Replies

No man could answer "which 2 or 3 legitimate researchers who would contradict" his opinion that the sun will set at night and rise the next morning.

I think you missed my point. Let me spell it out for you.

All of us have strongly-held beliefs. Most honorable people recognize that opponents (while perhaps mistaken) can nevertheless be knowledgeable and even expert in their fields.

For example: there are numerous medical researchers who, as we speak, are conducting research into Alzheimers or cancer or muscular dystrophy, etc. etc. They submit articles to peer-reviewed academic and medical journals to share their research discoveries and their theories about causes and effective treatments of medical problems. Sometimes their articles reveal strong disagreements but these researchers do not deny the legitimacy of their opponents credentials as researchers or scholars.

Similarly, criminal prosecutors are in an adversarial relationship with criminal defense lawyers. But that does not mean that the prosecutors cannot identify defense lawyers that they consider expert, knowledgeable, and persons of indisputable character and integrity. Ditto for lawyer judgments about prosecutors or judges whom they perceive as professional, fair-minded, and honest.

So--I ask again:

From your perspective, which 2 or 3 persons do you perceive as opponents or adversaries to your views with respect to such matters as gay parenting, gay adoption, gay lifestyle, but, simultaneously, you freely acknowledge to be legitimate, honorable, knowledgeable experts in their fields of study? In other words: which sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, or other researchers?

Obviously, you will tell me that you consider their research and conclusions to be flawed or mistaken----but, nonetheless, I am asking which 2 or 3 persons you are willing to acknowledge deserve respectful consideration for whatever research they conduct, the data they develop, and whatever articles or books they write?