Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
I understand what you're saying. Nobody likes to be browbeaten into thought-conformity. The only reason poor Beirut is having such a difficult go of things is because this is a discussion forum where we do get to force our opinions on each other. In this environment, you actually have to back up what you say or risk having your opinion disregarded.
I'm not poor. I'm not rich, but certainly not poor.

Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
Particularly frustrating is the fact that he seems completely unwilling (unable) to present supporting research on the subject, yet acts as if everyone else is ridiculous. 'I am right because I am' followed by some snarky comment about how demented it is that the conversation is even happening is not a defensible position.
I back up what I say with real life and parental experience. Real life - not feel-good Internet mumbo-jumbo and quasi-BS studies that could prove potato chips are the best material for a fusion reactor.

Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
However, I don't think the issue itself is a love it or hate it type of thing. That is making it subjective where it should be objective. I support it because a) science has validated that it is not a negative influence on the development of the child and b) it plays a critical social function in placing abandoned children in supportive homes. If the issue truly centers around the well being of the children, then there is little room for debate.
Damn straight, and the well being of a child is best served by the child having a mother and father, no matter what Dr. Pixiedust's report says.