Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Our society is totally heterosexist.  We all have learned at a very
    early age the homosexuality is bad.  We have learned this whether we
    are gay or straight.  whether we currently accept and affirm those who
    are homosexual or not.  Most of us cannot even pinpoint how we learned
    about homosexuality.
    
    I participated in a eight session workshop sponsored by my church
    helping the participants examine there on feelings about homophobia and
    heterosexism.  We spent one evening examining when and how we learned
    about homosexuality.  It was amazing to find how closely linked our
    feelings of what it means to be a Man or what it means to be a women
    are linked to what we must do so people will not think we are gay.  We
    are expected to carry our books, dress, speak, interact, fold our legs
    do all kinds of thing to "Be a lady" in my case  and also to not be
    considered a Lesbian.  men are suppose to be macho, dress a certain
    way, talk a certain way, carry there books etc.
    
    Heterosexism promotes sexism.  Heterosexism keeps each one of us from
    being confident in expressing our full personalities.  If we have
    traits or characteristics that are predominant in the acceptable traits
    of the opposite sex, we learn to fear expressing those traits.
    
    To learn to accept and affirm homosexuality as normal  allows each of
    us to better accept and affirm a much wider ranger of posibilities in
    ourselves and in other regardless of their sexual orientation.
    
    Patricia

The sinful nature of homosexual activity has been the constant teaching of the
People of God for over three thousand years.

The People of God must never abandon this teaching, just as they must never
abandon the other moral teachings.

The People of God must also never abandon the command of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ to love our neighbor as ourself, even when that neighbor is
doing wrong.

/john

re Note 521.2 by COVERT::COVERT:

> The sinful nature of homosexual activity has been the constant teaching of the
> People of God for over three thousand years.
  
        Does the longevity of a teaching or practice make it right?

        Did not Christians teach that slavery was acceptable, and
        that certainly slaves must be obedient to their masters,
        until relatively recently in history?

        Are there not teachings that were constant in the western
        church until the Reformation, and which the Roman Catholic
        church maintains were constant until this very day, that the
        majority of Protestants (including evangelicals) do not
        accept?

        Bob

.0> So the question is how does heterosexism hurt everybody.
    
    If the answer is in the affirmative ... well ... what can/should
    be done about it?
    
    Bubba

	How I see it hurting me is like this:


Homelife


	I find that when my parents or my roomates parents would come over any
and everything that pertained to being gay had to be taken down and hidden.
When it came time to talk about who I might be dating it became a very
uncomfortable conversation, but if one of my brothers or sisters talked about
theirs it was ok. There's also the one where I'm not supposed to let anyone
know that I am gay as it might get back to my parents through their friends and
then "they" (friends) would know! To me this is a major fear for a lot of 
parents. What it is for me is I have to stifle who I am as a person while the 
others in the family don't have to.


Streets

	I see many people (heterosexuals) walking down the streets holding
hands. They don't get strange looks. But, if I were to do it people would not
only look at me strange, but treat me as though I were a leper. Same goes for
showing any type of emotion. So it's either hide who you are or take the abuse.


Work

	Let's face it, not everyone works for a company that backs their
employees who are gay. I still, even in my group haven't come out to any of
them except my boss because I don't need the hassles. For those who don't work
in company's that support their gay employees they really have to hide from
everyone. Why should I have to hide who I am?


Life outside of work


	I tend to do mostly things with other gays as then I don't have to hide
who I am. Most of my straight friends seem to not have a problem with who I am
and don't mind me being me. 


Church


	Gays get told how they aren't really Christians by some who perceive
themselves to be, that we will go to hell. I have even been told that if it
were found out by the church I go to that I was gay and was asked to leave that
this was ok as I would be disrupting the service. How? By just sitting there or
by the fact that now they know I am gay they will be spending their time
looking at me? I never got an answer to this one....

	Now, what is the difference between me and a heterosexual? Just that
the people I want to date are of the same sex. Other than that I am the same.
I'm not treated the same in most places, but I am the same. Hmmmm.... is this
what you were after or did I digress from the subject?




Glen

>	Gays get told how they aren't really Christians by some who perceive
>themselves to be, that we will go to hell. I have even been told that if it
>were found out by the church I go to that I was gay and was asked to leave that
>this was ok as I would be disrupting the service. How? By just sitting there or
>by the fact that now they know I am gay they will be spending their time
>looking at me? I never got an answer to this one....

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.

The Church calls you to change your life, and offers you the help to do so.

/john

| <<< Note 521.8 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>




| The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.
| The Church calls you to change your life, and offers you the help to do so.

	I guess it depends on if the church you go to thinks your in need of a
change of life John. I'm sure yours would where I know mine would not. 


Glen

Replacement for note .3

   Allison


        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 521.3            how does heterosexism hurt everybody?               3 of 9
VIDSYS::PARENT "Formally, recovering well!"          20 lines  22-SEP-1992 11:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              <<< Note 521.2 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
          -< The premise that heterosexism promotes sexism is false >-

   John,

   Since that is the narrow view and the topic suggests heterosexism 
   is limiting for even men.  You could try to convince us otherwise
   of that premise with some concrete information.

   Since homosexual activity is obviously sex since behavour like say 
   being effeminate in a man isn't sinful. Right?  Of course you could
   let us know what you do mean by the words homossexual behavour!
   Otherwise I'm forced to assume (I dislike that) you support very
   stereotypical ideas of what a proper man and woman is.  Is that not
   sexist?


   Peace,
   Allison

>Of course you could let us know what you do mean by the words homossexual
>behavour!
>
>   Otherwise I'm forced to assume ...

Since I didn't say "behaviour", I didn't mean anything by it, and you should
not assume I meant anything.

	While we're on the subject, what do people think a homosexual is? In 
other words, if you had to describe a homosexual it would be as...... and
list what you think one is. It might help us with the gay side of this topic. 
Maybe we should also do that for women. For sports? Anything that this topic 
should encompass?



Glen

    >Maybe we should also do that for women. 
    
    You want us to discuss what we think a woman is?
    
    -- Mike

<             <<< Note 521.11 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
<
<>Of course you could let us know what you do mean by the words homossexual
<>behavour!
<>
<>   Otherwise I'm forced to assume ...
<
<Since I didn't say "behaviour", I didn't mean anything by it, and you should
<not assume I meant anything.

