RobertNashville

What does it matter who declared what?  There was no law that said we had to defend ourselves. That said, if you truly believe that it was our fault that Hitler declared war on us; that even after taking all of Europe and Russia he would have just stopped there then I'd suggest that you don't have a very firm grasp of Hitler, his goals, or the danger he presented to the entire world.   You stated that your "grandfather fought in the war and he was a good man, but his generation did enough to screw this country up, it's hard to separate the few good things they did for this country with the awful road they allowed us to be taken down". How could your grandfather be a "good man" if he and every other person part of his generation is responsible for the "awful road" the country has gone down since?   If you truly believe the people who fought (including those who died) in WW2 to keep the United States in existence didn't qualify for any acknowledgement because of the bad policies that occurred during that generation then it sounds as if you believe we would have been better off had they either never went to fight in the first place or had lost the war since, apparently, that "awful road" negates their blood and sacrifice in the fields of Europe and the islands of the Pacific.   If you want to believe that our WW2 veterans did nothing for us and qualify for no special consideration that's your prerogative but I think you have a very slanted view of what the world was facing at that time.   As to the bases; maybe we are there because we still have enemies and trying to hide behind our oceans would be a stupid thing to do???   By the way, maybe I just missed it but what great, wonderful and noble things has your generation done for the country???    :rolleyes:

You're right...it would have been better if Hitler had won

Believe it or not I had a somewhat similar discussion of this point with a lesbian couple that I've known for years and who have been partners for over 25 years...I don't remember exactly know how the subject arose but somewhere alone the line I made the statement that I wouldn't be comfortable, being in a locker room or a shower room and being undressed if I knew there was a guy there who was "gay"....my friends asked me why exactly that was and I was a little hard pressed to come up with any sort of logical answer.   I came to realize that I would be just as uncomfortable if it was a heterosexual female rather than a homosexual male.   I finally came to the conclusion, that it had to do with "me"...how I was raised...my personal comfort level (or lack of it) being naked in front of others regardless of their sex or their sexual orientation; in other words, it didn't really have anything to do with someone being gay.   I suppose what I'm saying is that in my example above, I wasn't "worried" that some gay guy or some lesbian woman was going to jump on me and try to have sex with me; I was just uncomfortable as a matter of "culture".   I suppose then it comes down to the question of whether someone's cultural taboos is enough of a reason for an organization like the BSA to exclude gays from scouting simply because they are gay?  While I accept that some or even many may be uncomfortable with it; even uncomfortable for their children, I can't honestly say that I think excluding them is justified.       EDIT: I just remembered another illustration of this; a few years ago I was in Amsterdam on a layover for several hours. The restrooms there are unisex and, at least when I was there the attendants (who were always there) were female - now, it was all and only set up as individual stalls so each person was closed off from everyone else but to say I was pretty uncomfortable would be quite an understatement but as I thought about it, it really didn't have anything to do with "sex" but rather, culture...I was able to "go" but I doubt I'll ever be comfortable in such a situation. I will say this, however, those were the cleanest restrooms I've ever been in anywhere in the world!

I know there are but that wasn't my question was it.   I ask again to anyone who is willing to answer; point out to me where in accepted scripture it states that being attracted to the same sex is a "sin"?   I submit, such attraction is not a sin any more so than a person being attracted to the opposite sex is a sin.  If being attracted to the same sex isn't a "sin" then it makes no more sense to ban such boys from scouting that it would to ban a boy who was attracted to the opposite sex.   Moreover, if mere impulses and desires constitute "sin" then I would submit that no one could ever be saved because all would be in a constant state of "sin" and utterly incapable of being otherwise. Jesus himself when he chose to live as a human being had the exact same desires we ALL have (something I would submit is clearly taught in scripture); as such, it would be impossible for him to be our perfect sacrifice and provide forgiveness for our own sins if simply having the desires/impulses were in and of themselves "sin".

