Leave our Kids alone

News article: A Catholic school in New Orleans decides not to renew its contract with 3 of its teaching staff allegedly because they either publicly supported or belong to the LGBT community.

‘L’ comments below the published news article and the further responses as indicated below is a conversation which is expected to be conceived as an imaginary dialogue between two people named ‘L’ and ‘C’ with different world views;

L: ‘Supporting the LGBT community’ is a vague usage. Support shouldn’t mean promoting sin. Homosexuality is a sin, if that is news to a few.

C: Does that mean identifying as LGBTQ is a sin?

L: Identifying as someone who promotes and advocates adultery or homosexuality or paedophilia or cheating, indirectly or directly to children in a Catholic school is unacceptable. That is because Catholics consider all that to be sinful.

C: How do you know that an LGBTQ person does this???

L: If I identify myself as a lesbian, I am proclaiming to the world that I am someone who considers same-sex attraction to be acceptable and so the children whom I teach will automatically get misled. Catholics consider that to be disorderly behaviour.

C: All it says is that you are attracted to members of the same sex. The attraction itself is not sinful.

L: Exactly. Now that sounded like someone saying – God said eating the fruit is a sin. How about just touching and feeling the fruit? After that how about just smelling it? Then how about taking a bite since only if you swallow it’s a sin, right?

C: It says nothing as to whether or not the person has engaged in sexual acts.

L: I identify myself as ‘Y’ (Y – attracted to ice cream) but that doesn’t mean I will ever engage in the act of eating it or even tasting it. And the children are expected to believe in some sort of a strange idea that I am only attracted to but am against tasting ice-creams.

C: That’s ridiculous. Eating ice cream is not a sin.

L: You are right. Eating ice cream is not a sin. However, as someone who identifies as ‘Y’ is it fair to expect my students to believe that- even though I am attracted to ice cream, I shouldn’t be seen as someone who would ever taste ice cream and also will not promote the act.

C: This is a stupid argument. We are talking about actual human beings, not ice cream.

L: You are skipping my question the third time in a row. It is quite understandable that you wouldn’t answer any of that straight. This proves that you don’t have an answer. You are acting as if you are not able to understand that ice cream was used as an analogy.

C: Regarding what question?

L: As someone who identifies as ‘Y’ is it fair to expect my students to believe that I am attracted to ice cream but they shouldn’t assume that I am all for tasting it and indulging in it if given a chance?

C: What is your point? Just because a person is gay does not mean they are engaging in sexual acts. It also doesn’t necessarily mean they have a romantic partner or are in a relationship.

L: If one is going through a psychological problem such as same-sex attraction or an inclination to engage in adultery, or drug abuse or so, but sincerely believes that these inclinations are disorderly and is trying to get rid of that, then he is certainly in the right direction.

C: What are gay people supposed to do? Go to reparative therapy, something that is proven to be harmful?

L: Lack of love and care during their very early formative years tops the list of reasons why most people get influenced and believe firmly that they are strongly attracted sexually to people of the same-sex or such other disorderly forms. It’s a curable psychological condition.

C: Boy, people like you make me have even more empathy for the LGBTQ+ community!!!

L: Uncle, people like you are the reason children at school are first confused and then trapped using fake science and lies. Kindly allow people to help poor ignorant confused kids out of their confused state and to save their lives.

C: No, because they too are God’s beloved children, and they don’t need pieces of (*****) like you in their lives! They are not broken people like you think they are.

L: No one said that they are broken by default. Their adamancy to claim that a disorder has to be their primary identity is distorted per se.

L: “In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind.” – Pope Benedict XVI

C: You can lecture me all you want, you’re not going to change my mind.

L: If St. Paul couldn’t change your mind, who am I? Shall pray for you and people like you though.

C: I don’t treat people the way you treat people. Sorry. I’m not willing to treat people with such gross and dehumanizing contempt, regardless of whether or not you try to justify it by quoting holy figures.

L: That might be a verse from your own personal holy scripture about morality and love for your neighbour. Saints in the Catholic Church never feared to call out an error for the good of sinners. “Homosexuality is the Supreme Offense against God” – St. Hildegard of Bingen

C: You’re really showing your true colours and how big of an *** you really are.

L: You are getting agitated when I quote saints. Shall pray for you.

C: Sometimes saints can be *** too.

L: Would you abuse St. Paul also with such words?

C: Does it really matter? Did I say he was an ***?

