I often wonder if I should be looking at a computer screen at all. I think my eyesight has deteriorated more rapidly in the 15 years I've used the internet than it would have done otherwise. That's probably because I've overused it.
Spending time at a computer screen doesn't have a harmful impact on your eyesight, intrinsically. Sitting at a non-optimal distance from the screen can have an impact, over time, but just screen-use itself doesn't
Isn't this about what we use as our primary source of information, though (ie, not the internet)?
Saying 'not the internet' is like saying 'not books'. It's a medium, not a source - which sites you use ON the internet is important, but that it's the internet isn't very revealing.
Likewise, the primary function of the anus is as a poop hole.
If, by 'primary', you mean evolved, well then your bifocal vision is evolved to gauge range in order to be able to effectively hunt, and yet (as above) you use it to read... put down that unnatural Bible. I'm pretty sure you didn't develop limbs in order to wear clothes, either... Or, of course, you could just be falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy.
Notwithstanding, of course, that anal sex is not a good crossover with gay people - for a start I suspect there's a significantly smaller number of gay women that partake then straight women, I've no idea what proportion of gay men practice it but it's short of all of them and there are straight couples (and throuples, and other groupings) that do it.
If someone wants to use their sex organs only in a way that has nothing to do with their primary function, that says to me that, like children or the 18 year-old who wants to marry an 80 year-old, they do not have the critical faculties to understand what marriage is for.
Ok, so no-one who doesn't want children has the 'critical faculties' to get married, because they don't intend to use their sex organs to comply with what you think a marriage is about?
The fixation with that particular practice as somehow synonymous with gay sex, and therefore as some sort of gauge as to whether marriage should be permitted suggests that:
a) you don't understand the range of sexual activities that the range of people known as human beings get up to; and,
b) that marriage is primarily about sex for you.
If partaking in anal sex is, as you suggest, evidence that someone is so short of their faculties that they should be considered incapable of the deep understanding that marriage entails, how come the vicar doesn't ask if anyone in the congregations knows of good evidence that either of the couple have partaken? Or is that supposed to be implicit in the 'any good reason why these two should not be wed...'?
And I;m not setting out to offend here, rather to defend against the charge of homophobia. Apparently UK law supports my view, as while allowing ministers of religion to decline conducting same sex marriage, it also outlaws homophobia.
So parsing marriage into breeders-only colony isn't homophobic because...
So according to it, that exception is not homophobic, neither am I for supporting it.
No, you're mistaking what the law says. It doesn't say that the religious exemptions don't constitute homophobia, it says that the law considers religion a justifiable basis for discrimination in this particular area. You could argue that, because religious belief is also a protected characteristic that this is an attempt to balance two competing sets of rights, or you could argue that religion is fundamentally a different concept than the other protected characteristics and shouldn't be considered in the same light, but what you can't argue is that because it's legal it's somehow not homophobia any more. It's homophobia, it's just legal homophobia.
O.
