“It’s not a marriage in any way. It’s not a legal marriage. It’s not a marriage in the church. This is a recognition of a commitment, which is a covenant, of two people who vow to live their lives in a monogamous relationship.”

So… suppose Chuck and Shirley are living together, but for whatever reasons (Shirley’s husband is in prison for twenty to life and is being most unreasonable about signing the divorce papers, Chuck doesn’t want to get civilly married because of losing benefits if he does, Chuck already has a wife in another state but although they’re no longer living together, if they divorce they’ll lose out on a juicy inheritance when Great-Aunt Mabel kicks the bucket) they are not married either by the state or the church.

Will we see the recognition of their covenant to live in a monogamous relationship?

If not, why is it different if it’s Chuck and Larry or Shirley and Jo-Anne living together?

Actually, a covenant is bringing in the big sacramental guns already. You’re declaring that God will bless those who keep it and curse those who break it.

Unless you’re doing a strictly human covenant, in which case you’re declaring that the people involved can rain covenant curses and destruction down on each other and their families if they break it, up to and including war and execution. And in this case, you have to be killing some animals and walking between them as a graphic demonstration of covenant-breach consequences. And I think all the dead bisected bunnies and birdies on the floor of church would get a bit messy.

So yeah… I’m thinking this bishop guy either slept through all his classes about covenants, or he thinks every word related to religion is just a blah blah thing you can mouthe without meaning.

They’ll reap what they sow. No worries.

Covenant blessings and curses are also binding upon entire families, btw. It’s not a commitment; it makes people kin in a way subject to enforcement.

I guess this guy really did sleep through his classes, not to mention all the stuff about covenants and the wrath of God.

I keep wondering about the insistence on monogamy. Isn’t that forcing GLBTQXYZs into hetero patterns of leading their lives? Seems awfully discriminatory to me.

Having been promised multiple times “Don’t worry, that won’t happen here” only for it to happen – it’s coming. Our “oasis” of Central Florida is no different. Evil is spreading because good men chose to do nothing.

“The assembly stands, the couple faces the people, and the Presider addresses them, saying
Presider Will all of you here gathered uphold and honor this couple and
respect the covenant they make?
People We will.
Presider Will you pray for them in times of trouble and celebrate with them in times of joy?
People We will”

This, in effect forces the entire congregation to join in the covenant, for those who attend. Review the language of the “rite” and see how the alternate statements eliminate the Trinity and remove Christ as Lord. My point is that is a covenant entered into by ALL those present.

This is the PDF of the “ceremony”
https://www.churchpublishing.org/media/869869/IWillBlessYouandYouWillBeaBlessingEXTRACT.pdf

Vono sez

…In hindsight, these shifts have come to be seen as faithful responses to a deepening understanding and revelation of what it means to be human…

Please take note that he said nothing about revealing what it means to be Christian. I note, too, that he used the word “intentionally” when referring to the “historic shift and change” which has taken place. I think that let the cat out of the bag. I guess when you discern “Scripture, Tradition, and Reason intentionally” you can make them say pretty much what you want to going in.

What a bunch of pompous self-justifying baloney!

” Evil is spreading because good men chose to do nothing.”

No. Evil is spreading because the world must be consumed by it before the Messiah returns.

In hindsight, these shifts have come to be seen as faithful responses to a deepening understanding and revelation of what it means to be human.

Please note there was no mention of any revelation of what it means to be Christian

I also note that when you are …”… discerning Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, intentionally…” it is very easy to make them say whatever you want them to say.

This is just mere pompous, self-justifying space gas!

@Creedal -

Where are you getting THAT reading from? I don’t recall Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or any of the other epistle writers making such a claim.

“What it means to be human” is thoroughly covered in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. These modern attempts to re-define creation in a “better” image have serious unintended consequences, as human contrivances so often do.

