These seem to be the main points Ms. Hicks, FHUBaller and others brought up, so I’m going to try to do this quickly point by point:

Biblical arguments: First off, if you eat shrimp, mix fabrics or talk to menstruating women, you are henceforth barred from using the Old Testament to support your arguments. It’s all or nothing. If you separate the OT from the NT as modern Christians are wont to do, then at least keep in mind the historical context in which those passages were written and societal biases regarding modern translations. Fun fact: there was no term for homosexual or homosexuality in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or ancient Greek. The term “homosexual” was coined in the 19th century and (omg!) that’s when it starts showing up in our bibles as a sloppy stand-in for the original languages’ words for pederasty, rape, orgies and prostitution.

The term “homophobia”: “Homophobia” is an improvised word used to encompass many expressions of negativity toward homosexuals from passive intolerance to aggressive assault. The suffix “-phobia,” while rooted in the Greek for “fear,” is also used to refer to a physical or psychological aversion toward something.

Blasphemy: The piece and its title were irreverent at worst and super funny at best. Accusations of blasphemy are a stretch.

Biology: A cursory search for “sexual orientation genetic” turns up loads of support for genetic determinants with regards to homosexuality. Another search for “homosexuality in nature” provides yet more instances of same-sex pairings in animals and further study on (or at the very least, implications for) humans. Note: I made careful effort to exclude all agenda-based publications whether they were pro-gay, anti-gay, conservative or liberal.

“Unnatural” sexuality: Above biological arguments aside, what about modern life is “natural” anymore? A lifetime of monogamy is unnatural. Glasses are unnatural. Standing in line for an iPhone is unnatural. We can revisit this point when you’re living naked in a cave.

Differing opinions vs. bigotry: Suggesting that we’re all debating valid opinions here implies we’re all able to support our viewpoints using facts and well-reasoned ethics. Bigotry denotes a clutching onto unfounded intolerance. For example (and I’m not being facetious), if I can’t quote from ancient Greek manuscripts regarding what Zeus thought about same sex relationships and expect you to take it into consideration, it stands to reason that arguments from your holy book won’t hold with people who don’t believe in it either.

Further, there is no ethical support for denouncing consensual, loving relationships since they do not directly or exclusively harm anyone else and, in fact, provide the same stability, fulfillment and joy as do consensual, loving heterosexual relationships.

And I do absolutely respect your beliefs as long as you’re using the requisite amount of consideration condemning millions of people deserves and not simply relying on blind faith.

I will always tell the truth according to the Bible, never my own wants, thoughts, or values. As a Christian, the commands of the Bible have to be our values because they are of Christ. How could it be any other way? And the Catholic church does not follow Biblical teaching in it’s entirety. How can it be Christian if it doesn’t?

Can I call myself perfect when I have sinned? Can I call myself a Civil Rights activist when if I were to hate black people? It’s all or nothing in this case, you can’t pick and chose what you will accept from the commands of Christ and what you won’t accept and call yourself a Christian.

I’m struggling to keep up with all the people you look down on.

How is that not condemning to the sexually immoral. Is homosexuality not sexually immoral?

And let’s not forget the cities of Sodom and Gamorrah! HELLO!