L: I was wondering since St. Paul was one of those who said just being homosexuals is disorderly. You started calling names, all saints who said so. Is St. Paul an exception for some reason then?

C: As I said before, just because someone is a saint doesn’t necessarily mean they are a good person.

L: This is your own philosophy. The Catholic Church says St. Paul is an apostle and a saint which by default means they are good people worthy of following and imitating. If you are not a Catholic or Christian then I’ve been mistaken all along.

C: Well, I would imitate Jesus before any saints. Just because Paul is a saint does not mean we can’t examine his life more critically. I wouldn’t want to imitate anyone who expresses homophobic, misogynistic, or racist views.

L: oh dear. You are trying really hard to claim that you want to imitate Jesus but at the same time, you are rejecting Jesus’ apostle Paul who teaches mankind about the true personality of Jesus. Are you really a Christian?

L: Would you also defend adultery, cheating, slavery, robbery, murder, and drug abuse, the same way you do homosexuality?

C: I’m talking about the person, not the act. You make accusations without any hard evidence that a person, much less a gay person is engaging in sexual acts.

L: If this person whom you are referring to as gay doesn’t have any intention to engage in a sexual act as you say, then why does he insist that his sexual inclination be projected as his identity in the first place?

C: Apparently you’d rather want them to keep their real identity in the closet.

L: Looks like you understood why it is aimless to try and distance LGBT identity rights from the disorderly sexual act in itself.

C: There is no connection except in the minds of judgmentalists like you.

L: If a gay or a lesbian doesn’t have any intention to engage in a sexual act as you say and if there is no connection between identity and the act then why does one have to insist that his/her sexual inclination be projected as his/her identity in the first place? Reason?

C: Because it’s more than just their sexuality. It’s a part of their being. Does that mean they engage in sexual acts? Of course not!!!

L: How do you know? Cooking up some fake science? Part of their being? Only gays have such a state of being? Come on uncle. Being gay?

C: Attraction to the same sex. Orientation to homosexuality is not sinful. That is Church teaching. You seem to be obsessed with gay people. Are you gay?

L: Attraction to same-sex is an objective psychological disorder. That is a Church teaching too. You seem to be obsessed with lesbian people. Are you a lesbian?

C: Uh, the DMA does not classify it as a psychological disorder. You homophobes can think it is, but it is not.

L: You seem to be clueless about the history of how fanatics like you, during the homophile movement pressurised the APA (American Psychological Association) into declassifying it as a mental disorder from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) by allegedly promoting personal attacks on the trustees. Not a single qualified and reviewed real scientific work supports it as yet. That voting had no scientific backing. Deplorable. Try your lies on someone else who can be easily fooled.

C: The reality is that some people in the world are gay. Does that alone make them bad people? I sure don’t think so.

L: Yes, to put it precisely- the reality is that few people in the world allow themselves willingly to play a gay and few others are tricked into it. Poor ignorant brothers, sisters and children who are misled very early in their life into this trap.

C: You really are disgusting. Who tricks who into being gay?

L: Today, kids are being brainwashed by people like you and teachers, knowingly or unknowingly that if a kid is worried about low marks then it could be because of their sexual identity issue and that all problems in life will be solved if they change their identity. Trap. Lie.

C: Please provide an example of a teacher trying to make their students gay.

L: Sure. Shall share with you a video link when I find one next time. Let’s say you are my teacher who identifies as gay. What would be your answer to my question- Is a sexual act between two consenting people of the same sex disorderly or not? Am confused with the info on the internet.

C: Again, you just reduced gay people to their sex lives.

L: See, you are comfortably skipping a direct question. The question was by a student to a teacher. You asked me how a gay teacher may mislead a student.

L: Normalising disorderly orientations misleads children. If I have a disorderly orientation such that I am sexually attracted to a tree or an animal, should I choose to identify myself as ‘T’ or ‘A’ or some other letter and be proud of it?

C: The good news is that your views are being relegated to the dustbin of morality. The overwhelming majority of all people accept LGBTQ and respect their right to live their lives as they choose. You should join their number.

L: An overwhelming majority might tomorrow view and promote paedophilia as a healthy alternative to most problems in life. Will that change the definition of what paedophilia actually is ever?. I hope and pray that you realise that Catholics are required to reject sin and advise the sinner to repent, at any cost.

C: So you’re equating LGBTQ to paedophilia.

