Newest Members
Lumpy, squeekinby, rhyoung, Jefferson22, OxfordArms
12369 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
aleja (40), bc22 (47), DavidMI (40), Forrest_Gump (39), Jay1946 (68), Malc4 (29), mpm01 (49), widpaulman (43)
Who's Online
0 registered (), 9 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
12369 Members
74 Forums
63570 Topics
444143 Posts

Max Online: 418 @ 07/02/12 07:29 AM
Twitter
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#76983 - 08/24/03 09:59 AM A voice of Reason in all of this
Mike Church Offline
Moderator Emeritus
MaleSurvivor
Registered: 01/23/03
Posts: 3439
Loc: Toronto, Canada
The following is an editorial published in the Toronto Start August 24, 2003. I think that this is a super homily. Any thoughts?
A call for intense dialogue
Catholics need to do their own research and search their consciences before reaching conclusions, pastor says


THE REVEREND SCOTT GALE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reverend Scott Gale is pastor of St. Andrew's Roman Catholic Church in Thunder Bay. This is his homily of last Sunday which first ran in The Chronicle-Journal. Reprinted with permission.


In the present ongoing discussion about same-sex marriages, the one thing that seems to be missing within the Roman Catholic Church and within our country, is a dialogue among people who respect one another.

And for me, as your pastor, it is much easier to remain silent, than to take up the challenge to use my own mind, and to listen to my own conscience, about how to deal with this very contentious issue, and to share some thoughts with you today.

I do not mean to be disrespectful towards the Pope, or towards our Canadian Bishops, but I am concerned that we are being treated like "parrots" rather than being recognized for the important role that we have as members of the Body of Christ — of being pastors, parishioners, and yes, some are even parliamentarians. What we need is dialogue, not dictates.

As your pastor, I try, through my homilies, to challenge myself, and you, to lead Christian lives and to follow Gospel values. Can homilies not also be challenging to those in leadership positions as well?

In my homily today, I am not trying to tell anyone how they should vote or act. I am merely presenting other perspectives to consider as you form your own conscience on this important issue.

Certainly the recent Vatican statement must be considered, but it must also be studied to see if it reflects the lived experiences of the People of God, and whether it has been truly received by them.

We are in the midst of great social change regarding our understanding of homosexuality, spurred on by scientific studies about human sexuality. What is needed now is an intense dialogue among people of goodwill that will incorporate this new understanding of sexuality into our theology.

In past centuries, theologians and the Church used to consider women as being less human than men because of ignorance about reproduction. No one would dare suggest such a concept now.

For centuries the Church tolerated slavery, and, once again, no one would dare suggest such a concept now.

The Vatican's harsh language in the document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons is very hurtful to our gay and lesbian relatives and friends, and their families. I can only hope that a serious dialogue will take place between gay and lesbian Catholics and Church leaders, in order that the lived, loving experiences of gays and lesbians can be truly listened to, and taken into account in a re-examination of the Church's attitudes regarding homosexuality and those persons with a homosexual orientation.

But there are two issues here.

There is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church's leadership on homosexuality, and there is the question of civil recognition of same-sex marriages. With regard to the legal recognition of homosexual unions, the recent Vatican document states that "... the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

And yet, how do we reconcile this statement with what the Second Vatican Council teaches about the dignity of one's own moral conscience?

For in the Pastoral constitution On The Church In The Modern World it states: "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells him inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that.

"For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. His dignity lies in observing this law and by it he will be judged. His conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary .... Through loyalty to conscience, Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems which arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships."

In Vatican II's Document of Religious Liberty, it further states: "The search for truth ... must be carried out in a manner that is appropriate to the dignity of the human person and his social nature, namely, by free enquiry with the help of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue.

"It is by these means that men share with each other the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in such a way that they help one another in the search for truth ... It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience."

I believe that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin are right in stating that, although they are Roman Catholics, in acting as Members of Parliament, they must take into account a much wider range of factors than the Vatican's directive on same-sex marriage.

