Traditional Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Got swamped in posts again so I’ll just give a general response. It will basically be the same question I asked earlier, but as has been demonstrated time and again over the past few weeks here, I have to extract every single possible iota of ambiguity and malleability out of any question in order to maaaaybe get a straight answer:

Pro-gay marriage advocates: Do you believe that your father could have filled the role your mother played in your life exactly as good as she did? And do you feel your mother could have performed just exactly as good as your father in the part he played in raising you?

To be (even more) clear, I am not talking about mothers who necessarily had to take up the role of the father in addition to their own due to unfortunate circumstances. I am asking, could either of your own parents have switched roles with no change in your life whatsoever?

Don’t worry about nit picking why the analogy is not perfect. I cannot make the question any more simple than it is: Could your father do your mother’s job exactly as good as she could, and could your mother do your father’s job exactly as good as he could?[/quote]

I’m not sure why you keep asking this question. Particularity given the direction our conversation was going from last week. See my previous response and/or the link I provided for a direct response to these questions.

Otherwise we’ll just be going over the EXACT SAME ground again and again. [/quote]

I’ll go back and look at your responses, but real quick, what’s your issue with the above? Just a quick sentence or two will suffice.

This is really the heart of the matter. We keep coming back to it because it doesn’t get acknowledged or the argument gets deflected or a non-sequitur is dropped and around and around we go again. But really, if gays are to receive the significant benefits and privileges that come with marriage, they have an obligation to demonstrate how their relationship provides an equivalent benefit to society.

In the case of heterosexual marriages, the benefit is absolutely essential, so the bar is set pretty damned high.

We’re not talking about some benefit just because. Homosexual marriage proponents are obligated to demonstrate that recognition of gay marriage fulfills a CRUCIAL societal need. And to further demonstrate how their particular relationship differs from other human relationships such as that of Bob and Harry, the two lifelong hetero bachelor fishing buddies who share a cabin on the Potomack. What is the actual difference, beyond sex?

One more time, I’ll go over some of the benefits heterosexual marriage entails:

  • Promotes stable families in which children are raised by their biological parents.
  • Children and mothers who are not a drain on the welfare system.
  • Children who, when raised in these families, grow up statistically more likely to become productive, taxpaying members of the society.
  • Children who, when raised in these families, grow up statistically more likely to go on to form stable families of their own.
  • Children who, when raised in these families, grow up statistically less likely to turn to a life of crime.
  • Propagation of the population in general (think of Japan).
  • Promotes a model that encourages others to marry, have children, and continue to propagate this healthy ideal.

That’s a LOT of pretty important stuff and it is not even exhaustive. We want more of this. And THAT is why we encourage heterosexuals to emulate this ideal by offering a number of perks, benefits and privileges for entering into such a contract. We are trying to encourage this model, and it is no accident that this is the model we have chosen over all others.

If another group wants to become privy to these benefits and privileges, they need to bring something to the table. And it’s going to have to be more, a LOT more, than just “We love each other, too!,” and “We can opt into the foster care program!”

262

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Thanks for the response. A few points:

-I didn’t imply that it was a tacit admission, I stated it bluntly. I still think this is true.[/quote]

It isn’t. Take my word for it.

Doesn’t particularly matter if it’s inetresting to you - what matters is whether it is relevant to publicly recognizing one form of marriage or another. It is relevant, but we narrowed the debate here to try and focus the not-so-focused gay marriage crowd.

No one is asking you to patrol the forums - but you pipe up often (on your own initiative) to complain about the lack of civility. That’s fine, but for the fact that your complaints always skew in one direction. That makes it difficult to take your complaints seriously.

As for me, I prefer civil, substantive debates, but there’s no need for kid gloves. I am fine with the “House of Commons”-style exchange. A little feistiness doesn’t bother me, as long it’s back up with good arguments.

You complain about this a lot (with respect to me in particular), but I’m just not persuaded by it. Seriously, as much as you seem to worry about my “inflammatory” posting and feel the need to comment on it, we get virtual radio silence from you on the “inflammatory” posts from colleagues who share your opinions.

Respond to whomever you like, that is your prerogative - but don’t expect any of us to actually believe this “above the fray, civility above all else” approach you are advocating in light of your inconsistency.

