Let me get this straight.
You have done a tackiness and scantily-cladness comparison on two of the three worst papers ever printed and have decided that the Mail's stance is hypocritical?

Yet you still read them?

I don't want to spoil your lovely little frisson of outrage but can't you see the flaw here?

The ball is now in Dally's court to justify his statement that it "arguably" proves something.

It was deliberately stupid to highlight how stupid Dally was being. And you may wish to work on your ability to construct a simple sentence before you go around calling others stupid.

According to Dally, he doesn't read the Mail. He just links to their website about four times a day. Though how he knows which articles to link to without reading them is anyone's guess.

well not really, it isn't stupid to associate a mental dysfunction with homosexuality being caused by a mental affliction, what is stupid is that its assumed it was the stroke that caused him to become homosexual without any actual proof.

Yes, it is.

Whoah.

Earlier you were telling us about logic and proof ... and now you say this?

I blame it on drugs.

I mean, Kurt Cobain was straight before he started using smack.

Really? That is sheer prejudice and a closed mind speaking.

Speaking of which ... where is the "arguable" proof you mentioned?

The use of the word "arguable" was to stimulate debate! Unfortunately, as always with these "emotive" issues people "know" the answer through their brain-washed prejudice and debate descends into the gutter within seconds.

So your use of the words "arguably" and "prove" don't actually mean that you could construct an argument to prove what you were asserting.
How very odd.

You have plenty of previous in equating gay sexuality with immorality so, bearing that in mind, I am reluctant to believe you used the word "arguably" just to stimulate debate.
Indeed, I think you posted the article as some sort of mealy-mouthed "proof" of your grubby, narrow-minded, anti-gay views.

"Grubby"?

Yes.

Is that it then?
No defence of a) Your views or b) Your lack of cojones in backing them up?

To clarify, you are accusing me of prejudice and having a closed mind because I [idon't[/i accept the possibility that homosexuality is the result of some sort of mental illness?

Wow.

At best.

Illness / abnormality / whatever you want to call it - then, yes.

Which views? I am not sure that I have expressed any. I have not looked back to check - maybe you could just explain the views you are referring to?

That's your last two posts. In reference to mental health you appear to be equating homosexuality with "Illness/abnormality".

Hardly neutral terms. From equating homosexuality with those terms it doesn't take a giant leap for one to assume that you see homosexuality as a negative.

It's arguably progress – in the past, he's illustrated that his views on homosexuality are pretty much in line with those of Robert Mugabe.

You are failing to understand what has been written. I am not equating anything, just pointing out the bias of someone who denies the possibility.

To accept that possibility, you'd have to be starting from the position that homosexuality is somehow 'wrong' or 'abnormal'. Which would make you a disgusting bigot.

Even then, there's not a single shred of evidence to support the 'possibility', so I treat it exactly the same as anything else for which there is no evidence.

No it wouldn't.

Well the linked article (if true) suggests the possibility! Also, a cursory look via your search engine at studies might suggest the possibility.

Ah, we seem to have gone from 'arguably proves' to 'might suggest the possibility'. Your change in rhetoric aside, I'd be interested for you to show how the article you linked to 'might suggest the possibility' that homosexuality is the result of mental illness or abnormality.

Edit: a quick google search did not throw up any studies supporting Dally's grubby little hypothesis. I did find [url=http://www.apa.org/help/sexual-orientation.aspxthis[/url, however. An excerpt:

clearly taking snippets of my wording to fit it your argument, I made the point that it would be a fair assumption that given that somebody who's mental wiring had changed and then turned homosexual would indicate a mental relation to homosexuality. BUT there was no proof that this happened so it was a flawed article.