L: I am equating one disorderly inclination (LGBT) to another disorderly inclination (paedophilia) and other disorderly inclinations such as engaging in adultery, engage in cheating, abuse, slavery and so on.

C: Are all gay people engaged in these activities? As if you haven’t maligned them already.

L: I am not a saint to judge or accuse a gay by default. I am a sinner too. Maybe a worse sinner. God knows. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to call out an objectively disordered inclination which is leading confused and ignorant children straight to a mortal sin. Homosexuality and adultery are both grave sins.

C: So just merely being gay is a sin???

L: Explain ‘just being gay’.

C: I believe gay is a sexual orientation, and being attracted to members of the same sex, however, that alone does not mean they are engaging (or will engage) in sexual acts with members of the same sex. The Church defines the act as sinful, but not the actual identity.

L: You are partially right. The real point of concern here is that such smart use of words is being shrewdly taken advantage of by a few people with agenda to destroy the sacred institution of a family. Please understand that we need to highlight to children that it’s a disorderly orientation.

C: I’m really disgusted that you feel this way about other human beings. Telling people that they are disordered is completely and utterly dehumanizing.

L: Am not disgusted that you feel homosexual orientation is not a disorder, I am just sorry for people who are adamant to remain ignorant. Hope you find a way out to avoid being disgusted with St. Paul and Pope Benedict XVI too.

C: Have you ever been around people who are gay? Do you personally know anyone who’s gay? “Who am I to judge?” -Pope Francis

L: I have several friends who have worked their way out of this trap. Even today I have few who are sincerely trying to help themselves out from the trap which their own parents led them into when they were still very young. I know many in person who don’t realise their error as yet. And by the way, someone who has assumed a position well above the heights of the Catholic Church has something to say to all those who are in the Church’s hierarchy but are trying to soft-pedal when it comes to this controversy. “For God’s sake, why do you damnable sodomites pursue the heights of ecclesiastical dignity with such fiery ambition?” – St. Peter Damian

C: How have they worked out of it? Just so you know we live in America and America is not governed by the Catholic Church

L: Step 1: Sincere will to acknowledge the grave error and resolve to reject this temptation. This step is key. Step 2: There are over 100 ways out there for assisting them through their journey back, spiritually and psychologically. God will lead them out in no time through the best way provided the first step is done and dusted neatly by self.

C: Fortunately, an overwhelming consensus of medical experts does not agree with you.

L: Now, that is a random fake claim. No serious and qualified peer-reviewed paper/report has been presented to date which supports your claim even superficially. Trying to hide behind lies?

C: There are priests even within the Catholic Church who differ with your views.

L: “…increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity.” – Pope Benedict XVI

C: Basically what you are saying is what you’ve been saying all along….if someone comes out as gay you would have a problem with that.

L: I don’t have a problem with anyone. I am just saying that it is a disorder. If I am straight then having adulterous inclinations is a disorder. At the same time if I am gay then having same-sex attraction is a disorder.

C: So just feeling a sense of attraction to someone of the same sex is a disorder in your book, even if they don’t engage in any sexual acts.

L: Let me ask you; Is engaging in a sexual act with someone of the same sex a grave sin?

C: I don’t think anyone’s sexual lives are any of my business, nor should they be. If a religious institution like the Catholic Church wants to consider it as a grave sin, they can do so. But it’s certainly not for me to judge.

L: Very well. My mistake. Had I asked this question right at the beginning, I would have saved you a lot of time. You are an interesting guy. Anyway, looks like you lost track of what you started with. The news article was about a Catholic school dismissing someone concerning a grave sin.

C: Did they consider whether or not the person engaged in sexual acts? Would they ever ask a straight person whether they engaged in sexual acts?

L: A straight person doesn’t usually insist that he be identified based on any of his disorderly inclinations. If there comes a day when one insists that he be identified with pedophilic inclinations or with genocidal tendencies, they would certainly dismiss him.

C: Apparently, you have a problem with people coming out as gay. Someone who is acknowledging the truth as to who they are. And you just want to make them feel ashamed about this characteristic as an integral part of their identity.

L: Should one with Pedophilic inclinations be ashamed if they are found out to be proud of it and more so if they insist that this tendency be showcased as their identity?

C: Are gay intentions pedophilic? The difference is paedophilia is a criminal act. Feeling romantic affection for a member of the same sex is not. Just because a person has feelings about someone doesn’t mean that they act out of them.

