|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bishop Robinson retiring
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Here it is from "the horse's mouth" two and a half months ago.
Bishop of New Hampshire calls for election of successor
I learned of this only a week or two ago from reading the newsletter of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Did I miss a thread already on the Ship?
The article I read described this as an early retirement. Bishop Robinson indeed makes a very youthful impression, but when his retirement becomes effective, he will be almost 66. Apparently it is standard for diocesan bishops to continue in office until age 72. (Or maybe this spin has something to do with the fact that our embattled Bishop of Pennsylvania, who is about the same age, does not want to retire.) Bishop Robinson mentions the emotional toll exacted on himself, his partner, and the diocese over ever since his consecration (for which event he wore a bullet proof vest). One can well imagine.
My questions:
Is it taken for granted that a diocesan bishop will stay in office until age 72?
If so, what accounts for the legendary longevity of Anglican clergy? What do they do right? (I hope there is more to it than what one detractor snarkily suggests, "avoid honest work").
Given the worldwide outcry upon +Gene's arrival on the episcopal scene, why hasn't his impending retreat occasioned noisy dancing in the streets from the same sources? Is it because they realize full well that the existence of one gay bishop isn't real news: there have been in history, and probably are now, numerous others? If this existence was really the issue it was alleged to be, then shouldn't his retirement restore normalcy to the Anglican Communion? If not, then the consecration of another gay bishop sometime somewhere shouldn't be much of an issue. It will be ho hum (as perhaps it should be) and the relative quiet of Bishop Robinson's exit from the stage will have done its part to demonstrate the fact just as his arrival did.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
There is already another gay bishop in the U.S. - or, if you'd rather, a lesbian one: Mary Glasspool, bishop suffragan of Los Angeles.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
True, but to many of these critics, lady bishops officially don't count. Therefore, making much of an issue over her personal practices might be seen as unseemly and suspiciously inconsistent.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
In England, AFAIK, Anglican bishops (and priests) must retire at 70 (but can do so earlier); Catholic ones have to submit their resignation to the Pope at age 75 but are sometimes persuaded, or allowed, to continue for longer. What that says about relative energy or stress levels I don't know.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Given the worldwide outcry upon +Gene's arrival on the episcopal scene, why hasn't his impending retreat occasioned noisy dancing in the streets from the same sources? Is it because they realize full well that the existence of one gay bishop isn't real news: there have been in history, and probably are now, numerous others? If this existence was really the issue it was alleged to be, then shouldn't his retirement restore normalcy to the Anglican Communion? If not, then the consecration of another gay bishop sometime somewhere shouldn't be much of an issue. It will be ho hum (as perhaps it should be) and the relative quiet of Bishop Robinson's exit from the stage will have done its part to demonstrate the fact just as his arrival did.
I am not on the side of the critics, but I want to point out why your argument here doesn’t work. You have misrepresented what critics actually object to. The rift was not “you have an openly gay bishop,” it was “you have decided that you can consecrate openly gay bishops.” That rift still exists- to use a cliche, Bishop Robinson’s retirement does nothing to put the toothpaste back into the tube. So there is no dancing in the streets, because what critics view as the offence will not be corrected when Bishop Robinson retires.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Why did the ordination of women or the consecration of women bishops not cause such a rift?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
My tangental musings aside and in response to the OP, I think it's because nobody cares to be honest. There was relatively little hooha over Glaspool when compared with Robinson and I think in part it's because a lot of people in the Anglican Communion have the feeling that the others have self autonomy and they are in a different country, so I couldn't honestly give a stuff.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
There was relatively little hooha over Glaspool when compared with Robinson and I think in part it's because a lot of people in the Anglican Communion have the feeling that the others have self autonomy and they are in a different country, so I couldn't honestly give a stuff.
No, it's because lesbians don't really have sex - or if they do, and if they are young and have nice bodies, it's pretty cool.
Gay men having sex, though, is: Eww.
(See Leviticus 18 for more....)
[ 26. January 2011, 17:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I'm not sure I'd want a threesome with Glaspool to be honest. I know beggars can't be choosers, but I still have some standards.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm not sure I'd want a threesome with Glaspool to be honest. I know beggars can't be choosers, but I still have some standards.
