You’re priceless…we don’t have to go any farther than this thread. You make juvenile slanders to the author, I ask you to name one and you tell me to “re-read the article” to support your own allegations and then accuse me of “leading by example” for NOT having an argument. Textbook hypocrisy of doing that which condemn. You’re a real piece of work.
But being the fair-minded person that I am I’ll give you one more chance to prove your accusations of the author. Name one “canard” in this article.
I know it must be a challenge, but try to comprehend the context before replying next time.
I'm not playing any silly games with you. I know better than to think you'll actually give a reasoned thought to any of it, but I'll go along for the sake of other readers.
"It's damaging to individuals". B.S. Homosexuality, practiced safely and monogamously, is no more unhealthy than heterosexuality. The author's implication is that there is no such thing as safe or healthy homosexuality.
The author also states "it's damaging to society" and as supposed proof relates the story of one abberant convention in Chicago and extrapolates that this is representative of homosexuality. This is as ludicrous as saying the Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach, with it's rapes, stabbings, shootings, and deaths, are representative of black culture.
It's a canard. Anyone who would say otherwise simply refuses to acknowledge their prejudice and/or ignorance.