That you appear to be cherry picking references and portions of references in order to poison the well, and when people of your same political bent and you do this, while tossing accusations at someone like Philothei, people notice it, even if you try to bury it under spam.
If you think I'm dishonest, then please, point out exactly what I've done.
Ah, I see: you have a chip on your shoulder because people didn't respond to your post in the way you'd like. Well, that's just what happens: bombard people with facts, and they run the other way. I've confronted anti-gay posters with statistics and surveys and studies that demonstrate that (for instance) gay parents are just as good as straight parents at raising kids. The response? A resounding silence.
I believe Philothei read her reference, and indeed I believe if you were to check, what she said is supported by the newer reference you provided as well. You had a few points to make, and that's fine, but where does this accusation about reading the citation come from?
I justified my remark in my post. Her criticism of the study is based on her understanding of how the study was carried out. If she had actually read the study, she would see that they
didn't carry the study out in the way she insinuated (specifically, she assumed the survey used police records, but in fact they used their own private data).
It's typical, totally extraneous and off topic, and what's more I think this is done by the same people, over and over, for a reason -- to bury the legitimate conversation and taint any pro-Christian viewpoint.
I trust the irony of this isn't lost on anyone: you condemn me for being off-topic by making lengthy off-topic posts of your own. Why not let the matter rest? Why not respond to my
actual post, instead of latching onto a single off-topic remark I made?
Moreover, you accuse me of trying to bury legitimate conversation, but you'll notice that it is Philothei, not me, who halted the discussion: I'm still waiting for her response to my post.