|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly. And that is the problem.
Tell me, would you be content to accept that sort of statement from a white supremacist Christian ie: "we disagree that being racist constitutes sin"*? Would you just 'agree to differ'? Or would you say that he is 'denying that he is sinning'?
*(Since the racist accusation is so often flung at our side ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) .)
This is another bad analogy, though, since there's no point of comparison between the two things. Gay partnerships are - ideally - about love and mutual support, in exactly the same way heterosexual partnerships are. They build people up and make them better than they'd be otherwise.
Racism is just about the opposite of this. This is the central problem here, actually; you can't really demonstrate convincingly how gay partnerships are "sin." I can do this, though, with racism; I can talk about how destructive it is, and how it makes the world a place place than it would be otherwise.
I do, though, say that what the church continues to maintain and teach about this issue is sinful, because of its dreadful outcome. I think the church continues to be sinful in willfully ignoring the reality of gay people and our lives. So in that way I do understand your point.
If you had said, "the problem is that 'conservatives' in the church believe that gay people are denying they are sinning," I would have had no problem with it, though.
My point is this: we do not believe that gay partnerships are sin. Therefore we it's not true that we "deny we are sinning." The claim is just plain inaccurate.
[ 16. July 2008, 13:23: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I wouldn't want to be part of a church that didn't challenge people about their sins so that they may repent. That sounds like a social club that doesn't actually believe what it is preaching.
So you are saying preaching should be telling people what they shouldn't be doing, rather than asking questions to help people change their minds or think of things in a different way, or offering better ways forward in the light of the scriptures?
No, but part of it is telling people what Christian lives should look like, and challenging them for being unrepentant about not living up to that standard. And if someone is completely unrepentant, and is in danger of ensnaring other brothers and sisters into the same sin, than I think the church has to try other methods to bring them to repentance. Like putting them out of fellowship until they repent.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
This is the central problem here, actually; you can't really demonstrate convincingly how gay partnerships are "sin."
Only because you choose to discount the scriptures in favour of your personal opinion and popular acclaim.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I can do this, though, with racism; I can talk about how destructive it is, and how it makes the world a place place than it would be otherwise.
And some people believe that homosexual relations are destructive spiritually to the people involved (because they would argue it is rebellion against God, whether conscious or unconscious), and makes the world a place other than it would be if that rebellion didn't exist.
The "no body is hurt" argument only works from a materialist stand point.
This is fun.
[ 16. July 2008, 13:31: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
As I thought the whole point of Christianity was the teaching of Jesus, and I can find nothing in what he says to criticise homosexuality in loving faithful relationships, I would not choose to castigate practising homosexuals as unrepentant sinners.
So what's the point of the rest of the Bible, then? Isn't that also God's Word?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Only because you choose to discount the scriptures in favour of your personal opinion and popular acclaim.
As I've said numerous times, now, raptor: I follow Leviticus to the letter on this. I agree that lying with a man is an abomination; I never touch the stuff.
The Scriptures, for the hundredth time, say absolutely nothing to me on this subject. It's really time to start to recognize the facts here, and stop making this argument; it doesn't work.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I wouldn't want to be part of a church that didn't challenge people about their sins so that they may repent. That sounds like a social club that doesn't actually believe what it is preaching.
So you are saying preaching should be telling people what they shouldn't be doing, rather than asking questions to help people change their minds or think of things in a different way, or offering better ways forward in the light of the scriptures?
In short, yes: part of preaching is about telling people what they should and should not be doing as practising Christians trying to live out lives of faith in the world. I'm not sure why anyone would have an issue with that... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The Scriptures, for the hundredth time, say absolutely nothing to me on this subject. It's really time to start to recognize the facts here, and stop making this argument; it doesn't work.
No, I say it does work, and tens of millions of Christians agree with me.
Your move.
P.S. Can you tell me again why polyamoury isn't permissible?
[ 16. July 2008, 13:41: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly. And that is the problem.
Tell me, would you be content to accept that sort of statement from a white supremacist Christian ie: "we disagree that being racist constitutes sin"*? Would you just 'agree to differ'? Or would you say that he is 'denying that he is sinning'?
*(Since the racist accusation is so often flung at our side .)
This is another bad analogy, though, since there's no point of comparison between the two things.