How politicians should deal with conflict between their own personal, moral or religious beliefs and their obligations as parliamentarians is very complex.

All politicians, not just religious ones, are open to such conflicts, because all have — we hope — moral beliefs. As is required, they must act in good conscience and with integrity. Sometimes that can require having the courage to accept either political damage or the wrath of their religious community.

If Parliament and the Supreme Court agree to law reforms that will give the country same-sex marriage, it will be only one more example of the state respecting the individual's freedom to choose without impinging on the freedom of churches or other faith communities to do their best to persuade people to behave otherwise.

This should not offend churches and other faith communities. For any church or citizen group is free to teach Canadians that homosexual behaviour is still wrong, and same-sex marriage is a sin, if that is what they really believe.

They just won't have the arm of the law reinforcing their beliefs. Such legislation will hardly amount to a social revolution. It will be more of an evolution.

If we accept sexual diversity as believing Christians, it does not necessarily mean that we approve it, like it, or understand it. It does mean that we can live with it because it is in everyone's interests, even when that can mean rethinking what many Christians see as the sacrament of marriage.

Marriage has traditionally been the precious way that a man and a woman have shared themselves with one another, in joys and in sorrows, in bearing one another up, from youth to old age. Gays and lesbians are telling us that is precisely what they want to do too.

Their way of doing it may not be your particular choice, but courts in Ontario and Quebec have ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry contravenes the spirit if not the explicit letter, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And let us not be distracted by the argument about the primacy of Parliament over the courts, or about free votes in the House of Commons, or about the 1999 Commons resolution on the definition of marriage.

The Charter is the law of our land, and both the courts and Parliament must follow it. For extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples is fundamentally a matter of law, not religion. Church groups will still be free to bless only those marriages that their religious denomination recognizes.

The Vatican directive also takes aim at gay parents being able to adopt children. It says: "As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these (homosexual) unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such union would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."

This position has been condemned by the Canadian Psychological Association as repeating misconceptions about same-sex parents that are scientifically unfounded, since psychosocial research into lesbian and gay parenting indicates that there is no basis in the scientific literature for this perception.

One might ask whether the Vatican opposes adoption by single parents, since those children would have only a mother or father.

In many cases, gay and lesbian couples have adopted children who are often considered not adoptable because of age, race or special needs. Are these children better off in revolving foster homes and orphanages? For who is truly acting in the best interests of the children? The gay and lesbian couples who open their homes to those vulnerable children or the Church hierarchy that has a terrible track record of protecting children?

Before you sign any petitions or write any letters, I urge you to consider all the information at your disposal.

Talk to your friends, talk to someone who is gay or lesbian, read the Vatican document (off the Vatican Web site), read Bishop Colli's letter at the doors of the church this weekend, read the newspapers, and do your own research. Draw your own prayerful conclusions and then act as your conscience dictates.

_________________________
Mikey

IT REALLY IS OK TO STUMBLE. NONE OF US ARE PERFECT.

Top
#76984 - 08/24/03 11:44 AM Re: A voice of Reason in all of this
jimrh Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 03/22/03
Posts: 273
Loc: Roswell, GA
This priest is a brave soul.

As a Catholic and recently outed, I only hope that this is true what he says, we are in the midst of an evolution of our thinking on sexuality.

Thank you Mikey for posting this excellent message.


Jim


Top
#76985 - 08/24/03 12:44 PM Re: A voice of Reason in all of this
Dale English Offline
Newsletter Founder/Producer
MaleSurvivor
Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 448
Loc: PA
Thanks Mikey,

As a former Catholic, gay dad, and survivor of clergy sexual abuse, I say bravo to this man for coming out from behind the safety of the cloth and speaking out from an informed mind, obvious conscience and the heart as well. It does my soul good to read a bit of truth while I struggle with the effects of so many lies.