Well; they have to start somewhere don't they?  ;)

Unfortunately, there are some, maybe even a lot of Christians who base their beliefs solely on what they think the Bible says or, even worse, on what someone else has told them the Bible says or even worse still, on their particular church doctrine...confusing doctrine for scripture happens all too often.   Others, as was mentioned before, are somewhat particular about what parts of the Bible they like and ignore what they don't like...when that happens, rather than winding up with the "Word of God" they actually wind up with the "Word of George" (or Tom or Marry or Bill). ;)

Absolutely correct....engaging in unnatural sex acts (and that includes some that heterosexuals engage in as well) is a sin.   My entire point is that being "attracted to the same sex" is not engaging in sex and as such is no more a "sin" than someone who wants to overeat to the point of morbid obesity but doesn't. 

I'm not suggesting we grieve because of his passing; just don't see a reason to celebrate it either.

I know the bible pretty well...what you suggest is there simply isn't.  If you think it is then point out the specific scriptures; otherwise you are just asserting your personal belief based on your interpretation of your church's doctrine; but not on scripture.   I can't help but wonder how a Christian can ever minister the love of Christ to someone if that Christian truly believes that a person simply being attracted to the same sex is, in and of itself, a sin?  If it is, then can a homosexual ever be saved because they would be in a constant state of sin would they not?  

He was also a WW2 veteran; that alone, at least in my book, is reason enough to not celebrate his death. That entire generation will soon be completely gone; we owe everyone who served in that war a debt that none of us can repay.   There are plenty of people in politics I don't agree with on issues; I still won't celebrate their deaths.

If they were not being singled out than why is being "gay" the only "sin" that was part of this special policy that the BSA has now changed?   I'll ask you the same question I've asked others; please point out to me where in accepted scripture it states that being attracted to the same sex is a "sin"?  I submit, such attraction is not a sin any more so than a person being attracted to the opposite sex is a sin.   I submit that you are either failing or refusing to make the distinction between an impulse/attraction and someone who actively follows the impulse. If simply having the attraction is a "sin" and any with that attraction should be excluded from scouting then there is no more reason to exclude gay boys from scouting that there is to exclude straight boys from scouting since either one pursuing their impulses has NO PLACE in scouting and each are every bit as SINFUL as the other.

I don't believe one must be in the grip of a perpetrator but as I understand our law, you must reasonably be in fear of imminent death or great bodily injury; the standard of the "reasonable man" comes into play.  As I look at what I know about this incident I just don't see the "imminent fear" necessary; the fact that the former Marine chose to fire a warning shot seems to make that conclusion even more clear for me.   There is a "presumption" here in TN however, even that only goes "so far"...someone you don't know standing in your hallway at 3AM is likely fair game to dispatch him to the afterlife; that same person standing in your hallway at 3PM...maybe not so much as any number of other possibilities come into play (was he wearing a tool belt - maybe he is the plumber your wife hired and forget to tell you was going to be there today, etc.) Going to back to 3AM; what if this stranger is a young man your 16 year old daughter had sneaked into the house? While you may still be deemed justified in using deadly force I would sure hate to have to explain that to either my daughter OR the authorities when they show up.   I heard this morning in a report that the former Marine in question went outside after the thug and then fired his warning shot (I'm not sure if that's really new information or not but it was new to me).  What that tells me is that this guy was likely in the process of leaving or at the very least, certainly was no longer actively trying to break into the house.  Under those conditions I suspect that even under Tennessee law the Marine at least could be charged.   I really do hope this Marine is either found not guilty or that the charge is just dropped but I can't say, based on what we do know about this incident, that him being charged is unreasonable or surprising.

While I often call him "Bloomingidiot" the truth is he is a very intelligent man,, even if morally and philosophically bankrupt.  So; it's not surprising to me that he would shift efforts to the states because i believe the state houses and capitals are precisely where restoration; preservation or loss of our rights will be won or lost.   The federal government is a lost cause...it's too large, too bloated and too corrupt to be of much use to anyone at this point.  The individual states, however, still hold the possibility of providing both protection of and then restoration of our rights to be free citizens (rather than subjects).

I'm not happy about anyone's death...may he RIP.   On a similar note, Gene Stapleton; best known for her role as Archie Bunker's wife Edith passed away (on Sunday i think)...she was 90 if I heard correctly. I remember watching that show as a kid/teenager and laughing my head off.  She played her role particularly well.