   John,

   Your correct, I'm so used to hearing meaningless junk like homosexual
   behavour used out of context that when I saw homosexual activity I
   had the same immediate reaction.  Now expain please homosexual activity 
   which you did use.  I have included the AHD descriptions of both words.

   AHD:

   Activity: noun 1. the condition of being active; action. 2. A planned or
   organized thing to do: extracurricular activities. 3. energetic action;
   liveliness.

   Behavour: noun  1 deportment; demonor. action,reaction, or function
   under specific circumstances.

   Pax roma,
   Allison

    RE:  .2
    
    Ah, John, this is really getting confusing.  Who are "The People of
    God"?  Who are NOT the People of God?
    
    >the constant teaching of the People of God for over three thousand years.
    
    Since Christianity has been around for only two thousand years, I infer
    that you mean the Jews.  Then you say :
    
    >The People of God must also never abandon the command of our Lord and
    Saviour. . .
    
    Umm, so does this mean you are talking about Christians?
    
    What DO you mean?  And this term "People of God" - does this mean that
    either non-Christians or non-Jews are not people of God?  
    
    L
    

God defines who the People of God are, not me or you.

A discussion in the context of this conference will not be edifying.

/john

| <<< Note 521.13 by JURAN::VALENZA "Bat child escapes!" >>>


| You want us to discuss what we think a woman is?


	Why not? Like anything else there are a lot of stereotypes that are
applied. Things that the heterosexualism apply to women. Maybe if we knew just
what they are, then we can figure out just how it applies to women and how to
watch out to not fall into that trap. It would be the same thing for any given
subject. Sports, gays, men showing emotion, men who are effeminate, the list is
really endless.



Glen

    RE:  .16
    
    >God defines who the People of God are, not me or you.
    >A discussion in the context of this conference will not be edifying
    
    Why not?  What are you trying to say?
    
    L
    

    If God defines who the People of God are, to whom does he pass the word on
    so that the rest of us know?
    
    Mike

re Note 521.19 by SOLVIT::MSMITH:

>     If God defines who the People of God are, to whom does he pass the word on
>     so that the rest of us know?
  
        To the People of God, obviously!

        John 10:1  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by
        the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way,
        the same is a thief and a robber.
        10:2  But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of
        the sheep.
        10:3  To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice:
        and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
        10:4  And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before
        them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
        10:5  And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from
        him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
        10:6  This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood
        not what things they were which he spake unto them.

Bob

    Were any of the women in this conference ever told to "act like a
    lady"?  
    
    Were any of the men in this conference ever told "Don't be a sissy"?
    
    Did we learn what these things meant?  
    
    Did these or similiar phrases shape us in any way?
    
    Did we get the subtle message that if we did not head these warnings
    that people would think we were gay?
    
    Is our society unhealthy because many men cannot be sensitive and truly
    in touch with soft feelings?
    
    Is our society unhealthy because many women are scared of anger, even
    when appropriately expressed?  
    
    Are heterosexism and sexism are closely linked.

    Re: .21
    
    No to all questions.
    
    Helping my wife bring up our 5 children caused me long to drop any
    preconceived notions of man's work or woman's work. It's ALL work!
    
    Marc H.

   Marc,

   Lucky for you then.

   I suspect then you never heard a school coach call someone a sissy
   (or worse) for not doing something in phys ed, maybe in the military
   service.  

   Part of the question unasked is what did you do if you heard others
   use or project such terms of correct or incorrect behavour.  Sexism
   like everything else includes permitting others to use language you
   would not use or want to hear.

   Peace,
   Allison

re Note 521.23 by VIDSYS::PARENT:

        Allison,

        There may be some confusion here about whether your questions
        in .21 referred to either "sexism" or "heterosexism" (since
        the relationship between the two, and the definition of the
        latter term, are not yet very clear to me).

        Bob

  
  Re : Base Note;    How does heterosexism hurt everybody? ...

  kind of like ... do you still beat your wife?

  The question pre-assumes that heterosexism is indeed harmful, the question
  "how does it hurt everybody?" is based upon what i preceive to be an 
  escalation of that false assumption. From a scriptural point of view the 
  basic premise is false. the only harmful heterosexism is that which is 
  practised outside the bounds of allowable marriage. every other relationship
  is classified as "abominations" by the Bible.
  
521.1>  To learn to accept and affirm homosexuality as normal  allows each of
521.1>  us to better accept and affirm a much wider ranger of posibilities in
521.1>  ourselves and in other regardless of their sexual orientation.

  In the beginning...

  And Adam said this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh and she
  shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.
  Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto
  his wife and they shall be one flesh.  Gen 2:23-24.

  The Law (HaTorah)...

  After the doings of of the land of egypt wherein ye dwelt shall ye shall 
  not do and after the doings of the land of Canaan whither I bring thee ye 
  shall ye not do : Leviticus 18:3.

  Harmful heterosexism (incest forbidden) : Leviticus 18:7-18.

  Harmful heterosexism (adultery forbidden) : Leviticus 18:20.

  Harmful non-heterosexism forbidden : Leviticus 18:22.
 
  Harmful non-human sexism forbidden : Leviticus 18:23.

  Defile not ye youselves in any of these things: for in all these the
  nations are defiled which I cast out before you : Leviticus 18:24.

  Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance , that ye commit not any of these
  abominable customs, which were committed before you and that ye defile not
  yourselves therein. I am the Lord your God :  Leviticus 18:30.

  ...ye shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy : Leviticus 19:1b.

  ...I will put My Law (Torah) in their inward parts and write it in their
  hearts and will be their God and they shall be my people. Jeremiah 31:33.  

  friends and brethren : if christianity is the fulfilment of this prophetic
  passage (as says Hebrews 8), then those abominations of Leviticus (HaTorah) 
  should be intuitively repulsive to us (written in our hearts) therefore
  making it impossible for us "To learn to accept and affirm" any of these 
  abominations "as normal".

  instead...be ye holy for I am holy : I Peter 1:16b.

  If not...