L: Just because a paedophile feels romantic affection for a child doesn’t mean he would engage in the demonic act. Maybe, but if he wants to proudly showcase this disorderly tendency of his as his identity, he should be discouraged.

C: I’m talking about consenting adults.

L: You may personally consider such abominable acts to be acceptable. The Catholic Church doesn’t deem indecent behaviour between two consenting adults to be acceptable. And the school that we are talking about is a Catholic school.

C: But the school has already accused them of engaging in such behaviour without any substantiated evidence.

L: The school never claimed any such thing. Those are just allegations to divert attention from the real issue by people like you. Read the article again, even though it is an out-and-out one-sided take on the incident.

L: How about if such abominable acts are done by two consenting children? How about if such abominable acts are done by one consenting adult and one consenting child?

C: Society has laws to protect against that. The thought of any teacher (gay or straight) teaching students how to engage in sexual acts in a classroom is preposterous since they would get charged with a crime.

L: One such law of your society is to mercilessly murder innocent children right in the womb. Right?

C: That is a woman’s right to choose.

L: The innocent child did not force his mother to invite him into her womb. After inviting the poor helpless innocent child into her womb on purpose, can a woman be so inhumane to now say that it is her choice to kill? Is this how you are taught to treat your guest?

C: Look, I have full discretion as to who I allow into my apartment. It’s my right not to welcome people in if I choose not to. Women should have the same discretion as to what she wants in their body, and it’s not my place or my job to tell them how she needs to use it.

L: If I consume poison I would die is simple commonsense. You are arguing that a woman should have the discretion to not die after willfully consuming poison. Amazing Should she also have full discretion to assume that she doesn’t hurt you after hitting you hard knowingly?

C: Sometimes women die carrying pregnancies.

L: In some cases, few great-hearted women choose to prioritise their innocent ones’ lives even at the cost of their own lives when they encounter such situations. Either way, you know pretty well that both these are highly exceptional cases.

L: The issue here is not about what they want themselves to be identified as.

C: Just because a person has feelings about someone doesn’t mean that they act out of them.

L: Just because a paedophile feels romantic affection for a child doesn’t mean he would engage in the horrible act. Maybe not today, can you assure me that he won’t engage in the act tomorrow? He dares to proudly identify himself as someone who is sexually inclined this way. Should such tendencies be discouraged or should we promote that by arranging support rallies?

C: I’m talking about consenting adults.

L: What about consenting children and one consenting adult and a child?

C: I can’t conceive of that happening because children aren’t taught to have sex, and by law, having sex with a child is illegal in this country.

L: Tomorrow if your country makes that legal then will that become conceivable to you? Just like how you have laws to kill innocent children? Is that conceivable to you since that is very much legal in your country?

C: Forcing women to give birth against their will is also evil. I cannot conceive of child sex being legal, however, it’s not rational to assume this is what’s happening.

L: You seem to be concerned about the will of the woman. What about your concern for the will of the innocent preborn?

C: No being has the right to occupy someone else’s physical space without their consent.

L: Did that child land in her womb from nowhere, without her knowledge? Who invited that child into its rightful space? It was that woman. Learn to respect human beings, at least innocents.

C: No she didn’t. It should be up to the woman as to whether or not she wants to remain pregnant. And if you don’t like that, well, tough!!!

L: Where did the child come from? She invited that child into her womb. Then one fine day if she thinks otherwise, she doesn’t have the right to act as if she didn’t invite the child. She had all the right to deny the child a space before she decided to invite the child. Commonsense.

C: Not always, does she invite the child in through rape?

L: So you reject all abortions as cold-blooded murders if it was not a rape?

C: If you want to reject abortion that’s fine. Just don’t have one. As a male I cannot get pregnant, so I cannot say for sure whether or not I support or reject abortion. And it’s not my place to put myself into a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor.

L: To put it simply, you do not reject the murder of innocents even if it’s not out of rape or incest. This means you do not mind killing a child even after the child was invited willfully into the womb. You don’t care about the abuse of this child’s will.

C: Well, the onus is on the woman to give birth to the child or fetus.

L: Well, the onus is on the woman to respect the rights of the child to stay alive just like she had the right to stay alive in her mother’s womb, most importantly after willfully inviting the child into her womb. The onus is on all of us to give the woman enough confidence and love so that she doesn’t get distracted and kill the innocent child for whatever reason it may be.

