tjhammer

And now stlscouter is slyly asking for sources where he can find accordion music, and trying to identify fellow accordion players sort of an "accordion-dar". This is astonishing. My suspicions of who in this forum may in fact be closeted accordion players is nearly spot on, so far. (I'm still waiting for a few to reveal themselves.) I'm starting to see a pattern, though. I wonder, are the closeted accordion lovers among us inversely proportional to the folks that oppose homosexuals?

You know what they say, the ones who seem to be the biggest accordiophobes are usually hiding something themselves. Especially the ones who thing the idea of accordion playing "was a good idea" that's just "gone bad" (perhaps not wanting to relate to the more noisy accordion players of the day). Ed, you're among friends.

At first I thought we had found an issue with universal agreement in this forum! Finally, something controversial that needn't be... we might disagree on gays, or women, or religion or many other things, but at least we all can agree on the insidious nature of the accordion. But then this morning I began to worry... what if it is just my prejudice allowing me to bash these accordions? What if my ear just isn't tuned to fully appreciate the unique grace of an accordion? Have I judged to harshly? In my fervor to join in with everyone else in condemning the accordion, what silent damage mig

Barry - I'm not sure I understand... my point was that some people have escalated the "sin" of homosexuality well beyond other "sins"; my comment had nothing to do with God's judgment. Rooster -- I'm suggesting - If your heart is telling you something different than what you have expressed in this forum, a debate with God will be futile. He will not be convinced otherwise...because He knows all. Oh, make no mistake, I've never thought I was in a debate with God.I don't know what's in your heart.That's progress, because a few moments ago you were convinced of what was really in my

Rooster, so you're convinced you know what's in my heart, and it's completely contrary to what I have said. That's arrogance superseded only by claiming to know the Divine beliefs of God, IMHO. That's not intended to be an attack, just an observation from this vantage point.

Barry... Jesus does specifically comdemn divorce (and other behaviors), though. Odd that we've chosen to "reduce" that sin to a personal matter before God, though escalated being gay, despite no mention of it from Jesus. Ron, thx for your support, but I must correct one thing... I'm not the one studying to be a priest. (Though I imagine my mom would be elated if I were!)

Well Hunt, you're right, that is a different argument. As I said at the onset, I don't necessarily endorse all of Justin's interpretations and wordsmithing as my own, I merely provide them as food for thought that perhaps give pause to the "literalism" argument that the Bible is quite clear on this issue. Let me be clear: I actually do accept Justin's alayisis of the words, and have yet to hear any documented argument against any of his analysis; I distance myself from his remarks only becuase I think in the end it simply doesn't matter if the Bible is accurate on those passages or not. I

Sure, I read Genesis 19... and in Justin's original article, he makes a few specific observations (more actually, but you have to read the article), including: 1) God sent the angels to tell Lot that Sodom was being destroyed (in other words, whatever the reason for God destroying Sodom, it had already been decided BEFORE the incident with the gang of men and the angels). 2) This passage is clearly about forcible rape, and not even specifically homosexual rape. But even if you do read into the scripture that it is condemning homosexual rape, it says absolutely nothing about a committ

Ed, don't get too caught up in denying that the Bible might actually "endorse" homosexuality... perhaps you're right, and those relationships like Jonathan and David are purely "platonic" (I'm not sure I agree, though... how else could one explain some of those passages, which clearly identify relationships that go well beyond friendship and closely parallel the way the Bible describes romantic, heterosexual relationships elsewhere?). Perhaps Rooster will find a way to say "nuh uh" by using more words? But what about the original argument, that the six Bible versus used to "clobber" homos

If by "read what you posted", you mean you followed the link and read Justin Cannon's article, then I commend you for taking the time. Of course, his article is counter to your assertion that the Bible so thoroughly condemns same-sex relationships. As for your other observation, that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality is akin to Jesus not mentioning vehicular assault, well, that's just silly. If homosexuality is such a big issue for some Christians today, you'd think it would have at least ranked a mention from Jesus or in the Gospels... or are you trying to suggest homsexuality didn't

fgoodwin, I see you took the time to actually read the article.

