female in higher differentiated organisms, whereby mixing occurs that diversifies genetic and memetic codes by reason of differences; and by reason of sensitivity to wellbeing in interpersonal contacts, gender dispositions are commonly beholden to symbiotic considerations;
GENDERING: the genetic/ memetic characterization of the individual person, ever in process of transformation by reason of personal/ social interactions and correspondence; gendering is a process qualified by nature/ nurture, by inter-subjecive (personal/ social) relationships;
GRACE: positive psychological influences acquired in symbiotic relationships and disposing toward symbiotic wellbeing;
THEOLOGY: the inner disposition of consciousness in accounting for nature-as-it-is, and in pursuing personal/ social authentication (religion) that corresponds to the highest levels of accommodation available to conscionable human behavior, always seeing personal wellbeing in the context of other-wellbeing — what is the pursuit of physical accommodation and the psychological harmony of self with Other;
SOCIETY: the admixture of all interdependent factors involved in symbiotic, sustainable relationships, that is, involving: all forms of life-culture, e.g., agriculture; Anthropology, communal relationships in all their facets; political accommodation, law and order, love and commitment; self-expression and self-ccommodation, education, ritual remembrances and personal/ cultural practices of mutuality, complementrity and subsidiarity.
Other words may need to be added to the list; and definitions may need to be fleshed out. But in the context of agreed upon understandings of words and their meanings, we might, as the Family of Man, come to consensus understandings by which we are open to each other, and by which we avoid imposing the objectivities of our personal subjectivities on others.
Religion and grace suppose nature, as theology supposes biology, as faith supposes reason. Under these principles of understanding we may come to new understandings of intrinsic social ordering and a better ordered sense of personal wellbeing.
Warning from Management
Warning from Management I
Discussion on this thread, "Gender and Intrinsic Order," is getting hard to manage. Some statements are, in my opinion, becoming hurtful. I don't want to shut this table, but I may have to.
Please let's give this topic a rest and move on to other topics. How about no talk about sexuality for two weeks?
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management
Criteria for Dialogue What
Criteria for Dialogue
What is at stake here, in my view, is the cultivation and nurturance of an environment that fosters authentic dialogue. Such dialogue is indispensable to enriching our life in Christian community and in helping us to permeate and improve the temporal order. It can be difficult to discern the difference between authentic dialogue and trolling without some meaningful criteria, for the gadfly can fly around on what look like wings of legitimacy.
Thankfully, Len Swidler provides us with such criteria in his Dialogue Decalogue:
http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Antho/decalog.htm
What is at play here, in my view, is his 9th Commandment:
Persons entering into interreligious, interideological dialogue must be at least minimally self-critical of both themselves and their own religious or ideological traditions. A lack of such self-criticism implies that one's own tradition already has all the correct answers. Such an attitude makes dialogue not only unnecessary, but even impossible, since we enter into dialogue primarily so we can learn--which obviously is impossible if our tradition has never made a misstep, if it has all the right answers. To be sure, in interreligious, interideological dialogue one must stand within a religious or ideological tradition with integrity and conviction, but such integrity and conviction must include, not exclude, a healthy self-criticism. Without it there can be no dialogue--and, indeed, no integrity.
END of EXCERPT
This helps the discernment process, I believe. Using this criterion, it becomes more clear why an endless tautological cycle of proof-texting appeals to authority (the Pope, the Bible & the Catechism or even the Koran & the Prophet) followed by ad hominem critiques of one's fellow participants is not dialogue. It only enjoys a superficial legitimacy. It is not useful, from a logical perspective, because it is immersed in fallacy. It is not useful from a dialogical perspective because, per Len's criteria, it lacks self-criticism, hence, integrity.
The easiest way to uncover the absurdity of such a fundamentalistic approach is to attempt a parody of the gadfly's argument by substituting "the Prophet" for the Pope or Magisterium and by substituting "the Koran" for the Bible or Catechism. Such uncritical appeals to authority are not only naive but can become dangerous. At best, they destroy dialogue; at worst, they destroy buildings and people.
It is a difficult decision, when to interdict or when to merely ignore. There is one efficacy in letting it continue: It provides a good example of a bad example. The inefficacy is that it drives people away. At least, it has driven me away, as I occasionally check in and see that the problem persists. For those who do stay, see it for what it is and ignore it. Management has grounds, in my view, to ban it.
Thank You for your patience
Thank You for your patience and tolerance Dennis in allowing so much free discussion to take place. I certainly respects your guidelines because I appreciate you and those here who are RESPONSIBLE for making this valuable venue available to us. I know I find it rare that such open discussion of issues being allow on a religious board. I think this venue is a good and necessary part of allowing the voice of Catholics who believe in the spiritual lessons as taught by God and Jesus Christ be applied to the lives we live today. So that we live the spirituality we express.
God Bless you and all those here for your generous sacrifice in providing this venue for us. Amen.
I understand and respect your guidelines. Thank You. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Eugene Kennedy in his
Eugene Kennedy in his book,The Unhealed Wound, suggested a 10 year moritorium on church pronouncements on sexuality. They didn't listen to him either.
Do What You Do Best Except
Do What You Do Best
Except for the most general of precepts, perhaps it would be best if the Church stuck to its knitting, which is announcing the Good News, which is about answering the question: What can humankind hope for?
It needn't preoccupy itself with answering the question: What must we do? for that answer has already been placed, it is our belief, in every person's heart, without the benefit of revelation. The Church has not demonstrated any special competence regarding any sexual ethos and seems wisely self-aware of this insofar as it has not made ex cathedra statements on matters other than faith and dogma.
What a twisted and tortured logic it is that keeps health providers from distributing condoms on a continent being ravaged by AIDS.
Dear DennisC~ Do we deal
Dear DennisC~ Do we deal with the real problem or let the problem dictate? I did a quick scan of the postings and feel that my immediate reaction to your warning is reinforced: there has only been one poster who has been "hurtful". However this euphemism does not accurately describe the issue. The postings of AnneDanielson have been ad hominem yes, they have also been indicative of a wider, generic bigotry and a strategy which uses pius platitudes as a rationale and justification for what virtually amounts to hate. Other subjects have been subjected to similar rants composed of dogmatic utterances as has this one. In spite of this, all of the responses to these postings have been respectful.