C: She didn’t “invite” the child into the world. No one should be forced to use their body as a host for another body.

L: If she didn’t invite her child into her womb then who do you think did it? I do not know of any child born in this world without a woman having sexual intercourse. She invited the child on purpose. The only exception was and will ever be Jesus Christ.

C: You can believe that, but it should be up to the woman to make the decision as to whether or not she wants to carry it.

L: Yes, she had her chance to decide whether she wanted to allow the child into her womb. She willfully decided to allow the innocent one fine day when she was in a good mood. After a few months one day she is having a bad time in a supermarket queue and that evening she decides to kill the child. Are you guys really sane when you say things like that?

C: After a few months, a woman decided to terminate a pregnancy. That does not mean that she won’t go on to carry a pregnancy to term in the future and go on to raise a beautiful family.

L: Terminating a pregnancy means, killing a human being by denying its basic right to life. Just like you and I were not denied our right to live in our mother’s womb. Every child has the same right. Male or female, black or blue or white, tall or short. Stop defending murder.

C: Stop telling me what to believe.

L: Then you better stop telling a Catholic school what to believe and whom to send home. So now that you don’t have a straight response to how obnoxious your support for the cold-blooded murder of innocents is, you blame it on the country. Simple.

C: Did I ever tell them what to do? Can they fire those teachers?..sure. Can they do so without provoking a response from students, teachers, and parents?….most certainly not.

L: If you did not say that the Catholic school did not have the right to dismiss teachers who promote the LGBT agenda. Well, better.

C: I didn’t say that. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be backlash from students, fellow teachers, and parents. The picture in the article shows students walking out carrying a pride flag.

L: There will always be resistance. I remember an instance in South India just a century back when a few Christian missionaries highlighted women’s right to wear clothes on the upper part of their bodies. To be more specific women in certain communities in that region were not allowed to cover their breasts in public. And don’t be surprised, the ones who protested against the Christian missionaries were these very women. Can you imagine what slavery can do to people? It hypnotises man and makes him fight those who come to rescue him. This is exactly what those kids remind me of when they flaunt those flags showcasing their support for slavery to mortal sin.

C: Of course, I wouldn’t support the forced exposure of women against their will.

L: Thank God. Good to know. God bless. So would you now concede that abortion is the merciless killing of the innocents?

C: Criminally speaking, abortion in many places in this country is not murder.

L: You are not able to conceive child sex today. If your society makes it a law tomorrow will your philosophy change and then will you be able to conceive it? Or will you say that even if the whole world stands against you, you will call that out to be wrong?

C: No, because child sex is universally unacceptable.

L: Will you or will you not? Will you be able to conceive child sex and support it then once it is made law?

C: No I would not.

L: Good. Then don’t you try to hide behind the so-called absurd laws of your country when it comes to abortion or fornication or homosexuality. Hold your ground not just for atrocities like child sex and pornography but for the other equally worse acts such as abortion, adultery, homosexuality, incest, and fornication too.

L: Also do note that the news portal was openly pro-LGBT and yet they make no specific accusation against the school management.

C: The manager is gutless for not revealing why the contracts are not being renewed. And he deserves all the anger of the protestors.

L: He has better things to do than to waste time behind all these useless clarifications to people who are willingly allowing themselves to remain in sin but wants to play with words about inclinations being distinct from the act.

C: Inclinations are distinct from the act. Or do you not accept this part of Catholic teaching?

L: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Cor6:9-10

C: I don’t care, you *** even if I will be proselytized. Take those scriptures and ***!!!

L: That’s your response to St. Paul man. I am not the author of that verse. Am so sorry for people like you.

C: But you quote it, so I assume you take pleasure in using it to advance the notion that gay people are evil.

L: Now you feel bad that you abused St. Paul using filthy language thinking that you were hurling it on me. Never mind, he is used to all this from people around the world. Am getting used to that reality too.

C: Your interpretation of scripture is not the only exclusive acceptable interpretation.

L: I would like to hear your interpretation of those verses authored by St. Paul regarding homosexuals.

C: I would think more deeply about who Paul is, first of all. The historical context, his audience, etc.

L: In simple language, you reject St. Paul’s statements about homosexuals. You do not dare to spell it out straight.

C: Yes, I do reject those words, along with any other words that are demeaning and offensive to oppressed and marginalized groups of people.

