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 might I be a party to inflicting?

What if at this moment there is an young accordion player reading this exchange... what are we doing to their self-image right now? What if they are compelled to work the accordion... you know, that "just gotta polka" feeling they've had since their earliest recollection?

As interesting, what if one of us, the brethren of this forum, is a closet accordion player? Right here, right among us... watching as the entire crowd piles on in scorn, when secretly each night they slip away just to play their organ?

I have my strong opinions of accordions, that's for sure. But in fairness, I've never really known an accordion player. Perhaps my opinion might change radically, if there was an accordion player close to me, or some famous musician that made accordion playing cool... perhaps Bono could turn me toward the accordion.

Yes, I'll admit, once or twice in my younger days I encountered an accordion, and I may have even experimented a bit with it. But it clearly wasn't for me, and never felt right. But who am I to judge?

No, I'm left to wonder who among us is the closeted accordion player... statistically there must be someone here, suffering in quiet. Hmmm... I have my suspicions.

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 heart. (And you still seem suspect as to whether what I'm expressing in this forum is what I really believe. Very odd.)However, if youre sincerely searching for God, I find it very difficult to believe that He would allow you to embrace homosexuality unashamedly. Why question my sincerity? More importantly, you've already established there's no room for a third person's perspective between my heart and God, regardless of what you "find difficult to believe".I believe God reveals who He is through His Word.I don't. At least not the "Word" as literally interpreted in the Bible.I don't understand every verse.Nor do I, and I'll concede you've spent much more time studying them than I have, though I don't see how that makes you any more of an authority on something you agree is so personal.However, the bible's teachings on homosexuality are clear.I disagree, I believe there is considerable likelihood for misinterpretation and translation based on cultural bias. Though I also believe in the end it doesn't matter whether the current wording of the Bible is based on an accurate translation. I see Jesus saying that the lessons and laws of the Bible are subject to change, and I see how Christianity has already changed scriptural tradition on many other things (subservience of women, etc) to reflect an evolved ethos.

Do you believe the Word of God is subject to change? If so, how does that happen? If not, how do you explain modern views that differ from ancient views on many fundamental tenants of God's Word?

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.

In reality, the Bible verses used for centuries to oppress women are also pretty clear (and far more plentiful than the six that have been related to homosexuals), but in modern day (most) people have decided not to take those verses so literally. Similar, shall we say "re-understandings", of literal Bible verses have have allowed (most of) modern day culture to have a different view of Jews, or slaves, or even disobedient children.

But as you say, that's a different argument. In studying this matter, my personal conclusion is this:

1) there's no doubt the Bible has been interpreted, in some cases incorrectly, to reflect a worldview of the time (something that has happened over and over again throughout the history of that document, and can be seen today in the "gender-neutralization" of most passages);

2) I see no reason why the OT references to homosexuality were not invalidated by Jesus in much the way laws about planting of crops, trimming beards, etc were invalidated. I find it astonishing that homosexuality as a sin was apparently so irrelevant to Jesus that he never mentioned it nor is it ever covered in the Gospels. The references in the NT to homosexuality were all based on Paul's letters, and I'll grant that Paul probably reflects the Jewish view of the time against homosexuality.

3) I find Jesus speaking to Peter and his church and clearly stating that more lessons would come in time, and that they were not ready for all lessons at that time, to be a clear indication that the Bible as a living text does (and should) evolve as humanity evolves. I believe we're responsible for making these ethical decisions (to 'bind and loose') in light of the "greatest" commandments Jesus gave, even when it means overturning other scriptural traditions.

4) I find absolutely no condemnation for loving, committed, same-sex relationships in the Bible, and perhaps even stories that shine favorably on a few.

5) In the end, even if you still view "homosexuality" (not just exploitative or promiscuous relationships) as sinful, I find no justification in the Bible for looking upon gays any more harshly than divorcees, something that much of Christianity has decided to leave up to the personal relationship between the individual and God, without casting stones.

Leaving me with a final conclusion, that the religious argument against gays is weak, and really just provides cover for cultural bias (which is changing rapidly).(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 committed, same-sex, loving relationship. In fact, that's an underlying point of Justin's observations on all six of the "clobber" passages in the Bible... none of them, read in context, are condemning committed, same-sex, loving relationships.... they all add specific qualifiers to their condemnation of homosexuality (i.e. the "gangbang" rape in Genesis, or prostitution or origies or pedastry as described by John, etc).

3) The main reason people have read into that Genesis verse that it was a condemnation of homsexuality, is because Lot actually offered his daughter as an alternate victim to the house guests (angels), and I suppose some see that as suggesting it would be better for the men to rape a woman than the male angels. But Justin's article provides a simple answer for that, too.