Well, I did use some qualifiers in that statement....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm not sure I'd want a threesome with Glaspool to be honest. I know beggars can't be choosers, but I still have some standards.
If you were a sky sports reporter you'd be fired for that.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Actually, the qualifier should in fact read, "....if they are not really lesbians, and if they are young and have nice bodies....")
[ 26. January 2011, 18:05: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The rift was not “you have an openly gay bishop,” it was “you have decided that you can consecrate openly gay bishops.”
Which is, apparently, worse than "you have decided that you can consecrate a woman," even though they hold this to be totally null and void. This innovation, to be sure, caused a few to dissociate themselves, but nothing like the rout over a bishop whose validity is practically undoubted. Let no obscure sacramental minutiae distract anyone when the church's real job of social control is at stake...
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fletcher Christian
Why did the ordination of women or the consecration of women bishops not cause such a rift?
It has caused all sorts of rifts but along different fault lines.
Besides (Dead Horse Alert), being female is a state. Doing gay things is or isn't, depending on ones view on these things, a sin.
Contrary to the impression one can sometimes get, being female is not a sin.
Hence also the RC position on ordination of priests who might have a gay orientation. If priests aren't allowed to have sexual congress with anyone, it's largely irrelevant who they would choose to do it with if they could - provided they don't.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Besides (Dead Horse Alert), being female is a state. Doing gay things is or isn't, depending on ones view on these things, a sin.
Being same-sex oriented is also a state. Even if one isn't "doing gay things" and is male, that apparently, given the track record, is apparently problematic.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Hence also the RC position on ordination of priests who might have a gay orientation. If priests aren't allowed to have sexual congress with anyone, it's largely irrelevant who they would choose to do it with if they could - provided they don't.
But that isn't the RC position - I should know, because I was 17 when it was promulgated and had to start looking for either a new career or a new church home. Contra Jack Lemmon's famous "Celibacy is celibacy ... even if your thing is goats!" the Vatican holds that even wholly abstinent gay people "find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women" and is "incompatible with the priesthood."
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Hence also the RC position on ordination of priests who might have a gay orientation. If priests aren't allowed to have sexual congress with anyone, it's largely irrelevant who they would choose to do it with if they could - provided they don't.
But that isn't the RC position - I should know, because I was 17 when it was promulgated and had to start looking for either a new career or a new church home. Contra Jack Lemmon's famous "Celibacy is celibacy ... even if your thing is goats!" the Vatican holds that even wholly abstinent gay people "find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women" and is "incompatible with the priesthood."
This all hangs on the definition of "deep seated".
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/ccehomosex.HTM
Overall, I think it looks pretty analogous to heterosexuals who have sufficiently "deep seated" attractions that they might realistically struggle to operate effectively as priests, and indeed might plausibly fail to temptation.
Ditto, the exclusion of those actively supporting the "so-called 'gay culture'" would be parallel to the difficulties of admitting a seminarian who actively campaigns for married Catholic clergy.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hope that +Gene has a long and happy retirement. A wonderful and godly man, he has suffered much.
Yes.
Amen.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
My tangental musings aside and in response to the OP, I think it's because nobody cares to be honest. There was relatively little hooha over Glaspool when compared with Robinson and I think in part it's because a lot of people in the Anglican Communion have the feeling that the others have self autonomy and they are in a different country, so I couldn't honestly give a stuff.
Isn't it partly because he's retiring and not being run out of office with pitchforks? Sorry, that's flippant, but the point is I can't see his retirement inciting graveside dancing because he stayed in post and hung around long enough to retire. He wasn't fired, or made to resign. And he was appointed in the first place.
At the very most, seeing the news of his retirement would just sadden his opponents, I would think. Because it means he didn't lose the argument, he — personally — won.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clemency
Shipmate
# 16173
|
Posted
From someone a long way distanced from all the Bishop Gene controversy, can I be brave and just ask the question that bugs me?. I gather that he took vows before God when he was married to a woman (and has kids?), then subsequently chose a man as partner. And then got made bishop. If he had moved to another woman, this could not have happened. Put me right if I am wrong on this. I'm trying to be broad-minded, but there is still something in my current take on the matter that leaves me uneasy. Are we just rating sexuality, or the right to practise it, too high, when Jesus says strange and awkward things about folk becoming eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. Don't be too wrathful, I'm only asking...
