A homosexual that has a lot of experience being a homosexual will tell you it's perfectly ok to be that way too. I would still argue that it isn't. It all boils down to what each side of the argument likes.
But you wouldn't base your opinion of not being homo on a newspaper article, right?
Nor would I base my opinion on what you say. Why? Because you are obviously passionate about this subject, therefore extremely biased. I'm not saying that to be insulting, just stating the obvious based on how defensive you get. My point is, no one is going to change anyone else's opinion about something they love.
i only echo what the professionals say. I suggest folks do like myself and research for themselves. Take for instance the article sbs posted that'll i'll link below.
[img]
https://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/dogbreeds.pdf[/img]
Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional
and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical
alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites.
the whole article is intresting to me, i took this excert because most folks wont read it.
