You're joking, right?

Two points on this;

1) If the Catholics refused to give children up to black couples would that be fine? Whats the difference between the two types of discrimination other than one is more socially acceptable?

2) He also said that it was against natural law, which just pisses gays and gay right supporters off.

^ GOOD POST.

Child adoption is a civil matter, not a religious one. So those agencies have to run them according to the civil laws no matter how those clash with their personal beliefs of their staff and founders.

Besides you make it sound as if children are some product or property of adoption centers

Actually, there are people that fall in love with objects. Benches, Cars...hell, a woman got married to the Berlin wall, another to the Eiffel tower. It's possible :d.

I doubt that's sexual attraction though.

But imagine sex with a car.

Objectophilia. It is indeed sexual attraction.

Leviticus, chapter 18 verse 22  (New American Bible English translation) "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination." and Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed, they have forfeited their lives."

I did a whole research paper on those two laws last term, and got a 95 on it, but basically the laws are really hard to contextualize in the modern debate about homosexuality, since they specifically condemn homosexual acts (and then the exact Hebrew only specifically condemns anal penetration, and the one from chapter 18 only specifically condemns the penetrator, as it were), and there is some question as to whether they felt that the whole concept of homosexuality was abominable from a moral standpoint (though there is evidence to that effect, as the Hebrew words for man and woman have intrinsic in them what makes a proper man and woman), or condemned for more practical concerns (adult men were married, having sex with each other would lead to some drastic social problems), or even if they had a problem with homosexual acts for the same reason that they kept kosher, a point which would be irrelevant either way for modern Christians.

Leviticus also calls eating shellfish, pork and all sorts of other things. It really pisses me off that modern Christians use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality but then ignore the vast number of other things listed as abominations.

Hmm... my reading of this gives me only condemnation of bisexuality. I sure wouldn't "lie" with a woman the same way I would with a man. So that would make me fine?

Some people believe in the words of the bible; that's fine. I personally don't, but I won't be bothered by someone else's beliefs until they try shoving them down my throat or restrict what I can do that anyone else can do freely. This line also plays into the thought I've had in that you can read whatever you want to out of the bible; it's all a matter of how your twist words.