  Behold, I will cast her (Jezebel) into a bed and them that commit
  adultery with her into great tribulation except they repent of their
  deeds and I will kill her children with death and all the churches
  shall know that I AM he which searcheth the reins and hearts and
  I will give unto every one of you according to your works     Rev 2:22-23.

  
  please do not side with the world or give your approval to its evil deeds.

                            Hank
 

    I fear for the Republic (tm).
    
    Bubba

The Church of Christ is not a Republic.

    
    Patricia, (.0)
    
    I realize that the homosexual community has been maligned by many
    labels, but does it help to turn around and label the heterosexual
    community.  I'm a Christian and I believe homosexuality is clearly
    a sin according to the Bible.  Does that make me a homophobic or
    a heterosexist?  I've been learning what's right and wrong from
    a very young age and much of my learning has been based on the Bible.
    It was true when God inspired it and it's still true today.  I wouldn't
    want to be one of the people who twist the Scriptures to support their 
    own meaning.  
    
    I believe what you're talking about is hate and yes hate does hurt 
    everyone.  I'm sick of all these new names for it.  It's hate.  Call 
    it that.  Don't sugar-coat it.  But I don't believe that I hate 
    homosexuals just because I'm a heterosexual who learned that homosexuality 
    is wrong.  A homosexual is a sinner just like I'm a sinner.  A homosexual 
    can become a Christian the same as a heterosexual.  But both are required
    to repent and die to their selfish desires and change in accordance 
    to God's Word.   I think it's sad that so many people are being misled 
    into thinking that the Bible doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin.  
    I don't believe you can just change the meaning of what being a 
    Christian means like you would change the rules for a social club.
    
    Jill
    

I've been reluctant to jump in here since I've already been so involved in
topic 91 in the past and since I am a member of a church which is predominantly
gay in its congregational make up.

I do believe that this topic should have probably been marked (SRO) Supportive
Replies Only.  But then someone else would have come along and started a
topic entitled "How is heterosexism beneficial to everyone?" or some facsimile
thereof.

I do believe that heterosexism, the rejection of all that doesn't fit a rigid
definition of what constitutes heterosexuality, has led to an uncountable
number of familial and social ostracizations, suicides and divorces.

For some, being gay has cost almost as much as the cost of being a disciple:

	Once when a large crowd of people were going along with Jesus, he
  turned and said to them, "Whoever comes to me cannot be my disciple unless he
  loves me more then he loves his father and his mother, his wife and his
  children, his brothers and his sisters, and himself as well."

  (Luke 14.25,26)

Jesus meant this in the severest way.  He meant that one had to give up
everything in order to be his disciple. (Luke 14.33)

What gets me are the people who believe they are true disciples of Christ
who don't really give up anything: parents, siblings, offspring, other
relationships, level of comfort, material wealth, appearances - you name it.

Peace,
Richard

>
>    I don't believe you can just change the meaning of what being a 
>    Christian means like you would change the rules for a social club.
>    
Exactly right.

/john

  Several of the proscriptions in the proverbs and laws tend to support
  societal survival and not necessarily individual good. For example,
  one needs to be poisoned by a Red Tide organism only once to appreciate
  shell fish proscriptions. Seeing a person literally die of paralysis is
  sufficient to remember to stay away from scaleless fish such as the 
  puffer.

  The prosciptions about taking care of your parents (by the way the New
  Testament in Timothy? is much tougher than the Old Testament) and 
  familial behavior appear to also be based upon survival. Straight-
  arrows tended to have children and tended to thrive. They tend to
  care for their parents and to learn from their parents' experiences 
  (proverbs). 

  People who deviate tend to die out, perhaps not as fast as with
  trichinosis or Aids, but over a period of years a cause and effect was
  observed. Frequently religions are very concerned about spiecies'
  survival. No children - no religion. No children - no one takes care
  of the aging. Often times I feel abominations and taboos are there
  to reinforce perpetuation of the human race.

  While we can argue the world could stand to be depopulated, could
  our phobias be based upon a deep instinct towards survival of the
  human race?

Best wishes,
Rollyn

    I don't believe you can alter the teachings and spirit of Christ.
    But I also recognize that many have dismissed, rationalized, or
    "spiritualized" the greatest portion of Jesus' teachings, and have
    done so for centuries.  Jesus' teachings still contain seeds so radical,
    neither the world nor the church has yet to comprehend it.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Another point of disagreement:  Many things Jesus said and demanded of
    us are clear and when one says them clearly, one brings people to the
    way, the truth, and the life.  When you say it can't be comprehended,
    you send people away.

    Jesus told us to love God and one another.  Jesus told us to repent and
    sin no more.  Jesus told us to make disciples, baptize them, and teach
    them everything that he commanded of us.

    Rollyn .31,
    
    > Often times I feel abominations and taboos are there to reinforce
    > perpetuation of the human race.
    
    I've wondered the same thing myself.  There's a great deal of truth
    in that, imo, and to some extent, necessity.  But I think the human
    species has firmly rooted itself on earth and future perpetuation  
    requires a whole new look at and dialogue on the "old" abominations.
    
    Patrick .33,
    
    > When you say it [Jesus' teachings] can't be comprehended, you send 
    > people away. 
    
    I agree.  But what Richard offered in .32 was that Jesus' teachings 
    have "yet" to be comprehended.  
    
    I, myself, would say that Jesus' message is still being comprehended. 
     
    Karen  

re Note 521.31 by USCTR1::RTRUEBLOOD:

>   While we can argue the world could stand to be depopulated, could
>   our phobias be based upon a deep instinct towards survival of the
>   human race?
  
        Well, I for one would certainly NOT argue that the world
        needs to be "depopulated."  On the other hand, it is easy to
        argue that there are few places in the world today in which
        the present inhabitants would benefit from population GROWTH.

        Bob

re Note 521.33 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     When you say it can't be comprehended,
>     you send people away.
  
        I agree with this, Pat.

        It is an error to say that the Bible is inscrutable,
        incomprehensible, or unapproachable.

        It is equally an error to say that human comprehension of the
        Bible is inerrant, complete, and reliable for all time.

        Bob

re Note 521.33 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     When you say it can't be comprehended,
>     you send people away.

I can see how you might have read what I said that way.  Perhaps I should have
said "fully comprehended," or "totally embraced" or something analogous.