Taz


Top
#76986 - 09/09/03 08:40 PM Re: A voice of Reason in all of this
abcd Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/00
Posts: 189
Loc: GA
As a Catholic, this article almost brings me to tears. I will say that a lot has been happening in my life of late, and as a Christian, I have been tested with my Catholic faith. While I still consider myself Catholic, I have not attended a Catholic Church in weeks (and for someone who goes religiously to church, that is something), but have attended other Christian Churches, partly because of their more open stance.

I agree with the priest's words, and indeed his words on conscience (to me guidance of the Holy Spirit) is crucial. Even the Cathecism says as such...that the conscience MUST be obeyed. Indeed how often in the history of the church has it been wrong, and indeed, its stance on gay adoptions shows perhaps most fully its misinformed stance. Indeed, not just Canada's psychological association, but America's elite medical associations, including the pediatric and family practice associations and psychiatric associations have recently (along with the American Bar Association) released statements against the discrimination of gays from adoptions.

One more thing...as a devout Catholic, I know certainly from my Confirmation classes that the "Church" is NOT the magisterium nor the buildings. Rather it is all of us, combined with the hierarchy. Thus, as a Church, we have to evolve and guide this church--I think it is the time for the lay people to educate some of the hierarchy which have been so far removed from its people. God Bless.


Top
#76987 - 09/10/03 07:28 AM Re: A voice of Reason in all of this
zadok1 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/05/02
Posts: 188
Loc: Ohio
For someone like my self who has struggled with bi-sexuality, I can understand how someone can be attracted to the same sex, but our attractions and opinions aren’t what count here. Our Father’s word is the greatest love letter ever written, and it is a shame what the world and traditions of men have done to it. The flesh often desires those things that are sinful and wrong, and we cannot ignore the fact that they are still a sin. The word isn’t something we can change to suite the times. He has given us four clearly outlined sexual sins, incest, adultery, bestiality and homosexuality. How can a person blur the lines of one without doing so to all of them? As one who has also struggled with attraction to animals, at what point do you start rationalizing that as well, and saying ‘oh it’s in his genes’? Or what point do we begin to rationalize molesters, and say ‘oh it’s how they were made’?

I am not Catholic, but I am a Christ man (Christian), and as such we must stand by our Father’s will, not our own. It is written that in the end times He would send a mind upon the world that women should want women, and men will want men, so it is going to be that way. My attractions are the result of abuse, exposure to media and a liberal ideal, but I cannot make that a godly foundation because it isn’t.

We all sin. Whether it is rationalizing away eating like cows until we are huge and fat, or letting anger and bitterness own us, we all sin. The ideal is that we resist sinning with all our being, and it is counted as perfect in the end. I have a full-time job dealing with the mote in my eye, so far be it from me to judge anyone, but a person that believes in God and His inspired word should strive to live to those ideals. We do ourselves a great harm by trying to rationalize and justify things we know inside are wrong so that we can enjoy things we shouldn’t. We all do it, but you will have a happier, fuller life when you deny the flesh those ungodly things, and live as you should, and enjoy the promises He has made us.

My taste for forbidden flesh will always be part of me, but the flesh needs to be sat down and controlled. The soul has dominion over the flesh, and you have been given the will to act as you choose. I know my attraction to men and animals is the result of being abused, not some stray gene. I can have those attractions, and still remain true to my faith. I can be attracted to men, and not be with a man. I can want my six cans of soda a day, and not drink them. In the end, how we live is ours to control, and we will each answer for it when we are judged. It is inside each of you, and I can only suggest you look deep inside and ask yourself, ‘do I want to face God with this’? It is the heart and the intent that counts, and if you have made peace with God, then who am I to say otherwise. I struggle between flesh and soul each day, and I sin every time I turn around. I will not judge anyone, but I will say the word gives us guidelines to live by, and our churches must hold up that word to the world. I applaud the Catholic Church for standing upon the word in the face of a world that has little use for it. This priest uses slavery and women’s rights as examples, but those aren’t sin, homosexuality is. You can twist the Bible around however you wish, but it will not change God’s feelings on it. He is the same forever and ever, Amen.

