In any case, having different roles for the sexes is not inherently sexist! Is the natural, organic world sexist?

In that case, the priesthood is the most inorganic and unnatural thing in the world. The natural and organic role for male members of any species is to produce offspring. Your support for the oath of celibacy, which you so exalt in men called to the priesthood, shatters any claim you have to "natural" authority.

And in the natural organic world, the only difference between men and women is that men impregnate women and raise children and women are impregnated and raise children. Both men and women, in nature and in other species, protect, feed, and nurture the offspring. Both women and men have natural leadership roles, as examining the shamen and priestesses of any ancient and primitive society will tell you. There is nothing about the biological nature of either men or women which suggests to us today that men ought to give up their natural role as progenitor in order to administer sacraments to others whereas women ought not do the same thing. You claim Nature has defined the roles of men and women when in fact Nature is perfectly silent on the issue. The only biological imperative is reproduction and Catholic priests, monks, and nuns have been spitting in nature's face about that one for a while now. You reveal a profound misunderstanding of biology if you claim otherwise.

You have revealed, through your posts, that you are actually as stupid as you seem to be. If you cannot make the distinction between "nature" and social justice then you have no place discussing issues of such importance with intelligent people. Your voice will only distract from the real substance at hand.

Just because you are a contrarian and pretend to know stuff doesn't mean you're smart. Dur.

It's a shame to see the Catholic church, which has been so powerful in promoting universal education, fighting poverty, and creating the theology of liberation in some parts of the world, fall so far off the mark of God's will in others. It's unlike the Catholics to cherry-pick scripture of Paul that was written to a specific audience and use that as the entire basis for denying women entry into the priesthood. If anything, the good works of nuns throughout history and the fact that women are almost never the perpetrators of sexual abuse ought to be reason enough to allow women to be ordained as priests.

But the Catholic church has also showed itself capable of learning from its mistakes, even if it doesn't really like to admit them. Sooner or later the Catholic church will, like so many of its own prominent theologians, recognize the sins of sexism and heterosexism, the same way they were among the first to pinpoint the sins of colonialism in South America. I am not Catholic but I have great faith in them nonetheless.

Many people I know supported Obama and decried Clinton as a right-wing appeaser because they thought, mistakenly, that Obama was progressive or exceptionally liberal. I told a lot of people, both independents and progressives, that they were merely projecting their own desires onto Obama and assuming he was their guy. They were wrong. In retrospect, it seems almost stupid to point that out now. Those of us who were paying more than a modicum of attention knew it then, and we still know it now.

After so much disappointment at the way Senator Clinton was treated during the primaries by the media and by her opponents, I was incredibly proud to see her persevere to the end of the primary and make sure that the voices of the 18 million people who voted for her were heard. I was proud to see the way she strengthened the Democratic party and proved the naysayers wrong... it is possible to have a competitive primary race that doesn't destroy the party, but makes it better.

I still wish Clinton was the one with 'President-elect' before her name right now, but I'm glad nonetheless that her contributions to Obama's victory and to this historic race in general have finally been recognized. For some people, it took Sarah Palin to make them realize just what a powerhouse Clinton is: For some of us, that was always obvious. The angry, bitter minority that harbors a profound and inexplicable hatred for Clinton can go suck an egg, as far as I'm concerned. The rest of us are thrilled.

Thanks for the video link. The second half, especially, highlighted the human qualities that I've always thought have made Hillary a strong candidate and a strong politician. She's not what everyone wants, but she is who she is and that's someone worth respecting and admiring.

...that Republicans have yet to hit rock-bottom. Apparently it will take them a few more years to realize that America isn't as fundamnetally conservative as it once was, or as they think it still is. It will take them a while to realize that it times of economic crisis, the solution is not more hands off and more free reign for economic powerhouses, but more hands on... bigger government, as it were. It will take them a while to figure out that it's their economic strategies that have gotten us in this mess, their environmental strategies that are killing our planet, their energy strategies which are making it possible for foreign oil markets to control us, their foreign policies which have cost us the esteem of the entire global community.

The longer it takes them to figure that out, the better. They can go suck an egg as far as I'm concerned.

"Barack Obama is not an Islamist fundamentalist. That means he sucks."