Christian response to homosexual marriage?

[bjs]

Should Christians in the USA support or oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage in their state?

I put this debate topic in this sub-forum because I’m not really interested in atheists’ opinions here, but I do wonder what Christians think.

On the one hand, we do not have to look far in our world to see what happens when people try to enforce their worldview on others. The result is always disastrous. I do not like the idea of Christians trying to legal enforce their worldview.

On the other hand, recent history has shown us that when gay marriage is legalized the right to oppose, or even abstain from involvement, is quickly lost. Opposing or abstaining from homosexual marriage is outlawed on the charge of discrimination. If gay marriage is legalized then we should expect, at the very minimum, that those who are morally opposed to homosexual action will still be required to act in support of homosexual actions if they wish to do business in their state.

I am unsure of the right approach. What do others Christians think?

[Danmark]

So long as it is private then what consenting adults do is their business regardless of what others think of it. However marriage is not something private but is a public and social institution meant for the common good and more particularly the good of children. There obviously is debate about it, but that debate is legitimate and not illogical. Those who lobby for gay "marriage" do have an obligation to show that the redefinition of marriage that gay "marriage" entails does not have harmful social consequences.
....
This [that the acts listed are criminal] is no argument at all. It is an ad hominem remark with overtones of Westocentric prejudice. You might be right but just because this country or that country have laws for or against something do not prove that those laws are right.

[emphasis mine]
You are simply incorrect about marriage being meant "more particularly the good of children." Marriage as recognized by the State and Federal governments grants benefits that have nothing to do with raising children. Those benefits are granted regardless of whether a couple is childless, adopts, or has natural children. Furthermore "marriage" has other denotations, such as publicly declaring a couple's announcement of fidelity or loyalty, as well as joint financial responsibility.
It seems to me that the outcry of the religious against 'gay marriage' reveals the disingenuousness of their argument when they talk about undermining the value and stability of marriage or the social structure. Why would these folks who decry promiscuity not embrace the stability and fidelity that come with same sex marriage?
This prejudice against same sex marriage reveals that the opponents' concern is not about stability, but simply prejudice directed at gays and lesbians as individuals.

What you call "no argument at all" is actually your own argument: "There are sexual acts that every sane person rightly judges as immoral. These would include rape, paedaphilia, bestiality and necrophilia." In addition you cited no evidence of a genetic basis for an inclination to commit the acts in your list. Regarding your accusation of ad hominem and prejudice, are you referring to an attitude toward gays reflects "overtones of Westboro Baptist prejudice?"

[Wissing]

[Replying to Haven]

Haven,

Aside from a slight slip-up at the beginning (when I said "removing marriage" I was not referring to gay marriage at all, but to EduChris' suggestion for the removal of state enforcement of marriage for all people equally), and a few episodes of name-calling, you seem to have constructed a thorough argument. I look forward to taking some time tomorrow to review it and develop a response.

Thank you!

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 32 by Wissing]

I like to think of it like dealing with children. If they can't share the toys equally no one gets them.

We can't have straight only tools as that is discriminatory and unconstitutional because they are based on religious principles establishing one particular religion over the other.

In this case the state would be discriminating against the religious views of Presbyterians who have gay marriage as a religious rite in their doctrines. Gay marriage bans impinge on their religious freedoms.

Any and all gay marriage bans are therefore unconstitutional. As they establish one religious viewpoint over another as well as impeding religious expression by the prevention of a religious rite.

I mean seriously animal sacrifices are still legal in this country but not gay marriage?

Honestly I am surprised by the rate at which Christianity is adapting to gay rights and homosexuality. Then again it is a very flexible religion and has found ways in the past of adapting to adversity by simply co-opting ideas.

Like Christmas , Easter, Catholicism(in reference to the many non biblical rites they have simply just stuffed in there over the years).

[Wissing]

[Replying to Haven]

Disclaimer:
First of all, let me say this. I am not arguing that there's anything especially wrong with gay people. Nor am I arguing against gay legal rights. The following statements in your post suggest that you think this is an argument about gay rights:

Citing sources like these as evidence against gay rights ...
Wow. Anti-gay hate sites? Propaganda from hate groups?
Same-sex couples getting married won't do anything to harm heterosexual unions, and they will strengthen the millions of families who until recently were without legal protection or societal sanction.
Citing unqualified professional hatemongers like this isn't helping your case.

