This is utterly stupid...
No, the problem is verifable facts tend to have a liberal bias. Your argument against neutrality is you disagree with the premise of the boycott.
No, sorry. That does not effect our children. You are assuming that the view that you share with people happily identify with and call Arab terrorists is the ideal one. You have not made any argument regarding harm for children. Please, come at me with some facts that support harm to children by seeing two women kissing. Facts. Even the opponents of same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court couldn't demonstrate any harm in same-sex marriage. There are plenty of studies that actually demonstrate that there is no harm, that children with same-sex parents do as well or better than their peers.
I see: You are a bigot towards Arabs, but you do have something in common. And I do have an open mind. I am not forcing you to boycott anything. I am not forcing you to engage with sex with someone of the same gender. I am not forcing you to be supportive of our children who are gay who come out to you, and telling you to feed, clothe and love them. I am not telling you what news stories you can contribute to Wikinews. The force appears to be on your part, where you are demanding content be written to your specific point of view, that caters to your prejudices and ignores facts to suit your world view.
If you believe the story is non-neutral, I invite (but do not force) you to write a follow up as the protests are ongoing that conforms to what you perceive as a more neutral point of view.
If homosexuality is allowed on the street, why can't I do the following things in public:
- make out with my dog
- make out with a dead body
- eat a dead human in public
- be naked in public
- have sex in public
According to your logic, these (especially the first few) have NO effects on children. So I guess we should allow people to engage in such acts in public?
It's really hard to take your above remark seriously. Are you practicing performance art, illustrating that bigots when left to their own devices will ultimately embody the idiocy of their position?
I think his point is that bigots like himself have no self control, that upon seeing two women making out, he wants to engage in zoophilia and necrophilia. That's kind of sick and twisted that his self control is so awful that he fears the consequences of viewing two women kissing would lead him to engaging in sex acts with dogs and dead bodies.
If heterosexuality is allowed on the street, why can't you have sex with a dead dog in public while eating a sandwich from a corpse you just killed? According to your logic, you can.
Why are you coming at me with the fallacy of the slippery slope? Oh, that's right. Because your reality is an opinion based reality derived from what you believe, not from facts. You have no proof to support the claims you made, so you made something up to try to win. I can see this argument. Let's start with the slippery slope here: All promotion of heterosexual behavior is the problem. No public affection of any kind should be public, be it on the streets or on television. By encouraging heterosexual behavior, we encourage homosexual behavior. This heterosexual behavior will eventually lead you to making out with your dog and eating a dead dog in public.
Now, after that laugh, let's get back to our fact based reality where you still have provided no research that supports your claim of harm to children.