An awkward ‘homecoming’ – Part Two – A Grapevine member’s response and my responses to him


The choir director of my childhood church, Grapevine Baptist Church, has responded to my previous post, “An awkward ‘homecoming,’” in which I describe portions of my childhood and my recent “homecoming” and confrontation at the church where I first learned the harsh lessons of hate, bigotry and exclusion in the name of God.

His comments (click here to view his original comment posting) are quoted below (in the gray boxes) with my comments following.

Matt, Amazingly I Google’d Grapevine and look what popped up. This is Bro. Tarron from Grapevine and you forgot to mention there was a third person in the room during your conversation. It’s often said when there’s a disagreement, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. While you did express truth in your post about the comments you made, you also left out some very important points made by Pastor Comer.

Brother Tarron… Thanks for stopping by my website/blog; if you haven’t already, I hope you will take the time to look around. I have great Google PageRank, so I’m not surprised that my site popped up when you searched for Grapevine. It is good to know others who may be looking for information about the church will be able to find the truth via my website. I didn’t mention you because I did not think it necessary to include you. I assumed you were there only for witness sake (or, if I happened to have only come back to crawl for the church’s mercy and forgiveness for something I have nothing to be ashamed of).

Matt, I wasn’t going to post this, but when you say our church is filled with hatred, bigotry and oppression, I felt obligated to write a comment, especially as a person who was in the room and also tried to encourage you as a youth, and I can’t think of a time when Michele or I were ever mean or rude to you. I remember taking you to many youth activities including conferences at the very church Bro. Steve Cox (who you rip pretty well) is out of.

You are right, Bro. Tarron: Neither you nor Ms. Michele were ever mean or rude to me. In fact, I have fond memories of you both. When I look back into that mixed bag of a childhood, I think of you and Ms. Michele. You two were definitely bright spots. In your first comment, you imply I’m not being totally honest. If I were to say that Grapevine was a wonderful church that taught real Christian values, I’d be lying. Hence, the purpose of my post. Bro. Steve Cox is no better than Preacher Comer; he, like Preacher Comer, preaches hate, exclusion and bigotry against another group of people. If you cannot see how teaching children not to shake hands with their neighbor isn’t hate or exclusion; or if you can’t see how teaching children that all gays should be exiled from society on an island where you hope they die of AIDS isn’t hate or exclusion, then you are well past the point of being persuaded by anything I have to say.

I’m amazed that for a church of “hatred, bigotry and oppression” we “haters” are the ones that send buses into neighborhoods, picking up kids (and adults), feeding them and trying to teach them about Jesus. Our church of “hatred, bigotry and oppression” is the ministry you were saved under and called to preach under. The problem’s started when your point of view changed, not our church’s, because it hasn’t.

Yes, Bro. Tarron, Grapevine does operate a very successful youth and bus ministry. Not only do you teach them about Jesus, you teach them a Jesus and a Gospel that is un-biblical and entirely antithetical to the purpose of Christ’s life, lessons, ministry, trials, death, resurrection and ascension. While you teach these children a false Christ, you throw in (I guess, for good measure?) hate, bigotry and exclusion.

Again, you are right Bro. Tarron; Grapevine is the church where I first learned of Christ and where I was saved. For that I am thankful — eternally grateful. Grapevine is also the church under which I was called to preach, even at such a young age as 8, 9, 10 or 11. For that, I can only be thankful that I was able to get out of such a church. If I had not, I would still be there contributing to the preaching of hate, exclusion and bigotry. In the process I know I would have blood on my hands, contributing to the isolation, depression, exclusion and eventual attempted (or, God forbid, completed) suicide of another lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender young person.

Bro. Tarron. You are wrong about where the problem started. The problem started when Grapevine decided to preach and teach that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are less than, undeserving, unloved, untouchable and unwanted by Christ. The problem began when Preacher Comer — whether he remembers it or not — preached that gay people should die (I have to give him credit — he did stop just short of calling for execution of gay people). The problem started when Grapevine thought it was a good idea to tell a 14-year-old that all he had to look forward to in life was drug abuse, alcoholism, pedophilia, depression, suicide and the eternal hate of God Almighty.

The problem started when Grapevine took on the role of God. The problem started when Preacher Comer took of his tie and coat, slipped on a robe, ascended a judge’s bench and decided to dole out justice and judgement where and when he saw fit. The problem started when Grapevine forgot about the two greatest commandments, the two upon which all of the entirety of the law hangs.

