Ding Dong, the asshole's dead!

[Huggy Bear]

Even so, he's entitled to his beliefs just like anyone else.

The irony of people flaming a certain forum member for lacking empathy, yet THEIR lack of empathy is fine as long as it's towards someone who believes differently.

Wait...when was Jack Chick a forum member here?

I wasn't speaking of Chick, I was making reference to Drich.

[downbeatplumb]

I used to listen to a radio show called loveline back in the day, and I'd say about 90% of the homosexual callers admitted to being sexually molested, now if you'd like me to look up specific episodes and quotes, I can do that.

And about the same amount of women say they have been sexually molested or otherwise abused.
All this means is that people take advantage of other people.

Does this mean that sexual abuse causes homosexuality?

No it does not. It just shows that there are some pretty shittty people around.

 I don't know, but evidence would suggest...

Not even in your anecdote does it suggest that. it just shows that a chrstian country like the US seems to have way more than its fair share of abusers.

let me ask you something, if homosexual males account for 83% of HIV diagnoses (*among males), why is it being portrayed as if HIV affects everyone equally?

Because homosexuals account for 61% of the HIV infected. More than the average but still not as biased as your take on it.

2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection

https://carm.org/statistics-percentage-p...v-infected

You do realize AIDS used to be called GRIDS (Gay-related immune deficiency).

And yet it effects most groups except lesbians. Their sex is the safest of all. 

But in today's society making those sort of connections somehow means you hate gays...

Your "corrections" were wrong.



*edit forgot to specify

[Huggy Bear]

Because homosexuals account for 61% of the HIV infected. More than the average but still not as biased as your take on it.

Go back and read what I wrote. I said 83% of HIV diagnoses out of the MALE demographic were homosexual males. What you are referring to is the overall population.

2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection

https://carm.org/statistics-percentage-p...v-infected

You may want to specify who you are quoting exactly, since you made the above quote look like it came from me. Also don't you think it's a bit ironic to accuse me of posting biased info yet your source is a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, heres a hint, they aren't agreeing with you.

 In case you were wondering, this is where I got my info.
https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv...tatistics/

Gay and bisexual men bare the population most affected by HIV. In 2014:

Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 83% (29,418) of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses.

[downbeatplumb]

Because homosexuals account for 61% of the HIV infected. More than the average but still not as biased as your take on it.

Go back and read what I wrote. I said 83% of HIV diagnoses out of the MALE demographic were homosexual males. What you are referring to is the overall population.

https://carm.org/statistics-percentage-p...v-infected

You may want to specify who you are quoting exactly, since you made the above quote look like it came from me. Also don't you think it's a bit ironic to accuse me of posting biased info yet your source is a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, heres a hint, they aren't agreeing with you.

 In case you were wondering, this is where I got my info.
https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv...tatistics/

Gay and bisexual men bare the population most affected by HIV. In 2014:

Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 83% (29,418) of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses.

Fair enough.

But the point stands that aids is not a gay only disease, with a full quarter of cases being due to hetero sexual activity and that is in the US, in Africa the spread is predominantly though heterosexual activity through the common use of prostitutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa

[drfuzzy]

So now we're celebrating when someone dies?

Huggy, I try - nearly all of the time, I really do - to give people benefit of the doubt, to honor their freedom to believe anything they want to believe.  But I lived for years in a group that practically worshiped the man, and made it their mission to spread his hate and bigotry and viciousness out into the world.  So forgive me my moment of celebration, that I'm happy that someone who, in my mind, was many times more evil than the grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, is dead.

This one especially made it personal.  Exhorting the faithful to fuck with my tribe in regards to basic civil liberties was/is evil.

I  encountered this tract as an adult, after 'coming out', I can't help but wonder how many teens were damaged by this one, or were damaged by followers that think the tracts are just okily-dokily.

