To boycott the new Disney movie

Originally posted by Eladar
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?

If something doesn't harm anyone, what logical reason is there to find it "offensive"?

Originally posted by vivify
If something doesn't harm anyone, what logical reason is there to find it "offensive"?

Circular reasoning, but believed to be absolute truth. Who can argue with that?

Originally posted by Eladar
Circular reasoning, but believed to be absolute truth. Who can argue with that?

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.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Frankly it's a little bizarre you managed to get to within astronomical units of the Internet and still never have heard of Twitter.

What is this thing you call the internet?

Originally posted by vivify
If something doesn't harm anyone, what logical reason is there to find it "offensive"?

it is their right

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is their right

Still doesn't make it logical.

Originally posted by vivify
Still doesn't make it logical.

nope.

Originally posted by vivify
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.

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/

Originally posted by Eladar
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/

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, since religious organizations have an agenda.

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.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Never said I'd never heard of it. Just that I've never had any call to use it because I don't know what it is.

Take it or leave it.

One day when I can be bothered might take a look at google.

I've never tweeted either.

Originally posted by vivify
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.

So a religious site automatically means the info is incorrect. As I said, circular reasoning.

Originally posted by vivify
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.

I can't understand how being religious or non religious alters ones credibility.

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?

Originally posted by Eladar
So a religious site automatically means the info is incorrect. As I said, circular reasoning.

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 interesting that the ONLY "educational" sources you have that claim homosexuality is unhealthy, are religious? That should tell you something.

Originally posted by vivify
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.

Secular sites have secular agendas, what is your point?