Dagnabbit! sussed out 
Would you have included the same warning if it was a heterosexual website with the same content?
Damn!
A clearer iteration of what I posted above:
"On the surface, 2.5 actually has a point. Why should there be warnings about non-sexual links to gay-themed webpages?
However, as I alluded to previously, even though the very thread that inspired this rant was partially a discussion about current levels of acceptance, I felt it was not up to me to decide for the many clearly open-minded members here at the Dope what was acceptable to non-accepting others who might see what they’ve clicked on and who have power over that.
Would that (and that’s a big “would,” larger than 2.5 inches) our OP had carefully read and thought through everything connected with that warning, he might have recognized that.
Or, given the history, perhaps not.
- At least I have my toaster."
If a link in a thread not about women’s jumblies led to a site with Victoria’s Secret ads, I should think it’d be only proper.
No, because I live in the real world and understand that, in a heteronormative society, those who needed to be concerned about that and had two brain cells would have already been given ample opportunity to figure out where their PTB stood.
I’m not saying the situation as it stands is right but I do understand that double standards exist right now and wanted to give members of the Dope who were reading along the chance to make up their own minds on which side of the standard they stood, given their personal constraints, about which I knew nothing.
Consideration goes both ways.
I can’t speak for 5-4-Fighting, but I would have. A link that has advertising with half or more naked people certainly would qualify as NSFW in most offices.
Not to be the one agreeing with 2.5" (although I find him a lot less irritating than everyone else seems to) but he doesn’t have to be gay to call someone out for being a bigot or whatever.
Not that I find his outrage any more reasonable than the rest of you, but your question shouldn’t be asked, in general.
IIRC correctly, this is the guy who once stated he’d dump his SO if he/she became paralyzed.
But we’re the insensitive ones.
Considering that there are plenty of women who leave their husbands because they can’t maintain an erection (and presumably plenty of men who leave for similar reasons) I can’t really fault him for that.
It’s pretty hard to judge someone for that unless your SO has been paralyzed, heaven forbid.
There are plenty of pit threads started by someone with no stake in the issue. The abundance of RO threads are prime examples.
However, he is pitting something and calling it homophobia. He is pitting something that was done by a gay doper and merely clarified by a mod. Even if there was actual homophobia there…we have plenty of gay people here who have no problem calling other dopers out on it. So, not only is he jumping in to something that doesn’t concern him, but he is completely wrong about the basis of this thread.
I’m fortunate to have married an understanding woman—as I’ve aged, I’ve noticed an increasing difficulty maintaining my erection. Sometimes it goes down for an hour or two a day.
Maybe so. But I think it’s more the history of the OP, who tends to be rather shallow about certain things, complaing about homophobia being endorsed on THIS board, of all places.
I hear it gets worse after puberty 
(well played)
My you are a lucky soul.
Sometimes mine gets hard, why only last February…
Point taken.
Damn it, I’m always late to these things. I thought we were Homophoneaphobic.
I started a thread related to this is Great Debates.
I so read that as “fisties” and thought that an admirable compromise. 
Well, maybe ewe are …