_________________________
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those that are evil, but because of those who do nothing about them- Albert Einstein

Top
#76988 - 09/10/03 10:27 AM Re: A voice of Reason in all of this
abcd Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/00
Posts: 189
Loc: GA
Zadok1,

Thank you for your opinion. I am sorry that you cannot separate relationship between two consenting adults from those with animals and the like. To be honest, I am not at all confused by that, however, and I think neither are so many others. In fact, so many (like me), have seriously struggled with it, prayed about it, talked to religious scholars, and really found something from God through it. This is not a choice my friend, the medical literature is clear on that.

While I respect your view, and I do not mean to rile up sensitivities, especially as abused persons who I think should build each other up, I will post here another sermon delivered by a very well respected scholar. I do not know about you, but it hurts me dearly to see so many people who know nothing about the Bible (its history, its translations, etc.,) quoting random passages. If someone truly wants to knowt the truth about the word, one must examine everything behind the word as well. I am not saying that you haven't done that--in fact, you may already know that the Bible is not written necessarily by whom they "say" they are written--like the Gospels (most Biblical scholars think that they were written by others, and based on some original "Q" document after relaying the information in orally many, many times), the translations are all different and all have different strengths (King James Version, though most flowery, being most inaccurate), the decision to decide which documents of the Bible were accurate were made by councils of the Roman Catholic Church (though when the Protestant Reformation happened, some disagreed with what is included in the Bible...as such some Christians have lesser books than others), there is really no such word as "homosexual" in Hebrew (or even in English until it was coined much, much later), etc.,. There are many books out there and many scholars...the Bible is not as simple as people (as Rev. Phelps) would like them to be.

Speaking of Rev. Phelps (who pickets at funerals), I am also upset by this notion that so many fail to remember that those who judge will be judged themselves, and imagine if they are wrong on this. To whom will the blame of the many suicides rest? To whom will the blame of the countless failed, pressured, isolated "ex-gays" (including the former leaders of the ex-gay movement as Johan Paulk, John Evans, Jack McIntyre, etc.,), lie? I can't tell you, the hell I went through because I could not talk about the gay aspect of my life...the things I regretted, and the bad decisions I made. Now that I know you can truly get a stable, monogamous, loving, Christian relationship as a homosexual, I feel blessed and alive : )

Anyway, the man who delivered this sermon below, is a very well respected theologian and professor at an elite school. He understands contexts behind passages, so I think it might be helpful to read this as another perspective on the matter.
Hope it helps, and though I doubt this will change your mind in any way, I just ask you to please pray about this as so many of us have. While it may not be right for you and may be strongly influenced by your abuse, I ask that you please not prejudge us, as we too have relationships with God. I for one, know that Christ told us to love each other, and if anything, feel compelled to defend homosexuals. After all, Christ was a rebel-rouser in his time, he challenged people to truly think things through and (just as it was a strange thing in his time to defend the oppressed), I think that it only seems "strange" to defend the homosexual. In fact, I believe, that that is what he is calling some of us to do. God Bless.
_____________________________________________


The Story in Acts that forms the text for this sermon is the conversion of Cornelius. He is the first Gentile or non-Jew who becomes a believer in Jesus, a disciple. A Roman soldier, a centurion (10:1) or what we would call an officer, the text claims that he feared God. But he had not become a Jew. This man has a vision in which an angel told him to send for Peter. Meanwhile, God is also communicating with Peter himself: vv. 9-16:
About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the
city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something
to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the heaven
opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the
ground by four corners. In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. Then Peter hear a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane
or unclean.” The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.

The vision offers unclean animals, things that were not kosher to eat. The vision is at times referred to under “creepies and crawlies.” Biblical texts have explicitly forbidden certain foods. Leviticus 11: among unclean animals are camels and pigs, anything moving on its belly (snakes), and in the water: anything that does not have fins and scales (shrimp, scallops). All winged insects are “detestable to you.” Touching such things defiles a person.