I think I see your problem. It is difficult to edit pius platitudes as inappropriate as would, say, vulgarisms. But in this context they really are. They offend both the target, the validity of the issue and the perspective that they pretend to represent.
This string takes "intrinsic" order and disorder to a wider plane of consideration within which "sexuality" is only one dimension, not the sole focus. Sylvester's esoteric language and perspective are additionally helpful for us to get outside the box a bit. Attempts to reduce the discussion to the gutter, simply reinforce the thread's depiction of irrational fideism.
I am offended by the use of fanatic rhetoric as an expression of Catholicism and of the Catholic perspective in approaching dialogue. It seems to me to be worse than vulgarity, it borders on the blasphemous.
If I have misunderstood your purpose, I apologize.
More definitions: all
More definitions: all definitions are open to correction and clarification
AXIOMS of cosmic expression: self-evident variations of and extrapolations on original big-bang, wave/ energy;
BIOLOGY: life’s substantive complexity-consciousness;
BODY: individually qualified and quantified forms of transformational substance;
COMMUNICATION: inter-active information-exchange;
CONSCIENCE: subject/ object awareness capable of discerning differences between greater and lesser values;
CONSCIOUSNESS: communicable awareness;
COSMIC ONENESS: the universal continuum of energy/ matter, Einstein’s MC²;
COSMOS: universal energy/ matter (functions/ forms) ever in process of converging, diverging, emerging, differentiating and expanding;
DIVINE: self-expressions of original Unqualified Priority in depending sub-priorities;
ESSENTIAL TWO-NESS: the function/ form of all reality, energetic (spiritual) and substantive (material);
FALSE DICHOTOMY: mistaking mental constructs as realities in themselves;
HUMAN: personal individuality informed and intentionally disposed in self-aware, social interdependency;
MIND: embodied consciousness;
OBJECTIVITY: product (outcome) of transformational agency;
PERFECTING: process of betterment, of quality changes based on the ascendancy of sustainability; e.g., as in evolution, “cogitata perficiendo, cogitando sic perfecta” (by perfecting thoughts, thus, by thinking the perfected);
PERSON: the gendered (genetically qualified, socially cultured) self-reflective individual;
PROCESS: the continuity of changing, inter-active subjects;
QUALITY: the objective (modified) characterization of subjectivity (agency);
QUANTITY: measurable qualifications;
SIN: intentional object-appropriation against better judgment; e.g., exploiting nature for self-gain with disregard for the destructive consequences on nature and others;
SUBJECTIVITY: the agency of transformational outcomes;
SUBSTANCE: interdependent and inter-active forms of qualified energy;
SOUL: the spiritual/ conscious milieu in which bodies are sustained;
THEOLOGY: naturally inherent divinity-consciousness;
How very fitting that GOD &
How very fitting that GOD & SEX come up together.
Scriptures inform that humankind is Godlike, male and female. The infinite potentials of living flesh are embodied in joined divinity/ humanity, the godly/ natural avatar of Intelligent Design. Fruitfulness is in two-ness. By two-ness, the perpetual dialog is embodied and empowered to unfold and expand in potential and fullness. Soul and body, we are nature's intentional transformation.
Word and flesh, we cannot deny who and what we are. By expressing the fullness of Word and flesh, humankind, in its oneness, celebrates the glory of divinity/ humanity. By transformation in divine/ human potential, the Self affirms and expresses fullness in all life. The glory of Life is manifold. The Word of Life expresses and affirms divinity, necessarily, body and Spirit.
The arrogance of alienation is a frustration of divine/ human work. Arrogance is a darkness of choice, and so is ignorance. We are a burden to ourselves and to each other by the darkness of intentional and unintentional bad choosing.
One darkness is blindness to divinity within us, the other darkness is over-wrought claim to divinity within us. The Light of true mutuality can shine in our darkness and bring to full fruit the joining of divinity/ humanity, God-in-us, Word-made-flesh.
As one, in Faith and Reason, we are a God-enlightened Community, the Earth-informed Community of Trinity. We truly affirm divinity when we authentically celebrate humanity. From the beginning, God saw that Creation was good, is good.
The word of flesh is opaque, light as through a glass dimly. Divine Light is transparent to all. Let us, by the brightness of Faith and Reason within us, illumine together and rise together in celebration of Word and flesh, and honor the Resurrection of Word and Flesh, the divine gift we are to each other.
Thank you, anniedanielson. Thank you, Rev Dr Elaine McCoy.
Here is God's Truth on Human
Here is God's Truth on Human Nature: God created male and female, man and woman. This is how He ordered Human Nature.
William, How about jumping queue with this correction: Homosexual ACTS are intrinsically disordered AND immoral.
Then, with this statement of Truth, you can have Honest dialogue regarding the Church's teaching that confirms Christ's Teaching on Sexual Love. Peace.
First, Christ did not teach
First, Christ did not teach a thing about sexual love. He taught adherence to the Mosiaic law regarding adultery, and even in this case stopped a crowd from stoning the adulterous, (their right and duty under the law) and he also sent the Samaritan woman on her way with forgiveness, in spite of multiple transgressions.
Second, if you are going to teach us the TRUTH, at least get it right. Homosexual acts are immoral, and gravely sinful. It is the PERSON who has a homosexual orientation whose nature is 'intrinsically disordered'. This is a far harsher and more damaging assessment than what you have posted above. I wish they were only talking about acts.
Third, there is no 'Honest dialogue' when one firmly believes that they hold the absolute TRUTH handed down directly from GOD. There is only endless repitition of the TRUTH, and since you feel you have the TRUTH, it would by definition preclude you from any dialogue on this issue.
Regarding Love in Marriage,
Regarding Love in Marriage, What GOD HAS JOINED together...... Can you HEAR HIM now?