I just read an interesting article written by Justin Cannon, a young, gay college student preparing to enter the Episcopalian priesthood. There's many resources available to people who want to better understand the Bible and homosexuality, and I have read several recently. I found Justin's thoughts to be well reasoned; he observes the six passages of the Bible that have been related to homosexuals, and one-by-one explains how misinterpretation may have creeped into the lexicon (he notes the word "homosexual" didn't even make it into a translation of the Bible until 1946). His main point,

stls - wow, you're really off the deep end. By definition, prejudice clouds judgment, and your conjecture shows how jaded your world view really has become. You go searching for evil just to assure yourself that you're sane. While I shouldn't dignify your remarks, they are so baseless I feel compelled. For the record, no inappropriate contact or relationship ever occurred, and of course his parents were involved, as well as professional counselors. Was the seriousness of the situation lost on you? Thank God his parents were as loving and supportive as they were... it could have bee

In response to EdMori's question... Ed - Sexuality is not just about sex or physical attraction, so there was no specific epiphany or event. Also, I wasn't around any gay people when I was young; I had no idea what real gay people were like, except a surreal imagery to which I knew I would never relate. I had no external references to help identify the feelings I was experiencing, or the direction my life could take in that regard. As puberty hit, and I began to imagine myself as a "sexual being", the imagery in my head was just always gay, not straight. In middle school,

Semper --- sshhhhh, don't jinx this, I'm really close to bringing Rooster into the light. Rooster - I'm bewildered by what "behavior I embrace" that has you so uptight. Life with my partner around our house is about as "normal" as it gets, and my "behavior" out in the world is pretty much indistinguishable (at least as far as my sexuality goes... in other ways, I do aspire to be a little distinguished ;-)). The only "behaviour" I can imagine that has you so worried for my soul (and my influence on the world) is what happens in my bedroom. Alas, I regret to inform you that's pretty

Rooster, this really is not a complex debate construct: 1) I never chose to be gay, I just am. Nearly every homosexual on the planet will tell you the same thing. Either you believe you have some special insight into this that those who experience it first hand lack, or you believe I'm a liar (and masochist). 2) Your religious view is not a universal religious view, and the BSA "claims" you/they have no right to impose your religious view on others as a condition of membership. Of course they violate their own claim. You are an intelligent, articulate man, yet I realize now that you

Rooster, it's a bit disingenuous for you to couch your criticisms to be "I just think it's a sin". Your condemnation has gone far, far beyond that, and you regularly have suggested gays are perverse, unclean, unnatural, insidious, etc etc etc. Reviewing your past posts reveal these and far more opinions that you've added on or "interpreted" from your religious context. Your view of this issue is certainly founded in your religion, but your religion's view is not the only perspective from which you advance your argument.

The BSA is open to all faiths, and member requirements should be generic in their approach to God. Non-Christians should not be made to recognize Christian doctrine. Hmmm... yep, that sounds like a good policy, Rooster.

My sincere apologies, Rooster, as I was certain your studying at BJU was a past topic of discussion here. I certainly wasn't trying to "smear you by association" with that fundamentalist Christian school, I was genuinely trying to understand how their (and wrongly I presumed your) opinions of morality could change. I agree with you, though, it is bad form and unfair to label people based on stereotypes. :-)) EDITED PART: BTW, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest I'd "rather not discuss the specific issue and debating the relative arguments"... after two years and 200+ posts on this

Rooster, I referenced some of those reports (and how to find more) in the very first post on this thread, though I realize that was several pages ago.

More on topic to this thread, it seems one of the salient points made -- and since glossed over -- is this: no credible study has ever shown any significant difference in the children raised by gay parents vs straight parents. If anything, many studies have shown the kids tend to be better adjusted to society. If kids being raised every day by gay parents are not more likely to be gay themselves, or suffer problems, or be molested, or "lack morality", it seems ignorant to think the influence of a gay Scout or leader would cause any of those things to happen.

Rooster, I'm curious... Weren't you a student at Bob Jones University? How long ago did you study there? Was your moral perspective significantly forged by your education at Bob Jones University? While you've made clear that your views on homosexuality parallel that of BJU, do you also share their views on race and other religions? Was it also "God's Law, not to mention common sense" that forged their stringent views on these issues? How do you reconcile their decision to finally admit blacks in the 70s, and then their finally dropping a ban on interracial dating a couple of years a

Kahuna (BTW, it's impossible to read your screen name without briefly flashing on a tropical vacation on the beach!), I agree with much of your observation. I believe the Democrat's problems (much of what you've outlined) is NOT with the Democratic party, but with their leadership. The rank and file of that party makes a far more articulate argument for what the party should stand for than any leader I have seen come along (though I was very impressed with Barrack Obama's speech at the Democrat's convention). I have always been a Republican. But I feel that party rapidly slipping awa

Rooster has claimed "others" are revising history, and that this country was really founded upon "Judeo-Christian" values (more precisely, his own view of those Judeo-Christian values). I wonder how you would be as a Citizenship in the Nation MB counselor to a Buddhist scout, Rooster? It's pretty hard to claim exactly what the "Founding Fathers" of this country believed, mostly because they vary in number and importance, depending on who you read. However, it is true to say, that the following seven American leaders were all Deists and denied the divinity of Jesus: George Washington, John

>>I'd be gone like a bad penny. Well, yes, I suppose in that case you're right.