Peter is told to kill and eat three times. But not even a divine voice can get him to do it.
For Peter these animals are disgusting. Only the French would eat such stuff!
“I would not touch that with a ten-foot pole.” It’s enough to make a man gag. (For me: raw oysters). Note that this involves not just a biblical prohibition but a visceral reaction: disgusting!

As Christians we are not obligated by Ancient Israel’s food laws. Indeed, we have left behind other biblical texts that advocate: holy warfare, slavery, the second-rank status of women (no women could testify in court, study>

Top
#76989 - 09/10/03 12:43 PM Re: A voice of Reason in all of this
zadok1 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/05/02
Posts: 188
Loc: Ohio
that those who judge will be judged themselves

Be careful, I have judged no one, but am only warning against skewing the word to fit our needs instead of obeying our Father. The acid test isn’t what I think, or what someone else thinks; it is what God thinks. If you are at peace with Him, then go for it, for He is the only one you will answer to. My message is aimed at those who struggle to find peace with these feelings, but who believe it is sinful to have same sex relations.

This is not a choice my friend, the medical literature is clear on that.

I will concede that rather it is biologic or environmental, for many they cannot help the attraction, and I never claim otherwise. What I did say is that you are totally in control of your body, and that acting on that attraction was a choice. In Mat 5 we are told that if part of our body or mind puts us at risk of loosing our soul that we would be better off without it. So you have this attraction, but in applying this we would be better of staying celibate than risk being condemned for acting on it.

If someone truly wants to know the truth about the word, one must examine everything behind the word as well.

Again, what you say is absolutely true. I am well aware of translation problems, and I am also very aware of the original Greek, Hebrew and Chaldee. My handle is even Hebrew.

I use the KJV simply because through a Strong’s it is the most accurate way to study in the original languages. I’ll concede there are many errors, but in the original 1611 KJV the translators wrote that very warning at the front, and say that a person should consult the original text if there is any question. Yes, there are errors, but as a whole the word is still very much there. Fortunately, we are never left with only one example of things. God gave double and triple witness in book after book. The translations might mess one up, but the chances are very slim they will mess them all up.

The names in the Bible are all very much figurative, for example Adam is simply the Hebrew word for man. All that aside, we still have to have a starting point for faith and the Bible is it. It in the original texts is the foundation of our faith, and were accurate enough for Jesus to teach from, to quote from, and to ask us to read for ourselves.

King James Version, though most flowery, being most inaccurate

I disagree. Any bonehead that would translate the mark of the beast as a tattoo can hardly be relied on to translate the rest. Most modern translations are so full of traditions of men that they are worthless to study by. From teaching that eve ate an apple, to telling people they will be marked with a tattoo or some such non-sense, the state of theology in the world is pathetic. Again we were warned about those that claim to be Christians but are false teachers, but we choose to close our eyes. Don’t you understand, the majority has always been wrong, the teaching has always been polluted. Christ even calls the priests sons of the serpent, and warns against them, but here the world wanders after the false ones, never wanting to know any better.

The solution, get into the word for your self. Beware making the same mistake Job did, and listening to those that have no knowledge of God. Christ was always answering questions by starting with “Haven’t you read?” Well, have you read? It is amazing that we have this wonderful letter from God, and people have never read it. They go to church every week, hear one or two small verses, and then an hour of man’s nonsense.

I would like to point out that each time God offered these unclean things to Peter, he drew them up again. Peter never ate of them! It was an object lesson because God was about to graft the gentiles into salvation, and Peter being as bold as he was needed to be personally shown this so that he would soften his heart and accept them. As far as being able to eat this garbage, that is another tradition of men. Christ never gave us the okay to eat it, and in fact says he didn’t change on dotted I or crossed T of the law, but merely fulfilled them. It is blood for blood. Christ became the ultimate sacrifice with blood so pure as to exceed what the law required and forgive sin, but he never changed the law. As a second witness He said, I have not come to destroy the law of the profits but to fulfill them. We eat unclean things because we choose to see the word as we want instead of how it really is. Church traditions have replaced sound, solid teaching. Even the new books never give us the okay to eat unclean foods. If a persons digs into the original Greek you will find the only foods we are to eat are those meant to be eaten. In other words, those declared clean.