I guess I need to know what
I guess I need to know what kind of love you are referring to when you speak about "regarding love in marriage" and then quote Jesus in the New Testament. Marriage was not based on 'love', it was based on marriage contracts enacted by parents. In genral love as an aspect of marriage contracts didn't enter the picture until the middle ages. Romantic love did play a pretty major role in adultery, however.
This is one of the reasons I wrote you previously that my understanding of what Jesus is referring to in this quote has as much to do with the mystical aspects of sexuality, that once you have crossed that bridge into active sexuality, you will be profoundly effected on a soul level. Perhaps you can see this point easier by considering the sexual abuse crisis. The victims were gravely harmed in their soul by this kind of sexual activity, they are still strongly connected to their abusers.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
Anne, as I said in my
Anne, as I said in my posting, my reason for editing it (and that caused it to jump to top) was that I saw, on another reading, a typo that caused the posting not to make sense.
William D. Lindsey
Correction to
Correction to Annedanielson,
Years ago many a religious believed that if someone was born blind that his parents must have sinned or that he was in sin. But, thankfully, Jesus taught us the correct way to believe, and that was “neither his parents or he sinned.” Not everyone believed or understood what Jesus said, and it seems that some unfortunately still don't.
Yes, God made us male and female; that is certainly not a new revelation and not one that is disputed, but God also made everything in nature and in human nature very diverse. Adam and Eve are not to be taken literally, nor is Genesis a dissertation for understanding all of Human Nature. How then would you explain a child that was born without any sexual organs? Is it male or female? What then is the order that God made in that example which you have left out? You seem to have no idea of what order might have been intended for the child born with perhaps the sexual organs of a female and a male, a hermaphrodite. Your "correction" needs correction. Your opinion leaves out those truths and also leaves out those internal aspects that one cannot see and that which we still do not comprehend that is evidence to one experiencing a different sexual orientation or other differences that are natural to them, but not natural to everyone, especially heterosexuals. This is a challenge to your intellect, but also challenges the spiritual way to minister to those with these real differences in their human nature and the way God made them. You are not ministering though as a Christian should minister, you are denigrating and insulting William. It is offensive and rude and I know that it is due to ignorance of the truth.
In the story of Genesis we understand that we were made in the image and likeness of God, a God of Spirit and Truth. Our parents, symbolized by Adam & Eve, sinned. The sin that was committed was the eating of the forbidden fruit. The forbidden fruit was eaten from the tree of knowledge of both good and evil. We have evolved a long way since the eating of the forbidden fruit, but still many religious and non-religious eat of such fruit. Jesus represents the New Adam, but you write as if to deny He existed and are tempting us to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of both good and evil. Jesus did away with the old laws and made a new commandment Anne.
In our midst is the Tree of Life, the Kingdom of God, but you hand us the forbidden fruit to eat again. Catholics and Christians who believe in Jesus Christ believe He is in our very midst, within us; and it is in our asking and seeking that we find Him and receive His gift of Life and grace. It is our Faith in Him that saves us; time and time again in the Gospels Jesus says this: “Your faith has saved you.” If you do not believe me, read the Gospels for yourself. Do you refute Jesus Christ and say that those who have Faith in Jesus Christ are not saved? That was not a teaching about sexual love, but of God's love for all of us. Jesus died for all of us, or do you also refute that?
You seem to regard the Church's (erroneous) statements as "Truth" and superior to the person of Jesus Christ. Which is greater, Jesus or the law? If you begin to study the History of the Catholic Church you would begin to understand a lot of what the institution of the church has done has been erroneous, for political reasons, out of ignorance, in reactionary fashion and in direct contrast to what Jesus of Nazareth has taught us. I doubt you have read the history though. I suggest you begin to start listening to Jesus in the Gospels and put him at the center of your life, in your heart, and in your thoughts, instead of erroneously placing the institutional church first and treating others with disdain.
Anne, I'm assuming that you
Anne, I'm assuming that you do know that some people are born with characteristics of both sexes.
This is a universal biological phenomenon, that has happened all over the world as far back as records have been kept.
What does this well-attested, long-standing, universal biological phenomenon say about how God orders human nature and wishes to sort us into male and female?
William D. Lindsey
AnnieD, This whole thread is
AnnieD,
This whole thread is "process versus outcome" and while the ideas here are pretty heavy going and NOT my favored way of thinking about things, I would encourage you to step outside of your bumper sticker mentality and just let some of these things roll through your thinking.
We all know that our thinking cannot help but be informed by our religiosity, our faith, our Catholicism but I think that Sylvester is calling on us thing about some of our pre-suppositions. You may paw through them and accept them "as is" or you may not. Process over outcome. But I _think_ Sylvester takes us through this tunnel because he thinks that at least we can have a deeper appreciation of the roots of some our ideas.
Take a chance, step outside of parroting safe ideas. God walks with you.
What about the babies who
What about the babies who are both male and female?
INNOCENCE: a new word for
INNOCENCE: a new word for the vocabulary of EWV.
If the life and teaching of Jesus Christ can be captured in a single word, that word is “innocence”. Innocence is from the Latin “in-nocere”, meaning, not to harm. This word should guide the life and actions of everyone, not just doctors, clergy, social workers, etc.
And, who is the avatar of innocence? Jesus stands a child before us and tells us, “Unless you become as one of these, there is no place for you in my kingdom”.
“To do no harm” isn’t a negative; it is affirmative in what is required of each of us, namely, that, if a well-intentioned action is causing harm to others, we must desist from it and repair the harm. “To do no harm” is to love God with our whole heart, soul and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
The Ultimate Christian is above all, one who does no harm. In the least, UNIVERSAL RELIGION (symbiosis) expects this minimum standard of conscience from everyone. TO DO NO HARM is what “intrinsically right order” is about, what change-for-the-better is about.
Leaders of nations need also to be guided in public policy by the do-no-harm principle, what politics are about. In this vision, universal wellbeing is paramount; trust flourishes, and faith hope and love are advanced.
First and foremost, and always, we must attend to the children; the neglect (abuse, overreach) of children is the beginning of failed society. The Gospel is strong on this: it is better that the one who scandalizes a child has a millstone hung on his neck and be cast into the sea. The church that scandalizes children is anathema.