I didn't intend to convey that Jesus' teachings were beyond understanding,
just that so few people practice those teachings beyond the limits of their
comfort zones.

Peace,
Richard

    My question must be a difficult question because I have not seen any
    replies that have really embraced the question.  Heterosexism means
    that our society sees heterosexual relationships as the only "normal"
    relationships.  Homosexuality is seen as abnormal.  There is a sizable
    minority of people for whom Homosexuality is normal.  Anything else
    would be abnormal.  Our society in so defining normal and abnormal
    limits the scope of "normal" for everybody, not just Gay and Lesbians. 
    The whole concept of majority rule with minority rights is discarded. 
    The right, respect, and dignity to be different is held in suspicion.
    Heterosexism does effect everybody.
    
    
                                   Patricia

    It would help to move the discussion along if you defined what "normal"
    means from the point of view that you advocate.
    
    I believe that people should be free to hold the historical point of
    view of Christianity, namely that all sexual intercourse outside of
    marriage is immoral.
    
    Now if you want to argue that the immoral has become "normal" for
    the United States, I would agree with you.

    Patrick,
    
    For me "moral" when it refers to relationships(sexual or
    not) means a healthy responsible loving relationship between two people.
    My criteria for moral sexual relationships is that they are between
    two consenting adults both of whom are not attached by marriage or
    a marriage like arrangement with someone else. I further agree with the
    prohibition regarding sexual relationships between a teacher/student 
    cousellor/patient  clergy/member.  Other than that individual adults should
    be free to determine for themselves what is normal, moral,  and healthy.
    
    Patrick, you don't have to accept my definition of moral.  Please don't
    try to impose yours on me or others.
    
                               Patricia 
    
    
                                 
    
    

    
    Patricia,
    
    i don't believe that your definition of normal and moral reflect a
    Christian perspective at all.  If you think it does then how does it?
    
    thanks!
    jeff

   From AHD:

   Hetero or heter pref.  Other; different [heterosexual]

   Sexism n. Discrimination by members of one sex against the other 
             esp. by men against women, based on the assumption that
             one sex is superior.


   I'm a tad mixed up by heterosexism.  I suspect it might mean the
   difference(hetero) in how we seperate and discriminate against 
   the sexes(sexism).  Anywho, homosexuality has nothing to do with 
   this as it deals with discrimination based on sex not the sexual act.
   It seems to be the prevailing trend that heterosexism is preferable
   to homosexuality, I doub't that. A comparison of cars and water would
   make less sense.  Based on that what are we talking about?  I suspect
   it must be the scriptural basis that women and men should not have 
   parity in the world of human endevor.  Any thoughts on this?

   Peace,
   Allison

    

    Alison,
    
    Heterosexism is the belief that heterosex is better than, more normal
    than, the preferred pattern of interaction.  An example of Heterosexism
    would be for a person, even one who affirmed homosexuality to be
    startled if a same sex couple were holding hands or displaying
    affection toward each other.
    
    Heterosexism is assuming that everyone you meet is heterosexual.  It is
    assuming that when you are interacting with a group of teenagers that
    they will all be heterosexual.  It is the making invisible of a
    minority group that is different.

    Jeff,
    
    Well then let's just call it a human perspective.  A perspective that
    judges a relationship by the quality of the caring, sharing, and love.
    
    If women and men are created in the image of Goddess/God, then is not
    our sexuality  a gift.   The exploitive use of sexuality is immoral
    whether it is within marriage or not.  Sexuality as an act of love is a
    beautiful expression of the best of our humaness.  Sex can be an act of
    affirmation of oneself and one's partner.  As such it embodies the
    ideals of Christian love.
    
    imho
    
    
    Patricia

    What immorality is there in being startled?

   Patrica,

   Your providing the specific case of the general condition I put forth.

   I am of course refering to implicit meaning and explicit meaning of
   words in our language.

   Sexism is clearly seperation of the sexes and is negative in 
   interpretation.  Adding the hetero preface supports the assumption 
   that sexism is right and the sexes will be seperate as a nominal 
   condition.  The discrimination of homosexuals as part of that is only
   a part of the total picture of sexism enforcing stereotypical roles. 
   It is also the catchall for discrimination against those that will 
   not or can not embrace stereotypical roles as a result.

   Peace,
   Allison

I object to the moderator moving the following reply from this topic to
"The Processing Topic".

================================================================================
Note 9.381                    The Processing Topic                    381 of 383
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      19 lines   5-OCT-1992 18:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Patricia,
>    
>    i don't believe that your definition of normal and moral reflect a
>    Christian perspective at all.  If you think it does then how does it?
>    
>    thanks!
>    jeff

Jeff, you don't seem to have figured out that in this conference, the
perspective on morality is the morality of today's hedonists.

Sort of "If it makes me feel good and I don't think it separates me from
God, then it won't, so it's not immoral."  Everyone has their own personal
"Goddess/God" and life is just all hunky-dory.

Forget anything Judaism and Christianity have taught for 4000 years.
That's old fashioned and sexist.

/john
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This reply is relevant to the current topic.

This topic claims that something called "heterosexism" hurts everyone.  Even
the word is carefully crafted to make "affirmation of the Christian principal
that the only licit sexual union is that between man and wife" sound "wrong".

This topic claims that historic Judeo-Christian definitions of sexual sin
hurt everyone.

At least one reply in this topic claims that illicit sexual union embodies
the ideals of Christian Love.  Encouraging someone you love to engage in
sexual sin is not Christian Love.

/john

    If you don't consider it a sin, but rather something beautiful and
    wonderful, then supporting it is an expression of love.
    
    -- Mike

re: Note 521.47 by John R. Covert

I happened to notice a word usage in this note that has often bothered me.

Now, "man and woman" I can appreciate, or "husband and wife", but "man and 
wife" has always seemed to me to be of the "apples and oranges" type of pear. 

Peace,

Jim

   It's the language, man.
   
   In that phrase, the word "man" specifically means "husband".
   
   If you check a good dictionary, you'll find out that it is still
   used colloquially to mean husband; that phrase is the only remaining
   non-colloquial remnant of the usage.
   
   /john

    Checking a mediocre dictionary also reveals that "man" is often used as a
    synomym for "humanity".
    