--------------------
Who knows where the Time goes?
Posts: 90 | From: Northumberland, UK | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Wood wrote: quote:
At the very most, seeing the news of his retirement would just sadden his opponents, I would think. Because it means he didn't lose the argument, he — personally — won.
If they were indeed opposing him, you are probably right. Though if they were opposing the decision of the church then fletcher christian is right. We won't know without knowing the mental state of the individuals concerned. Perhaps some were doing both.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
Divorce is not a bar to the episcopate in the Episcopal Church (however a serially divorced and remarried candidate might raise enough eyebrows that he or she won't get the votes or the consents to be elected). By all accounts Bishop Robinson was completely open and honest to his wife when his sexuality became clear to him, and they remain close friends. There was no scandal or subterfuge. Other than the genders involved, there's no difference between him and any other divorced candidate for bishop.
quote:
Originally posted by Clemency:
From someone a long way distanced from all the Bishop Gene controversy, can I be brave and just ask the question that bugs me?. I gather that he took vows before God when he was married to a woman (and has kids?), then subsequently chose a man as partner. And then got made bishop. If he had moved to another woman, this could not have happened.
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
And he was appointed in the first place.
It's perhaps too small a point, but Robinson was elected by representatives of the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
And he was appointed in the first place.
It's perhaps too small a point, but Robinson was elected by representatives of the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire.
I know people who sided with those who campaigned against him, and I think it's fair to say that although this is an important difference, it didn't actually matter to the people who didn't want him raised to the episcopate.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
And he was appointed in the first place.
It's perhaps too small a point, but Robinson was elected by representatives of the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire.
I know people who sided with those who campaigned against him, and I think it's fair to say that although this is an important difference, it didn't actually matter to the people who didn't want him raised to the episcopate.
Of course conservatives don't care how he got his position, but it gives lie to their attempts to make hay by claiming that they represent a silent majority of TEC rank and file. There are also those, often from across the pond, who seem to have the view that +Robinson's "appointment" was pushed through in a smokey back room by a cabal of liberal bishops over the heads of the rest of the church.
He was elected by a majority of delegates to Diocesan Convention representing every parish in the diocese. His election was approved by General Convention in a vote by orders, meaning a supermajority of elected clergy and lay Deputies from every diocese and a majority of the House of Bishops. Whether one approves or not, his consecration represents the will of a broad majority of the church.
I think we belabor this techinical point because it is important given the tenor of the debate and some of the accusations made.
[ 28. January 2011, 20:05: Message edited by: Wilfried ]
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
He wasn't fired, or made to resign... He didn't lose the argument, he — personally — won.
This is debatable if it is true that the retirement is an early one due to his tenure having taken an unusual emotional toll on various people due to the actions of his enemies. It sounds plausible to think that for all practical purposes, they have succeeded in hounding him out of office, despite the support given from official channels in TEC and from his many friends.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
This all hangs on the definition of "deep seated".
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/ccehomosex.HTM
Overall, I think it looks pretty analogous to heterosexuals who have sufficiently "deep seated" attractions that they might realistically struggle to operate effectively as priests, and indeed might plausibly fail to temptation.
I am aware that there have been many attempts to mitigate or limit the scope of the ban's intent but I think you have to do a real Tract 90 job on the text to bear that optimism. The only out clause the Instruction provides is for "transitory" sexual identity confusion. The document's idea of "deep seated" is sufficiently broad as to comprehend pretty much any adult gay person I know. That this is, or ought to be, equally analogous to heterosexuals as you point out doesn't change what the text says, it only underscores its absurdity. Of course you're right that a heterosexual who is not able to commit stably to celibate chastity would be rejected as well, but that is not the bar the instruction sets for gays: instead, even those gay men who are ready and willing to assume celibacy for the sake of the kingdom are deemed to be too disordered in their relationship to their maleness to be able to function in priestly ministry, and this disorder is not sufficiently mitigated by mere renunciation of physical expression.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clemency:
From someone a long way distanced from all the Bishop Gene controversy, can I be brave and just ask the question that bugs me?. I gather that he took vows before God when he was married to a woman (and has kids?), then subsequently chose a man as partner. And then got made bishop. If he had moved to another woman, this could not have happened. Put me right if I am wrong on this. I'm trying to be broad-minded, but there is still something in my current take on the matter that leaves me uneasy. Are we just rating sexuality, or the right to practise it, too high, when Jesus says strange and awkward things about folk becoming eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. Don't be too wrathful, I'm only asking...