Matt, everyone at Grapevine, to my knowledge, has been kind to you. If they haven’t, please accept my apology for us. You could call Pastor Comer today and ask his counsel on any matter and you know he would be there for you, he would not be rude or nasty toward you in any way.

You mistake outward kindness and Southern gentility with true love. A person who believes in exile or death for those unlike him cannot truly love a person. Furthermore, I’d dare say that while I still attended Grapevine many people did not yet know of my sexual orientation. It was only after I stopped attending Grapevine (because I was made to feel unwelcome and unsafe) that my sexual orientation became publicly known to the world through my activism and advocacy.

As far as Sister Ruth, perhaps that situation should have been handled differently, but as a father of six, I can tell you, I wouldn’t let my kids go to any activity that I thought could disagree with my beliefs. I don’t let my kids spend the night with their cousins, not because I think I’m high and mighty and they’re not, it’s because I believe differently than they do about a lot of issues. Furthermore, I wouldn’t give 5 cents for any parent who wouldn’t try to protect their children.

Yes, the situation could have been handled much differently. What activity would disagree with your beliefs, Bro. Tarron? A sleep over? I have news for you: I am not a pedophile. Being gay does not make a person a pedophile. No friend of my 14-year-old brother could have been “influenced” (Preacher Comer’s words) by me. I am simply me when I am at home. My sex life, like the millions of other young people my age, is not a topic of regular conversation in my family. If a friend of my brother would have been “influenced” by anything, it might have been true Christian values of true love and tolerance.

Matt, I believe homosexuality is a sin, I believe their are plain teachings in the Bible against it. That’s my belief, that’s Grapevine’s belief and you know that no one their “hates” you even though your beliefs differ from ours now.

Bro. Tarron, please explain to me why so much focus is put on this one “sin” at Grapevine? Why so much attention to homosexuality? By far, the number of gay members at Grapevine is the extreme minority. On the other hand, those guilty of other sins discussed with much greater length in Scripture are not faced with a constant of barrage of hateful and exclusionary rhetoric and dogma.

Bro. Tarron, you are overweight correct? You are overweight to so much of an extent that you are, without a doubt, obese, correct? I’d dare say that your obesity is bordering on morbid obesity. There are also many other members of Grapevine guilty of the same sin of gluttony, far many more than those who are “guilty” of the “sin” of loving another person.

Gluttony causes more deaths than any the religious right attempts to pin on homosexuality. The entirety of American culture focuses on more, more, more… eat, eat, eat… drink, drink, drink… buy, buy, buy… McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s.

If Grapevine is so concerned about the total teaching of Scripture and denying “sin,” why isn’t there a bigger focus on gluttony — a sin discussed more in Scripture than any perceived passages of homosexuality, a plague affecting more Americans — and Grapevine members — than homosexuality and a death sentence facing more Americans — and Grapevine members — than homosexuality.

Wait… Those words hurt you didn’t it? Welcome to my life… every day of it.

I’m sorry once again, if you truly feel we are a church of the things you mentioned earlier, I think deep down, you know that’s not the case.

You are being deceived by lies built upon false doctrines of hate, exclusion and bigotry. You are so blinded by the dogma, you can’t even see hate for hate anymore.

I wish you would focus your energy as much on getting folks saved as you do on the issues you believe in on this website. (And you may! If you do, put that info on your website as well!) I wish you nothing but the best for you and your brothers as I’ve spent time with you all, and despite what you may think, I enjoyed seeing you at Grapevine and will be praying for you. Take care!

I have spoken plenty of my personal religious beliefs on my website. The public is well aware of my personal religious beliefs and I mince no words when discussing my belief in Christ, the Messiah and Saviour.

View the original “An awkward ‘homecoming’” here.

Related:

Matt Comer’s Testimony — Anti-gay group hosts “Can you be Gay and Christian?” forum

In my past post, “An awkward ‘homecoming,’” I mentioned that I agreed with a lot of what Preacher Comer said in his sermon the day I returned to Grapevine. In that sermon he spoke of how he didn’t believe suicide was a sin that would send someone to hell. What he said made a lot of sense, theologically and spiritually. But when I was 11, 12, 13 and 14, I certainly did believe suicide would send a person to hell. Even now, I’m still not sure about that one.