With all due respect,
With all due respect, Sylvester, we are the Family of GOD. Why not put Him back in your definitions and see how that changes everything.
What you do for the least of
What you do for the least of my brethren you do for me. - God in the form of Jesus.
God IS in his definitions.
May God Bless us and open our hearts to love others as He loves us. Amen.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
GOD is the Unconditioned
GOD is the Unconditioned Priority of cosmic unity/ continuity, of all being/ becoming, of all subjectivity/ objectivity and of personified consciousness.
Igor Stravinsky challenges
Igor Stravinsky challenges Postmodernity with "intrinsic disorder" and how to cope with it. He shows us how we can learn about consonance by exposure to dissonance. May I suggest, that to refresh this truth, take time yet again to experience Walt Disney's cartoon "Fantasia" and "The Rite of Spring" (Stravinsky) as arranged by Leopold Stokovski. Dissonance (disorder) and consonance (order) are nicely bridged in FANTASIA, a religious meditation for the times.
The broth of social evolution is the stock of intuitional consciousness that enriches open insights. Evolutionary biochemistry is the basic substance of self-reflective hope that sustains social consciousness.
Robert Whalen Weldon's book "Sacred Spring, God and the Birth of Modernism in Fin de Siecle Vienna" (Eerdmans, 2007) now has a natural sequel that makes sense of Postmodernity, Jonah Lehrer's "Proust was a Neuroscientist" (Houghton Mifflin, 2007). In re "the stock of intuitional consciousness", see Auguste Escoffier, "The Essence of Taste", pp 53-74.
Lehrer quotes C.P. Snow's lament that the two cultures (art and science) suffer from "mutual incomprehension". The third culture Lehrer accepts as needed is that of scientists communicating "directly with the general public". The problem he sees is that the one-way conversation is deepening public incomprehension and widening the divide between science and art.
How to bridge the divide and prevent the deepening of incomprehension? That is the question. I would suggest that Vatican II, by its persistent and insistent call to religion for "aggiornamento", updating, has set the stage by which religion can be the equal of science in the dialog of art/ science culture. Religion is the collected body of all fine art, the "finest" of the fine arts, the moral, aesthetic clearing house by which personal/ social betterment is understood, pursued and advanced for common wellbeing.
If "art is framed in artifice", so is religion. The experience of relationship (the process of biochemistry, neuroscience) is the artifice of personal perception that frames outcomes of social evolution in the contexts of personal effects. (See Lehrer, pp 96-119, PAUL CEZANNE.)
In "The Rite if Spring", Igor Stravinsky speaks to the truth that "nothing is difficult forever". When the beauty of art is unlocked, e.g., by the contrast of dissonance and consonance, "neurons in the auditory cortex are constantly being altered by the songs and symphonies we listen to" (ID, pg 125). And so, the broth of intuitional consciousness is enriched, and so are the flavors of life.
Sylvester, I admit, I am not
Sylvester, I admit, I am not sure if I follow you on this thought process. I have to say, regarding dissonance vs. consonance in music, I prefer consonance. In fact, I am sure if you were to measure the neurons in my adrenal cortex, ( as in cortisol, the STRESS hormone ) after listening to the dissonance section of the Music, I , for one, would not be in meditation mode.
Do read Lehrer's "Proust was
Do read Lehrer's "Proust was a Neuroscientist". It's a celebration of the human senses, a celebration of art and science, of aesthetics and religion, all in one.
Sylvester, it occurs to me
Sylvester, it occurs to me that perhaps an essential word has been left off your list:
POWER
Can 'social gendering' (I'm not aware of amy non-social or 'natural' gendering) be explained without it?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be li
William, again I am asking
William, again I am asking why you won't jump queue with the correction regarding the Church's teaching that homosexual ACTS are intrinsically disordered AND immoral. Then, with this statement of Truth, you can have Honest dialogue regarding the Church's TRUE statement, ( as in what the Church ACTUALLY stated ) regarding their teaching that CONFIRMS Christ's teaching on Sexual Love.
There is help for those who struggle with this disorder. Contact Courage, a support group founded by Fr. John Harvey.
GOD
We are all the Family of God. Add God to your definitions and see what happens.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church :
( Gn 1:1 )... GOD is Creator of Heaven and Earth. GOD created the world out of His Wisdom and Love. Creation is not the result of blind fate or complete chance.
GOD made the Universe out of nothing. This means that the World is not a part of GOD or made from some pre-existing substance. The world depends on GOD for existence.
The Divine Persons are in relationship to each other.
The purpose of the World is what GOD intended. We are HIS Creation. Everything that exists, exists in relationship to GOD.
Respect for the Sacredness and Dignity of Life in all stages from beginning to end, is what GOD intended.
Respect for the Sanctity of Marriage, is what GOD intended.
Marriage between Husband and Wife, is what GOD intended.
Sexual Love within the Sanctity of Marriage, is what GOD intended.
Developing healthy and Holy relationships and friendships, is what GOD intended. Those of us who know how to develop healthy and Holy relationships do not feel the need to act out sexually in these relationships. We are not trying to be possessive or to manipulate these relationships. Love is not possessive and does not serve to manipulate.
Perfect Love requires desiring Salvation for someone. Perfect Love requires that you tell someone the TRUTH.
Once you make a false assumption, the TRUTH gets distorted. This forum as well as the intrinsically disordered one, are a LIE from the start.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Homosexual ACTS are intrinsically disordered AND immoral.( CCC,no.2357 )
They do not respect the Sacredness and Dignity of Life.
The sexual objectification of any person is oppressive and a form of slavery.
We all know that CHRIST did not come to confuse us. He came to set us free.
Believe in HIM. Trust in HIM. He is our Hope for Salvation.
Anne, this posting seems to
Anne, this posting seems to imply that you asked me a question in your previous posting, and that I failed to answer that question. I did not hear a question, however, in your previous posting. It seemed to frame its question in such a way that the answer was already provided--as this posting itself also does.