You have the order wrong; he met his partner 2 or 3 years after his divorce.
So you could decide he was unfit on the basis of having gotten a divorce - but obviously that's not an obstacle in the canons here or it would have presented an official legal obstacle and his election could have been challenged on that basis. (I don't know what the canons say about this, but am just putting 2 + 2 together.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Sorry, didn't see Wilfried's reply about divorce above...)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
He wasn't fired, or made to resign... He didn't lose the argument, he — personally — won.
This is debatable if it is true that the retirement is an early one due to his tenure having taken an unusual emotional toll on various people due to the actions of his enemies. It sounds plausible to think that for all practical purposes, they have succeeded in hounding him out of office, despite the support given from official channels in TEC and from his many friends.
Whatever the cause of his retirement, he's doing it with grace and dignity, on his own terms and in control. He's leaving having done his work, born his witness, and while he's still on top of his game. Maybe they got him out of office a few years early, but he's leaving with a clear legacy, and nary a blemish on his character or integrity. They didn't get to him, make him crack, and he's wise enough to know when to stop. I think I call that winning.
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Clemency:
From someone a long way distanced from all the Bishop Gene controversy, can I be brave and just ask the question that bugs me?. I gather that he took vows before God when he was married to a woman (and has kids?), then subsequently chose a man as partner. And then got made bishop. If he had moved to another woman, this could not have happened. Put me right if I am wrong on this. I'm trying to be broad-minded, but there is still something in my current take on the matter that leaves me uneasy. Are we just rating sexuality, or the right to practise it, too high, when Jesus says strange and awkward things about folk becoming eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. Don't be too wrathful, I'm only asking...
You have the order wrong; he met his partner 2 or 3 years after his divorce.
So you could decide he was unfit on the basis of having gotten a divorce - but obviously that's not an obstacle in the canons here or it would have presented an official legal obstacle and his election could have been challenged on that basis. (I don't know what the canons say about this, but am just putting 2 + 2 together.)
If you read his autobiography, it becomes clear that he got married because he came from an evangelical background that taught him to overcome his gay 'desires' by getting married. In effect, the church encouraged him to 'use' a woman. Once he realised that, he did the noble thing by asking for a divorce which his wife, agreed to, out of love for him and a desire to see his life flourish.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you read his autobiography, it becomes clear that he got married because he came from an evangelical background that taught him to overcome his gay 'desires' by getting married. In effect, the church encouraged him to 'use' a woman. Once he realised that, he did the noble thing by asking for a divorce which his wife, agreed to, out of love for him and a desire to see his life flourish.
Actually, I didn't think anybody knew who asked who for the divorce; is what you're saying here in his autobiography?
In any case, his wife was remarried, I believe, too, before he met his partner.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I always feel so sorry for the woman in such cases....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
And he was appointed in the first place.
It's perhaps too small a point, but Robinson was elected by representatives of the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire.
I know people who sided with those who campaigned against him, and I think it's fair to say that although this is an important difference, it didn't actually matter to the people who didn't want him raised to the episcopate.
<snip>
He was elected by a majority of delegates to Diocesan Convention representing every parish in the diocese. His election was approved by General Convention in a vote by orders, meaning a supermajority of elected clergy and lay Deputies from every diocese and a majority of the House of Bishops. Whether one approves or not, his consecration represents the will of a broad majority of the church.
I think we belabor this techinical point because it is important given the tenor of the debate and some of the accusations made.
Oh, dear. Wood, yes, I guess that was the larger point. With my small point, I was merely indicating a Pond Difference. And, perhaps, making a gentle dig at our benighted co-religionists (and RCs) that among all the appallingness of TEC (Muslim- & Druid-priests, being afraid to preach Christ crucified, the bendy poles, the crap liturgies, ad nauseum), we at least get this one thing right.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I know there are several possible angles of discussion here, but for a lot of those participating in the discussion, it's impossible to discuss Bishop Robinson's retirement without discussing his sexuality, so in keeping with our guidelines, I am sending this to Dead Horses. Please continue lively and incisive discussion there.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
