“You’re the one who mentioned condoms and lubricant, so I was wondering what your beef with them was.”

What the hell? Answer the question!

“Just as I feel uncomfortable about the thought of a man having anal sex with me…however, I don’t let that translate into ‘No-one should have anal sex!’ or ‘Strip rights from sodomites or LGBTs'”

Can you answer ANYTHING without resorting to empty rhetoric about gay people mysteriously having all their rights denied?

“By promiscuous, you’re probably talking about loveless sex outside marriage. While I myself would only ever have sex for love…what other people do in their sex lives has quite frankly, FUCK ALL to do with you. I also hope you realise that married straight couples also use both of them. Are you going to come down like a ton of bricks if you see a couple at the cash registers wearing wedding rings and stocking up on condoms/lubricants? Or will you shut your mouth because what other people do has nothing to do with you? This is partly why to me Christianity is a dirty word, those who profess the faith are all too quick to judge others about what they should and should not do in the bedroom (I can’t remember the last time I heard of a homosexual saying to a straight couple they shouldn’t have sex, that they’re evil for being straight).”

Are you actually trying to dictate to me that I don’t have the right to have an opinion? Yes, yes, of course, Christianity is so bad, because we uphold moral values as opposed to arbitrarily shifting views (i.e. relativism). At least we’re consistant. But no, everybody should just do whatever the hell they want and go along with it and agree that everything is fine and dandy.

“Operating an adoption centre has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. NOTHING. The First Amendment has to do with free speech and separation between Church and State. If the state were to fund Christian adoption centers while they were using their religion as an excuse to deny XYZ, rather than judging the applicant’s actual parental skills, that would actually be a violation of the separation, since the state would be promoting that religion. What if the Nation of Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
were to set up an adoption center, deny white couples out of hand, say that’s because that’s what their religion says (white people are a race of devils, according to the teachings of that religion’s founder, Wallace Fard Muhammad)? Would you say the state should still give money to this discriminatory body? If the state were to allow discrimination like this, that would mean that the children (remember them) are very likely not getting the best parents, but rather those who fit the discriminatory view of whoever runs them. That would be tantamount to child abuse in my book. And no, it wasn’t ‘Cease operations,’ it was lose state funding.”

You’re so full of it.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41680

“Some believe that the new civil unions law will not effect religious organizations such as the Catholic Church. And some homosexual advocates are claiming that the Church’s decision to shut down its adoption and foster care services is a sign of intolerance. But when a bill, SB 1123, was proposed to amend certain language in the law in order to protect religious liberty, the amendment was attacked by homosexual activists and defeated by one vote.

This is not the first time something like this has happened. Catholic services in other states have also been forced to shut down. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. was forced to shut down their foster care and public adoption program due to a law recognizing same-sex marriage that went into effect in 2010. The law requires that religious organizations serving the general public must provide services to homosexuals regardless of their religious beliefs. District lawmakers could have granted an exemption to the archdiocese, but they chose to force it to compromise Church teaching on marriage or shut down its programs. In a Catholic News Agency article, Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, said, “Archbishop Wuerl [of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C.] isn’t about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program.”

Something similar also happened in the state of Massachusetts. Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down unless it agreed to place children with homosexuals. New state licensing laws in 2006 required that Catholic agencies facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples. According to an article by Father Robert J. Carr, in a joint statement, bishops from four Catholic dioceses in Massachusetts said, “. . . if Catholic agencies were required to help same-sex couples adopt children in violation of church teaching prohibiting the practice it would present ‘a serious pastoral problem’ and threaten religious freedom.”

Apparently, this has also happened in England and Wales. Marianne Medlin writes, “Last August, a local commission ruled that the last remaining agency, Catholic Care, was not justified in its refusal to place children with same-sex couples because of its religious beliefs.”

All of these forced closing reflect a trend, and it is not benign. I believe that homosexual activists have given us a clue to the nature of this trend. They tell us that they just want to be treated equally, that they want to be free to love each other and have families like married heterosexual couples. But I do not believe this is true, and it is not realistic. In addition, homosexual activists in Illinois are calling the new civil unions law the “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act.” But the law does not protect freedom, certainly not mine or yours, anyhow. So if this trend is not about equality, freedom or love, then what is it about? Perhaps it will help us answer this question if we look at another example.

Since the 1980’s, various groups (homosexuals, feminists, secularists and atheists) have been attacking the Boy Scouts of America. This first came to my attention when the Supreme Court ruled on a case between the Boy Scouts and an assistant scoutmaster, James Dale. The Boy Scouts discharged Dale from his position when it became clear that he was a homosexual. Dale sued the Boy Scouts for discharging him. However, in 2000 the Court upheld the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of “freedom of association” and ruled in favor of the Scouts’ right to set their own membership standards.