Both of your postings accuse me of lying. The one to which I'm responding here says that the thread I began regarding the church's teaching on intrinsic disorder is "a LIE from the start." Your previous posting speaks of having a honest discussion as though I've been engaging in a dishonest one.
I'm not sure where to begin to respond to those direct assaults on my integrity. I should perhaps resent them. Instead, I find myself more inclined to say, "Peace, be still," since it seems your spirits are roiled by this discussion.
I think I have made it abundantly clear that I question church teaching that gay persons are intrinsically disordered. For that reason, I don't think that I or other gay persons "struggle with this disorder" and require therapeutic support groups of the kind you recommend (though I appreciate your concern).
You speak of what God intended with a certitude that I don't have. I think we are imagining the life of faith, of spirituality, of love, of pursuit of the truth, every differently.
What you take for granted as given, I continue to seek. I accept that the church points the way. I do not believe, though, that the church is the Way.
I am happy, honestly, to remain on the way, seeking, listening, finding God in the many different ways God is to be found in the world. It seems far less important to me to sort and classify everything into truth and falsehood, insiders and outsiders, saved and unsaved, than I believe it is important to you.
Perhaps I am on the wrong path in seeing the life of faith that way, but if so, God must show me the error of my ways. Meanwhile, I'm content to grope in the darkness, using love as the candle that lights my way. And I do appreciate your prayers and concern, as I bumble along.
William D. Lindsey
AnnieD, I don't know you and
AnnieD, I don't know you and don't have any reason to think badly of you as a person but I want you to understand that I think some of your statements are purely mean:
"William, again I am asking why you won't jump queue with the correction regarding the Church's teaching that homosexual ACTS are intrinsically disordered AND immoral."
You've just conveyed to him that you see him as a lesser person.
***
The purpose of the World is what GOD intended. We are HIS Creation. Everything that exists, exists in relationship to GOD.
Respect for the Sacredness and Dignity of Life in all stages from beginning to end, is what GOD intended.
Respect for the Sanctity of Marriage, is what GOD intended.
Marriage between Husband and Wife, is what GOD intended.
Sexual Love within the Sanctity of Marriage, is what GOD intended.
Most of us can freely agree with statement one and two. With statements 3, 4 and 5 there seems to be more and more of an imposition of what man wants and interprets and it pretty much leaves a chunk of people on the outside of the inner circle.
This to me is when theology turns self-serving.
See if you purport to believe that "The purpose of the World is what GOD intended. William is HIS Creation. Everything (including William) that exists, exists in relationship to GOD." then why suddenly does William end up on the outside of circle in statements 3, 4 and 5. I think God, at creation time, KNEW William was gay.
Statements above are abrasive and insulting especially to gay and lesbian couples that would legitimize their relationships before God in a minute. They want to. They desire to. They want the community approbation that goes with it.
You know, it's not that the issues aren't a challenging struggle but I want you to realize that you are being rejecting and rude to a genuine child of God.
POWER: perhaps the most
POWER: perhaps the most “troubling” of all words.
All power is original cosmic (big bang) energy, variously distributed and qualified in Earth-cosmic substance. The many and varied kinds of power are defined and qualified by their substances. Because all matter is the substance of original cosmic energy, all matter has “power”. Power is infinitely complex because of the open expansion, differentiation and amplification of energy/ substance — what evolution is about.
[Definitions I give here are inadequate and incomplete. The only scientific expertise I claim is the rationality of personal construct. What I offer well-serves here, I believe, in context of the essential continuity of the evolving cosmos, as quantum science knows it. In the least, it should serve to stimulate purposeful discussion.]
In its quantum distribution, power is electromagnetic. Electrically charged substances diverge, converge and join, “motivated” by electrical attraction/ repulsion. Joining is by “great force” as in electromagnetism, and attraction is by “weak force” as in gravity. Particulate physics, the nuclei of atoms, are held in tension by “great force” attraction. All transformations of forms and functions involve power sharing and exchange.
Power, is perhaps more generally used in reference to human power play than to cosmic energy. Power, organically disposed is the power of life, whose complexity is physical (in-tensioned) and psychical (intentioned). Intentional power is variously aware, that is, intuitional, instinctive and self-reflective; these are substantively embedded and active in neural, memory complexes. Instincts and intuitions are co-extensive in hard-wired, branch-joined nerve complexes.
The intuitions and instincts of plants are seemingly of a kind less well defined than those of animals. Consciousness, “soul” and self-reflectivity are categories of “spirituality”, of Earth-cosmic energy, and are psychical, of a kind, but different in their complexity and potential.
In its intentional aspects, “power” directs the dynamics of personal/ social self-expression (conscious motivation) in matters of all relationships, whether in self interest or social interest. Consciousness of self-interest and other-interest are conflicted in self-perception, which causes people to engage their energies in conflicting and hurtful ways.
The competing complexities of self-aware power are mysterious to us who own them. Religion is about the self-reflective power of will and intelligence to understand power, the consequences of power play, and the exercise of conscionable judgment in the use of power/ substance. In a real sense, any overreach, any abuse of relationship is an abuse of power. Personal injury and social havoc result from power imbalance and overreach.
This "great force" you speak
This "great force" you speak of is Christ. It is Christ on the Cross who draws each of us to Him
and thus to His Father's House, The Family of God, The Blessed Trinity, Salvation.
It is Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross that Has the Power before God, the Blessed Trinity, to Forgive sin and lead us to Salvation. This is the Power of God's Love and Mercy.
The Church does not condemn sinners, for all of us are sinners, but it does condemn sin. Christ instructed His Apostles to make Disciples of all Nations. He tells us that we can not be His Disciples if we do not keep His Word. If we Love Him, we will want to keep His Word.
William, I will continue to keep you in my prayers. Peace.
God Desires that we develop Healthy and Holy Relationships and Friendships with one another in Communion and Relationship with Him. Some of these Friendships will develop into Marriage. Within all Relationships, it is God's Desire that we are always Respectful of the Sacredness and Dignity of Human Life, of His Gift. It is only within the Sanctity of a Holy Marriage that Sexual Love exists.
What GOD HAS Joined Together....