Not only predictable, but predicted:

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
http://www.virtueonline.org
4/26/2010

[Rev. Michael Vono] With the election of the Rev. Dr. Michael L. Vono as the next bishop of The Diocese of the Rio Grande, this once theologically orthodox diocese now joins the ranks of dioceses that have succumbed to the siren call of pansexuality.

Vono, 60, was elected the ninth bishop of the Diocese of Rio Grande on the third ballot on Saturday morning in a specially held Election Convention.

From evangelical bishop Terry Kelshaw to Anglo-Catholic Bishop Jeffrey Steenson to the orthodox, but institutionalist Bishop William Frey, this orthodox diocese has elected a pro-gay bishop in the person of Michael Vono, an open and public supporter of Bishop Gene Robinson. Vono himself is divorced with no children. During the walk-abouts, he said he remained “heart-broken and crushed” because of the breakdown of his marriage.

His sentiments about homosexuality were expressed in a letter from the vestry of St. Paul’s Within the Walls, Rome, where he was the rector. He and he Vestry passed a resolution “supporting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters”, before delegates went off to General Convention.

Delegates also believed the Church in New Hampshire had been “inspired and moved by God’s Holy Spirit” in calling Gene Robinson as Bishop and urged the Church at large to “respect the dignity of faithful gay and lesbian persons within our Episcopal Church.”

This signals to remnant orthodox Episcopalians that they have little or no future in the diocese or TEC. Many orthodox parishes will now weigh their options as they face an uncertain future.

“Many orthodox parishes will now weigh their options as they face an uncertain future.”

Really, Brize, nothing could be more certain than the future of these parishes.

I keep wondering about the insistence on monogamy. Isn’t that forcing GLBTQXYZs into hetero patterns of leading their lives?

I have never understood, if a person IS “bisexual” the way a person IS a woman, instead of being a human being HAVING dual or indeterminate sexual proclivities, how can that person ever be limited to one spouse?

Please help me here:
If God created marriage between one man and one woman for life.
This is a “lifelong union”.
This is essentially a marriage.

Is this not another denial of God?

And we wonder why evil is growing in this country?

Vono is, of course, a former Catholic, and former Catholic seminarian.

As a Catholic, I refer with approbation to the bon mot of Edward I of England, left in the good earthy Norman
French in which it was spoken:

“bon bosogne faict, qy de merde me livrer”

which applies equally well to the ex-Catholics like Vono, Provenzano and others who are now happily serving as district gauleiters in TE”C.”

This is happening because America is under judgment for its sins and God has brought a delusion on the country, the people of which have been struck blind on all concepts of morality, responsibility, and ethics. Like Sodom and Gomorrah, they will now only focus on immoral sex, selfish desires and greed. They will continue on to their destruction. We are to be salt and light in these last days, even if, as it increasingly appears, we will suffer persecution for doing so. That is what Jesus called us to.

See e.g., Matthew 24 (Jesus’ words), II Peter 3. Numerous other places in scripture as well.

Jim the Puritan,
You say “God has brought…”. Shouldn’t that have been “Satan has brought” ??

So who says that God is blessing this covenant? I bet He wasn’t even consulted. What right have we to change the mind of God? Almost sounds as if God has no rights, he is limited by what we think He ought to do, be.

The poker tell in that oh-so-clericalist justification of the new world order is Vono’s assertion that “Holy Scripture and human sciences have been in serious dialogue in addressing the mystery of human nature.” Oh, really? On whose terms?

That’s not just anthropomorphizing; that’s a tacit admission and a none-too-subtle pat on his own back. Vono’s definition of “discernment” bears little resemblance to John Henry Cardinal Newman’s (for example), but Vono has paid close attention to the things his own sock puppets have said to each other, and the scary “scripture” puppet just surrendered to the sequined “science” puppet.

“It’s not a marriage in any way”

Flush once

“It’s not a legal marriage”

Flush twice

“It’s not a marriage in the church”

Flush thrice

Vono’s going to run out of water trying to rationalize that which cannot be. A really sad commentary on a once proud and Christian diocese.