Yes there is: they are both sin IMO and in both cases those propounding these views are denying that they are sin. quote:
This is the central problem here, actually; you can't really demonstrate convincingly how gay partnerships are "sin."
I don't need to: the Bible and the consistent teaching of the Church has already done that for me.
quote:
I do, though, say that what the church continues to maintain and teach about this issue is sinful, because of its dreadful outcome. I think the church continues to be sinful in willfully ignoring the reality of gay people and our lives. So in that way I do understand your point.
So you believe you have the right to dictate to the Church what it believes?
quote:
My point is this: we do not believe that gay partnerships are sin. Therefore we it's not true that we "deny we are sinning." The claim is just plain inaccurate.
In what way is "not believing that gay partnerships are sin" not"denying that we are sinning"?!
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The Scriptures, for the hundredth time, say absolutely nothing to me on this subject. It's really time to start to recognize the facts here, and stop making this argument; it doesn't work.
No, I say it does work, and tens of millions of Christians agree with me.
Your move.
P.S. Can you tell me again why polyamoury isn't permissible?
Ah, the tyranny of the majority shows its usual ugly head! It's always fascinating to watch mass denial of plain fact. Well, I guess that's what happens when the arguments all contradict themselves and people can't come up, ever, with any good analogies.
(P.S.: The "poly" part of "polyamory" doesn't match up with the "mono" part of "monogamy." I'd have thought that was fairly obvious, too....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Exactly. And that is the problem.
Tell me, would you be content to accept that sort of statement from a white supremacist Christian ie: "we disagree that being racist constitutes sin"*? Would you just 'agree to differ'? Or would you say that he is 'denying that he is sinning'?
*(Since the racist accusation is so often flung at our side .)
This is another bad analogy, though, since there's no point of comparison between the two things.
Yes there is: they are both sin IMO and in both cases those propounding these views are denying that they are sin. quote:
This is the central problem here, actually; you can't really demonstrate convincingly how gay partnerships are "sin."
I don't need to: the Bible and the consistent teaching of the Church has already done that for me.
quote:
I do, though, say that what the church continues to maintain and teach about this issue is sinful, because of its dreadful outcome. I think the church continues to be sinful in willfully ignoring the reality of gay people and our lives. So in that way I do understand your point.
So you believe you have the right to dictate to the Church what it believes?
quote:
My point is this: we do not believe that gay partnerships are sin. Therefore we it's not true that we "deny we are sinning." The claim is just plain inaccurate.
In what way is "not believing that gay partnerships are sin" not"denying that we are sinning"?!
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
Its the use of the word "denial" here that is the problem, and the assumptions that lie behind it. As an example: I wouldn't "deny" that "friendship is wrong" - because the configuration would never occur to me. It seems a complete contradiction in terms - as if I had to accept the proposition in the first place, and then "deny" the facts in favor of my own interpretation.
But it's the original statement I don't accept: that "friendship is wrong." It doesn't make sense to me. I don't accept the premises, IOW, so I can't agree that I am "denying" anything.
And once again: the Bible says nothing - zip, zero, nada - to me about this issue. And yes, I do believe I have the right to challenge the church; of course I do. That's foundational Anglicanism; see Article XIX.
And of course, the church has been dreadfully and lethally wrong in the past; this is just another instance.
[ 16. July 2008, 14:00: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Ah, the tyranny of the majority shows its usual ugly head!
But dear, you where the one that claimed last time we interacted, that the popularity of your belief was proof of its truth. And we have had quite a few people on your side of the fence arguing that the church needs to follow the majority (the secular).
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's always fascinating to watch mass denial of plain fact.
I agree. I am amazed that you can be apparently self-aware yet continue to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, I guess that's what happens when the arguments all contradict themselves and people can't come up, ever, with any good analogies.
Please show the contradiction. Oh, and Mat wasn't making what I would call an analogy. He was just trying to draw you into answering the question with an illustration. I don't believe he said "homosexuality is like adultery", he said "you would say that someone claiming that adultery isn't a sin, was an unrepentant sinner. We same the same about homosexuals"
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(P.S.: The "poly" part of "polyamory" doesn't match up with the "mono" part of "monogamy." I'd have thought that was fairly obvious, too....)