L: That is just your version of what is right. I reject your version to be right along with St. Paul. The Catholic school also felt that St. Paul’s version is right. Simple.

C: It’s Christ’s church. Not St. Paul’s. Are you saying I’m right because it’s wrong to belittle, put down, or offended those who are marginalized by society?

L: The Christ that you talk about is the one whom you heard from apostles like St. Paul. If you have your own version of Christ then that is again up to you. You seem to have known Christ better than St. Paul. So be it.

C: Well, tell me what Jesus said about homosexuals. I’m waiting…

L: If you were a Christian then you would have known that the Holy Bible is the word of God and Jesus Christ is word made flesh. St. Paul is His apostle and he is better at interpreting His word better than you.

C: What was Jesus’ word regarding gays/homosexuals???

L: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Cor6:9-10

C: You’re quoting Paul, not Jesus.

L: Exactly. That is why said earlier that unless you are a Christian you cannot grasp the meaning when I say that the Holy Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is the word made flesh. St. Paul doesn’t teach his doctrine. He teaches Jesus’ doctrine. Those are Jesus’.

C: So God wrote the Bible? I don’t think in black and white mister! So Jesus rejected gay people and treated them with hostility and contempt?

L: No. Jesus does not reject any sinner even. St. Paul doesn’t say anywhere that any repentant sinner would be rejected. Much more happy would Jesus be if a gay realises that his disordered inclination is not something to be proud of since it would lead him to grave sin.

C: Even if they are disordered, does that necessarily mean they are going to act out in the ways you think they will?

L: I am not the one who is labelling them that way. A lesbian or gay today is fighting for their right to identify and showcase their disorder as if they want to warn people around them to be wary of them. I wouldn’t choose to highlight my inclinations to cheat or steal.

C: They are fighting for the right to be themselves.

L: How about allowing a few teachers to fight for their right to be themselves by supporting a group of people who have inclinations for child sex or incest or genocide?

C: Are you saying that about the entire LGBTQ+ community? Are you basically whitewashing them and associating everyone who is LGBTQ+ with the acts you mentioned?

L: Holds good for all those who insist to be identified and showcased primarily based on their disordered inclinations only. Did anyone deny them their right to be identified as human beings differentiated based on their biological sex? No. Insist to focus only on one’s disorder???

C: It’s disgusting that you think that a person is disordered just because of who they love. Besides the AMA doesn’t even consider homosexuality to be a disorder anymore.

L: You seem to be too naive about the history of how fanatics during the homophile movement pressurised the APA into declassifying it as a mental disorder from the DSM by personal attacks on trustees. Not a single qualified and reviewed real scientific work supports it as yet.

C: You are through and through just a horrible homophobe. God help you.

L: Thank you. I hope someday you realise the error you are unknowingly supporting and mend your ways. God bless you.

C: Just trying to live out the gospel and standing up for our fellow brothers, sisters, and siblings on the margins. Gay people don’t need to hear this *** from you, period.

L: The gospel says quite the opposite of what you believe though regarding homosexuality. The day people like you stop condoning grave sin by using fancy terminologies to trap people, at least children will be saved from lies.

C: Well the difference between you and I is that I don’t make presumptions about their supposed “lifestyle”. How are you or I supposed to know what their ‘lifestyle’ is like since neither of us lives with them on a daily basis?

L: Both of us know that that is just an excuse, my friend. I am not the one assuming their lifestyle, it is they who showcase their identity regarding their sexual inclinations. Is that the only purpose of man’s existence? No. Yet they focus on only that and who am I act blind to it.

C: Just an excuse? How do you know that gays are engaging in sex all the time?

L: Did I or anyone say so? It is their disordered sexual inclination which they want themselves to be identified as which tells the whole world that their purpose of existence is just this. If I do not have any intention ever then why insist about it so much?

C: Well, why would you want them to hide an integral part of their identity? They just want to have the right to be themselves, and not be forced to be who someone else, or a religious belief system, wants them to be.

L: I do not want to force anyone to hide anything. All that I am saying is that they cannot have it both ways. If they insist that their disordered inclination be highlighted as their purpose of existence and identity then they shouldn’t say that they won’t engage in the act ever.

C: There you go again. You are referring to them as a disorder!