“bon bosogne faict, qy de merde me livrer”

My fourteenth-century French is rusty, but my guess is that it means “Whoever rids me of this POS is doing me a favor.”

(Source please? I’d like to read the rest of it, whatever it is.)

Sic transit the former Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

Do not mourn its passing. The blind guide leaders over the past four decades have seen to its demise.

They face judgment.

I need some clarification here. Bishop Vono is allowing blessings of same-sex covenant relationships in his diocese. These will be based on the work done by TEC at General Convention and based on the approved liturgy issued. Bishop Vono says these are in no way marriages, either civil or religious, at all, at all.

Over at Stand Firm, I see the Dean of the National Cathedral is allowing blessings of same-sex covenant relationships, based on the work done at General Convenant and adapted from the official liturgy issued. He says these are marriages exactly the same, and offered under the same conditions, as all the other marriages performed in the National Cathedral and he’s over the moon at being able to celebrate them at last:

“The Episcopal Church has shown faithfulness and courage in the long discernment process that led to the development and approval of this rite. The Diocese of Washington has similarly been a leader in the implementation of marriage equality. I have shared this decision with the Chapter and staff prior to this announcement, and I am proud that Washington National Cathedral will be among the first Episcopal institutions to adopt and implement a rite that will enable our faithful LGBT members to share in the sacramental blessings of Christian marriage.”

So which is it? A marriage or a blessing? Or does it depend which diocese you’re in – Joe and Bob got married in Washington but Bill and Zack only got blessed in Rio Grande, despite the fact that their ceremonies were held in churches of the same denomination, offering the same service, from the same officially-issued liturgy, by the same clergy?

Fuinseoig, the NatCat press release sounds like they are going to be conducting SS marriages, which are legal in the District and neighboring Maryland, using a marriage rite “adapted from” the SS blessing rite General Convention approved. So in Washington, DC, gays will be married in a TEC church, which of course GC did not approve. However, deviations from GC doctrine are always approved after the fact if they are in a more “progressive” direction than GC was able to go at the time. Do not expect any charges against the Bishop and Dean for allowing rites which GC does not allow.

Anne B.,

I can’t give you a source. I read it over 30 years ago, and the phrase itself has stuck in my mind (like such a vast heap of useless, or only very occasionally useful, stuff) ever since, long after I’ve forgotten where I read it.

You might wish to google the phrase (I have never done so), and see what turns up.

Fuinseoig – Just to tag on to Katherine’s response above: SS “marriages” are legal in DC and Maryland as she indicates. The Dean, I imagine, is defining his own “local option.”

They, SSB’s or SSM’s, are most certainly not in the state of Texas where the Diocese of the Rio Grand is located.

I did that, William Tighe! It bring up two uses, by you, here at MCJ, and a reference to something with Edward II, which didn’t seem to have a translation; however, the phrase plus “translation” brings up what Anne B. and I both thought it meant.

Wm. Tighe & Katherine, best match I could find is:

“…Edward I when he said “bon bosoigne fait qy de merde se deliver* ”, as he handed over the Great Seal of Scotland in 1327.”
http://falsdene.blogspot.com/2007/12/2008-and-that.html

This is where Google took me, and it is pretty fascinating, actually. (Sorry I don’t know how to do the linky things).

http://www.archive.org/stream/scalacronicareig01grayuoft/scalacronicareig01grayuoft_djvu.txt

The French phrase actually fits the title of the post quite well.

Katherine, Daniel, I appreciate that the Dean’s view is probably much closer to the intentions of General Convention than the Bishop’s, but the thing is that this rite is supposed to be a blessing in a religious context of a relationship (whether or not this relationship is civilly recognised as a civil union, marriage or what have you).