If we are going to throw out "between a man and woman" why should we keep "monogamy"? I see no scriptural support for the idea that monogamy is the more important part of that arrangement, as you appear to be arguing. There is more scriptural support for polygamy than there is for homosexual monogamy.
When will your bigotry end, and you accept the reality of polyamourists in the church? You don't get to decide who is Christian.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And of course, the church has been dreadfully and lethally wrong in the past
That is an argument for neither side. There is plenty of scriptural warnings of false teachers and wolves in sheeps clothing.
[ 16. July 2008, 14:02: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
raptor, as I said, I took a lot of time to answer your questions once before, here.
You took off and never bothered to respond. Now here you are doing the same thing again. Sorry, I'm just not going to play anymore.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Its the use of the word "denial" here that is the problem, and the assumptions that lie behind it. As an example: I wouldn't "deny" that "friendship is wrong" - because the configuration would never occur to me. It seems a complete contradiction in terms - as if I had to accept the proposition in the first place, and then "deny" the facts in favor of my own interpretation.
But I'm afraid that that's the way it comes across from this side of the fence. The conservatives - and by your own admission the Church all these centuries - are saying "homosexual behaviour is wrong" and your responce is "No it isn't". Where I'm sitting, that's a denial just as much as the adulterer sitting in the pews with his mistress and saying "this is quite alright, really, move along, nothing to see" is a denial of sin.
quote:
And once again: the Bible says nothing - zip, zero, nada - to me about this issue.
Really??!! Obviously you have a different version to the one I'm using. quote:
And yes, I do believe I have the right to challenge the church; of course I do. That's foundational Anglicanism; see Article XIX.
Challenge, maybe. But disobey?
quote:
And of course, the church has been dreadfully and lethally wrong in the past; this is just another instance.
So what are you doing in an institution that, according to you, is committing such a dreadfully heinous set of crimes?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
raptor, as I said, I took a lot of time to answer your questions once before, here.
You took off and never bothered to respond. Now here you are doing the same thing again. Sorry, I'm just not going to play anymore.
No, actually I responded several times after that post. You just kept repeating the same lines, ignored my arguments (like why "monogamy" is more important than "between a man and a woman"), and engaged in cheap rhetorical tricks.
Your argument is "love is love and the Bible doesn't say homosexual love is wrong". My argument is "the bible only promotes relationships between a man and a woman, based on Genesis and how Jesus and the Apostles quoted it".
I can agree to disagree on that. But the logical conclusion of chucking out the "between a man and woman" part of Genesis, is to chuck out the "monogamy" part. Especially when there is biblical support for at least (the acceptance of) polygamy.
[ 16. July 2008, 14:19: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Its the use of the word "denial" here that is the problem, and the assumptions that lie behind it. As an example: I wouldn't "deny" that "friendship is wrong" - because the configuration would never occur to me. It seems a complete contradiction in terms - as if I had to accept the proposition in the first place, and then "deny" the facts in favor of my own interpretation.
But I'm afraid that that's the way it comes across from this side of the fence. The conservatives - and by your own admission the Church all these centuries - are saying "homosexual behaviour is wrong" and your responce is "No it isn't". Where I'm sitting, that's a denial just as much as the adulterer sitting in the pews with his mistress and saying "this is quite alright, really, move along, nothing to see" is a denial of sin.
quote:
And once again: the Bible says nothing - zip, zero, nada - to me about this issue.
Really??!! Obviously you have a different version to the one I'm using. quote:
And yes, I do believe I have the right to challenge the church; of course I do. That's foundational Anglicanism; see Article XIX.
Challenge, maybe. But disobey?
quote:
And of course, the church has been dreadfully and lethally wrong in the past; this is just another instance.
So what are you doing in an institution that, according to you, is committing such a dreadfully heinous set of crimes?
Once again: the "relevant" passages all concern themselves, explicitly, with males. I am not a male. Therefore, the Bible says nothing to me about the issue. Sorry, that's just the way it is; it's just that simple.
Here's article XIX again, just for a refresher (I put in the bold, obviously): "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith."
The church hath erred, it says. A good thing to keep in mind, I think, because it hath erred in really grievous ways in the past; don't you want the church to become what it professes to be? Don't you want it to correct itself when it's wrong?