A Word on Emotive Arguments
The above statements also show a degree of emotion that I don't think I deserve. If your stance is supported by sound research, why use words like "hatemonger", "hate groups", "homophobe"... here's one person asking you to cite actual studies (not the news) - why bother with political rhetoric? That hurts your credibility, making me less likely to believe what you say. On the other hand, I realize that you did put some effort in, by citing several sources. That helps your credibility.

My Purpose Here
My specific goal in this subforum is to portray a Christian stance on homosexuality. So when I cite sources that say things like "gays have older fathers" or "gays are more likely to commit suicide", I'm not using those as arguments to support a platform against homosexuals - what I'm doing is citing as much general information on the subject as I can find, regardless of whether it supports any of my points. For instance, if gays are more likely to commit suicide, then the issue matters.

My general purpose is to say whatever God wants me to say, in hopes that it will resonate with something inside you. I believe that God calls us all both directly and indirectly, and this does wonders for his credibility. I want you to love God, and I believe that faith in Christ will compel you to do that.

The R Word
Now, let's talk about "research" for a moment. I'll start with a specific example of my broader concerns regarding mankind's overconfidence with its own insight.

The link you posted from Alternet cites a study done by the Barna group[1]. The Barna website looks very professional, and seems legitimate. I am tempted to believe their conclusions, because, as your article states, Barna is a pro-Christian group. Furthermore, they use a lot of percentage signs. For instance, "Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians."

Unfortunately, a detailed report of the data is unavailable online. The best the Barna website has to offer is to tell us that the book "unChristian" discusses the research. Perhaps their methodology would be described in detail there. The best I can find from their website is this description of their research services [2]: "Here's how it works. The questions you place in the survey will be answered by a representative, random sample selected from across the nation. You pay only for the questions you include in the survey."

Is it really a representative sample? Is it really random? How do they select people to ask, and how do they ask? I've never gotten a call from Barna. Though I'd like to believe their study, I simply do not have enough information to assess its credibility.

By constrast, the link I posted [3], which you called an "anti-gay hate site" contains an entire page called "Data". If you go to this page, you'll find quite a few resources. For instance, go to that page, and scroll down to the section entitled "Youth Risk Behavior Surveys". Here's an example of one of those surveys [4]. From there, you can get an in-depth description of the methodology behind each survey, as well as documentation of the actual questionnaires they use. According to the North Dakota YRBS, 44.9% of students between 9th and 12th grade say they've had sexual intercourse. Is that true? Well, it's more likely than any info you might find from Alternet or CBS News.

But even with all that data (no, not "hate"), I'm still going to take it with a grain of salt. Because to me, it's not science. To me, it's a website. To them, it's science. They did an experiment. I just read about one.

And that's exactly what this is all about. Credibility. Not science. To Barna, this is research. To the APA, it's research. To me, it's journalism. They did the experiment. They came up with a method of asking questions, and selecting a sample of people to ask. I didn't. I don't know the details of the study, because I didn't do the study.

Credibility
So how do I assess the credibility of, say, academia? Or the APA? Or the Journal of Homosexuality? Are these legitimate institutions?
-Age. Why does "current" make something more credible? By that logic, I cited many sources that are "current". You called them hatemongers or "conservative public charities" (which, by the way, is an opinion). It's okay if you don't trust a couple internet sources I provided... but the traditions of the church are generational. Is there no value in the ability to transcend generation after generation, and still hold to the same principles? To me, that trumps all the modern research in the world.
-Institutional. Just because something is a large institution with a lot of supporters, does not mean it's legitimate. Or else what do you think of the church? If the church, a 2014-year old tradition, can be wrong about human nature, then certainly an organization that is only 122 years old[5] is suspect to scrutiny. Here's another very professional-looking institution[6]. Don't you think maybe, if the founder of an institute had flawed methodology, that the institute loses some credibility?
-Constructive. I think credibility (that of persons, institutions, or even God) depends largely not on how official-looking their website is, not on how many people support them, not on whether or not they call themselves "educated" or "scientific", but really on whether or not they accomplish something. I'm willing to bet you spent an awful lot of money on your education. Has it borne fruit? Has your education paid for itself? I sincerely hope it does, but I'm telling you I know an awful lot of people who aren't getting their money's worth out of academia. A usable higher-education is becoming the exception to the rule, these days[7] (Take a look at page 18 of that report, for instance. Also page 22 - for the 19 million with advanced degrees, only 7 million jobs will be there). I'm not saying psychology isn't useful. I'm saying it often goes unused. And institutions lose credibility when they have too many indentured servants paying them back for decades of their lives.

