I’m looking at Don Surber’s post concerning Tony Perkins blog post at the WP. He notes that the comments are universally negative concerning Mr. Perkins at the post.
Now we Roman Catholics treat Homosexuality differently than most Protestants, we don’t consider the orientation a sin (the Catechism calls it “intrinsically disordered”) but the act is.
So although there is disagreement here. Let’s ask the questions I’ve already asked once before on Twitter:
As believing Protestants believe homosexuality is a sin, does that mean that all believing protestants are by definition bigots who are unworthy of being in the Washington Post?
As believing Orthodox Jews consider homosexuality a sin does that mean that all believing protestants are by definition bigots who are unworthy of being in the Washington Post?
As believing Muslims consider homosexuality a sin does that mean that all believing Muslims are by definition bigots who are unworthy of being in the Washington Post? That’s a tough one, gotta be inclusive here.
As believing Catholics consider homosexual acts sinful does that mean that all believing Catholics are by definition bigots who are unworthy of being in the Washington Post?
If you answered yes to any and all of those questions, then the question you need to ask yourself is? Are I a bigot who is unworthy of being in the Washington Post?
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
I’m afraid I don’t get the distinction, boss.
The Bible says everyone is tempted variously.
I’m unaware of any Christians holding that the temptation, itself, is sinful.
Probably you’re right and there is a fringe knob or two assuming that. . .position.
A person might be inclined to be a drinker, but it is the act of willingly becoming drunk that is the sin, so you nearly have it, it is not the temptation but giving in to the temptation that is the issue in the Catholic Church