Your last question is actually a good one; I ask myself every day why I bother with the ridiculous institution of the church, even though I do accept the faith. And I might not stay, in fact; I may become one of the millions who continue to leave, and to wonder what the hell the church's problem is, and why it willfully refuses to acknowledge plain fact and the reality of its own members' lives.
The short answer is that I love the faith, and I love Communion, and I love the people in my parish; that's pretty much it. I will, though, as I said, happily accept segregation in order to find some measure of peace at last, and to have the chance to grow in my faith. It seems clear that's what's going to happen anyway, and if people want a homosexual-free church, they should have it. Likewise, I should have the opportunity to worship with people who see things differently.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Once again: the "relevant" passages all concern themselves, explicitly, with males. I am not a male. Therefore, the Bible says nothing to me about the issue. Sorry, that's just the way it is; it's just that simple.
What about Gen 2:24, which is explicitly endorsed by Jesus Himself?
quote:
Here's article XIX again, just for a refresher (I put in the bold, obviously): "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith."
The church hath erred, it says. A good thing to keep in mind, I think, because it hath erred in really grievous ways in the past; don't you want the church to become what it professes to be? Don't you want it to correct itself when it's wrong?
Yes, but the ones to do the correcting (at least in an episcopal form of church government such as characterises Anglicanism) are the bishops as the episcopate (ie: not a lone bishop doing his own thing like Gene Robinson), and they have said (Lambeth 98, Windsor Covenant etc) 'no' on this issue.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Once again: the "relevant" passages all concern themselves, explicitly, with males
Leviticus is not the "relevant" passage*. Genesis and the quotations of it by Jesus and Apostles like Paul are.
* And I am given to understand from my research into this subject, Leviticus wouldn't even have been a problem for most historical homosexual activity. The obsession with anal sex as the be all of homosexual activity is apparently fairly modern. Historically it was more likely to be Intercrural sex.
[ 16. July 2008, 14:44: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Once again: the "relevant" passages all concern themselves, explicitly, with males. I am not a male. Therefore, the Bible says nothing to me about the issue. Sorry, that's just the way it is; it's just that simple.
What about Gen 2:24, which is explicitly endorsed by Jesus Himself?
quote:
Here's article XIX again, just for a refresher (I put in the bold, obviously): "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith."
The church hath erred, it says. A good thing to keep in mind, I think, because it hath erred in really grievous ways in the past; don't you want the church to become what it professes to be? Don't you want it to correct itself when it's wrong?
Yes, but the ones to do the correcting (at least in an episcopal form of church government such as characterises Anglicanism) are the bishops as the episcopate (ie: not a lone bishop doing his own thing like Gene Robinson), and they have said (Lambeth 98, Windsor Covenant etc) 'no' on this issue.
Jesus was speaking to the power imbalance between men and women in heterosexual marriage, and to the issue of the permissibility of divorce under the law. He was seeking to change that situation by appealing to Scripture and to the consciences of human beings - which is exactly what we're doing, too. Here's an example: "It is not good for the man to be alone." Also from Genesis.
And actually, the Bishops are doing the "correcting" - in their own Sees. And Gene Robinson was elected by his own people; he's not really "acting on his own" in any sense of the word.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Once again: the "relevant" passages all concern themselves, explicitly, with males
Leviticus is not the "relevant" passage*. Genesis and the quotations of it by Jesus and Apostles like Paul are.
* And I am given to understand from my research into this subject, Leviticus wouldn't even have been a problem for most historical homosexual activity. The obsession with anal sex as the be all of homosexual activity is apparently fairly modern. Historically it was more likely to be Intercrural sex.
Then I assume you think that a gay man should "leave his parents and cleave to his wife." Wow, good thinking!
How many women do you think would agree to this bargain, BTW? Would it be OK for your sister or your daughter to marry a gay man? How about you marrying a lesbian? That sounds like fun, doesn't it?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Here's an example: "It is not good for the man to be alone." Also from Genesis.
So God created woman. As I said last time, it isn't a compelling argument against heterosexuality being Gods preference.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Here's an example: "It is not good for the man to be alone." Also from Genesis.
So God created woman. As I said last time, it isn't a compelling argument against heterosexuality being Gods preference.
Apparently God created gay people, too.
And I think God can probably handle exceptions to the rule. Not everybody's bisexual, you know, as you say you are.