    That, however, does not address the question of whether or not it can
    be less than preferable to refer to the human race as a whole with that
    term.
    
    -- Mike

Yes John, I agree, it IS the language.  And language can be VERY important.  
In earlier times, when one nation conquered another, the conquerer's language 
was forced upon the people.  In two generations, entire cultures can be 
eradicated by stripping a people of their language.  

And it illustrates how some meanings of some words change with time.  Language 
changes culture and culture changes language.  Makes me wonder... 

As Mike points out, "man" is often used collectively to mean humanity.  It can
become quite difficult then, I think, to know what colloquialisms were used by
other people in a different culture, different language, and different time. 

Interestingly, my humble office dictionary says that colloquial is 
"characteristic of or appropriate to conversation but not formal writing."

Is the Bible a work of formal writing?  In who's eyes?  There is more than one 
standard for language use, and it may differ between what one person writes and 
another reads, or what one says and another hears.  This difficulty has been
well illustrated in the discussion of the term "Judeo-Christian". 

And ever since I took Spanish classes in junior high, I've wondered about 
languages which apply a gender to all nouns.  La leche...milk is feminine, I 
can understand that.  Others words seem to be derived from the imagery of the 
physical differences between the sexes.  But a lot of other words seem to
connote a particular cultural view of gender which often escapes me...

	feminine				masculine
manga		sleeve, bag		mango		handle
tuerca		nut (of a screw)	perno		bolt, spike
travesura	mischief		peligro		danger
bala		bullet, shot, ball	bache		rut, hole in the road

In the English language, we don't have such a distinction between masculine 
and feminine nouns, yet we have difficulty with the lack of a non-gender 
specific pronoun.

Just more musing.  I hope this is appropriate to this topic.

Peace,

Jim

>Interestingly, my humble office dictionary says that colloquial is 
>"characteristic of or appropriate to conversation but not formal writing."
>
>Is the Bible a work of formal writing?

Use of "man" to mean "husband" is currently colloquial; formerly it was
not colloquial.

/john

re: Note 521.53 by John R. Covert

>Use of "man" to mean "husband" is currently colloquial; formerly it was
>not colloquial.

Fine, John, I'll take what you wrote in .47 as informal writing and 
conversational in nature.  I've no problem with that.  I was only making an 
observation and sharing my viewpoint, after all.

But the question remains, how does one always know when an expression is 
idiomatic, colloquial or whatever?  You say that "man" meaning "husband" is 
currently colloquial, but formerly it was not.  By that do you mean that in 
America, say 100 years ago it was not?  How about 3000 years ago in Isreal?
Was it formerly colloquial in all languages forever before?  And when did it 
change?  I'm not trying to bait you, only to show that it is not an easy 
answer at which to arrive.  Certainly words may be translated, but are all the
colloquial and idiomatic meanings left intact? 

Are there colloquialisms in the Bible?  If so, how can one tell what is and 
what isn't?  One school of thought attempts to obviate the question by
insisting that everything is literally true.  (I'm not saying that anyone here
necessarily adheres to that.)  I think that is an attempt for an easy way out.

The alternative is fraught with difficulties.  What one person sees as
colloquial or idiomatic, another sees as literal and vice versa.  Yet each
viewpoint can be based on sincere and prayerful thought, research, and
meditation. 

Back to sexism, IF the Bible contains colloquial expressions (and I believe it 
does), THEN what are we to do with certain statements concernig sexual and 
gender roles?  Does our interpretation, understanding, and implementation 
injure other people?  Is that acceptable?  How is our Freedom to arrive at our
own understanding entwined with our Responsibility?  Can we claim that others
are wrong and insincere based on the knowledge that we ourselves are correct
and sincere?  It's a question of Trust.

Peace,

Jim

You don't have to take it as colloquial, because in the expression "man and
wife" it isn't colloquial.

    /john,
    
    > -< English usage has naught to do with 3000 years ago in Israel >-
    
    It has a very relevent connection.  In the Bible, we're using  
    English transliterations to understand events and experiences 
    which occured in and around Israel over the last 3000 + years.
    
    Karen

re: Note 521.55 by John R. Covert

>You don't have to take it as colloquial, because in the expression "man and
>wife" it isn't colloquial.

But John, you say in note .53

>Use of "man" to mean "husband" is currently colloquial; formerly it was
>not colloquial.

"Isn't" is a contraction of "is not".  
"Is" is the 3rd person singular present indicative of the verb "be".

So, currently, in the present tense, are you saying that it IS or ISN'T a 
colloquialism?

> -< English usage has naught to do with 3000 years ago in Israel >-

My Bibles, Old and New Testament alike are in English, a translation of the
original Scriptures.  Are you saying that modern language Bibles have naught
to do with 3000 years ago in Israel? 

My perspective is that such Bibles do have very much to do with Israel 3000 
years ago, and the relationship the people had with God.  However, we are 
faced with a difficult task, given the nature of language, to explore that 
relationship and what it means today.

Peace,

Jim

"Man" as "husband" is now colloquial _except_in_the_expression_ "man and wife".

Formerly it wasn't colloquial at all.

Clear?

re: Note 521.58 by John R. Covert

>        -< If you have trouble with 17th Century English, buy an NRSV! >-

Well, it's not the 17th Century English I have trouble reading, it's the
Aramaic, the Hebrew, the Greek, the Latin...  Besides, I have RSV, NIV, and 
the Jerusalem Bible to augment the old King James.  

>"Man" as "husband" is now colloquial _except_in_the_expression_ "man and wife".
>Formerly it wasn't colloquial at all.
>Clear?

Well, I believe I understand what you're saying now.  But do you see how this 
illustrates a greater question?  If it is necessary to be that explicit about 
what is or isn't colloquial English to English speaking people, how much more 
difficult is it to filter out particular colloquialisms in non-native cultures
and languages?

(And on what basis do you assert that "man" is colloquial for "husband" except 
in that particular phrase?)

Peace,

Jim

>(And on what basis do you assert that "man" is colloquial for "husband" except 
>in that particular phrase?)

By the authority vested in the G. C. Merriam unabridged dictionary.

