On 2 Nov, 12:19, Claire  wrote:
> On 2 Nov, 11:37, Adrian  wrote:
>
> > Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > they were saying:
>
> > >> <sigh> You've already said that you don't professionally discriminate.
> > >> However, you _are_ refusing to condemn those who do.
> > > Two things here. In this case the problem was that it was a church
> > > organisation and this rule did not exist when they first became
> > > involved.
>
> > Else, of course, they wouldn't become involved - because avoiding
> > poofters
>
> There's no need for slurs! I would never call a Gay person a
> "poofter".
>
> >is more important than helping find kids families.
>
> We're going around in circles here.
>
> > > There are jobs I feel would conflict with my Christian conscience and
> > > as I have already said. Giving children to same-sex couples would be
> > > one of them.
>
> > Right.
>
> > >> If you feel that you're marked by the company you keep, then fine.
> > > You were just as prejudiced about me before we got talking
>
> > Not at all.
>
> Go back and read my post. It took two days just to get you to
> understand I could see other people had a different views to me and
> had a right to!!! :-/
>
> > > and now I have challenged you on this you are starting to understand a
> > > tiny bit better where I am coming from.
>
> > Indeed, I do seem to be understanding exactly where you're coming from.
> > And it's not a very nice place.
>
> <shrug>
>
> > > I feel you are prejudging many of my fellow-Christians and that this is
> > > not fair.
>
> > "Pre-judging"? No.
> > Judging based on the reports of their actions, words and deeds? Yes.
>
> > Are you suggesting that the media have fundamentally misrepresented
> > them?
>
> By and large the media has been balanced and respectful of religious
> sensitivities on this issue for the most part.
>
> > Fair enough. I presume there's a complaint been lodged with the Press
> > Complaints Commission?
>
> Its nothing to do with the press. What are you going on about?
>
>
>
> > >> > No, I don't think Christians should be supporting a lifestyle that
> > >> > contradicts the biblical teaching.
> > >> I'm still waiting for you to tell me how _refusing to discriminate_ is
> > >> the same as _supporting_?
> > > Just read all my other posts for that answer.
>
> > I have. You haven't explained. That's why I'm still waiting.
>
> > >> > Just like a non-drug user would have issues if asked to buy
> > >> > somebody's Crack for them!
> > >> <chuckle> Was that a deliberate choice, given the context?
> > > How do you mean?
>
> > Crack. Arse crack. No, never mind...
>
> ROTFL!!!! :-)
>
>
>
> > >> It's an abysmal analogy, though.
> > > Not even remotely as abysmal as the Dr Shipman analogy or the Nick
> > > Griffin analogy!!
>
> > Would that be because you think it's wrong to kill (even a handful) of
> > people or to be nasty to black people, but don't have a problem with
> > discrimination against gays?
>
> I don't think it is right to kill Gay people or be nasty to them.
>
>
>
> > >> Firstly, nobody's asking the adoption agency to act as a dating agency
> > >> for people who happen to be gay.
> > > Just the stalk! ;-)
>
> > Assuming you mean "Stork", then are you implying that all gay people are
> > paedophiles?
>
> What??? No, the adoption agency is acting as the Stolk! Typical that
> you would twist that into something sinister!

Sorry for spelling, yes Stork! <oops> As in ...,

http://www.eatlocal.org/newsletter/2009/january/baby_stork.jpg