I do wonder why we're supposed to take what is clearly an etiological/morality tale about sin and separation from God to be a prescription for marriage. There wasn't any sex in the Garden, after all; all sexual behavior is fallen - and there won't be any marriage in heaven, either. Remember?
[ 16. July 2008, 14:56: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Then I assume you think that a gay man should "leave his parents and cleave to his wife." Wow, good thinking!
How many women do you think would agree to this bargain, BTW? Would it be OK for your sister or your daughter to marry a gay man?
It would have been a better relationship then most of my sisters others. They could still have love and commitment, not every heterosexual wants much of a sexual relationship.
And it isn't like that is a rare occurrence in reality.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
How about you marrying a lesbian? That sounds like fun, doesn't it?
Isn't it every man's dream to marry a lesbian? That's what the men's magazines keep telling me.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Then I assume you think that a gay man should "leave his parents and cleave to his wife." Wow, good thinking!
How many women do you think would agree to this bargain, BTW? Would it be OK for your sister or your daughter to marry a gay man?
It would have been a better relationship then most of my sisters others. They could still have love and commitment, not every heterosexual wants much of a sexual relationship.
And it isn't like that is a rare occurrence in reality.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
How about you marrying a lesbian? That sounds like fun, doesn't it?
Isn't it every man's dream to marry a lesbian? That's what the men's magazines keep telling me.
So let's see. You think that heterosexual women should marry gay men, because gay men are better "catches." And it's OK for men to marry lesbians because the glossy magazines say so.
I'm sure that's in the Scriptures someplace, too....
(P.S. The "lesbians" in the magazines aren't really lesbians, you know.)
[ 16. July 2008, 15:02: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Apparently God created gay people, too.
I would argue that he didn't make them gay, you would differ.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And I think God can probably handle exceptions to the rule. Not everybody's bisexual, you know, as you say you are.
I think more men are than admit it. Especially given the levels of situational homosexuality.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There wasn't any sex in the Garden, after all; all sexual behavior is fallen - and there won't be any marriage in heaven, either. Remember?
Oh no. You aren't one of those people that believe in the Garden there was some kind of baby tree?
Genesis 1: 28 quote:
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number;
Genesis 2: 24, doesn't really support the "sex is fallen" argument either. And Heaven isn't the Garden.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Someday people will, I'm sure, give even the slightest consideration to the people who are actually directly involved in the issue: i.e., gay people. Who really, mostly, don't want to marry heterosexuals; we think it's pretty much wrong - and perhaps even abusive - to do so.
But obviously that day is not today.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So let's see. You think that heterosexual women should marry gay men, because gay men are better "catches."
No, I said there are worse options. I don't consider mutually satisfying sex to be the heart of a marriage (contrary to the lies of the secular world).
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And it's OK for men to marry lesbians because the glossy magazines say so.
I'm sure that's in the Scriptures someplace, too....
(P.S. The "lesbians" in the magazines aren't really lesbians, you know.)
Do I need to put smileys every time I am being silly? Or maybe you think I am being silly all the time? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And actually, the Bishops are doing the "correcting" - in their own Sees. And Gene Robinson was elected by his own people; he's not really "acting on his own" in any sense of the word.
Not much of an episcopal communion, then, is it?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Interesting that we switch back and forth between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, whenever convenient. (Interesting, too, that the two stories are different and incompatible! How does that work, I wonder?)
Anyway, the takeaway of the story(ies) of the Garden is that human beings were ejected from it, and now live in a sinful state. That means you heterosexuals, too.
(There weren't really two individuals called "Adam" - i.e., "man" - and "Havvah," you know.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And actually, the Bishops are doing the "correcting" - in their own Sees. And Gene Robinson was elected by his own people; he's not really "acting on his own" in any sense of the word.
Not much of an episcopal communion, then, is it?
So again the argument is not about what's right, but about "majority rules" and on "voting" on how others are to live.
Not much of church, then, is it?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Someday people will, I'm sure, give even the slightest consideration to the people who are actually directly involved in the issue: i.e., gay people.
So other Christians aren't important? Sounds distinctly unloving to me.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Who really, mostly, don't want to marry heterosexuals; we think it's pretty much wrong - and perhaps even abusive - to do so.