Now, the bishop is saying “No way is this a marriage, how on earth can you think that?” but the dean is burbling with delight about “finally we can celebrate marriages for our GLBT parishioners!” and I really don’t see how you get two different readings out of the one document. Both the bishop and the dean are going by what General Convention permitted TEC to do in a pastoral role (quite outside of the civil state law as to whether Jack and Joe or Jill and Sue are married, living together, or in a domestic partnership that is not civil marriage). Both of them are taking the liturgy committee’s trial rite as the starting-point.

One of them surely has to be wrong in how he’s interpreting this permission. Unless I’m simply not Anglican enough to appreciate the subtle nuances of “We can all have our own private opinion, so long as we all perform the same public practice”.

I saw the news on the National Cathedral’s latest hijinx, and felt I had to see the MCJ response…

I am brought to mind of what an Ordinariate priest (ordained last year after fleeing the ECUSA) I know well calls the National Cathedral: “The Temple of Dagon.”

I really don’t see how you get two different readings out of the one document.

Now, now, I am sure that you are familiar with the use of the word Erastianism on this site. What I found to be rather shocking when I first realized it now seems commonplace: a number of Episcopal bishops merely follow state (or District) law without question.

I usually try not to comment directly on Episcopal affairs; any corrections are welcome.

Fuinseoig, the Bishop of the Rio Grande is doing what General Convention permitted, permitting “blessings” according to the provisional rite it approved. The Bishop of Washington (DC) and the Dean of the National Cathedral are doing what General Convention did NOT permit AT THIS TIME. They are, if I read the press release correctly, modifying the provisional rite to make it a marriage rite, not a blessing. In TEC la-la land, you can be thrown out for not doing anything contrary to constitution or canon (+Lawrence) but you will not be thrown out for doing something “progressive” no matter what canons say. Describing this state of affairs as a church, part on the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, is ridiculous. It’s the church of “If it feels good, do it.” Don’t bother trying to make sense of it.

In the case of the Washington National Cathedral, it appears that the gargoyles are not living up to their raison d’être. Instead of warding off evil, they are welcoming it in.

Budde has a grand ally in Hall. They make a great team in orchestrating the final destruction of what was once my home diocese. Vono’s simply trying to straddle the fence through an exercise in semantics.

“We’re going down the dra-ay-ain,”
We’re going down the dra-ay-ain,
We’re going down the drain today!
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We’re going down the drain — to-day-ay-ay-ay-ay.”

Concerning this,

http://falsdene.blogspot.com/2007/12/2008-and-that.html

the blogger seems to be as ignorant of British History, as he was erroneous about his prediction that Hillary Clinton would be elected President in 2007. He reports that the Norman French phrase I quoted above was uttered by Edward I in 1327 “when he handed over the Great Seal of Scotland. In fact, Edward I had died in 1307; his son, Edward II had been imprisoned be rebels in October 1326, was deposed in January 1327 and replaced by his 14-year-old elder son, Edward III, and is generally supposed to have been murdered in September/October 1327. The Great Seal of Scotland, if it has been in English possession since Edward I’s conquest of much of Scotland in the early 1290s, would not have been handed back to the Scots until, by the Treaty of Northampton in 1328, the English recognized Scotland’s complete independence of England (a treaty which they repudiated in 1333).

So, the mystery still remains, unless it is solved here:

http://www.archive.org/stream/scalacronicareig01grayuoft/scalacronicareig01grayuoft_djvu.txt

And, lo, it is solved there (above) and refers to Edward I’s committing the government of Scotland in 1296, after the submission of the Scots King, John de Balliol, to the Earl Warenne:

*********************************************

King Edward of England occupied all the castles of
Scotland, and rode through the country until he came to Stokforthe, and appointed his officials, and, in returning, caused to be carried away from the abbey of Scone the stone whereon the kings of Scotland were wont to be seated at the beginning of a reign, and caused it to be taken to London at Westminster, and made it the seat of the priest at the high altar.