Addendum: The fact that I allowed Bro. Tarron’s comments to remain public on my website, and the fact that I responded, should act as a testament to who is right in this debate. I have very little hope that I’d ever be given the chance to publicly air my personal testimony on Grapevine’s home turf (a home of which I was once a member, a “son of the church,” if you will). In fact… I challenge the church today. Preacher Comer, elders of the church: Allow me to give the sermon one Sunday. I guarantee it will be one you’ll never forget.


Comments
77 Responses to “An awkward ‘homecoming’ – Part Two – A Grapevine member’s response and my responses to him”
  1. Casey says:

    Basically, ND30, my faith is this – I can do nothing on my own, and nothing I say or do to somebody will change what they do. However, if I can somehow help people to have a relationship with the healing God, help them to see that they are made in His image, that His son died for them and forgave them, and help them to allow the Spirit into their hearts… then I don’t have to do anything. It is the Spirit that convicts people of sin, not I – and Jesus’ love which gives people the courage to change… God which gives people a reason to repent and come home. All I can do is try to point the way… the same way I came back from being as lost as they are – after that, it’s out of my hands. That’s what faith means.

  2. Newtown says:

    It’s unfortunate Adela that you were not able to see quite so clearly an age ago. And People don’t forget YOU quite that easily:) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year too you and your partner, I hope that in time things work out for you both!

  3. Matt,

    I agree with the others. What you said took real courage. Very powerful.

    I realize that your blog has become very popular over the past year. But why the decision to post ads to gay.com? The two shirtless men embracing with the sexually suggestive comments in my view hurt your witness. I’ve read your blog for long enough to understand your purpose and what you’re all about as a Christian. Whether the be straight or gay, sexually suggestive ads have no place on the website of a Christian who shares his faith as much as you do.

  4. Patrick ONeill says:

    ND – this thread is old and dead so I don’t want to keep checking it, I can see nothing is penetrating, as expected.

    Just to review and then I’ll consign you to the trashcan.

    >>When I start advocating for the execution of gays, then you can start making that comparison.

    Just as when Matt starts saying that the Bible is a bunch of myths you can make your comparisons.
    Instead of McCarthyite tactics of guilt by association you might try to recognize that your religion has a long history of dissent and such dissent does not make one a satan worshipper.

    >>if you want to deal with the greatest threat to life, limb, and prosperity of the gay community, the best place to start would be what actually kills and affects the most gays annually.

    Actually it is gays who have been the most active in the fight against HIV.

    I have no problem “going after” gays any more that straights but if you think that christian bigotry and hatred towards gays is not a serious problem in the US then you need to ask yourself why – because just claiming that it isn’t so doesn’t convince anyone when they can see the evidence for themselves.

    Have a good life

  5. ND30 – I’ve told you before that you don’t know enough about me to speak to what I do or do not do with regard to GLBT folks who do not treat themselves with the respect they should.

    Actually, what I find interesting is this, Casey; you claim that public confrontation and shouting doesn’t work when it comes to dealing with gays behaving badly, but then you join with your fellow Soulforce gays in public confrontation and shouting against Christians who you claim are behaving badly.

    And that leads us to this….

    Finally, you claim that I have been lax in defending the faith, because I don’t think it is a productive use of my time to troll the internet and reply to any anti-Christian statement with “hey! I’m a Christian and THAT’S NOT NICE!”

    But, again, you and your fellow Soulforce gays can spend weeks, even months running around the United States screaming at Christians, “hey! I’m gay and THAT’S NOT NICE!”

    What Christians realize, Casey, is that gays like you use Christianity as an excuse to not confront your fellow gays on their bad behavior — but then use your gayness as an excuse for looking the other way while gays spout antireligious bigotry and for attacking Christians.

  6. Instead of McCarthyite tactics of guilt by association you might try to recognize that your religion has a long history of dissent and such dissent does not make one a satan worshipper.

    Let me remind you of what YOUR goal for Matt is:

    Matt is not one of those – he is still there, sadly.

    You want Matt OUT of the church. You PITY him for retaining his religious beliefs. Why on earth are you trying to defend them?

    Answer: Because Matt’s primary usefulness to you is as a smokescreen. You would prefer he wasn’t religious, but since he is, you’re going to exploit it and use it to criticize and bring down the church.