I never said you had to, I said it wasn't the worst option in the world.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
It's about trying to discern the mind of Christ, in the light of Scripture and Tradition, through His Body, the Church (not just the NH bit of it) to determine how those in the Church (not "others" generally) should live, on a whole range of questions, not just this DH.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Someday people will, I'm sure, give even the slightest consideration to the people who are actually directly involved in the issue: i.e., gay people.
So other Christians aren't important? Sounds distinctly unloving to me.
Gee, and if you could only show how gay partnerships affect anybody else in a negative way, I might have to go along with you there.
Is it just that we're offending your own personal belief system? If so: how rude of atheists and Buddhists and Jews!
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Interesting that we switch back and forth between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, whenever convenient.
What switching? Those are just two relevant quotes regarding the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Interesting, too, that the two stories are different and incompatible! How does that work, I wonder?)
And still better then most eye witness accounts. But that is another topic.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Anyway, the takeaway of the story(ies) of the Garden is that human beings were ejected from it, and now live in a sinful state. That means you heterosexuals, too.
Shit, I'm sinful? Damn, I thought all my lusting and perversions were perfectly acceptable. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Who said heterosexuals weren't sinful regarding sex? Most men can't look at a woman without sinning.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's about trying to discern the mind of Christ, in the light of Scripture and Tradition, through His Body, the Church (not just the NH bit of it) to determine how those in the Church (not "others" generally) should live, on a whole range of questions, not just this DH.
And where is evidence of "discernment"? There was a vote, and we are all expected to live accordingly.
I don't see any "discernment" at work here. Lambeth 1998 was simple majority rule; "What we say goes." Period. That's the argument, Matt.
Gay people have never been asked to speak ourselves; the one openly gay Bishop is explicitly not invited. There has never been any sort of discussion along the lines of what's going on right on this thread, even.
Sad to say, Ship of Fools is far better at this than the Anglican Communion is. At least the Catholics have bothered to reason it out, even if their reasoning if self-contradictory and bizarre.
[ 16. July 2008, 15:27: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Gee, and if you could only show how gay partnerships affect anybody else in a negative way, I might have to go along with you there.
I think they only affect other people when they encourage them to sin. As I said, I believe the primary damage is to the person involved, just like most other sexual sin.
I *personally* couldn't in good conscience say to a gay Christian "I think it is okay for you to engage in homosexual sex". To me it would be like telling a Christian to divorce his wife so he could marry his secretary. To me it wouldn't be the loving thing to do, I believe homosexual sex is harmful (just not in a materialist fashion).
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Is it just that we're offending your own personal belief system? If so: how rude of atheists and Buddhists and Jews!
I am not in Christian fellowship with Atheists and Buddhists and Jews. And I wouldn't feel able to stay in fellowship with a Christian that was promoting those religions.
I couldn't care less what non-Christian gays do. They won't get saved by abstaining from homosexual sex. Just as a heterosexual won't get saved by living a monogamous life.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Shit, I'm sinful? Damn, I thought all my lusting and perversions were perfectly acceptable.
Who said heterosexuals weren't sinful regarding sex? Most men can't look at a woman without sinning.
Exactly. And all this applies as well to gay people, of course.
So what was the problem again? Because you think that Genesis is a morality story that somehow addresses the issue of homosexuality? That its primary purpose is to affirm that "penis + vagina = good"?
Oh, no! It's "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" all over again! I'm having a 70s flashback! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Anyway, I'm happy for you, if you want to be in the Church of the All-and-Only-Straight. Enjoy it! It's not my cup of tea, however, and I'll be quite happy to be in my segregated sect. Or else gone entirely from the Church, whichever comes first.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Gee, and if you could only show how gay partnerships affect anybody else in a negative way, I might have to go along with you there.
I think they only affect other people when they encourage them to sin. As I said, I believe the primary damage is to the person involved, just like most other sexual sin.
I *personally* couldn't in good conscience say to a gay Christian "I think it is okay for you to engage in homosexual sex". To me it would be like telling a Christian to divorce his wife so he could marry his secretary. To me it wouldn't be the loving thing to do, I believe homosexual sex is harmful (just not in a materialist fashion).
Exactly. But I have a totally different understanding of this issue. I know many gay couples who aren't "damaged" in any way by their own partnerships - although they have been damaged by others who hate them for being gay.
