Our Nation's Founding Exalted Purposes (Homophobia and more Homophobia, apparently)

So, Rick Scarborough, blah blah, you're a right wing douchebag, etc., but seriously: what do you mean when you say this:

"This week every single Democrat candidate participated in a first ever homosexual sponsored debate carried live on a homosexual television network. As the latest reminder of how far we have fallen from the exalted purposes upon which this nation was founded, consider that the first thing the public discovered about the hosts of this debate was the method they chose for their sex acts. Can you imagine the great Lincoln/Douglas debates being hosted by any group that first advertised their sexual proclivities?"

Well, yeah, I can -- it's not that hard. Just picture Melissa Ethridge, then picture Lincoln and Douglas. It's really not challenging, and it in no way changes what came after. I just got to find out that Melissa Ethridge was gay first (yes she is!), then there was mind-blowing oratory. By the way, Rick, did you know Lincoln was totally, totally gay?

But Rick, buddy, what do you think the exalted purposes upon which this nation was founded were? Seriously. What were they, that are so threatened by homosexuals sponsoring a debate (or, like, whatever)? I checked your website for more information, and found this:

"Our nation is abandoning the bedrock moral values, which are our heritage from God, and the very foundation of our liberty."

So I guess what you're saying here, Rick, is that America was founded on Christian values, and that the foundation of liberty is somehow wrapped up in honoring your mother and father, etc. Well I can't argue with that (I mean, I can, but I'm not going to bother, cause you're not going to listen to me, and you're really barely coherent to begin with). I could argue that Christian values include tolerance and do not include homophobia, and are pretty clear about the whole "Jesus started a new covenant which invalidated all the old rules like leaving the corner of your field unplowed and murdering all the gays so you don't have to do that stuff any more" thing, but I doubt you would really listen to that either, because you are just so sure that God hates the gays. I mean, loves the gays but hates the gay sex. Or however you put it that makes your hate-shaped peg fit into your love-shaped hole. Wait, I feel a gay joke coming on!

Anyway, Rick, let's just go back to the initial article, where you hilariously include this wee passage:

"While some who read my ranting will take their time to castigate me for being involved in such things as politics and remind me that I should confine my time to feeding the poor and preaching the gospel,"

Yes, yes, that's why I'm taking my time. You don't miss a trick, do you, Rick? But wait, I actually agree with you! You continue the above sentence to say:

"in England this week, the Catholic Church was instructed by the courts there that they could not remove a principal from their school who had entered into a domestic partnership. The Archdiocese of Liverpool has been unable to take action against Charles Coyne, the head of St Cecilia's primary school, who has registered a partnership with Richard Jones, who is believed to work at a nearby school. Pope Benedict XVI has called civil partnerships "anarchic" and a danger to the family. The couple, who live together, had a reception in a parish centre, yet this religious school can do nothing about it because of legal protections enacted by their governing bodies and enforced by their courts. Can you imagine the insanity of a church school which is attempting to teach what they [sic] believe the Scripture teaches about homosexuality while their principal lives in open defiance of the church’s position and the school is unable to do anything about it?"

Now this is awfully crazy, indeed. Why the guy wants to work there in the first place is beyond me, but that's not the point, and in fact I heartily salute you, Mr. Coyne, for showing that neither your sexuality nor your faith is a choice, for surely you would've changed one of 'em already if you could. I'm not saying which one. Also, Rick? According to a cursory check of the Internet (and I'm not saying your site isn't reliable, no siree bob!), it would seem the Catholic Church was not "instructed by the courts" anywhere, but simply asked their lawyers what their chances would be about firing this Sinny McSinner, what with this whole Equality Act thing. The lawyers muttered something about a snowball and "that place y'all Catholics are always talking about" then stumbled to a bar to re-evaluate their career choices.

That last bit might be apocryphal, I'm not sure. I seriously doubt English lawyers say "y'all", who makes this shit up, anyway? (Oh right, me.)

Anyway, the school "is attempting to teach what they believe the Scripture teaches about homosexuality" [emphasis, um, mine, in case you can't move your eyes up], and they have to do it while employing a man who lives in opposition to those teachings. Now one could take some cheap shots here at the fucking Catholic Church wanting to actually fire a gay man, unlike they do with, I don't know, thousands of gay child molesting priests, but I'm above all that. So I'll just say that if what you're preaching is so out of step with the lifestyles of people the government won't let you fire, maybe you want to just take a second and think that maybe the issue is with what you're preaching, huh Rick? Rick? Rick? Helloooo?

Damn, I think he left.