263

Excellent post Cortes.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
In the case of heterosexual marriages, the benefit is absolutely essential, so the bar is set pretty damned high.[/quote]

And irreplaceable (reproductive sexes). It’s absence proving to be destructive (out-of-wedlock, fatherless, child-rearing socio-economic stats) to an orderly and prosperous society. That is, with the reproductive sexes, children are going to be born (new people added) regardless of the existence of marriage. How many children, in what conditions, and how they develop is a concern. So consideration of how the reproductive sexes come together is made a concern by nature itself. Heterosexual marriage not only demonstrates it’s critical benefits by examining the positives where it is present, but also the negatives where it is now absent. The loss of intact hetero homes has destroyed many a neighborhood. Has produced multi-generational poverty and violent criminality.

The bar is set incredibly high as you say. As it should be. After all, we aren’t talking about two (or any number of people), in intimate or non-intimate relationships, exchanging rings and simply introducing themselves as married on a completely private level. That is, only enjoying the same state-benefits, priviliges, and status (recognition) at that of best friends. No, we’re discussing the elevating of a relationship above all others, up on a pedestal, to be emulated and desired. A DISCRIMINATING selection. A setting aside. The previously mentioned reasons are why we do this with the reproductive sexes. Those reasons give us our justification. Homosexual marriage doesn’t even come close to clearing that hurdle. Theirs is apparently a different hurdle. “Fair.” Besides being utterly stupid, ‘fair’ doesn’t end with with recognizing the relationship of two homosexuals.

264

[quote]Cortes wrote:

We’re not talking about some benefit just because. Homosexual marriage proponents are obligated to demonstrate that recognition of gay marriage fulfills a CRUCIAL societal need.
[/quote]

And WHY does it have to be crucial before being passed? MUCH of public policy provides benefits to society but isn’t crucial.

265

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

If this is true, then why does our law presume that a child belongs to its biological parents (which its does and always has)? [/quote]

We’ve always assumed it, therefore we should continue assuming it.

Can’t argue with that!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

We have never assumed equality here, never. And, for good reason - there’s no reason to. Our entire society, culture of family, and laws reflecting our beliefs on family are based on one singular proposition - children belong and should belong to their biological parents. We make exceptions to that rule, but they are exceptions, and not the rule. [/quote]

Hey Cortes remember when I said “because I said so” is not evidence earlier?

Here’s why.

266

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

We’re not talking about some benefit just because. Homosexual marriage proponents are obligated to demonstrate that recognition of gay marriage fulfills a CRUCIAL societal need.
[/quote]

And WHY does it have to be crucial before being passed? MUCH of public policy provides benefits to society but isn’t crucial.

[/quote]

Because, for the 1000th time, you’re not talking about making a relationship equal to ALL others. As in a long-term sexual relationship having no more status, recognition, and priviliedge than that a couple of best-friends-roomate-bachelors. We’re talking about the state holding forth a relationship for society to emulate. To actively promote as critical. To actively hold this relationship above your friendships, your work relations, your single parenting, your co-habitations, etc. By asking this question you imply that homosexual relationships should be held up on a pedestal just for the sake of them being homosexual. Well it isn’t critical, it isn’t crucial, and it isn’t more important or special than my friendships. Yours is a faddish, emotional, bigotry.

267

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Don’t worry about nit picking why the analogy is not perfect. I cannot make the question any more simple than it is: Could your father do your mother’s job exactly as good as she could, and could your mother do your father’s job exactly as good as he could?

[/quote]

Appeal to emotion fallacy? Was that what you were going for here?

Could you honestly say sob you could replace YOUR mother sob ?

Anyways, it doesn’t matter what I personally feel, what matters is the reality of the situation. Objectively speaking, can two monogamous homosexuals effectively raise a child? The answer is yes.

268

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

We’re not talking about some benefit just because. Homosexual marriage proponents are obligated to demonstrate that recognition of gay marriage fulfills a CRUCIAL societal need.
[/quote]

And WHY does it have to be crucial before being passed? MUCH of public policy provides benefits to society but isn’t crucial.

[/quote]

You’ve got it backwards.

It is exactly BECAUSE it is crucial that the State has an interest in promoting this particular kind of relationship above all others.

269

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Don’t worry about nit picking why the analogy is not perfect. I cannot make the question any more simple than it is: Could your father do your mother’s job exactly as good as she could, and could your mother do your father’s job exactly as good as he could?

[/quote]

Appeal to emotion fallacy? Was that what you were going for here?

Could you honestly say sob you could replace YOUR mother sob ?

[/quote]

Glad to find we agree.

[quote]

Anyways, it doesn’t matter what I personally feel, what matters is the reality of the situation. Objectively speaking, can two monogamous homosexuals effectively raise a child? The answer is yes. [/quote]

I don’t care if they CAN. I want the BEST parents for children.

One more time, see here:

http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/are-children-with-same-sex-parents-at-a-disadvantage/

270

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

If this is true, then why does our law presume that a child belongs to its biological parents (which its does and always has)? [/quote]

We’ve always assumed it, therefore we should continue assuming it.