    I throw a wrench into this game because I force Matt and his fellow Soulforce gays to make a choice — either publicly rebuke antireligious bigot gays like yourself and get attacked by you, or say nothing and make it obvious that loyalty to other gays subverts their Christian beliefs completely.

    And finally:

    Actually it is gays who have been the most active in the fight against HIV.

    Which explains why nearly a quarter of gays are HIV-positive, versus barely one-half of one percent of the general population.

    Apparently the belief is that you fight HIV by getting it and spreading it.

  7. Patrick ONeill says:

    >>Instead of McCarthyite tactics of guilt by association ….
    >Let me remind you of what YOUR goal for Matt is…

    So that makes your attacks Ok ? – Gotta love that moral comapss of yours :) ))

    >>You want Matt OUT of the church. You PITY him for retaining his religious beliefs. Why on earth are you trying to defend them?

    I’ve been very clear that I don’t defend his religious beliefs, other than his effort to reform the church’s persecution and bigotry.

    >>I throw a wrench into this game because I force Matt and his fellow Soulforce gays to make a choice — either publicly rebuke antireligious bigot gays like yourself and get attacked by you, or say nothing and make it obvious that loyalty to other gays subverts their Christian beliefs completely.

    Ah yes – “rebuking” – the prime christian directive. We all know that Jesus’s command to rebuke those you disapprove of was his great message, but what else would you have Matt do ?
    Soulforce is a christian organization as far as I know and has nothing to do with anti-christian bigots like me.

    >>Actually it is gays who have been the most active in the fight against HIV.

    >Which explains why nearly a quarter of gays are HIV-positive

    Im sorry but your slander of the many gays activists who saved lives and brought HIV to the attention of the world while the christian churches all looked the other way and claimed it was gods judgement on queers is too low to dignify.

    It is christians like you that Matt needs to realize are the true embodyment of this alleged “religion of love” …

  8. Im sorry but your slander of the many gays activists who saved lives and brought HIV to the attention of the world while the christian churches all looked the other way and claimed it was gods judgement on queers is too low to dignify.

    Slander involves telling lies.

    What I stated is the truth.

    Two years ago, a CDC study of 1,700 gay men in five cities found that 25 percent overall were infected with HIV, compared with well under 1 percent in the general population. Almost half who tested positive were previously unaware of their infection.

    And gee, I wonder how that happens?

    The numbers suggesting steady condom use among gay youth don’t harmonize with 23-year-old Kelvin Barlow’s experiences in Atlanta. “A lot of my partners are not thinking about condoms,” said Barlow, who was diagnosed with HIV at age 17. “I think I’m usually the first one to bring [condom use] up [in sexual situations]. Sometimes my partners know my status and sometimes they don’t — they just want to jump in the bed.”

    Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. “At that time I was the dumbest thing walking — I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,” said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. “I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms?”

    Or maybe, more regularly:

    New statistics on rates of unprotected sex among gay and bisexual men are more certain, however. In Mayer’s analysis, researchers had more than 500 Boston-area HIV-infected gay or bisexual men complete “behavioral risk assessments.” Three-quarters of the men were white, with ages ranging from 21 to 70.

    The research team found that 37.3 percent of the men said they had engaged in unprotected anal intercourse over the past three months. In 41.3 percent of these cases, unsafe sex took place with another HIV-infected partner, but in 31.4 percent of cases the unprotected behavior took place with a partner whose HIV status was unknown. In 23 percent of cases, the infected man engaged in unprotected sex with a partner he knew to be HIV-negative, the study found.

    So let’s see; the population that you claim “looked the other way” has HIV rates at less than one percent, and the population that you claimed “fought HIV” has rates of occurrence at twenty-five times that.

    Reality check, register 4.

    We all know that Jesus’s command to rebuke those you disapprove of was his great message, but what else would you have Matt do ?

    One, don’t quote someone, or even pretend to quote someone, who you yourself have stated is nothing but a myth and legend.

    Two, I am not telling Matt what to do without his input on the matter. He’s not my puppet, and I, unlike you, have no interest in exploiting him for my own purposes.

  9. Patrick ONeill says:

    >>So let’s see; the population that you claim “looked the other way” has HIV rates at less than one percent, and the population that you claimed “fought HIV” has rates of occurrence at twenty-five times that.

    The christians DID “look the other way” and claim that HIV was punishment from their loving god – that is the reality.

