If all the gay and paedophile clergymen

[jillian]

I think the information in both sources should be considered, and weighed against other sources, using logic and common sense. But, the info in a religious source isn't necessarily null & void SIMPLY bc the source was religious.

Religious sources with regard to gays/abortion and I.D. are anti-science and not deserving of equal weight. They are so agenda-driven and bias-filled that they are unreliable. You choose to believe them, that's fine. But they shouldn't be imposed on others nor should others be expected to give them the weight you do. And I don't mean to sound rude to you in saying that. But you commented, so I responded.

And yes, it is null and void, in my estimation.

[darin]

Christ, man, are you seriously trying to site world net daily, the american family association, and traditionalvalues.org as unbiases sources of information?
Why don't I just site something from GLAAD or alternet or christianssuck.org?

The sites I've listed cite the source for their data. Read the links - Their data comes from a myriad of sources; that don't pull stuff out of their butts.

[jillian]

I think the information in both sources should be considered, and weighed against other sources, using logic and common sense. But, the info in a religious source isn't necessarily null & void SIMPLY bc the source was religious.

And I can tell you that if I ever linked to GLAAD, that they'd be on me like white on rice.

[Nienna]

Religious sources with regard to gays/abortion and I.D. are anti-science and not deserving of equal weight. They are so agenda-driven and bias-filled that they are unreliable. You choose to believe them, that's fine. But they shouldn't be imposed on others nor should others be expected to give them the weight you do. And I don't mean to sound rude to you in saying that. But you commented, so I responded.

And yes, it is null and void, in my estimation.

Wow... so you really don't think the content should be checked before rejecting a source? Hm. Not very objective.

[jillian]

Wow... so you really don't think the content should be checked before rejecting a source? Hm. Not very objective.

Why would I undertake the effort to check unreliable information when there is unbiased information available? Would be a waste of time for me to do, no?

[Bubbalicious]

I think the information in both sources should be considered, and weighed against other sources, using logic and common sense. But, the info in a religious source isn't necessarily null & void SIMPLY bc the source was religious.

If I go to the trouble of avoiding obviously biased sources, I expect the person I'm talking to to do the same.
And we've been at this "gayness is a sick sickness" topic and these are the only kinds of sources DMP and OCA post. And they claim "ownage" with them and then ignore everything else anyone ever says or posts on the subject.

[OCA]

If I go to the trouble of avoiding obviously biased sources, I expect the person I'm talking to to do the same.
And we've been at this "gayness is a sick sickness" topic and these are the only kinds of sources DMP and OCA post. And they claim "ownage" with them and then ignore everything else anyone ever says or posts on the subject.

Ummmm, the cdc is not a credible source? And please repost all these unbiased links you've linked everyone to, everyone seems to have missed them.

[Bubbalicious]

The sites I've listed cite the source for their data. Read the links - Their data comes from a myriad of sources; that don't pull stuff out of their butts.

Well if the links to their unbiased sources are right there why don't you just site them?

[Nienna]

Why would I undertake the effort to check unreliable information when there is unbiased information available? Would be a waste of time for me to do, no?

Why assume the information without checking?

[jillian]

Why assume the information without checking?

I already answered that, I think, as did Bubbles

[Bubbalicious]

Ummmm, the cdc is not a credible source? And please repost all these unbiased links you've linked everyone to, everyone seems to have missed them.

I just sited the canadian department of justice and got 'that's one source' and a big load of 'traditional godly family values counsel' bullshit.

[Nienna]

I already answered that, I think, as did Bubbles

Just pointing out that it is circular reasoning. Your bias prevents you from inspecting the information, because it is "obviously" biased.

[OCA]

Why would I undertake the effort to check unreliable information when there is unbiased information available? Would be a waste of time for me to do, no?

So where is this unbiased info you claim? You dissed the cdc link which showed that male to male sex is not the overwhelming cause of AIDS going and then somehow claimed that chicks are the category that is biggest in new AIDS cases....WTF?

[OCA]

I just sited the canadian department of justice and got 'that's one source' and a big load of 'traditional godly family values counsel' bullshit.

Unfortunately you'll have to get me an American source, can you do that?

[jillian]

So where is this unbiased info you claim? You dissed the cdc link which showed that male to male sex is not the overwhelming cause of AIDS going and then somehow claimed that chicks are the category that is biggest in new AIDS cases....WTF?

You did say that. And I pointed out that the CDC only related to cases in the US, not internationally.