King Edward of England caused summon his Parliament at Berwick, where he took homage from all the magnates of Scotland, to which he had their seals appended in perpetual memory, and thence he repaired to England, where, at the abbey of Newminster, (1) he committed the custody of Scotland to the Earl of
Warenne, with a seal of government for the same, and said in jest: “He does good business who rids himself of dirt!” (3)

1 Westminster, the ‘ new minster ‘ of Edward the Confessor.

2 Bon bosoigne fait qy de merde se deliuer: reminding one of the famous mot de Cambronne at Waterloo.”

3 An euphemistic translation; “a job well done who rids oneself of a turd” would be more literal.

“One of them surely has to be wrong in how he’s interpreting this permission” It is a mute point. the 2009 issued this: “A generous pastoral response” to the GLBT folks. It was a done deal then.

<>

No, Scripture God brings delusion on those in rebellion to Him and who have rejected Him, as part of His judgment. See II Thessalonians 2:1-12, especially verses 11-12:

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Essentially they are blinded and can no longer see, as the men of Sodom were before their destruction. Certainly the mainline denominations are under such delusion right now, as well as much of the rest of the country.

My last posting for some reason left out the question by Maxine Schell I was responding to, which was:

Jim the Puritan,
You say “God has brought…”. Shouldn’t that have been “Satan has brought” ??

I found the phrase referenced in Google books “The Scottish Historical Review, volume III” and translated as “He does good business who rids himself of dirt.” Though I am sure the more frank expression turd is correct.

Oops, I meant a moot point not a mute point.

MCJ – where fortuitous typos abound and bring us all much enlightenment – whether in archaic French or koine Greek! Or even English!

For a more palatable view, I encourage you to read Pope Benedict’s Christmas address to the Roman Curia. Specifically consider these words:

The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

My husband heard the National Cathedral story in a brief news snippet on a local rock n’ roll radio station and asked me if it could possibly be true. I said yes because National Cathedral was Episcopalian. He said “Oh that explains it” — he’d assumed it was Catholic and the story was some kind of joke!

Years ago a friend of my brother claimed that the Episcopal Church was the “frozen yogurt” version of Catholicism: all of the pleasure, none of the guilt. Well, seems to me it’s becoming more and more like the moonshine version of Catholicism: a cheap, cobbled together and extremely toxic substitute for the real thing.

Elaine S -

Another point of view is that the Episcopal Church is a moonshine version of it’s own former self.

Denise -

That was wonderful. I am so grateful to live in a time of good popes. Even if Pope Benedict were a wicked man (I don’t think he is, but you never know), he is a wonderful theologian. Thank you.

I resent the slur on moonshine.

Even if Pope Benedict were a wicked man (I don’t think he is, but you never know)

No, he is the genuine article, very humble and even a nice guy. I feel just awful about all the vituperation heaped on him by people who know nothing about him personally but have some perceived beef with the Catholic Church. Or Germany. And it will not stop with his death; cf. Pius XII.

Richard M – that Dagon quote reminded me irresistibly of H.P. Lovecraft’s story “The Shadow over Innsmouth”:

“Her own attitude toward shadowed Innsmouth – which she never seen – was one of disgust at a community slipping far down the cultural scale, and she assured me that the rumours of devil-worship were partly justified by a peculiar secret cult which had gained force there and engulfed all the orthodox churches. It was called, she said, “The Esoteric Order of Dagon”, and was undoubtedly a debased, quasi-pagan thing imported from the East a century before, at a time when the Innsmouth fisheries seemed to be going barren. Its persistence among a simple people was quite natural in view of the sudden and permanent return of abundantly fine fishing, and it soon came to be the greatest influence in the town, replacing Freemasonry altogether and taking up headquarters in the old Masonic Hall on New Church Green.

…The door of the church basement was open, revealing a rectangle of blackness inside. And as I looked, a certain object crossed or seemed to cross that dark rectangle; burning into my brain a momentary conception of nightmare which was all the more maddening because analysis could not shew a single nightmarish quality in it.