I would like to end by clarifying something. In the end Jesus couldn’t get the world to change, and I most certainly cannot, so I have said all I am going to. The acid test will come when it is all said and done. When we stand before God and answer for our lives. I am certain of my standing and calling, and you are equally sure, then let time prove us and let contention end. Let God judge, and I hope to see all of you among the saints when it is over. Unfortunately, we must remember that far more fail than not, taken under by the traditions of men, having not hearkened to the voice of God, but sitting still while they are filled with lies and worldly things until they have no spine to stand for what is right and no idea what right even is. A person can dive headlong into those unclean things, and eat their fill, and in the end the only thing that will count is what God thinks and feels. I urge everyone to get into the word, to pray and study on it, and bind it to your heart. Allow Him to show you, and make sure of what is there for yourself.

_________________________
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those that are evil, but because of those who do nothing about them- Albert Einstein

Top
#76990 - 09/10/03 06:32 PM Re: A voice of Reason in all of this
abcd Offline
Member

Registered: 10/20/00
Posts: 189
Loc: GA
I thank you for your polite reply though I still take issue with some of the things you say. The one which strikes me most, however, is

"In the end Jesus couldn’t get the world to change"

I disagree. When I first found Christ, it was actually through this abuse, and I truly believe that he was and is a revolutionary. The very laws and constitution on which our country is based is that of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The notion of defending the oppressed, is indeed a very new one, and I think he has gotten the world to change through his death and resurrection (whether we realize it or not).

Moreoever, as far as the notion of not judging and then in the same breath saying, "In Mat 5 we are told that if part of our body or mind puts us at risk of loosing our soul that we would be better off without it. So you have this attraction, but in applying this we would be better of staying celibate than risk being condemned for acting on it."

That in itself shows easily see how you used the Bible to judge (as many have before you...indeed, many have said "slaves obey your masters" and hte like). I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion, but such fire and brimstone statement are hurtful and indeed judgmental. I have to run, but I wanted to just briefly respond.

Again, I thank you for your polite response (and I apologize if I seem rude in any of mine). LIke you I agree that everyone should study the word, but study it fully, not haphazardly as so many have done without knowing any of the history behind it, its translations, etc.,. God Bless.


Top
#76991 - 09/11/03 10:22 AM Re: A voice of Reason in all of this
zadok1 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/05/02
Posts: 188
Loc: Ohio
I take no offense. each of us must sail our own ship, and time will prove us. as i have said, the world rejected christ, but those that seek shall find. a time fast aproaches where many will find answers they didnt want to hear in the flesh.

_________________________
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those that are evil, but because of those who do nothing about them- Albert Einstein

Top
#76992 - 09/11/03 10:33 AM Re: A voice of Reason in all of this
Mike Church Offline
Moderator Emeritus
MaleSurvivor
Registered: 01/23/03
Posts: 3439
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Gentlemen this has been a very thought provoking and profoundly articulate discussion and I for one am amazed at the depth of knowledge that is evident in the posts. It makes me feel rather ill informed but not upset. I thank you all for the positions that you have made and commend you all for the manner in which you have outlined your positions. It is truly refreshing to see such a honest discourse without the acrmimonios hostility that sometimes acrrue and for that I say tahnk you very much. I am sure that all of us here can benefit from both sides.

Your canuck brother

_________________________
Mikey

IT REALLY IS OK TO STUMBLE. NONE OF US ARE PERFECT.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Moderator:  ModTeam 

I agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole discretion of MaleSurvivor.
I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor resources are AT-WILL, and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for any reason by MaleSurvivor.