Nobody Really Knows
Do people really care about getting to the bottom of this issue? To fully understand it, so that informed decisions can be made? Do we understand the root cause of homosexuality? From what I've seen, the answer is no. It's about moving forward without looking where we're going. Progress isn't progress unless it's first well-understood. And this isn't well-understood. The best arguments I've seen go something like this:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation" [8]
"... we argue that research into the causes of homosexuality is at the present time unethical and should not be undertaken."[9]

Does that sound like people who really want progress? Does that sound scientific? Hiding from the truth because we fear that it's not nice? 'Not enough evidence for the contrary' is no motive to change the way our species looks at reproducing. If we don't know, let's go ahead and say we don't know.

Personal Experience
Sometimes, we have to make decisions, even when we don't have enough information to make that decision. Life demands it of us. Ideally, we could figure this out scientifically, or with research. But the reality of it is that's just not possible. Real science is something you do yourself, not something you read in a journal. The best thing a journal can do for you is give you a good hypothesis, but you still have to prove it out yourself. Haven, you say you're gay. Maybe you're the best person to ask then - in your experience, what causes it?

I'd take your own personal experience over any amount of journals or official-looking studies you can concoct. Because to me, you're 2nd-hand experience. They're 3rd, 4th, 5th-hand information at best. Furthermore, I can actually ask you follow-up questions. We can discuss our experiences, and maybe find a way of informing ourselves for our own decisions. Certainly, we can't generalize from our own experiences! But why on earth do we need to? You have decisions to make, I have decisions to make. Those decisions do not affect the masses.

So from here on, I would advocate talking about our own personal experiences, and forgo the "research". It'll make for a more concise debate, one which might actually be constructive. I will gladly do research if you demand it, if only to prove to you that I'm willing to put in some effort. But I'd rather we discuss what we know best - our own experiences - even if it's not applicable to everybody else. We could move this to a different thread if you'd like.

I will look forward to your response within a week. If I receive no response, I will send you a PM to remind you.

Thank you very much!

References
[1] https://www.barna.org/barna-update/arti ... EuyC2d0zIU
[2] https://www.barna.org/research/shared-c ... EuxYGd0zIU
[3] http://www.lgbtdata.com
[4] http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/health/YRBS/
[5] http://www.apa.org/about/apa/index.aspx
[6] http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/
[7] http://centerforcollegeaffordability.or ... rt%202.pdf
[8] http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx?item=4
[9] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 02#preview

[Haven]

Hi Wissing, thanks for your response. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much utility in continuing this debate, considering your statement here:

It's okay if you don't trust a couple internet sources I provided... but the traditions of the church are generational. Is there no value in the ability to transcend generation after generation, and still hold to the same principles? To me, that trumps all the modern research in the world.

This statement seems to indicate that the sources you presented in your first post were simply smoke-and-mirrors, meant for show, and that your real position is based on a fideistic commitment to your church's teachings.

If you're willing to always take church tradition--based on faith--over empirical data and research, then I don't think there's much point in continuing this debate. As a social scientist, skeptic, and empiricist, all I can ever provide you is scientific evidence and rational argument. If you're not willing to entertain scientific evidence and reason-based arguments because of your pre-existing commitment to church doctrine, then there's nothing more I can say.

I mean no disrespect by this--you've been far kinder than other conservative Christians with whom I've discussed this issue. All I'm saying is that it's pointless to continue a debate when we have radically different epistemological commitments.

There's one other thing I wanted to address:

My general purpose is to say whatever God wants me to say, in hopes that it will resonate with something inside you. I believe that God calls us all both directly and indirectly, and this does wonders for his credibility. I want you to love God, and I believe that faith in Christ will compel you to do that.