It was a living object – the first except the driver that I had seen since entering the compact part of the town – and had I been in a steadier mood I would have found nothing whatever of terror in it. Clearly, as I realised a moment later, it was the pastor; clad in some peculiar vestments doubtless introduced since the Order of Dagon had modified the ritual of the local churches. The thing which had probably caught my first subconscious glance and supplied the touch of bizarre horror was the tall tiara he wore; an almost exact duplicate of the one Miss Tilton had shown me the previous evening. This, acting on my imagination, had supplied namelessly sinister qualities to the indeterminate face and robed, shambling
form beneath it. There was not, I soon decided, any reason why I should have felt that shuddering touch of evil pseudo-memory. Was it not natural that a local mystery cult should adopt among its regimentals an unique type of head-dress made familiar to the community in some strange way – perhaps as treasuretrove?

…Certain spots were almost forbidden territory, as he had learned at considerable cost. One must not, for example, linger much around the Marsh refinery, or around any of the still used churches, or around the pillared Order of Dagon Hall at New Church Green. T hose churches were very odd – all violently disavowed by their respective denominations elsewhere, and apparently using the queerest kind of ceremonials and clerical vestments. Their creeds were heterodox and mysterious, involving hints of certain marvelous transformations leading to bodily immorality – of a sort – on this earth. The youth’s own pastor – Dr. Wallace of Asbury M. E. Church in Arkham – had gravely urged him not to join any church in Innsmouth.

…It was awful to hear them chanting in their churches at night, and especially during their main festivals or revivals, which fell twice a year on April 30th and October 31st.”

Reminds me of a political poster I saw in 2008. It resembled those red-and-blue cartoons of an elephant and a donkey, except it was egg-shaped and had tentacles. The caption was, “Support the Real Evil! Vote Cthulhu!”

Brize,
“I resent the slur on moonshine.” Maybe it was moonshine that caused the slur!

I don’t really care if sexual perverts want to pretend to get “married,” nor would I ever set foot in a purported Christian “church” which would allow such charades to take place. Yuck! Would be like stepping in a big pile of what doggies leave on the sidewalk.

On the other hand, I do have a beef re the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Can I, as I Orthodox Christian, be President of the local Atheist Club and, if so, why not? Isn’t this a Hate Crime, if not, obviously, discrimination?

And if perverted homos (most of whom are pedophiles) can be “priests” in meeting halls of the Episcopo Gay Cult, why can’t I, as an Orthodox Christian, also do the same? I mean, is this exclusionary or what?

If I have my name legally changed from “Don” to “Donna,” will this help me? C’mon, people, I need some advice here. Contact me “DerangedinNebraska.com”

“On the other hand, I do have a beef re the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Can I, as I Orthodox Christian, be President of the local Atheist Club and, if so, why not? Isn’t this a Hate Crime, if not, obviously, discrimination?”

In many On the other hand, I do have a beef re the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Can I, as I Orthodox Christian, be President of the local Atheist Club and, if so, why not? Isn’t this a Hate Crime, if not, obviously, discrimination?

In many a renowned hall of learning in the USA pushing “equal protection” it is open for you to do what you envision. Except usually its it the other way round: i.e. the rights of non Christians to become members and take over Christian or Pro Life organizations at those universities or institutes of Higher Learning or else they will not be accredited organizations of the University and therefore ineligible for university subsidies from student fees or to use of university facilities or grounds for their activities. The flagrant abuse of the “equal treatment” provisions of the these provisions escapes them.

“If I have my name legally changed from “Don” to “Donna,” will this help me? C’mon, people, I need some advice here.”

I really don’t know if changing your name from Don to Donna will help you.

Do you wanna be “Donna Janousek”?