The Question is, can you Hear HIM ?
If you LOVE someone you tell them the TRUTH.
From a Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI, Successor to the Apostle Peter and Vicar of our Lord, Jesus Christ,"...may he build your Church into a Sacrament of Love, Unity and Peace..." Amen
It is Lent, so today let's
It is Lent, so today let's pray and not just mention the Word on our lips, but pray to understand the Word and that it may remain in our hearts. The Prayer of St. Francis is one of those beautiful prayers we can say and meditate on. We can ask St. Francis and Jesus for understanding of the meaning of this prayer. We can ask for the understanding that this great Saint had come to understand, prepare our hearts for the understanding, and try to incorporate the meaning and understanding into our lives.
"Lord, make me be an instrument of your Peace.
Where there is hatred....let me sow Love.
Where there is injury....Pardon.
Where there is doubt ...Faith.
Where there is despair ... Hope.
Where there is darkness ... Light.
Where there is sadness ... Joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled .... as to Console,
To be understood .... as to Understand,
To be Loved ... as to Love,
for
It is in giving ... that we Receive,
It is in pardoning ... that we are Pardoned,
It is in dying ... that we are born to eternal Life."
The message I hear in my heart from the St. Francis' Prayer very briefly is:
Be an instrument of His Peace, not an instrument of proclaiming sin.
Pardon those you believe are in sin or have sinned and you will be Pardoned Your Sins.
Seek not for your own consolation, but seek as Jesus Christ did .... to Console.
Seek not your own agenda to be understood .... but seek to Understand, putting on the mind of Christ.
Seek not your desire to be praised and loved, but seek to love as Jesus taught in the Gospels.
Sounds like a 'Simple Prayer' but trying to do as St Francis did is not so easy, especially when we realize that we don't always follow this simple prayer's message for us. Understanding is one thing, actually doing it consistently is another. Another meditation is helpful for our understanding, the Truth in the Word in the Gospel of John. God's Desire and the desires of religious authorities are sometimes at odds and there are many examples in the Bible of this Truth. Jesus was brought up in the Jewish faith, in a devoutly Jewish family, but He told the blind man by the pool at Bethesda, or Bethsaida, after ASKING him first if he wanted to be healed and AFTER receiving an answer from the man, told him to "rise and pick up your mat" on the Sabbath. Jesus and the blind man were disobedient to the religious authorities and their law which Jesus explained was not God's law.
Jesus has taught us by His example that disobedience to religious authority and their burdensome laws is not a bad or evil thing and is not the wrong way necessarily, especially since God is the superior power over all and everyone. Jesus shows us His compassion and the right Way and the best Way for our healing and salvation as Jesus did so time and again until He was condemned to death by RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES and SECULAR AUTHORITIES, with the help of the betrayer of Jesus who was one of His very own disciples, Judas.
Judas, a follower of Jesus Christ, one who sat at the Table of the Last Supper with Jesus, is the traitor of God's will for us to 'love one another' and to Jesus Christ who knew who the traitor was in His midst. This is a powerful message to contemplate on during Lent.
This is the story briefly: Christ's sacrifice on the cross, how He got there, His healings, the path He shows for us to Follow and His tremendous Love for all of us sinners. For unity with Christ, we all need to meditate on His loving and merciful sacrifice during Lent and pay attention to the details of His Word. If one is dwelling on the subject of marriage and sexual love one is missing the details of Christ's message for us. Dwell on Jesus, in His Word, and what He truly means and intends for each and every Catholic and Christian who loves Him, as we all struggle with understanding His Word and pray to interpret His meaning through the Holy Spirit that comes and goes wherever God Wills, not where we designate or proclaim the Holy Spirit to dwell, whether married lawfully or not or meeting the Church's expectations of 'Holiness' especially during this most holy and sacred of seasons where we are ALL called to remember His sacrifice for our salvation and the forgiveness of sins and everyone's call to repentance and holiness during Lent.
Another Reading to contemplate is 1 Samuel 16:1b, 6-7, 10-13a. In particular "Not as man sees does God see, because man sees the appearance but the Lord looks into the heart." We should include that in our understanding of the "Word" and the "Truth."
May the Peace of Jesus Christ be with us ALL as we each carry our Cross with the help of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
"Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again."
Thanks! What about Sex (NOT
Thanks! What about Sex (NOT sexuality ...)?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness ..." (Isaiah 58)
SEX is the creative two-ness
SEX is the creative two-ness of Original Oneness; sex is nature's means of iterative mixing and expanding open potentials of energy/ substance, soul/ body.
Sylvester, I am not always
Sylvester, I am not always clear on what you mean to convey within the limitations of language. Would you agree that what is experienced is a suggestion of what it is to become one with God? Is this what is behind the often ridiculed concept of the good Muslim encountering 72 virgins after death?
Would it be your understanding that the Holy Spirit is present during sex--even between homosexual partners who have committed themselves to one another? I would.
What about its being possible to experience God in one's life in such a way that sex becomes inadequate by comparison and ultimately irrelevant? Might this be the experience of those who have devoted their lives to God and are celibate?
"Limitation of language" in
"Limitation of language" in part arises from confusion of same words having different meanings in different contexts; in one context one meaning makes sense but cannot be transferred in the same way to other contexts; for example, the word "order" means differently in different contexts, order in gardens, order on the streets, order in the house, order in the classroom, in church, in the home, in nature, etc. Imprecise understanding produces all manner of confusion, conflict.
Marie, it's not my place to judge the beliefs of others; only God knows after-life experience.
I don't know where and when the Holy Spirit isn't present. It is my sense that with age and spiritual maturity "sex becomes inadequate by comparison and ultimately irrelevant". In my eleven years experience in religious community celibacy was/ is indeed channeled in devotion to God.
"Within the limitation of
"Within the limitation of language" means keeping understandings in right contexts. Contexts change and what prevails in one context cannot simplistically be presumed in another. This is a fundamental premise of rational thinking. For example, when we humans try to define God in human terms (the only way we can) we take God out of divine context and inadequately appropriate God in the human context. We easily deceive ourselves and others when we so do.