L: On the one hand you want to identify yourself as a person who is having a sexual inclination disorder but at the same time you want to protest when someone is cautious of people with such tendencies assuming that you would get on with the act someday. How about creating and promoting an identity such as Repenting Gay? RG instead of G? Someone who flaunts his identity as an RG is certainly not proud of his disordered inclination and is really serious about exploring all ways to get rid of this disorder. Instead, you guys are trying to trick them by forcing them to stay a slave of that disorder for life.

C: Sounds like someone who’s gone to conversion therapy. A practice which has been proven to be dangerous.

L: Again a random fake claim which has no real scientific basis. There are 1000s of reported cases from reputed institutions helping them conquer this. As long as one doesn’t intend to try and change his disordered sexual inclinations, you can never claim that he will not engage in this unnatural sexual act in future.

C: It’s like already convicting someone of a crime that they haven’t committed.

L: It’s not a conviction. It’s being cautious of being who are proud of their identities. Did anyone force them to announce their disordered identity?

C: The thought that someone is “disordered” simply because they are gay is absolutely sickening.

L: Is it? Is the thought that one’s inclinations are disordered ‘simply’ because one has inclinations for child sex (or genocide or incest or drug abuse) also sickening? It doesn’t seem so to you, right?

C: The fact that you link a gay person to those behaviours is also sickening. You haven’t shared one shred of evidence that suggests they engage in those behaviours!!!

L: You don’t even think the act of homosexuality is unnatural or a sin? Then why waste time defending just the disordered inclination? Why don’t you first defend the act and settle about it before getting down to the inclination?

C: It’s not about defending an act. It’s about protecting a segment of the population from being stomped upon by people like you!!!

L: Whom all do you intend to protect? You are keen on protecting people who engage in homosexuality only or adulterers and people who engage in child sex and incest too?

C: Are you suggesting that this is what gay people engage in?

L: No. If you are defending homosexuality then I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t defend these others acts too.

C: I don’t. I defend these very people from people like you who define them using such offensive and disparaging terms.

L: All these categories of people have disordered sexual inclinations and they hope that someday they will be allowed to freely engage in these immoral acts. Why is so special about homosexuality, why not stand by adulterers and others too?

C: Why is it disordered to engage privately with an adult member of the same sex?

L: Why is it disordered to engage privately with a child or adult family member or another man’s wife?

C: That’s beside the point. Contrary to what you think, gays are not paedophiles or adulterers.

L: I never said they are. If you can defend homosexuality then you will defend others next. And also end up giving all these other categories a free hand to fight for their identity to ravage society.

C: No I won’t. The other acts are acts of power, not of sexual attraction.

L: By the way, you just defended the merciless killing of innocent pre-borns even though that is a blatant abuse of power.

C: Ummm…Not when the physical load has to be taken by the woman.

L: Did the child force open the woman’s womb and land in it one fine day without the willful consent of this very woman? What was the woman thinking when she invited the innocent into her womb? It is human life like hers. Get back to your senses.

C: She didn’t invite it into her womb. The decision on whether or not she wants to carry it to term should be made by the woman in consultation with her family and her doctors, not you or me.

L: oh…if she didn’t invite the child into her womb, who did that injustice to her?

C: If it’s not her will to get pregnant then the child or fetus is not invited.

L: Was she in a coma when she engaged in sexual intercourse that now she is claiming to have not invited the child into her womb? Didn’t she know that a child is expected to be conceived after engaging in sexual intercourse?

L: By the way you skipped my easier question about how is child sex, incest, adultery, drug abuse, suicide, or self-abuse, an act of power.

C: In the case of child sex, it involves someone taking advantage of a child and violating him/her in the most disgusting of ways. It is grotesque and I condemn it in the highest possible terms, however, there is no legitimate link between gay people and such acts.

L: Would you reconsider your take on this if the child is interested in it and gives consent to it? Will you change your stand if a group of children take out a protest rally against people like you who are making them sick by your lecture on morality?

C: Now you’re going off the deep end. Goodbye!!!

L: Don’t call it quits already. Hold on.

L: You say that an inclination to sin is not a sin by itself. You say that a person with an orientation to sin is not a sinner already. To be more specific, you say that same-sex attraction or homosexual orientation is not a sin. Similarly, you may say that just an inclination to fornicate is not a sin. In that case,

Is it a sin to insist that my objectively disordered orientation be highlighted as my primary identity?

If yes, you should discourage people from identifying as gay/lesbian.

If not, you are also in many ways encouraging other people at large in society to fight for their right to identify themselves with inclinations for fornication, child sex, pornography, and so on the list will never end.