12 Jun 16
Originally posted by EladarIf something doesn't harm anyone, what logical reason is there to find it "offensive"?
People who find the movie offensive can boycott the movie. Judgmental hypocrites who claim to be inclusive and freedom loving can belittle those who boycott the movie.
What else is new?
13 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyHomosexual behavior has been demonstrated to lead to physical, emotional and spiritual harm by some. Of course I wouldn't expect you to believe what they say because their beliefs are not grounded in what you believe so their statements are grounded in circular reasoning.
How is it "circular"? It's a fact that being homosexual doesn't cause harm to anyone. Therefore, no reason exists to be offended by it.
Here is an example: http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/
14 Jun 16
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarThe link you posted is from a religious site. At the bottom of their fact page, they mentioned they reprinted information from the Catholic Medical Association. Furthermore, the site links to a video featuring Christopher Rosik, a man who wrote a paper on the "Presbyterian Church’s ordination standard". This means the link you provided isn't credible, since religious organizations have an agenda.
Homosexual behavior has been demonstrated to lead to physical, emotional and spiritual harm by some. Of course I wouldn't expect you to believe what they say because their beliefs are not grounded in what you believe so their statements are grounded in circular reasoning.
Here is an example: http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/
It's interesting how this site seems to try to hide the fact that they're religious, as if they know this destroys their credibility. However, even without the religious ties indicated on their site, it's quite clear they have a religious agenda, like when they express their belief that gay marriage bad.
14 Jun 16
Originally posted by vivifySo a religious site automatically means the info is incorrect. As I said, circular reasoning.
The link you posted is from a religious site. At the bottom of their fact page, they mentioned they reprinted information from the Catholic Medical Association. Furthermore, the site links to a video featuring Christopher Rosik, a man who wrote a paper on the "Presbyterian Church’s ordination standard". This means the link you provided isn't credible, sin ...[text shortened]... e clear they have a religious agenda, like when they express their belief that gay marriage bad.
14 Jun 16
Originally posted by vivifyI can't understand how being religious or non religious alters ones credibility.
The link you posted is from a religious site. At the bottom of their fact page, they mentioned they reprinted information from the Catholic Medical Association. Furthermore, the site links to a video featuring Christopher Rosik, a man who wrote a paper on the "Presbyterian Church’s ordination standard". This means the link you provided isn't credible, sin ...[text shortened]... e clear they have a religious agenda, like when they express their belief that gay marriage bad.
14 Jun 16
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/mens-health/in-depth/health-issues-for-gay-men/art-20047107
Understand important health issues for gay men and men who have sex with men — from sexually transmitted infections to depression
Do you accept the Mayo Clinic?
Gay men have higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and mental disorders. Would you consider these harmful?
14 Jun 16
Originally posted by EladarExcept that's not what I said. I said religious sites have a religious agenda, which is usually true. given that the site dedicates a lot (if not most) of its resources promoting anti-gay ideas, saying they have an agenda seems reasonable. The man whose video they link to (Christopher Rosik) has an anti-gay organization.
So a religious site automatically means the info is incorrect. As I said, circular reasoning.
Furthermore, don't you find it interesting that the ONLY "educational" sources you have that claim homosexuality is unhealthy, are religious? That should tell you something.
14 Jun 16
Originally posted by vivifySecular sites have secular agendas, what is your point?
Except that's not what I said. I said religious sites have a religious agenda, which is usually true. given that the site dedicates a lot (if not most) of its resources promoting anti-gay ideas, saying they have an agenda seems reasonable. The man whose video they link to (Christopher Rosik) has an anti-gay organization.
Furthermore, don't you find it ...[text shortened]... you have that claim homosexuality is unhealthy, are religious? That should tell you something.