Anyway, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how "homosexual sex" per se could "damage" somebody. Where does this start, exactly? Is it damaging to give your lover a peck on the cheek? How about a loving hug, or a kiss? How about holding them in bed at night? During the actual sex itself? At what point does the "damage" begin, exactly?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Shit, I'm sinful? Damn, I thought all my lusting and perversions were perfectly acceptable.
Who said heterosexuals weren't sinful regarding sex? Most men can't look at a woman without sinning.
Exactly. And all this applies as well to gay people, of course.
Which wasn't what we where originally talking about. Which was "unrepentant sin". If a heterosexual was going around unrepentant about sin, and it was affecting other Christian brothers and sisters, I would be all for firmer action to bring him to repentance.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So what was the problem again? Because you think that Genesis is a morality story that somehow addresses the issue of homosexuality? That its primary purpose is to affirm that "penis + vagina = good"?
Jesus and Paul quoted it, so I think it has some bearing on the issue of what is acceptable. I think that even if homosexual sex is permissible, that heterosexual sex is what our bodies were designed for.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Anyway, I'm happy for you, if you want to be in the Church of the All-and-Only-Straight
Oh no, I think I would probably be happier with some form of polygamy or "open" sexuality. I just don't believe it is permissible.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's about trying to discern the mind of Christ, in the light of Scripture and Tradition, through His Body, the Church (not just the NH bit of it) to determine how those in the Church (not "others" generally) should live, on a whole range of questions, not just this DH.
And where is evidence of "discernment"? There was a vote, and we are all expected to live accordingly.
And the folks in NH voted too - and the rest of us are supposed to live with the consequences. Why to your mind is one vote right and the other wrong?
quote:
I don't see any "discernment" at work here. Lambeth 1998 was simple majority rule; "What we say goes." Period.
And the election of Gene Robinson was a simple majority vote in NH: "What we say goes". Period.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Oh no, I think I would probably be happier with some form of polygamy or "open" sexuality. I just don't believe it is permissible.
Terrific. It's all settled, then.
You have your views, and I have mine. Your views are damaging to gay Christians, and mine are damaging - somehow - to the straight Christians you know.
So, let's just agree to disagree. You go off to your own church and I'll go to mine. Segregation is very acceptable to me on this issue; the church has split over and over again over such things, after all, and this is just one more.
Which is what I said about 435 posts ago....
[ 16. July 2008, 15:47: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But I have a totally different understanding of this issue. I know many gay couples who aren't "damaged" in any way by their own partnerships - although they have been damaged by others who hate them for being gay.
I said it wasn't damage from a materialists point. I believe it is rebellion against God, and is damaging like all rebellion against God (eg not being loving or compassionate).
It isn't damaging like pornography can be (I definitely know that), or adultery etc.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You have your views, and I have mine. Your views are damaging to gay Christians, and mine are damaging - somehow - to the straight Christians you know.
No, I believe your views are damaging to the gay (or bisexual) Christians. Straight Christians are hardly likely to go gay just because someone else is. The straight Christians are only damaged when they allow what they see as unrepentant sin to continue.
And I would still like you to explain in more detail why polyamoury isn't permissable.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's about trying to discern the mind of Christ, in the light of Scripture and Tradition, through His Body, the Church (not just the NH bit of it) to determine how those in the Church (not "others" generally) should live, on a whole range of questions, not just this DH.
And where is evidence of "discernment"? There was a vote, and we are all expected to live accordingly.
And the folks in NH voted too - and the rest of us are supposed to live with the consequences. Why to your mind is one vote right and the other wrong?
Because the vote in New Hampshire didn't ever attempt to tell anybody anywhere else how to live their lives? And because the people of the diocese actually have a say in it, unlike at +Lambeth?
And because the people opposed still have their say in the Episcopal Church, and continue to argue about it - whereas gay people are not allowed to speak at Lambeth?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
It purported to tell the rest of us with whom we should be in communion - against the discipline of the Church based on Scripture and Tradition.
You're quite right in one sense - neither you nor I get a vote at Lambeth, because we're not Bishops. And rightly so.
[ 16. July 2008, 15:59: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
And I would still like you to explain in more detail why polyamoury isn't permissable.
I've already done that, too. Faithful love between two people is a "type" of the love between the soul and God; "mono"theism -> "mono"gamy.