/john

    
    It's with disbelief that I read some of these notes.  I can't believe 
    anyone thinks so much of themselves that they feel they can redefine 
    morality.  Morality and immorality was decided by God, not by you or I.  
    The Bible says homosexual acts are an abomination and some of you say 
    it's an expression of love?  Whoa!  Boy, St. Peter was right when he 
    said the wicked will twist the scriptures to their own destruction.   
    
    I guess if your description of heterosexism is that I assume a group 
    of people are all heterosexuals, than the answer to your original 
    question is NO.  I don't believe that giving everyone the benefit 
    of the doubt that homosexuality is not a sin they have in there life 
    is hurting anyone.  
    
    I do feel that some of you need to know that you were created by God.
    The one true God...whether you except Him or not.  He is not a goddess,
    he's not someone you can redefine, he's God.  He is who He says He is.  
    No more.  No less.  Yes, He is a loving God, but He is also a just God
    with no tolerance for sin.
    
    It's so sad to read all these entries.  Jesus became sin...he drank
    that cup down to the dregs for you and me.  We are all so unworthy.
    But He did it for all of us.  Then He called us away from our sin -
    which is clearly defined in the Bible and reinforced by the Holy
    Spirit.  I don't care if you have a predisposition or not.  My
    boyfriend may have had a predisposition to being an alcoholic, but
    there was a point where he had to choose in his life to follow God
    and change or to refuse what God said was right and wrong and die in 
    his sin.  As a person, we all have that same choice.  No matter what
    your sins are.  Repentance is the act of coming into agreement with
    God of what sin is and choosing to follow in His path instead.  There's
    a line you either have to choose to cross or you're not a Christian.
    You're not a Christian cause you go to church, because you read the
    Bible, or because you love and except everything about everyone.  God
    doesn't call Christians to be tolerant of everything.  That's not
    love.  My telling you that homosexuality is okay as long as it's within
    a loving relationship is blasphemous...it is sin...you do need to make
    a choice...and if you choose to mock God and say it's not sin, I don't
    believe you have come to true repentance and acceptance of the life of
    Jesus Christ and if you haven't, the result is eternal separation from
    God.  I don't want that for anyone.  Love is caring enough to tell 
    someone God's truth.  This life is like a blink of an eye.  It's going
    to be much easier to struggle in the here and now then for all of
    eternity.
    
    Choose God or lose Him.  I'm not saying I never sin anymore because I'm
    a Christian, but I'm trying to change.  It's a constant struggle, but
    I'm trying.  I guess with the homosexual community I see a total
    hardening of the heart towards changing that sin in their lives.  A
    total denial that it is sin.  But it is.  You know what the Bible says.
    Stop denying it.  Stop denying God by saying He's wrong.  You're 
    hurting yourselves and others by pulling them into the lie.  Choose
    to believe the truth...it can set you free.
    
    Jill

   Jill,

   I read your note and am not surprized you did what most do.  
   Preach first. 

   I posted a note on the definition of the word.

   Heterosexism has little to do with homosexuality per se.  It is the
   belief and actions that re-enforce the idea that SEXISM is good or 
   proper.  By sexism I mean nothing of good in the biblical level or
   in the real world of daily secular affairs.

   	Hetersexism is:
       
   	  Not about heterosexual being normal or even abnormal!

    	  It is about rude comments objectifying women as sex toys.
   	
   	  Rude comments about heterosexual men that may appear effeminate
   	  or work in trades that fit some unmanly stereotype.

   	  Is it stereotyping people by behavour without ever knowing them
   	  or who they are, never mind the conviction of their beliefs.

   	  It is itself a label about negative labeling of people.

   	  It is in itself bigotry.
   	
     Note 91.* is about homosexuality.

   Your right about one thing, satan, if you believe in that kind of evil
   is having a field day!  The red herring before your eyes is not
   homosexuality, everyone reading the note saw the  h*****sex*** and read
   into it homosexual.  In that respect if anyone does that they have
   allowed themselves the luxury of smug heterosexism and no doubt several
   grave sins.

    
   Peace,
   Allison

    Allison,
    
    	You're right!  I did the very thing you described.  Thank you for
    bringing that to my attention!!
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Allison, you're misrepresenting this topic.

You wrote:

>   Heterosexism has little to do with homosexuality per se.

Yet when Patricia started this topic, she wrote in .0:
    
>    Heterosexism is the belief that  the only acceptable romantic
>    sexual relationship that is normal is between a man and a woman. 
>    Heterosexism assumes that same sex relationships are not normal. 
>    Heterosexism assumes that same sex relationships are dysfunctional or
>    evil or sinful.

Jill's reply is quite appropriate in this topic, which is really just another
topic proclaiming homosexuality as a supposedly acceptable alternative
lifestyle.

/john

   /John,

   I didn't miss the point of the topic.  What you missed is I never
   said the premise of the topic was correct.  Neither did I side with
   the anti-premise that immoral behavour was correct.  

   If you read very carefully I would expect you to find that I introduced
   a third point of view.  That view is that sexism is not part of meaningful
   love between anyone.  Sexism is immoral behavour!  

   Now, I have more than implied that heterosexism is a form of eliteism
   based on the notion that being heterosexual allows one to practice 
   sexual bigotry which is almost the definition of sexism. 


   Peace,
   Allison

>Sexism is immoral behavour!  
>
>Now, I have more than implied that heterosexism is a form of eliteism
>based on the notion that being heterosexual allows one to practice 
>sexual bigotry which is almost the definition of sexism. 

Are you saying that following the constant teaching of 4000 years of
Jewish and Christian tradition by refusing to condone homosexual
sexual union is immoral behaviour?

Are you saying that following the Church's teaching on homosexuality
is immoral behaviour?

Failure to love the homosexual is immoral; rejecting homosexuality is not.

/john

    RE: .61   Jill,
    
    			One little nit and I'll treat that gently.  I am
    having a hard time believing that God has a single gender.  
    
    
    DaveZ

   /John

   Please go back and re-read.  It's not exclusively about homosexuality,
   though you appear to have a very one track mind about the topic.  It
   not is the only sexual evil nor the most prevelent.  Yet you
   repeatedly zero in on that.  Why?  This topic seems to be about that.