Can’t argue with that!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

We have never assumed equality here, never. And, for good reason - there’s no reason to. Our entire society, culture of family, and laws reflecting our beliefs on family are based on one singular proposition - children belong and should belong to their biological parents. We make exceptions to that rule, but they are exceptions, and not the rule. [/quote]

Hey Cortes remember when I said “because I said so” is not evidence earlier?

Here’s why.

[/quote]

Well here you go then:

Research Indicates Children Do Best When Raised By Married Mom & Dad

Quotes from leading scholarly summaries of this research:

â?¢ â??An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents. â?¦ Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support child development.â?? (Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., â??Marriage From a Childâ??s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?â?? Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002): 1.)

â?¢ â??Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents.â?? (Mary Parke, â??Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?â?? Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief (May 2003): 1)

â?¢ â??Overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspringsâ?? psychological well-being and health.â?? (Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, â??The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,â?? Review of General Psychology 5.4 (2001): 382-405)

â?¢ Health scores are 20 to 35 percent higher for children living with both biological parents, compared with those living in single or stepfamilies. (Deborah A. Dawson, â??Family Structure and Childrenâ??s Health and Well-being: Data from the National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,â?? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 573 -584)

â?¢ â??When young boys have primary caretakers of both sexes, they are less likely as adults to engage in woman-devaluing activities and in self-aggrandizing, cruel or overly competitive male cults.â?? (Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, My Brotherâ??s Keeper: What the Social Sciences Do (and Donâ??t) Tell Us About Masculinity, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 121)

â?¢ â??We should disavow the notion that â??mommies can make good daddies,â?? just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that â??daddies can make good mommies.â?? â?¦The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary â?? culturally and biologically â?? for the optimal development of a human being.â?? (David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable of the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 197)

Sara McLanahan of Princeton University, one of the worldâ??s leading scholars on how family form impacts child well-being, explains from her extensive investigations:

â?¢ â??If we were asked to design a system for making sure that childrenâ??s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent family ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it would provide a system of checks and balances that promote quality parenting. The fact that both adults have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.â?? (Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 38)

271

Gym time, read what I wrote about your “source” in the other thread. Here’s a little more for ya:

FactsAboutYouth.com is a website designed to give educators information for teaching youth about sexual orientation. Rekers is listed by name as being a director in the development of the resource through a subcommittee of the American College of Pediatricians (not to be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics). The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization for which Rekers was an officer, is also listed as managing the website.[50] A contributor for the organization Truth Wins Out characterized this website as a "phony medical group attempting to peddle anti-gay propaganda to schools.

272

Phony Medical Group Attempting to Peddle Anti-Gay Propaganda to Schools

Earlier last month, over 14,000 school district superintendents in the country were sent a letter by a group called the American College of Pediatricians inviting them to peruse and use information from a new site, Facts About Youth, which was created to supposedly help young adults. The website says the following:

Facts is a non-political, non-religious channel presenting the most current facts on the subject. Facts is committed to advancing a school environment in which all students will experience the opportunity to achieve optimal health and safety, even in the midst of differing worldviews. Facts is intended to be a resource to promote the factual and respectful discussion of these potentially divisive issues. This is a web site for and about youth and their needs.
The web site also claims that it was created to combat some medical organizations who supposedly because of “political correctness” misrepresent science to affirm unhealthy lifestyles as normal behavior.

Facts About Youth sounds as legitimate as the organization behind its creation, the American College of Pediatricians. That is until you read the so-called facts it posts about the gay community, such as:

Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes
To put it succinctly, Facts About Youth is a fraud not unlike the eugenics movement . What Facts About Youth does is push almost every anti-gay talking point and distortion repeated by various religious right groups over the past 30 years under the guise of unbiased research. But this “research” is full of errors and distortions, including the following:

  1. Facts About Youth repeats the claim that Dr. Francis Collins stated that homosexuality is not hardwired by DNA. The truth is Francis Collins never said this. In fact, Dr. Collins said his words were being distorted:
    The words . . . all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.

  2. Facts About Youth repeats the lie that the Robert Spitzer study proves homosexuality to be changeable, excluding the fact that Spitzer has said on more than one occasion that his research was being distorted.

  3. Facts About Youth mentions the term “gay bowel syndrome,” even though the term does not exist.

  4. Facts About Youth repeats the lie that a Canadian study proves that gay men have a short life span, even though the researchers of the study said their work was being distorted.