Admittedly, this discussion will get confusing and monotonous very fast, and I don't look forward to a Bible-verse-tit-for-tat with some of the posters on this forum... I have made the point before that you can find justification for just about anything by pulling a Bible verse. The larger point was trying to apply some specific context to the versus that have been related to homosexuality, and raise the possibility that the Bible has actually been misinterpreted. I think Justin's article makes a pretty good case for that.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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" homosexuality may in fact be misinterpreted, too? What if the Bible really says nothing at all (positive or negative) about committed, same-sex relationships? So far, both you and goodwin have only responded with your opinions (which were pretty well known before this analysis)... surely the analysis presented deserves a better responses than "nuh uh"?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 even exist in the time of Jesus?

If you did read the full article, you'll see that Jesus said the most significant commandment was to "love God", and the second most significant is to "love thy neighbor as thyself", and all other "laws" was subject to those two commandments. Clearly, vehicular assault would be a violation of "love thy neighbor", though I don't see where same-sex relations is a violation of either.

Finally, http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm is a quick summary of about a dozen Bible references of three relationships in the Bible that could be interpreted as "same-sex relations" beyond mere friends. How the book of Samuel describes the relationship between David and Jonathan, for example. Of course, some modern day edits of the Bible seem to have dumbed down the language on those relationships.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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, I think, is that too many Christians (perhaps because they're "creaped out by gays", or too distracted with things more pressing in their lives), just accept the view that Christianity considers homosexuality a sin, without actually studying the matter.

I encourage anyone here with strong beliefs about what the Bible says on homosexuality to pause and consider Justin's remarks... I found it to be a short, easy read. The "summary quote":

...the Bible really does not fully address the topic of homosexuality. Jesus never talked about it. The prophets never talked about it. In Sodom homosexual activity is mentioned within the context of rape (raping angels nonetheless), and in Romans 1:24-27 we find it mentioned within the context of idolatry (Baal worship) involving lust and dishonorable passions. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 talk about homosexual activity in the context of prostitution and possibly pederasty. Nowhere does the Bible condemn a loving and committed homosexual relationship. To use the Bible to condemn such a relationship, as we see, involves a projection of ones own bias and a stretching of the Biblical text beyond that of which the scriptures speak. Historically, however, the Bible has been taken out of context and twisted to oppress almost every minority one could imagine including women, African Americans, children, slaves, Jews, and the list goes on. Do we truly understand the greatest commandments? You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets. (RSV Mat. 22:36-40)He provides a good deal of thought and analysis to support his conclusion above; before arguing against it, I'd encourage you to read his thoughts: http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html

I don't endorse Justin's entire view as my own, but it does present an interesting argument that the literalness of the Bible on this issue might not be so simple. And while homosexuality has become such a hotbutton issue within the Christian church, it's noteworthy that there's only six (Justin would argue weak) references to it within the Bible. Compare that to the Bible's lessons on divorce, for example, yet most Christian's have decided to let that matter be more up to personal interpretation.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 been much worse had he faced parents that were ill-informed or bigoted.

No, neither Scouting or his priest was involved, because though both his church and Scout program had played huge roles in his life, he also acknowledged how significantly both entities compounded his angst. Today, years later, he is a happy person who ignores the prejudice around him in ways I still envy.

I will not go into further detail about this boy's situation. If you have a question or comment for me, on my personal situation, I'm happy to address it. I was asked how and when I knew I was gay, and I shared my story. I'm not surprised a few folks want to ignore my answer in favor of more conjecture and prejudice, though I do hope my story helps a few more Scout leaders or parents be prepared.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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, when kids started "pairing up" (for those meaningful, weeklong relationships that we all experienced), I had "girlfriends", but I always felt more emotionally connected to boys (something that continues to this day).

I dated some girls in high school, mostly because it was expected, and because by that time I was trying to dismiss the attraction I felt to boys as "just a phase". In retrospect, that "phase" seemed to last from about 12 to 24, with no real interruption. I just never could understand the strong attraction my friends felt for girls, though I was good at pretending otherwise.

I'm a very confident person, in all aspects of my life. This one aspect - my sexuality - was an insecurity I struggled with from my earliest recollection. My same-sex attraction and experiences were hidden away, discounted as interstitial, and I continued to expect that "phase" to end by the time I was an "adult" and ready to have a family. No matter how much I wished it, that just wasn't happening.

I continued to delude myself, in various ways, that eventually this "phase" would pass. As I grew from young adult to adult, I focused intently on lots of other things in my life - work, friends, school, Scouting - all of which provided an excuse for why I was not focusing on a relationship with someone.

When I was in my mid-twenties, a 17-year-old Scout with whom I had formed a special, brotherly bond, went through a crisis. Although we were very close - and interacted through Scouting and family several times a week - this boy had no insight into my real sexuality, nor I into his.

In retrospect, he was living a life with which I was intimately familiar. Though dating a girl, and consumed by other distractions in his life - work, friends, school, Scouting - he was secretly struggling with insecurity, and had grown up much the same as me, hiding or denying his sexuality. No one would ever have "suspected" I was gay, and no one would have "suspected" that of him.

One day this boy attempted suicide, and his entire world was altered. So was mine.

Several weeks later, he confided in me what caused him to act so irrationally. As I listened, what I heard was a recount of my own life.

