No Problem. The phrase "scripter's database" is forever etched in my memory. I've posted vehemently on retaining the current definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, when it comes to homosexuality itself, I decline to condemn it, morally or any other way, and have waxed vehement on that score. Many more times than once I was invited, by yourself and others, to peruse "scripter's database" so that I might be enlightened as to homosexuality's disease, choice, and proselytization aspects. Rather than undertake that daunting project, I was inclined to demur from those particular debates.
Did you receive an answer to your "gut" question from your liberal acquaintance?
Not really, but I like to think it sunk in somewhat that the intuitive expectation would be that having one parent of each gender is advantageous.
To really mess with your mind I'd like to get the phrase in a Chinese cookie you open next week!
It does appear we agree on the issue of keeping the traditional meaning of marriage intact, but the rest of it, indeed, we disagree.
I can imagine reading scripter's database (sorry, couldnt' help it) is a daunting task. Although it may appear that way, it is never my intention to overwhelm someone with information.
Because I saw an overwhelming amount of interesting information on homosexuality, I created the database as a place to collect and refer to better help folks discuss the issues. Similar to why FreeRepublic was created, the database was created to rollback decades of misinformation on homosexuality. It's not meant to be a balanced, it's meant to present the truth. Sure, some articles are biased but many are not and we have the major media outlets to compete against.
I'm glad to see we have at least one thing in common.