   The immorality I referred to is sexual objectivication of people,
   male or female regardless of their sexual orientation.

   Peace,
   Allison

Allison, why do you try to redefine this topic?

How can we have a discussion if you are not willing to follow some
sort of rules, some sort of thread of thought, based on what is in .0?

>The immorality I referred to is sexual objectivication of people,
>male or female regardless of their sexual orientation.

Very true, but that's not what this topic is about.

If you go back and read .0, you will see that this is Patricia's topic on
what she calls "heterosexism," which she defines as a rejection of
homosexuality.  She is very clear in .0 about what she wants to discuss here.

If you want to start a new topic on sexism, please do so.  I might even
agree with a lot of what you say there.

/john

re Note 521.66 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Failure to love the homosexual is immoral; rejecting homosexuality is not.
  
        John,

        I humbly submit the observation that many who reject
        homosexuality as immoral demonstrate that they cannot "love
        the homosexual" and in fact practice hate against the
        homosexual.

        Jesus said that if your eye, an objectively good thing,
        causes you to sin then you should pluck it out (an
        objectively bad thing).  Perhaps those who cannot avoid
        sinning against their brother and sister homosexuals because
        of their hate of the sin must, for themselves, "pluck out"
        their concept of homosexuality as immoral.

        Bob

>        Perhaps those who cannot avoid sinning against their brother and
>	sister homosexuals because of their hate of the sin must, for
>	themselves, "pluck out" their concept of homosexuality as immoral.

This starts the slippery slope.

Perhaps those who cannot avoid hating murderers should pluck out their
concept of murder as immoral.

Sorry, it doesn't wash.

The failing of some to love cannot justify changing those things that Jill
points out that we have no right to change.

/john

<Allison, why do you try to redefine this topic?

   I am not.  The title is the topic.  How does heterosexism hurt 
   us?	

<How can we have a discussion if you are not willing to follow some
<sort of rules, some sort of thread of thought, based on what is in .0?

   Live life in a more flexible way, consider things from every angle
   even those you don't embrace.  I am not asking you to change your
   value systems though.

<If you go back and read .0, you will see that this is Patricia's topic on
<what she calls "heterosexism," which she defines as a rejection of
<homosexuality.  She is very clear in .0 about what she wants to discuss here.

   I took that as one possible example to support her premise that 
   heterosexism hurts us.  I have tried to illuminate the possibility
   that it is part of a package that some people subscribe to as "good"
   unknowningly.

   Peace,
   Allison

re: Note 521.60 by "John R. Covert" 

>By the authority vested in the G. C. Merriam unabridged dictionary.

Fine, John.  But your focus seems to me to be on the most niggling and
incidental of my questions through all this. 

What does you dictionary say about the colloquialisms used in the original 
Scriptures and how they are translated?  There is some very sexist material in 
the Bible.  Is it meant literally, or were they colloquially including women 
where we read men?  Did they mean God the Father is specifically male as 
humans understand that, or is that a limitation of human language?

I remember a controversy about the French publication of the book _All the 
King's Men_.  That title is based on the nursery rhyme _Humpety Dumpety_ and 
has very specific connotations in most English speaking cultures that had an 
important bearing on the subject of the book (the breakdown of Nixon's
presidency).  However French culture does not include that rhyme.  A literal
translation would loose all the intended meaning, where as finding an 
idiomatically meaningful title would stretch very far the concept of 
translation.  And that issue was very difficult to sort out among bi-lingual 
authorities in two modern, concurrent cultures.

There is a very real danger in not only loosing meaning when translating from 
one language to another, but also in creating non-intended meaning at the same 
time.  The difficulty is compounded when the cultures and languages are 
seperated by millenia.

I saw a commercial for Pat Robertson's latest book on the 700 Club at
lunchtime.  In it he says he shares 10 secrets to success that will work for
"all men".  Now, he wasn't speaking conversationally, he was trying to sell a
book. That is a formal undertaking, therefore it could quite reasonably be
taken to mean that the book is specifically not for women.  Yes, my dictionary
includes a definition for man to mean a person, however, the primary
definition is  an adult male human being.  The definition that is the central
meaning about which the other senses of the word can most logically be
organized.  Am I to understand that these ten secrets will not work for women?

Peace,

Jim

re Note 521.71 by COVERT::COVERT:

> This starts the slippery slope.
> 
> Perhaps those who cannot avoid hating murderers should pluck out their
> concept of murder as immoral.
> 
> Sorry, it doesn't wash.
  
        Oh, but it washes VERY well, John.

        If you, as a hypothetical example, simply hate anybody who
        uses the Lord's name in vain, and want to punch them out or
        worse, then that commandment has been instrumental in leading
        you to sin.  Ignore the commandment AS IT APPLIES TO THE
        OTHER and see if you can thus avoid the sins of hatred and
        even love to the point of dying for that person, if the
        occasion arose.

        I am not saying that the other person should ignore that
        commandment -- that commandment was not instrumental in
        leading them to sin.

        If you want to tear the guts out of convicted murderers, then
        ignore the fact that they broke a commandment rather than
        burn in your sin.

        If you want to fire a homosexual breadwinner, or turn a
        family which includes a homosexual couple out of their
        apartment, then ignore what you believe to be the commandment
        applying to them rather than you sin as well.

        I believe that a great many people in this country let their
        righteous indignation lead them to sin.  If that happens,
        they must put their indignation aside.

        I believe that in Jesus we have the perfect example of one
        who put all righteous indignation (well, nearly all) in order
        to live perfect love.

        Bob

DaveZ,

I'm sorry you have a hard time believing God has a single gender.  I don't
see anything in the Bible that would cause me to believe otherwise.  I
do believe that God has traits that are found in both males and females,
but I don't think that makes Him a goddess.  So nit one, pearl two. ;^)

Jill
----------

Allison,

If my first inclination was to preach, it's because as a Christian I've
been commissioned to tell others about the gospel of Christ.  

Sexism which is simply hate is immoral behavior, considering yourself
better than others is immoral, and homosexuality is immoral not
because it's based on the notion that being heterosexual allows one 
to practice sexual bigotry but because the Bible says they are all
immoral and for no other reason.  