    I personally have worked in HIV clinics and I personally know that funding was cut because of opposition by local preachers who opposed education, condoms etc.

    Christians seem to think that they way you fight virii is to wave sounds with Leviticus quotations – but then rebuking seems to be their forte.

    In the meantime the HIV incidence among heterosexual feemales is literally thousands of times higher than it is among lesbians.

  10. Casey says:

    ND30 – I think the difference in my willingness to confront offensive things (institutionalized homophobia vs. random anti-Christian comments) comes down to this – it’s not about me. Not about what offends me, or hurts me personally. I’ve already talked to you about the relative effectiveness of how you talk to different people – clearly, you don’t care about such lowly concerns as actually making a difference. Fine, that’s your perogative – nobody is asking you to actually help anybody (other than God, of course, and that’s between you and Him).

    So when it comes down to choosing who I confront and who I don’t, a lot of what I consider is “why am I doing this?” In the case of my gut desire to rebuke somebody like Pam when she uses the term “Jebus,” the fact is, the only thing such a rebuke could get me is personal satisfaction – it feels good to yell at somebody who offends you. Thing is, that isn’t good enough. Even if I restrain myself, maintaining a friendly, meek tone, I’m still only really working for myself – God can take care of Himself, after all. On the other hand, when Soulforce challenges institutions, like Christian colleges with antigay policies, we are generally not working for ourselves – few of us operate under these policies, and because we’ve all reconciled our sexuality with whatever faith we have, anti-gay religion has no power over us – no, when Soulforce confronts these institutions, they’re working on behalf of somebody else. Closeted kids at a high risk of suicide because of depression, people who still believe that God hates them and that you can’t be gay and Christian, people who live secret, suppressed lives so that they don’t get kicked out of school… people who are spiritually abused every day because of the errors taught at these institutions in the name of God.

    As a Christian, I know myself to be called to stand up for the weak and silenced, and to fight for justice – which means confronting the forces which are abusing their power, and doing it in a way that is calculated to have the most impact – not in the way that is most satisfying to me. You seem to think that Soulforce does nothing but scream and shout – the truth is quite the opposite. The Equality Rides were characterized by countless one-on-one conversations, sharing of stories and scholarly debate, with the Riders only rarely having to resort to civil disobedience, putting their own bodies at risk for the sake of their message. (Think I’m exaggerating? Try being trans and arrested in Louisville, Kentucky). So yes, ND30 – I’ll challenge Christians one way, and gays another… because it’s not about me – it’s about what’s good for somebody else. The victims of injustice, and the perpetrators, who are also victims themselves.

  11. allan says:

    yea, as painful as it was, this is why I divorced my church. To go back is like a child going back to an abusive parent, looking for love that just ain’t gonna be there.

  12. Oh, but it IS about you, Casey.

    You see, if you really cared about what was most likely to kill and/or harm gay youth, as the statistics I cited showed, you’d be confronting gay promiscuity, gay drug use, and the antireligious bigotry of people like Pam and Patrick, who openly mock Christians and treat gays with religious faith as helpless children to be pitied — oddly enough, making it very clear to young gays that religion and being gay are incompatible. Christianity would be among the least of your worries.

    But that wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of taking revenge on Christians for how you feel they mistreated you. Moreover, as Matt found out, saying something contrary to gay standard can get you buried under enormous amounts of hate from your fellow gays like Pam.

    Thus you rationalize — and what you just rationalized, Casey, was supporting people who blaspheme Jesus. What’s really sad is that you don’t even realize you’re doing it anymore; you’ve completely subverted your faith to your sexual orientation and being accepted by other gays, even to the point of saying nothing as they call the Bible nothing but myths and legends, claim that religious people are mentally ill, and mock and tear down religious belief.

    In short, your idea of “witness” is to support the people who are mocking and blaspheming Jesus and trying to get people AWAY from religious belief — while attacking those who are trying to get people INTO religious belief.

  13. Patrick ONeill says:

    >>In short, your idea of “witness” is to support the people who are mocking and blaspheming Jesus and trying to get people AWAY from religious belief — while attacking those who are trying to get people INTO religious belief.

    You have your first point – I am happy to use your “witness” to illustrate that what “real christians” are interested in is the joy that they get from feeling saved and rebuking sinners.

    Matt is still under the delusion that it is a “religion of love” and doesn’t understand why they are so hateful towards gays.