Scripture is not at all consistent on the topic of sex and marriage - it is, in fact, all over the place - but it is completely consistent on the topic of "faithfulness." We don't worship multiple Gods; we worship One God. Marriage is also training in the habit of this kind of faithfulness, and in love - and in self-restraint.
In addition, there are all sorts of arguments against polygamy on social grounds - but we don't have to go there.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It purported to tell the rest of us with whom we should be in communion - against the discipline of the Church based on Scripture and Tradition.
You're quite right in one sense - neither you nor I get a vote at Lambeth, because we're not Bishops. And rightly so.
Well, as I've said before: it would have been better to "discern" this together. But that wasn't on offer in any sense; we were openly ridiculed for even trying to discuss the topic.
I'll ask again, too: how come no response from anybody to Peter Akinola's rhetoric and actions? It seems clear that hatred of gay people is perfectly OK with the Anglican Communion; is there really any reason for anybody to respect its "teachings" on the subject when it can't seem to act ethically on the matter?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
And I would still like you to explain in more detail why polyamoury isn't permissable.
I've already done that, too. Faithful love between two people is a "type" of the love between the soul and God; "mono"theism -> "mono"gamy.
Scripture is not at all consistent on the topic of sex and marriage - it is, in fact, all over the place - but it is completely consistent on the topic of "faithfulness." We don't worship multiple Gods; we worship One God. Marriage is also training in the habit of this kind of faithfulness, and in love - and in self-restraint.
That was a pretty good argument.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(I have to sign off now, sorry. Will come back later.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I'll ask again, too: how come no response from anybody to Peter Akinola's rhetoric and actions?
I am not Anglican. But as Shepard Book once said, "[the bible] is a mite fuzzy on the area of knee cappings".
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Tuba, if I may be so informal and use your first name.
The hatred of homosexuals is a sin. A truly gross one. A disfellowshippable one. An example of sociopathology at least.
I am very much aware of my own matrix of sexual responses as I would be by now at 54. They are not orthodox by a LONG way. I have been astounded at what has turned me on. How positively flushed and coquettish I have been to say the least. Homosexually so.
We elevate the concept of the sublimation of intense desire, of romantic love, which I know full well homosexuals experience as equally as heterosexuals and the accompanying pair bonding, all of the facets of erotic, philial and selfless, sacrificial love that are entailed.
We judge the horse - orthodoxy - by that cart - overwhelming human experience.
I am a liberal. I'm as liberal as I can possibly be. By inclination. By nature. By disposition. Against orthodoxy that I cannot refute.
Ultimately I dare not.
I FEAR God.
I have championed the killer God who became Jesus here and always will unless I apostasize.
But it must be 12 years and more since I read the Torah, the Pentateuch and Job which it's taken me half a year to - I'm THAT disciplined!
And I have been utterly horrified by God's lethality. God the Son's lethality. Just a week ago, His execution, His total scorched earth, no prisoners war on Korah, Dathan and Abiram. And their households. Although some children at least survived. The SAME God who shone through the window of Jesus. Jesus who is JUST as lethal. He damns us to eternal hell if we deny Him.
Do you see my 'problem'?
To me your liberal God is utterly unrecognisable.
The God of record - like Aslan unsafe but GOOD - is all I can see.
And terrified by Him as I am, afrid of Him, He says to me, to you, 'Trust me.'.
I believe that Jesus arms are virtually infinitely since the cross, to harvest us on to His most narrow, perfect, pure, holy way.
In which we ALL fall woefully short.
If you are RIGHT then God the Liberal will save fearful fascists like me regardless and the future is rosy, perhaps, even prior to the resurrection as the Church fills the world.
If you are wrong, the end result is just as good for us all, for those in error who can be corrected in the resurrection.
But the outlook until then is progressively more evil than we have ever experienced. For us all. Although liberalism will triumph as never before. It hasn't peaked yet by a long way. It hasn't jailed me yet.
Liberalism is utterly doomed. By it's own inherent paradoxes (paradoxes parallel to those of God the Liberal) and by its alien enemies. And as an Englishman I don't look forward to that.
Fascism, not mine, triumphs before we're harvested for Good.
Who knows, may be we'll go down in the arena together, when the world becomes Hiroschwitz.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