Also, I've posted a couple notes below that I believe set the tone of 
this topic despite what you believe it is.  The topic is not simply the 
title, but how it's define by the author.  

Jill
----------
Note 521.0            how does heterosexism hurt everybody?           73 replies
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "waiting for the snow"              14 lines  22-SEP-1992 10:51

    I am going to start this new topic on How does Heterosexism hurt
    everyone.  My belief is that Heterosexism does hurt everyone whether we
    are gay or straight.

    Heterosexism is the belief that  the only acceptable romantic
    sexual relationship that is normal is between a man and a woman.
    Heterosexism assumes that same sex relationships are not normal.
    Heterosexism assumes that same sex relationships are dysfunctional or
    evil or sinful.

    So the question is how does heterosexism hurt everybody.

                               Patricia
----------
Note 521.38           how does heterosexism hurt everybody?             38 of 73
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "waiting for the snow"              13 lines   5-OCT-1992 09:19

    My question must be a difficult question because I have not seen any
    replies that have really embraced the question.  Heterosexism means
    that our society sees heterosexual relationships as the only "normal"
    relationships.  Homosexuality is seen as abnormal.  There is a sizable
    minority of people for whom Homosexuality is normal.  Anything else
    would be abnormal.  Our society in so defining normal and abnormal
    limits the scope of "normal" for everybody, not just Gay and Lesbians.
    The whole concept of majority rule with minority rights is discarded.
    The right, respect, and dignity to be different is held in suspicion.
    Heterosexism does effect everybody.

                                   Patricia
    

    RE:  .75  Jill,
    
    			I doesn't make God a "him" either.
    
    
    Dave

I'm posting the attached message to illustrate that words like "heterosexism"
are part of an agenda by radical homosexuals to finagle society into approving
all sorts of sexual misconduct.

Background information you need to know to understand the message:  Wally Frey
was a parish priest in New York who was _immediately_ fired by his bishop
when it was discovered that he had had a number of sexual liasons with
young men and teenagers in his parish.  Louie Crew is a founder of an
organization called Integrity, which lobbies for the Episcopal Church to
change its position opposing homosexuality, including lobbying to permit
ordination of openly practicing homosexuals.  Apparently "Quean Luti" thinks
that pedophiles are OK, too.

From:	[email protected] "Louie Crew"
Date:	29-OCT-1992 23:10:16.73
To:	[email protected]
Subj:	Wally Frey's "victims"

I am distressed as I contemplate the teenaged 'victims' of Wally
Frey, who recently resigned following revelations that he had had sex
with some teenagers and young adults in his community.

What if some of those partners were gay?  Are they being caught up in
society's fiercest brainwashings, being forced to feel guilty because they
wanted to participate, perhaps even initiated some of the assignations?  How
much of this response is orchestrated by their families' greed to get back at
the church?   Will they have to go through 'therapy'?  What form will it take?

No one in her right mind would design a society which limits personal
freedom by the ways that these young men and Wally related:  NONE of the
participants had room in which to explore sexual identity openly,
integrating it with all other forms of intercourse with the partner(s)........  

But can't we redress the real problem:  heterosexist totalitarianism!!
And where is the Church when Wally most needs a community to help him?
Not where Jesus is!  Of that I am absolutely certain.  These are the times
for which Christ died, not to save the righteous, but sinners like me.

Louie/Quean Luti

  ==========================================================================
  Louie Crew, Assoc. Prof., Academic Foundations Dept., Rutgers U./NWK 07102
  [email protected]                                   201-485-4503
                            Closets are for prayer!

| <<< Note 521.77 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



	Interesting John....... a few comments though....

| I'm posting the attached message to illustrate that words like "heterosexism"
| are part of an agenda by radical homosexuals to finagle society into approving
| all sorts of sexual misconduct.

	Could you explain just what a "radical homosexual" is?

| Background information you need to know to understand the message:  Wally Frey
| was a parish priest in New York who was _immediately_ fired by his bishop
| when it was discovered that he had had a number of sexual liasons with
| young men and teenagers in his parish. 

	Well, if the rules say no sex, then one must follow them. If he was
fired for having sex with any teenages, whether male or female, then he should
have also been brought up on charges.

| What if some of those partners were gay?  Are they being caught up in
| society's fiercest brainwashings, being forced to feel guilty because they
| wanted to participate, perhaps even initiated some of the assignations?  

	I sincerly hope they don't end up being made to feel guilty for
exploring their sexual side. The kids should be told about sex, how to practice
safer sex, things like that. But feel guilty for what comes natural? I hope
not.

| How
| much of this response is orchestrated by their families' greed to get back at
| the church?   

	Hmmmm..... to get back at the church through this method? I wonder what
the church did to even want parents to use this to "get back"?

	I can see where the person who wrote this letter may get those idea's,
as just by looking at how some of the church's have treated gays many would
probably think the same. Whether or not it happened or not, I don't know.

| But can't we redress the real problem:  heterosexist totalitarianism!!
| And where is the Church when Wally most needs a community to help him?
| Not where Jesus is!  

	It seems as though the church may or may not have backed or helped the
priest. Any info on this? The author makes it seem as though they didn't help
him. If that were true, well, then that's pretty sad.




Glen

    re 521.77
    The questions brought up in this note have more to do with clergy
    sexual misconduct than it has to do with homosexuality. Clergy Sexual
    Misconduct is a serious problem.  Most denominations are actively
    addressing this problem and issuing very clear guidelines.
    
    The victims almost always end up feeling responsibility and guilt and
    it does take a lifetime for them to recover.  
    
    Patricia

	RE: .79 IN many ways you are correct. However, John is making a
	different point by posting it here. Do you understand what that
	point is? The fact that a cleric was involved is not that
	relevant to John's purpose as I understand it.

			Alfred

    Frankly I'm not sure what John's point is.  Radical people
    use controversial terms all the time.  So what?

    Is the implication that those speaking out against heterosexism
    in this note are just as radical?  Is the implication that
    those who use the term "heterosexism" support pedophiles?

    /Greg

   The use of radical terms has one advantage, polarization.  As long
   as the conversation deals with polar elements, abuse, and exception 
   cases no progress to understanding can be had.  I consider it an
   impedimenet, while others use it as a tool to achieve their idea of
   winning.

   Allison