  5. Many of the studies cited by Facts About Youth are over 10 years old and some even go as far as the 1970s.

  6. Many studies cited by Facts About Youth are convenience samples not meant to be indicative of the entire gay community in general.

One example of this is the citation of the 1979 book The Gay Report, which was the result of 2500 responses coming from a gay magazine questionnaire. The magazine, Blue Boy, was a softcore porn magazine which is now defunct. However, Facts About Youth cites this book on several occasions when claiming to give accurate details on gay sexual behavior.

And while I am on the subject, the American College of Pediatricians is also a fraud. It is a shell group, if you will, which was created to push a phony scientific argument about the so-called dangers of homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians is not motivated by science but the so-called Christian beliefs of its members.

And on top of all of these lies, the claim that Facts About Youth is non-political is also another distortion. The web site gives a shout out to the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization which, despite of all the proof to the contrary, pushes the phony claim that homosexuality is a “changeable condition.” Facts About Youth lists NARTH members as being on a subcommittee of the American College of Pediatricians. One member is George Rekers, a former University of South Carolina professor, a founder of the anti-gay Family Research Council, and a Baptist minister.

Rekers has testified against the gay community in adoption cases. Ironically, his testimony in two cases was so biased that it actually helped the cause of gay adoption.

So basically Rekers and the rest of these phony medical professionals are trying to push information to schools which claim that:

  1. Gay men are disease ridden sex animals who enjoy playing with feces,

  2. Lesbians are equally diseased and irresponsible,

  3. Homosexuality is just a changeable condition.

And they want schools to pass along this information.

It’s bad enough when wanton homophobes like Fred Phelps tell lies about the gay community.

But when people who purport to be medical professionals pass along these lies, it almost should be criminal.

273

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

If this is true, then why does our law presume that a child belongs to its biological parents (which its does and always has)? [/quote]

We’ve always assumed it, therefore we should continue assuming it.

Can’t argue with that![/quote]

No problem - I phrased it as a question to you (and left it in the above quote): if our longstanding assumption is wrong, tell me why it is wrong.

Surely you can?

Don’t take the coward’s way out. Just tell me why I am wrong. I’ll wait patiently.

274

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Surely you can?

Don’t take the coward’s way out. Just tell me why I am wrong. I’ll wait patiently.[/quote]

sigh

Perhaps you’re not doing this on purpose, but I’m not required to disprove your claim. The burden of proof is on you if you are asserting this as fact.

By attempting to shift the burden of proof to me you are making an argument from ignorance.

Look up the term ‘philosophical burden of proof.’

275

I know you don’t like wikipedia so here’s a link from a US university (CUNY)

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

276

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Perhaps you’re not doing this on purpose, but I’m not required to disprove your claim. The burden of proof is on you if you are asserting this as fact.

By attempting to shift the burden of proof to me you are making an argument from ignorance. [/quote]

I am not shifting the burden of proof, genius, I am asking you to explain your position: I said If [what you say is true, that there is no difference in children being raised by their biological parents versus an alternative], then why does our law presume that a child belongs to its biological parents?

It’s be the same thing as this:

Rajraj: I contend the sun rises in the west.

TB: Then why does it appear to rise in the east?

Rajraj: Because [explanation].

Not burden shifting, but hey, good luck in freshman philosophy. You’ll need it.

I am asking you to explain the position you took. I mean, I get it - you are trying to weasel your way out of answering it, but you look foolish trying to do so.

So, now back to basics. It’s just an open ended question: who do we presume that a child belongs and should belong to its biological parents?

Just answer it. Should be easy.

277

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Got swamped in posts again so I’ll just give a general response. It will basically be the same question I asked earlier, but as has been demonstrated time and again over the past few weeks here, I have to extract every single possible iota of ambiguity and malleability out of any question in order to maaaaybe get a straight answer:

Pro-gay marriage advocates: Do you believe that your father could have filled the role your mother played in your life exactly as good as she did? And do you feel your mother could have performed just exactly as good as your father in the part he played in raising you?

To be (even more) clear, I am not talking about mothers who necessarily had to take up the role of the father in addition to their own due to unfortunate circumstances. I am asking, could either of your own parents have switched roles with no change in your life whatsoever?

Don’t worry about nit picking why the analogy is not perfect. I cannot make the question any more simple than it is: Could your father do your mother’s job exactly as good as she could, and could your mother do your father’s job exactly as good as he could?[/quote]

I’m not sure why you keep asking this question. Particularity given the direction our conversation was going from last week. See my previous response and/or the link I provided for a direct response to these questions.

