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.