Originally posted by whodey
What is this thing you call the internet?

It is an invention of Al Gore. Much like the global warming scandal is also partly his invention.

Originally posted by Eladar
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/mens-health/in-depth/health-issues-for-gay-men/art-20047107


[b]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?[/b]

a) This site doesn't claim homosexuality is harmful

b) Gays who don't already have STD's aren't harmed by being in relationships with each other.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
nope.

Doesn't make it harmless either.

Originally posted by Eladar
Secular sites have secular agendas, what is your point?

Religious sites have agendas that make their "findings" on homosexuality tainted by bias, unlike secular ones.

Originally posted by vivify
Religious sites have agendas that make their "findings" on homosexuality tainted by bias, unlike secular ones.

You mean secular sites that want to deny 'religious beliefs' that disagree with their belief structure do not have agendas?

I'm sure this is true in your mind. It helps you to believe that your beliefs are absolute truth. As a matter of fact such devotion to one's sources of truth is essential for the true believer.

Originally posted by vivify
a) This site doesn't claim homosexuality is harmful

b) Gays who don't already have STD's aren't harmed by being in relationships with each other.

I suppose homosexuality itself and its impact on those who practice it are two different things, if one is a true believer and wants to put his head in the sand.

Originally posted by Eladar
I suppose homosexuality itself and its impact on those who practice it are two different things, if one is a true believer and wants to put his head in the sand.

By that logic, heterosexual sex is harmful, since many heteros have contracted STDs, and many straight people have been emotionally damaged by heterosexual relationships.

Originally posted by vivify
a) This site doesn't claim homosexuality is harmful

b) Gays who don't already have STD's aren't harmed by being in relationships with each other.

This argument mixes free love, with the threat of spreading STDs.

a. Who cares.

b. People having indiscriminate sex, often with no regard to gender, do pose a threat to those they get to accept their advances.

Clearly, monogamy limits the spread of STDs, whether that monogamy is hetero or homo.

Originally posted by vivify
By that logic, heterosexual sex is harmful, since many heteros have contracted STDs, and many straight people have been emotionally damaged by heterosexual relationships.

By that logic no health style is bad for you since people die of things like heart attacks and lung cancer no matter what the lifestyle choice. So what if certain lifestyles result in higher rates of deaths, nothing is harmful.

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/std.htm

17 times more likely to get cancer, who cares? That's not harmful.

Originally posted by Eladar
By that logic no health style is bad for you since people die of things like heart attacks and lung cancer no matter what the lifestyle choice. So what if certain lifestyles result in higher rates of deaths, nothing is harmful.

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/std.htm

17 times more likely to get cancer, who cares? That's not harmful.

When it comes to sex, it's only unsafe practices that lead to the higher rates of death. If gay sex isn't harmful in of itself (like with gay couples who don't already have STDs), why should it stop?

EDIT: regarding your "17 percent more" statistic, that's listed under a section discussing STDs. For example, it says that gay men with AIDS are even more likely to get anal cancer. So again, it's all about safe sex practices.

Originally posted by vivify
When it comes to sex, it's only unsafe practices that lead to the higher rates of death. If gay sex isn't harmful in of itself (like with gay couples who don't already have STDs), why should it stop?

Spoken like a true believer.

Originally posted by Eladar
You mean secular sites that want to deny 'religious beliefs' that disagree with their belief structure do not have agendas?

I'm sure this is true in your mind. It helps you to believe that your beliefs are absolute truth. As a matter of fact such devotion to one's sources of truth is essential for the true believer.

Secular sites have no reason to promote or denounce homosexuality, unlike religious ones. That makes a secular authority's findings more objective.

Originally posted by shavixmir
It's like Pulp Fiction:

But you have heard of the medium of TV...


Do they have electricity below the Mason-Dixie line?

Back in some of the more remote hollers, they ain't no 'lectric juice.

Originally posted by vivify
Secular sites have no reason to promote or denounce homosexuality, unlike religious ones. That makes a secular authority's findings more valid and objective.

Secular sites are just as biased to their success as are religious ones. Some secular sites, amount to religions of their own.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Finding Dory's (or whatever) trailer has caused a commotion on twitter.
Now, for sure, I have about as much respect for twitterers as I do for dog poo, but seemingly the media does listen to their moronic moaning...

Now, in the trailer it looks like.... Two women are helping a baby and the twitter community (presumably community is an exaggeration) is ...[text shortened]... ing frogs), but two women (I hardly think it was a sex scene) aren't.

Let's shoot twitterers!

I just saw this with my son. I enjoyed it, but made the colossal mistake of seeing it in 3-D. Not worth the extra money; the movie barely had any scene that made use of 3-D. At best, there was some object that popped out for 1 or 2 seconds, and that was few and far in between. The glasses made the images dark and murkey, cancelling out the bright colors of the movie. My 3 yr old didn't like the glasses, and chose to watch the blurry images instead (which is how 3-D movies look without the glasses). That just made me feel horrible. Fck 3-D.

I didnt see any lesbian parents, which is what caused the outrage. Every couple in the movie was hetero. All this outrage was just a waste of time (though if there were a gay couple, the protests still would've been a waste of time).

Go see it. It was a lovely movie.