Otherwise we’ll just be going over the EXACT SAME ground again and again. [/quote]

I’ll go back and look at your responses, but real quick, what’s your issue with the above? Just a quick sentence or two will suffice. [/quote]

To be honest, I’m not sure that it would. As you say, it is the crux of the matter or at a minimum the crux of the disagreement between sides.

Not equivalent, sufficient as deemed by society. I believe we may disagree about the “bar’s height.”

[quote] In the case of heterosexual marriages, the benefit is absolutely essential, so the bar is set pretty damned high.

We’re not talking about some benefit just because. Homosexual marriage proponents are obligated to demonstrate that recognition of gay marriage fulfills a CRUCIAL societal need. And to further demonstrate how their particular relationship differs from other human relationships such as that of Bob and Harry, the two lifelong hetero bachelor fishing buddies who share a cabin on the Potomack. What is the actual difference, beyond sex? [/quote]

This is true. And it has been done. You may disagree but why ignore the previous arguments?

[quote] One more time, I’ll go over some of the benefits heterosexual marriage entails:
[/quote]

I think you have posted this again and again. Yet for some reason you have forgotten or chosen to ignore the direct response to it. You have presented your case. Others, myself included, have presented ours. We can talk about the disagreements and try to understand the other side’s position and our own, but I see little value in repeating ourselves ad nauseum

278

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Thanks for the response. A few points:

-I didn’t imply that it was a tacit admission, I stated it bluntly. I still think this is true.[/quote]

It isn’t. Take my word for it.[/quote]

I don’t. I gave an argument. You gave yours. We can end here.

Doesn’t particularly matter if it’s inetresting to you - what matters is whether it is relevant to publicly recognizing one form of marriage or another. It is relevant, but we narrowed the debate here to try and focus the not-so-focused gay marriage crowd.[/quote]

It’s strange that you think the “gay marriage crowd” is unfocused, when you and the “no homos allowed crowd” (sic) seem unable to locate the counter-arguments. I also wonder how many pseudo-science “studies” were posted “proving” that the gays are bad and how “focused” those were?

Can we be done with these type of comments now? Or is this the “feistiness” you enjoy?

The other posts are a bit off topic, so I responded briefly in the hijack thread.

279

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

It’s strange that you think the “gay marriage crowd” is unfocused, when you and the “no homos allowed crowd” (sic) seem unable to locate the counter-arguments. I also wonder how many pseudo-science “studies” were posted “proving” that the gays are bad and how “focused” those were? [/quote]

They are unfocused in this thread. I have noted that repeatedly. Not a one of them can apparently stay on point.

And, who is saying “gays are bad”? Not me. I am merely noting that in this thread that gay marriage advocates can’t seem to focus on providing legitimate counterarguments to what we’re saying.

And they haven’t been. Witness Rajraj’s last response to me - I ask a question, and he tried to duck it by claiming I am “shifting the burden of proof”. Well, no, I am simply asking him a question - one that he doesn’t want to answer.

But you decide this is your opportunity to engage in a little irrelevant aside of your own. Congratulations.

C’mon, Gambit, give me a break. I’ll respond (briefly) in the Hijack Haven thread at some point.

280

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

It’s strange that you think the “gay marriage crowd” is unfocused, when you and the “no homos allowed crowd” (sic) seem unable to locate the counter-arguments. I also wonder how many pseudo-science “studies” were posted “proving” that the gays are bad and how “focused” those were? [/quote]

They are unfocused in this thread. I have noted that repeatedly. Not a one of them can apparently stay on point.

And, who is saying “gays are bad”? Not me. I am merely noting that in this thread that gay marriage advocates can’t seem to focus on providing legitimate counterarguments to what we’re saying.

And they haven’t been. Witness Rajraj’s last response to me - I ask a question, and he tried to duck it by claiming I am “shifting the burden of proof”. Well, no, I am simply asking him a question - one that he doesn’t want to answer.

But you decide this is your opportunity to engage in a little irrelevant aside of your own. Congratulations.[/quote]

Hi TB,

I think my post was extremely relevant. Actually, in my recent post I was basically just using your EXACT same arguments/argument-style in reverse. I’m surprised you didn’t notice. I was trying to be clear.

To be blunt, two points:

-Why do you continue to lump the “pro” side into one group and then take umbrage when I do the exact same thing to you? If I am expected to defend those “on my side” who call you names or do something else, why wouldn’t you have to defend those “on your side” who use pseudo-science or do something else?

-Counterarguments were given. I know because I gave them and posted a pretty good summary, including counterarguments, in this thread.

C’mon, Gambit, give me a break. I’ll respond (briefly) in the Hijack Haven thread at some point. [/quote]

I wouldn’t if I were you.