    But if the churches changed tomorrow and stopped preaching that gay sex was a sin, they whould just find another scapegoat – maybe mexicans or muslims, who knows.

    Because the real selling point is that so many people get their rocks off condemning sinners.

  14. Christians seem to think that they way you fight virii is to wave sounds with Leviticus quotations

    And, as the statistics show, they’re doing it a lot better than gays are.

    Then again, that’s not surprising; Leviticus is where the strictures against adultery, sexual promiscuity, and having sex with people who are infected are found. Follow those and you’re pretty darn assured of staying clean; after all, the odds of two monogamous virgins giving each other HIV is pretty much zero.

    Then again, that’s the way most of Leviticus is; it outlines behaviors that make perfect sense in protecting the health of a people wandering in the desert. Don’t eat pork because, in the absence of modern cooking techniques, the risk of trichinosis is high. Avoid shellfish and other scavenging feeders, especially when where you would catch them are areas prone to lethal algae bloom. These weren’t just arbitrary rules; they have a purpose.

  15. Patrick ONeill says:

    >>Christians seem to think that they way you fight virii is to wave sounds with Leviticus quotations

    >And, as the statistics show, they’re doing it a lot better than gays are.

    Actually as I pointed out the statistics for females show that gays are doing thousands of times better that straight women.

    Then again, that is not surprising if your understanding of viral infections is a few thousand years more advanced than the ignorant desert tribesmen responsible for Leviticus

  16. You have your first point – I am happy to use your “witness” to illustrate that what “real christians” are interested in is the joy that they get from feeling saved and rebuking sinners.

    The difference between you and I is this, Patrick.

    I have ZERO problem rebuking gay people who have HIV and then go have unprotected sex with underage teenagers.

    I have ZERO problem rebuking gay people who have HIV and continue to have unprotected sex with multiple partners, especially when those partners are of unknown or negative status.

    You call that being hateful towards gays.

    I call it doing the same thing as my parents when they spanked me for repeatedly trying to stick my hand into the fireplace grate after they had specifically told me not to do it. Sure, I was upset then — but I look back on it now and am very thankful that I don’t have a charcoaled stump for a hand.

    Simply put, you would rather people get a lethal disease than risk one bit of unpopularity for criticizing their behavior — and you’ve rationalized that by claiming that critizing equals hatefulness.

  17. Then again, that is not surprising if your understanding of viral infections is a few thousand years more advanced than the ignorant desert tribesmen responsible for Leviticus

    And yet, those “ignorant desert tribesmen” are running at an HIV rate of less than one percent, versus the technologically-advanced gays like yourself who know all about viruses, yet are running at twenty-five percent.

    I believe “Physician, heal thyself” is most appropriate here.

  18. Patrick ONeill says:

    >The difference between you and I is this, Patrick.

    >I have ZERO problem rebuking gay people who have HIV and then go have unprotected sex with underage teenagers.

    That is a lie – as is your parrtern of insinuatong that because I object to christians demonizing gays, I have a problem “rebuking” people who spread HIV.

    This idea that Gay=AIDs is a very tired old slander.

    I’m sorry that your parent abused you, but that is pretty typical of christian households – no reason to take it out on other peorple.

    as for the rest :
    >Simply put, you would rather people get a lethal disease than risk one bit of unpopularity for criticizing their behavior

    I doubt if you even realize how sladeroust that is – but everyone reading this knows that it is untrue character assassination – I can opnly hope that they realize how typically christain such character assasination is.

    And hope that they have no problem risking unpopularity by rebuking your transparent lies

  19. Patrick ONeill says:

    “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”

  20. That is a lie – as is your parrtern of insinuatong that because I object to christians demonizing gays, I have a problem “rebuking” people who spread HIV.

    Hardly. You make it clear that you oppose rebuking gays’ behavior. Why, then, would anyone expect you to do something you oppose, like rebuking gays who spread HIV?

    This idea that Gay=AIDs is a very tired old slander.

    Let’s see; one in four gays is HIV-positive, versus less than one in one hundred of the general population.

    Furthermore, of those one in four gays, a third of them regularly have unprotected sex, which is what spreads the disease, with people who are either negative or of unknown status, including underage teenagers.

    Seems like gays are working to eliminate that last set of negatives and ensure that those gays coming up share their problem.