The Holy Spirit is never not present. The aesthetic of spiritual valuation is a religious consciousness of the highest order. Kenosis, self-donation to the worthy purposes of universal wellbeing, is a universal Call; answering the Call and experiencing its grace is perhaps the most sublime ecstasy humans can enjoy. It is the Way we enter the Divine Context. The Call is equally open to people who choose the celibate (bachelor) life and to those who don't so choose. It isn't for us to judge the value commitment of others.
Dennis in your post where
Dennis in your post where you mention the Hippocratic oath and Isamov's first law of robotics you have hit on what I believe should be the first law of pastoral counseling: "Do no harm to a human being."
We used to think evolution was based on the 'survival of the fittest' concept, and so harming a self determined weak was no big deal. I could paint a pretty good picture that the current church hierarchy is operating out of this principle, as in the fittest are the 'true believers', but I want to take this in a slightly different direction.
We currently have a new science of genetics called 'epigenetics'. It's new because the research this field indicates that genetic adaptation is purposeful and results in symbiotic solutions to environmental stimuli. In other words, genetic changes tend to be for the good of not just the individual organism, but the environment in which it finds itself.
For instance in utero, a fetus will develop entirely differently raised in a stressful poor environment, than in a peaceful environment in which survival needs of the mother are met. The fetus raised in stress will develop a larger hind brain with more musculature and larger bones. The other fetus will develop a larger fore brain and tend to smaller physical characteristics. These trends will continue after birth. These studies speak volumes about the 'real' effects of poverty and wealth.
If our basic neural design is susceptible to change based on environmental cues, imagine sexual expression. The church's view on sexuality is not just static, but harmful because it does not allow for any interplay between biology and environment. Worse than that, it creates systems in which the natural sexual desire will seek environmentally determined targets. Ex. Exclusively male seminaries.
I watched some video yesterday in which gays who underwent 'Christian conversion' therapy discuss their experiences. As a therapist I was sickened. Not only was the underlying theory of the programs utterly disproven years ago, the therapies derived from the theory were abusive in the extreme--to both clients and their parents. No reputable therapist would ever engage in these activities, but they are considered not only reputable, but sanctified.
I guess you get this kind of thing when you truly believe, contrary to the evidence, that man hasn't changed one iota since Adam and Eve. The truth is you cannot put new wine into old wineskins, but by God, the Church sure seems to be trying.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
Good comment William. You
Good comment William. You are correct that nature displays a greater range of reproductive and relational modes than the determinists allow. As I have argued in other posts, I think that there are norms, propensities, and usuals. My most serious question to the determinist view is the elevation of the norm to normal and then with irresponsibe logic to universality, to law, must,only with its consequential attributions of sin, perversion, disorder and intrinsic disorder to variants. In the face of nature's diversity the Church's position, based upon natural law is the intrinsically disordered position.
The relegation of sexual relationships solely to reproductive functions is equally disordered. The fate of man is not simply to merge with natural processes, it is his/her nature to imbue creation with intelligence, with the, albeit, limited creativity that is intrinsic to his/her specific nature. What is essential to the ethic of sexuality, in my view, is the precept of order and specifically the order of wellbeing. The Hippocratic Oath of the medical profession and Isaac Asimov's first rule of robotics are similar and applicable: 'First do no harm' and 'Do no harm to a human being'. Or positively: are we capable of the appropriate considerations implicit and explicit in the act; are my acts in truth and verified as "our acts" (mutualy informed and reciprocally agreed); do my acts have implications for others and if so have the implicated others been appropriately consulted and concur.
While I would not presume the understanding or wisdom to propose my sexual ethics for general consumption, I would contend that the order of 'wellbeing' is not simply a whitewash of individualistic, hedonistic indulgence, but a discipline that is of the society as it is of the individual.
Dennis, I think that your
Dennis, I think that your intelligence is 'well-ordered' by your compassion - you must be a Jesus-follower ...
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be li
Sylvester~ I could not get
Sylvester~ I could not get beyond "order" to this point. The possibility of discipline in discussion such that your glossary and Thomistic approach would be followed is, I think, quite remote. As an opening salvo I would focus on your concept/definition of order.
"'Order' relationships of well-being that pertain to well-being, social and personal."
It seems to me that your definition had Christian credence until the time of Augustine of Hippo. In confronting his own demons and those of his earlier life and former companions, Augustine faced the challenge of conflict between "order" (the way things should be) and his internal chaos of conflict, his disorder.
Externally, the correlative was the order of God/state/Church and the increasing chaos in their societies of people.
He seems to have opted for 'order' as an external hierarchy of being and acting into which he, with the unwarranted grace of God, must insert himself with whatever reshaping that might require. Man is "intrinsically disordered" by original sin he taught and so the reshaping would inevitably be painful, hence the dominance of "abnegation, mortification and self-denial". Contemporary church society was undergoing a similar challenge. Order, in the personal and social sense, is the discipline of denial, the emptying of self and the substitution of Church for self as it is for society, the polis.
The power, the influence and talent of Augustine, it seems, at a time of unprecedented energy and challenge within the followers of Christ led to a "political" victory for the institutionalists, which not only shaped the subsequent centuries but spurred the systematic suppression and rejection of the relational model of well being with the relational model of hierarchy and control.
It seems that the message and mission of Christ, the Christian Church, at that time, became intrinsically reordered. While Peter and his early followers may have longed for Christ, the "petrus" of human institutional stamp then became the operative principle of Church. The primacy of the relational model of well being in the fellowship of Christ was replaced with the primacy of the relational model of compliance with hierarchy and submission to control.
While antiquarian in its source, the message, the consequences and the relavence of this stage of the Church's entrance into its adolescence is inestimable and current. The great misfortune of history is that for all the value of church through the centuries, its refusal or its inability to progress spiritually and psychologically into adulthood is at the source of its intrinsic illness.