This piece, and the comment above, by Ralph are so emtxerely insightful and timely! An impoortant balance that does not oppress others is expressed, for example by Amanda in saying: I’m not demanding that people opposed to homosexuality or to openly gay bishops give up those beliefs. Rather, I’m asking whether there is any way that all people can hold our varied beliefs on these matters without the beliefs leading to any casualties. Could we all find a way to take up the Hippocratic Oath to first, do no harm regardless of our beliefs on culture wars issues? and there is eloquence and a highly dvewloped sense of what’s at stake in Ralph’s civil rights injunction: Moral agency is everyone’s responsibility and it’s risky and it’s no less urgently needed now than at any other time in our history. And, remembering Dr. King, it may be costly. Sacrificial love requires mature and courageous and non-violent parents and neighbors to confront the cycles of violence still coursing through an unfinished society such as ours. I do think that in this endavor we also would do right to approach Malcolm’s oft quoted intittive to build understanding and hence Peace in our time We must find common ground .How do do we do that with those who differ from us? First, we must avoid negative and hurtful sterotypes of the other: that includes demonizing, reductionism and ascription of a high wall of unassailable cultural difference among those who differ from our own views (about which we generally hold as unasailably correct just as others who differ do towars their own) in this case and on this board whther they be politically conservative such as members of the Tea Party or people who are conservatively and/or tradtionally religious, whether they are Jews, Christians, Muslims , Hindus, Buddhists, or what have you Next we need to embrace the opportunity to engage others on areas of common ground, especially by engaging in shared common ACTIONS and pursuits, such as ways we spend our lesiure time, or the fact that we may have children we cherish and want the best for, or a pasionate love for Nature, or an enthusiasm for slooecting something we treasure, or the belief that we want pur nation to be great and good.This is not impossible, and it is necessary. I am a muslim feminist, progressive (now moderate) foremer New Yoker (and ALWAYS a Red Sox fan) small farmer in the Bible Belt. It is very difficult at times and as a completely flattened whistleblower I am not feeling especially trusting a great deal of the time but it is always a wonderful adventure of the best sort the embarcation into the unexplored region of human capacities for excellence adn goodness.So an example: we can ridicule, disparage, polarize, insult, and inlfame tensions about these areas of cntention..or we can explore the facts on the ground in as unbiased a way as possible and make an effort to understand whqt it is that triggers a shared insight and some accomodation to differences on bth sides until we make incremental change that helps to become the realization of true human rights on our society instead of simply fodder for conflict that makes us take our eyes of the ball of Mother Earth which we all share as a home which we make happy or horrible.I would suggest that many folks object to teaching fifth graders that sexual pentration is oral, anal or vaginal. why are we teaching classes in the mechanics of sexuality? i think we might do best to teach enough about sexuality in the lower grades to address chils sexual assault i think we might do best to do as previous generations did, to excite kids about the possibility of living up to ideals including social justice and the derailment of bullying and oppression, both nationally and individually and that means focusing on mature love and its manifestations, oin a postive and holistic sense, all the while not promoting a prticular approach toi human sexuality other than to suggest that there are many paths and all can be wonderful expressions of human love and positive development, when responsibly taken.More than 85% of sexually tarfficked people and sex workers, globally are victims so people who are addicted to porn or to acting out compulsive sexual disorders, whatever their manifestation. need to forego any forward motion to making their addictions mainstream. I am not sorry at all to say this: i think it transcends the any which way at all helter skelter mentality that narcissistically derived sexual assault expressing chaos and theft of innocence and seductive or brutal exploitation of others is as valuable to human society as the development of happy healthy whole and loving individuals whatever their personal sexuality.If we were able to find common ground about what is taught and WHEN, then we might very well find that we can stop fighting, and start growing in conflict areas we know see as intransigent. Not only does it sound so clinical it actually prevents the association of physical intimacy with love-making, and destroys the mystery of discovering the most intimate of human endeavors without having become so terribly jaded by the age of 13, as our kids are doing now