Seems like forever (only about a year though) since I got to shoot some clays...maybe you need to put a TGO Clay Shoot together???  ;)

Personally, I'll be glad when this topic blows over and we can get back to debating something that engenders far less passion...you know...like the Zimmerman trial...at least that is actually a "firearm related" topic which, frankly, this one isn't.   ;)

Well, it would seem then that, even if sentences are longer; they aren't nearly long enough. Perhaps it's an incorrect perception on my part but It seems a rather rare occurrence that thugs break into our homes and/or commit other serious, violent crimes that don't already have long and even quite serious criminal records...even often out on payroll for prior, serious crimes.   I'm not against giving a person another chance to straighten up his/her life and become a productive citizen but I think a second chance should probably be the limit after which they should remain incarcerated at least until they are far too old to be a danger to anyone (that would also take away most of the arguments for BG checks...if bad guys weren't "out" they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun!). :)

I've no special expertise in statistics; just enough classes to be able to at least follow the language but I've had the opportunity to personally speak with Lott about how the conclusions were arrived at...while anyone could be wrong in drawing conclusions I don't believe there is anything demonstratively wrong with Mr. Lott's conclusions.  I would also point out that many if not most of the experts who criticize his work seem to have at least a tenuous connection to the "other side"; meaning they aren't exactly unbiased in their criticism.   Most of this, however has nothing to do with "Control"...the book is not about the "More Guns; Less Crime" theme but rather a tool for countering those who want control; not just "gun control" but control over our lives in total.  As such, I think it's well worth the read.

I really appreciate your comments above...very well said.

I took your suggestion and started the "299 Days" series; in the middle of book 2 and I have to agree, it's been a great read so far!

How, exactly do you know with such certainty that the scout leader was "gay"; did he describe himself as gay or are you just making that assumption?   Child molestation is a heinous act but I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.  Assuming for the moment that the scout leader in your example really was "gay"...are you proposing that a single example of one terrible act is sufficient reason to preclude all gay men from leadership in scouting? And if so, why?   What if the scout leader in your example was not "gay" at all but a heterosexual who also happened to be a child molester - should than all heterosexual males be excluded from scouting leadership as well?   Before we assume that all homosexual men are also child molesters, perhaps we should consider this...   "Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)."

Good questions

What you call "perverted and unnatural acts" not even all Christendom agrees on whether they are “perverted and unnatural”. That aside, you are painting with such a broad brush that I think you'll wind up with paint on yourself. If you are going to condemn any group because of the acts/demands of a small percentage of that group who are a fringe of the whole then ALL groups, religious, Tea Party, pro-life, or any other you can think of should be condemned as well because they ALL have elements that can be just as abhorrent as the extreme you describe above.   Which has what to do with scouting not prohibiting boys who are attracted to the same sex???   Are young homosexual boys demanding anything of you or telling you that you can't express your opinion?  Are they demanding that they be allowed to engage in sex acts on scouting activities?   I draw that line at what people DO; not at what sex they find sexually attractive.  Sexual ACTIVITY has NO PLACE IN SCOUTING whether it’s homosexual sex or heterosexual acts…THAT’S where I draw the line.

  I wasn't questioning your intellect, either and if you took it that way I apologize.   I just don't see the animosity coming from others toward "Christians"...I see strong disagreement about this issue and about whether any certain religion's belief system should be imposed on a secular, private and predominately a-religious organization.

I am 100% certain that ALL homosexuals who live a homosexual lifestyle do so because they've chosen to do so (i.e., no one forces them to act on their sexual impulses/desires; what one does with ones sexual impulses and desires is always a choice).   I am 100% certain that SOME homosexuals are homosexuals only because they have decided to be (either because of the way they were raised or because of disappointments with heterosexual relationships or a variety of other reasons).   I am also 100% certain the most people who are homosexual are that way (sexually attracted to the same sex) because they are "wired" that way just as heterosexuals are "wired" to be attracted to the opposite sex.   I understand that many (not all) Christian faiths consider homosexual sex immoral but I've yet to read anywhere in scripture where simply being attracted to the same (or the opposite sex for that matter) is, by itself, a "sin".   Moreover, I don't believe ANY of this has any place in scouting.  Sexual activity has no place in scouting...what sex a boy is actually attracted to or thinks he is attracted to, I submit, is immaterial and irrelevant.