    I doubt if you even realize how sladeroust that is

    Again, Patrick, slander involves telling lies. You called my quoting referenceable statistics above “slander”, demonstrating that you have no concept of what “slander” means. Furthermore, your demonstrable behavior in this thread makes it clear that you would rather people get a lethal disease than criticize their behavior, since you consider any criticism of gay behavior to be “hateful”.

    And your regular screams of “slander” make this particularly funny.

    I’m sorry that your parent abused you, but that is pretty typical of christian households – no reason to take it out on other peorple.

    Especially when one considers that gay parents dress up their children in fetish gear and dog collars and take them to sex fairs to “show off”.

  21. adam kautz says:

    Guys it is about time you stop debating nd30 your only giving him what he wants. He is someone that no matter what you say he will always be right and you will always be wrong. And ND30 go someplace else and spew your venom no one here cares about anything that you have to say. I’m sorry but I have no tolerance for people with unenlightened minds. Go spread your ignorance to someone who actuals cares about you. I for one could care less if we were to ever be friends as you mean nothing to me.

  22. Doing what’s right is not always popular, Adam.

    If I wanted to be your friend, I would bash Christians and ignore gay promiscuity and irresponsible behavior. But, in my opinion, it’s less important to bash Christians, who do not cause gay irresponsible behavior, than it is to deal with irresponsible gay behavior to stop the spread of a lethal disease that 25% of us already carry and that those 25% are working on spreading to those who don’t, including underage children.

    Furthermore, I believe that demonstrating that being gay is not incompatible with Christianity can be done far more effectively by dealing with gays who use homosexuality as an excuse for antireligious bigotry than by using homosexuality as an excuse for attacking Christians.

    This isn’t difficult. It simply requires one to shed the “enlightened” gay view that gays are always right and Christians are always wrong.

  23. Patrick ONeill says:

    >>That is lie – as is your parrtern of insinuatong that because I object to christians demonizing gays, I have a problem “rebuking” people who spread HIV.

    >Hardly. You make it clear that you oppose rebuking gays’ behavior. Why, then, would anyone expect you to do something you oppose, like rebuking gays who spread HIV?

    So because you “wouldn’t expect” it that makes it OK for you to accuse someone ? – it is a flat out lie.

    And a slander – which you evidently consider to be funny. I guess that commandment doesn’t apply to real christians like you.

    Luckily your slander is innocuous, since everyone will consider it’s source but I really don’t understand how Matt can tolerate associating with such deeply unethical people.

    It must take a lot of guts doing those tours – talk about hanging out with slime

  24. So because you “wouldn’t expect” it that makes it OK for you to accuse someone ? – it is a flat out lie.

    I am pointing out, Patrick, that given your opposition to rebuking gays’ behavior, saying that you in fact rebuke gays’ behavior doesn’t make any sense.

    I guess that commandment doesn’t apply to real christians like you.

    Again, Patrick, you don’t believe in that commandment. You think the book from which it comes is nothing but myths and legends, you think the deity that gave it doesn’t exist, and you think the people who quote it and use it to judge other peoples’ behavior are no better than “ignorant desert tribesmen”.

    Why, then, are you quoting it and trying to use it to judge other peoples’ behaviors?

  25. Matt says:

    “And ND30 go someplace else and spew your venom no one here cares about anything that you have to say.”

    Adam… the second portion of your sentence may be true for some, but I wouldn’t tell ND30 to go away. I’ve had disagreements with him plenty in the past, but every once and a while he says something useful.

    I think that under all his rhetoric and name-calling toward liberal gays, there is some truth. Actually, a lot of truth. I just don’t think he is yet able to realize that people are working on the issues. As has already been said on the thread, gays are the ones who have most worked on HIV/AIDS issues (because no one else would).

    I’m done debating ND30 on this issue, but I’m not going to cut him off either. As with his position on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, you’ll never know when he might say something that actually makes sense to you (even if you still don’t quite agree 100%).

  26. Sofia says:

    Just as you are complicit in the sins of the Islamic mullahs ….

    Just pointing out that you are not honestly debating Matt – you are attacking him by character assassination.

    This is pretty much a standard christian techinique, I realize – I’m surprised that you haven’t accused him of doing Satan’s work – but it is unlikely to work. Matt seems smarter that your average christian

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. [...] of news will be light for the next few days, although I keep up with the continuing comment thread on the “An awkward ‘homecoming’ – Part Two” post. I’ll also be [...]



Leave A Comment