This did not end the Scouts’ legal battles, however. The decision apparently energized homosexual activists to destroy the Boy Scouts. Only now, the focus shifted to turning public opinion and support against the Scouts and attacking the Scouts’ relationship with government through litigation initiated by such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). As a result, some corporations and charities have turned against the Scouts, and the Scouts have lost the use of government land and facilities which had historically been available to them.

Homosexuals could have established their own type of program, but they did not. At least they were free to do so if they had wanted to. But it was not freedom that they wanted. They wanted to take others’ freedom, to force the Scouts to change their beliefs. If the homosexual activists did not get what they wanted, then they would try to destroy the Scouts and deny boys the chance to participate in one of the best experiences a boy could have.

It appears that this is similar to the civil union laws springing up around the country. This trend is not about equality or freedom or love. We know this because states could allow unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexuals to adopt children and become foster parents without forcing the Catholic Church to violate its beliefs or shut down its services. The secular state could easily make room for both if it wanted. But every indication is that it wants to force the Church to conform to its irrational and immoral beliefs or be driven out of the public sector.”

———————————

“Maybe that has something to do with it now being illegal to discriminate? Whereas before, it wasn’t? Why, it was only recently that you could come out as homosexual within the US military and not be discharged automatically. However, it does remain a historical fact, that while it can arguably said to not be as widespread as discrimination against blacks, there were still plenty of people being fired over nothing more than their homosexuality.
As for the school teacher…I know you won’t be surprised, but I’m behind him. If in his lawsuit, the state rules against him, they would be saying that yes, you can be fired over something that has nothing to do with your employers. I found it ironic that the reason his employers gave was because he had done the sin of being one of the first gay couples to marry in his area, once it became legal and that it had made the news. By talking about it, even though this was something that was happening outside of the school and had nothing to do with it, the school still felt it should punish his speech (hello 1A violations!)
While on school time, the teacher should spew forth whatever bullshit his employers say, as that’s what he’s being paid to do. If he doesn’t like it, he should quit. However, for the school to reach forth their hand and extend it into his private life and find something they don’t like (hey, he probably drank alcohol on Good Friday! Fired!), THAT is a violation of the First Amendment.”

Oh really? So then, every single instance where a newscaster, athlete, teacher, businessman or otherwise said something or did something on their private time and was fired for it, those are all 1A violations to you? Apparently you don’t realize that we have something called freedom of association.

“Just to give some perspective on that, I went to three different Catholic schools in Ireland. My secondary school (high school)’s second to last headmaster…was an out and out homosexual. This is a school run by the Marianists, and no-one had a problem with the headmaster of a CATHOLIC school being gay. He wasn’t a member of the Marianists himself, but he ran the school well from what I was told.”

That’s all well and good. However, what the media did in the other instance must’ve upset enough parents and teachers that they were forced to respond, and it was well within their right. As I said, the parents are paying for a specific education in a specific environment, therefore the Catholic school has a right to maintain its public image.

“If people are being fired merely for believing in Christianity or Islam or Judaism or whatever, fine, I would agree with you there. However, if they, using their religion as a cloak, then go on to, in the course of their jobs, deny service to LGBTs, then they should be fired. There’s a huge difference between speaking the tenets of your religion and actions taken in the course of your job. Jews don’t eat pork, but if a Jewish cashier at the supermarket told a customer who was buying bacon to fuck off, I would want that cashier to be fired.”

I agree.

“Sigh…why is it that you remain incapable of understanding? Let me break it down. From what you’ve written, unless a group experiences suffering close to or of the same degree as what blacks did, such as institutionalized slavery and segregation, then that group, in your view, HAS NOT SUFFERED. Am I somehow reading your words wrong?
It was only in recent years and decades that it became law that it was illegal to discriminate because of sexuality. Before then, you could fire a gay person and that person would have no resource for restitution. Just like what happened with the blacks.
Sorry, but to me, you’re the exact same person as those from before the 1960’s, who discriminated against blacks simply because…of well, being black. To me, your discrimination is pure evil, since you don’t afford others a fair chance. You judge them and judge them harshly, all for something that has nothing to do with you and never will.”

Are you finished with the lame false characterizations? Yeah, I’m real evil for not sacrificing my beliefs in order to conform to your world view. As far as firing people for being gay, you keep harping on this one point without offering up evidence. Now, I’m sure that there have been many people fired who are gay (then again, there’s probably been people from EVERY group, race or whatever that have been fired), but can you prove that they were fired specifically because A) they were gay and for no other reason, and B) that this occurred on a semi-regular basis? If so, your argument might hold some weight. Until then…