As an older person I reflect on my adolescence and the painful conflict of self within and without. The "security of discipline" was a prison and a painful one observed more in the breach than compliance. It is so sad, so unfortunate that the simultaneous emergence of the capacity and the need for love was not nurtured and
harnessed and informed by the risk of "well-being" within the fellowship of Love, rather than by the twins of suppression and the rigidity of control and its emotion, guilt. As the concept of sex is emerging from its historical prison-cell of guilt-drenched suppression and Augustinian utilitarianism why has Church opted to display its adolescent fixation, its disorder, rather than pursue the opportunity towards adulthood and face genuine and more deleterious disorders in man's relationship to man and to God?
How would a Church based upon a definition of order as sets of relationships toward well-being differ from that of order based upon hierarchical control? Can one fully replace the other? Did/does Christ call us to the primacy of one or the other? Immense, critical questions.
I have just finished reading a novel, "The Confessor", by Daniel Silva. At one point he has a fictional Pope refer to Pius XII role vis a vis the holocaust: "He wanted to be a statesman when what the world needed most was a priest...". Contemporary Church wants to be an Augustine in Rome when what the world needs is Christ on the Mount.
Thank you, William. I think
Thank you, William. I think we are in agreement. Ideology, worldview, subjectivity and objectivity intertwine with each other in their reciprocal effects on us personally. All of these are implicated in self-understanding, education, and religion.
The ideologies we personally hold to qualify how we understand ourselves, each other and the world. Our personal ideologies are tiles in a mosaic, sometimes not always quite right. Our personal character is revealed to others by how we communicate our subjective selves to each other.
Ideologies are acquired from genetic/ memetic inheritance and from experience. Gender coding pertains to our spiritual/ physical persona. Memetic coding pertains to cultural coding, that is, to understandings acquired from experience in family/ social/ culture and our personal reason/ belief. "Nature" is about genetic coding; "nurture" is about familial, social, and experiential (cultural, memetic) coding.
Personal gender and how we understand ourselves, is shaped by all the above. In our subjective persona we create our own calculus of objectivity, by which we color everything. Our spiritual lives are indeed a continuing work of testing our subjective selves, the tint of the glasses we wear, if you will, against cultural presumptions and expectations of objectivity.
When I say that education needs to change from bottom to top, I am not saying that everything about education is wrong, but that the objectivity of education (religion) is prejudiced by false coloring; namely, that we all have come to be subjectively prejudiced by over-rought fideism cultured in static-centrist-dominion thinking.
The transformational (evolutionary) worldview (EWV) is ever open to the dailog of faith and reason, by which, our subjectivity is ever in transformation — and by necessity — by which our objectivity is ever under scrutiny and change.
The hierarchical culture and structure of patriarchy/ imperialism suffer the discoloration of worldview objectification, and castes subjectivity in false light. All of society, all of us personally, and all of nature, suffer from the culture of falsified objectification. These are what the needed changes in religion. education and culture are about.
The political opportunity to begin a radical cultural shift to change is before us presently in this 2008 presidential cycle. Let us not miss this opportunity.
Sylvester and Dennis, both
Sylvester and Dennis, both of your comments slipped through without my seeing them until now. Drat that recent comments feature, which allows comments to go through and never appear there!
This whole thread is fascinating to me, since it forces me to think in ways I don't often do. I think I may have begun to grasp your point a bit better with this response to me, Sylvester--particularly when you note that our worldviews have "come to be subjectively prejudiced by over-rought fideism cultured in static-centrist-dominion thinking."
We're so much inside the static-centrist-dominion thinking that we don't even know we're there, so it's quite easy for the puppet masters on the religious sphere to try to reduce all religious options to over-wrought fideism. The two go together like hand and glove. The static-centrist-dominion worldview positively demands over-wrought fideism as its religious expression.
The problem is getting outside that worldview, since we're right inside it. What I think I was reacting against in your first posting was my impression that we might, through careful thought, attain some non-ideological "objective" stance that transcends the ideological worldview in which we find ourselves.
For my own journey, I've given up on that dream, because I notice that the same people always promoting it are part and parcel of the very establishment of static-centrist-dominionism. There's a kind of unconscious heterosexist male cast to much of the purported "objectivity" of church teaching. I look at who's teaching it, and I begin to wonder about its objectivity, to put my point crudely.
And that has led me to think of "the" truth more and more as something we pursue as the shared center of our journey together, rather than something one person or group owns, to be dispensed to the rest of us. Truth is dialogic, to be found in a shared journey. And it's agonistic, in that we must all struggle together for it.
I think you're saying much the same thing, but you are speaking a language entirely new to me, and I must learn your language in order to speak back. I can recall taking a philosophy class as an undergrad, taught by an elderly Jesuit. It's the only class I ever fell asleep in. We had no textbook, only his droning lectures written years and years ago, warmed-over debased Thomism.
Come time for a test, I would try--I really would--to explain back to him what I thought his point was. I would rephrase the point in my own terms, trying to make sense of the Thomism in my own little worldview.
And I'd consistently get my paper back with comments I hadn't used philosophical language at all. I finally realized he wanted his own words back, not evidence that I had appropriated and understood them and interpreted them in terms of my worldview.
I don't mean at all to suggest you are that elderly Jesuit. Far from it. What I am suggesting is that I'm apparently challenged, when it comes to using philosophical language. And I also have in my "back story" some disquieting experiences with the kind of philosophy I was taught as an undergrad, and those who purveyed it to me.
Dennis, to try to avoid hogging the blog threads, I'm replying to you in the same message, and hope that's okay. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, and like especially the brilliant point that the human fate is "not simply to merge with natural processes."
And you're right, that's precisely what the magisterium calls Catholics to do--albeit to merge with a definition of nature that is heavily loaded in the direction of male domination, and also that is tailored of much of the natural diversity that will never fit the definition of natural "law."
William D. Lindsey
There is so much squeezed
There is so much squeezed into this topic and it keeps growing. It is like Dr. Seuess's, "Horton Hears a Who". It scares me that William seems to understand Sylvester and Dr. MacCoy can even write in it. Sylvester, I will keep plugging because there are always man
Dennis, I appreciate all
Dennis,
I appreciate all your hard work. It just feels like everyone is having to keep quiet because a few insist on YELLING when they disagree with an opinion.