Sadly, even with this boy pouring out his heart before me - a boy that I loved like a brother and for whom I held such deep respect for years - even then, I was unable to admit to him just how much I could relate. Even then, I didn't acknowledge that I was gay.

But that did trigger something with me, and soon after I shared with him. It's hard to imagine that we entered each other's life merely by luck. The fact that we had formed such a brotherly bond - and mutual respect - without any knowledge of each other's hidden secret, was not solely by chance, I believe. My great regret is that I only provided validation for this boy AFTER his life reached a breaking point, and wonder if I could have been a more positive force earlier.

From that moment I began to admit the "phase" wasn't going to end, and more importantly, there wasn't a good reason to wish it would. I recognized just how silly I had been all those years, beating up my psyche.

My nature is to be "in control", and I wasted many years frustrated that I could not "control" whether I was gay or not. In the end, I came to realize I was focusing on the wrong thing... It didn't matter whether I was gay... I wasn't giving up control by admitting that. I had been giving up control by letting other people define me - by hiding away secrets about myself that really didn't need to be hidden.

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 unremarkable, as well.

BTW, your argument is weakened, not strengthened, by lumping me in with predators, self-abusers and the dangerous/reckless. If you try hard enough, surely you'll see the difference between my "sinful behavior" and the parallels you've drawn.

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 are not choosing to believe other religious views are heretic, you are incapable of seeing it otherwise.

3) Your other views of homosexuality (non-religious based) are based solely on conjecture and ignorance (i.e. lacking corroborative data). You ignore statistics and surveys that don't suit your preconceived agenda, and you extrapolate stereotypes to apply to an entire group. You suggest "the most stubborn person" can see it doesn't make biological sense with logic that condemns all but those who are able to procreate.

The convenience of your position is that you can bounce back and forth between using religious and non-religious arguments, and in the end dismiss your opponents as "devilish delusion", just like your Bible has predicted.

When my judgement comes, as you suggest it will, I take comfort in being judged for who and how I loved, and not the opposite. I do wish you well on that day, too.

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 forum of almost NOTHING BUT thoroughly addressing every aspect of this issue and the arguments you've made. While on occasion (especially lately) I've allowed some emotion to creep in, have I ever ducked a single point you've asserted without trying to dispassionately respond with reason? (If so, maybe we should go through them all again. ;-)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 ago? Were these moral positions the university changed? Did you share the opinions back when you were a student? Did your moral opinions change?

Did not Bob Jones Jr. also condemn Catholics as a "cult" (and once suggest he'd rather talk to the devil himself" than meet with the Pope)? Does your education form a moral perspective that considers the Pope not conservative enough?!? I read that Bob Jones III criticizes Billy Graham for reaching out to too many denominations in his crusades. Do you share that stringent view that all other denominations than your own are so flawed?

I do not dispute your assertion that there are activists that have pushed a "homosexual lobby". But in reality, that group is a fraction of the gay community that works, lives and loves among the population. I have several thoughts on why gay activism seems more loud lately, but that's probably the topic for another thread.

While I'm certainly not an "activist" (at least I wasn't in any sense before the BSA advanced this specific policy), I can appreciate the efforts of folks who are more vocally demanding an end to prejudice. I suspect we'll need a small group of extremists on "our" side until the small group of extremists from places like BJU get around to changing their rhetoric on this issue. (Of course, that's unlikely to happen soon, though I imagine people also thought the same thing before the prejudice of race and religion began to change.)

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 away from it's ideals as it rushes to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Christian fundamentalists.

Government is not a blunt object to deny the American ideal; good government is a limited tool to empower the American ideal.

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 Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. (Some online resources: http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html and http://dim.com/~randl/founders.htm )

History is being distorted rather rapidly by a GOP that's become dominated by the Christian conservative lobby.

Could you imagine our new Supreme Court nominee saying "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"? Today's GOP Senate would run for cover if they heard that, but the Senate under President John Adams put that in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, Article XI.

Today's Christian conservatives (and at least for now to a lesser extent the GOP they seek to control), are NOT representative of the philosophy this country was founded upon, nor do they embrace the constitution.

As I came of age and formed my political beliefs, I saw the Republican party as a sensible version of libertarian philosophy. In just the last decade, somehow that party has raced far away from libertarian philosophy to the point that the Democrats are probably closer to that belief.

What was the governing GOP perspective of "good, but less" government has been abandoned by the Christian fundamentalists that seek to bludgeon the country with their beliefs, while simultaneously claiming the role of the persecuted.

Religious fundamentalists that use government to impose their religious values on a minority is the exact opposite of the founding principles of this country. Those are the principles of a theocracy, and the mere suggestion that the USA might even remotely resemble a theocracy is antithetical to America.

A Christian fundamentalist minority (and a GOP willing to pander to them) are propping themselves up as a greater threat to the freedom that is every American's birthright, and manipulating history to justify that threat does a great disservice to the American ideal.

>>I'd be gone like a bad penny.

Well, yes, I suppose in that case you're right.