My own mother gave one of these to me when I was 16.  I spent the next 5 years frantically praying to gawd to take my queer demon away.  I tried to commit suicide more than once.  I VOLUNTARILY went into a gay-conversion group, and to exorcisms.  They didn't take, because of course, there was no demon - it was the way I was made.

[brewer]

I don't think they are necessarily celebrating his death. It's more his inability to continue to publish and distribute his particular world view.

So, I will not celebrate Kim Kardashian's death but may celebrate the silence.

[vorlon13]

And we have a rare concordance in this with several of us here and many Christians being unhappy with Chick Tracts.

I wonder if Westboro Baptist will protest his service? Yes, Jack was similarly anti-homo, but his penchant for heresy might negate that and then some.

[Doubting Thomas]

Regarding Gay Blade,

I recall wondering at the time why the Bible stuff on gays applies to everyone, inside and outside of the faith, but then other things in the Bible don't even apply to any members of the flock. 

Yeah right.  One thing which especially made me irritated about the opposition to marriage equality was the idea of "My bible says that being gay is a sin, so nobody should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex."  Then when you point out that Leviticus also forbids eating shellfish and they're a hypocrite for focusing on 18:22 and not the rest of it, it's "Ah, those were just old dietary laws for the Jews to follow and became void when Jesus died on the cross.  They don't apply to Christians."  Cherry picking doesn't really describe it, more like "I'm going to decide what's right and wrong for everyone based on what I think is in the bible, and if you don't let me then I'm being persecuted!"

[Crossless2.0]

Regarding Gay Blade,

I recall wondering at the time why the Bible stuff on gays applies to everyone, inside and outside of the faith, but then other things in the Bible don't even apply to any members of the flock. 

Yeah right.  One thing which especially made me irritated about the opposition to marriage equality was the idea of "My bible says that being gay is a sin, so nobody should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex."  Then when you point out that Leviticus also forbids eating shellfish and they're a hypocrite for focusing on 18:22 and not the rest of it, it's "Ah, those were just old dietary laws for the Jews to follow and became void when Jesus died on the cross.  They don't apply to Christians."  Cherry picking doesn't really describe it, more like "I'm going to decide what's right and wrong for everyone based on what I think is in the bible, and if you don't let me then I'm being persecuted!"

I agree: it isn't really cherry-picking, since they view the NT as authoritative. If Paul declares that the law was fulfilled and has become void and they believe it, then they aren't so much ignoring Leviticus as they are believing that it no longer applies to them. If they cite Leviticus in defense of their bigotry, that strikes me as ignorance and/or hypocrisy. (And if they cite Paul for any reason, that strikes me as ignorance and gullibility in the presence of a world class bullshit artist, but that's another thread. )

They can still justify shitting on homosexuals and same-sex marriage by appealing to Paul -- specifically Romans, if memory serves.

[Faith No More]

I used to listen to a radio show called loveline back in the day, and I'd say about 90% of the homosexual callers admitted to being sexually molested, now if you'd like me to look up specific episodes and quotes, I can do that.

Does this mean that sexual abuse causes homosexuality? I don't know, but evidence would suggest...

The evidence would suggest you're full of shit...

Also, the study does not indicate that sexual abuse leads to homosexuality. In the control group, 5.3% said they had engaged in same-sex relationships, whereas in the sexual abuse group, 27.3% did.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthroc...ive-study/

That 27.3% is miles away from your 90.  Those pesky facts!

let me ask you something, if homosexual males account for 83% of HIV diagnoses (*among males), why is it being portrayed as if HIV affects everyone equally?

You do realize AIDS used to be called GRIDS (Gay-related immune deficiency).

But in today's society making those sort of connections somehow means you hate gays...

*edit forgot to specify

Nice tangent.   "But, but, but, but AIDS!"

Let me ask you a question.  It couldn't possibly be that the demonizing and ostracizing of homosexuals by the religious right has led to lower self-esteem and high-risk behavior, could it?  What incentive do gays have to take care of themselves when people like you are constantly telling them what horrible pieces of shit they are?