I appreciate your concern for me--although I don't share your belief in the Christian god (or any deities, for that matter), I know that you do, and that your intent is one of concern, not blind hate. Still, as a non-theist (and ex-evangelical-Christian), I don't believe that your god exists, based upon the evidence available to me.

What's more, if the god you reference is the one mentioned in the Bible, then (assuming he exists) I don't think I could ever love that being, for ethical reasons. A god that not only condones but promotes slavery, treating women as property, homophobic violence, genocide, patriarchy, human and animal sacrifice, and eternal torture is, in my opinion, desperately evil, and therefore is not a being that I could even tolerate or respect, much less love.

At any rate, thanks for the respectful post -- I appreciate it.

Be well

[Haven]

Haven, you say you're gay. Maybe you're the best person to ask then - in your experience, what causes it?

Obviously, I can't speak for anyone but myself, and my comments aren't valid for anyone but me.

With that disclaimer . . .

I was born into an conservative evangelical Christian (devout Southern Baptist) family (my story is here on a thread I posted 2 1/2 years ago called "missing home"). My parents were (and still are) fervent believers in Christ and dedicated participants in their Southern Baptist church, and my grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. were/are all conservative Christians. I was immersed in evangelical Christianity from the day I was born.

As a kid (I'd say starting at 4-5 years old, when I started preschool/kindergarten) I knew I was different from other boys (wow, this sounds cliché, but it's true). Personality-wise, I was just 'different,' I didn't fit into typical masculine roles (I liked playing with girls' toys, made friends with [mostly] girls, wasn't into 'fart jokes' or talk about girls, and just had a more feminine personality). At this age, I didn't know what homosexuality (or any sexuality) was, I was just a kid and was just being myself. Back then, I was always made fun of, being called anti-gay slurs (that I won't repeat here, but I'm sure you know what they were). Other kids also told me I was a 'sissy,' and adults said I was 'kind-hearted' and 'sweet.' At this very young age, I didn't know what they were talking about, but I knew it hurt to be singled out. I wasn't "attracted to" anyone at that age--I was just a kid--but I did find myself drawn to other boys on an emotional level, in a way that was different from girls (I didn't know it was anything other than normal at that point).

As I got older (late elementary, early middle school), I realized what homosexuality was and found out that my parents, other family members, and church were vehemently against it (I was still more feminine than masculine at this point). It was a "choice," "Satanic," "decadent," a "ticket to hell," and so on. I fully believed and internalized these things. Around the age of 11, I realized I was attracted to other males (especially this one boy in my class, who I had a crush on), and knew (from my church background) that it was a grave sin. From this point on, being a "good kid," I really focused on building my masculinity and becoming straight. I started dressing and acting in a way that was more hegemonically masculine (this was the late 90s and early 2000s in a suburban area, so it was baggy pants and hip-hop shirts, lol--I hated them, but thought I needed them to appear "masculine") and tried to force myself to be attracted to girls (I had plenty of friends who were female at that point, but wasn't attracted to any of them). I tried to stop smiling/skipping/etc. so much, and act "tough" and "hard," because it's what I believed a (straight) man should do.

In late middle school and early high school, I remember thinking that I was just a "late bloomer," and that soon I'd start being attracted to girls. That day never came. During my freshman year, I made friends with this boy at my school, and became attracted to him. I knew--from my church teaching and the conservative social climate around me--that it was wrong. I also feared that if I let others know, I would be ostracized by my family and bullied (both physically and emotionally) by other kids. Because of these things, I suppressed my feelings for him and other guys and moved on. I'd continue doing this at other points when I was in high school (I'd become attracted to a guy, suppress the feelings, and move on, trying to live up to society's expectations). During this time, I didn't self-identify as gay--to me, at that point, "gay" meant those godless people who pranced around in women's clothing (I was raised in a very conservative home and suburban area), and I certainly wasn't going to be one of them. I was just a confused, normal young person who was eventually going to find the right woman and settle down. During this period of my life, I stayed away from dating and just focused on school, extracurriculars, etc., trying to push those "evil" thoughts out of my head.

Not much changed until I started college (at the traditional age--18, right out of high school). I got really into my Christian faith at that point, and started attending church and campus youth group religiously (pun intended). I really internalized the idea that lust was a sin, and learned to repress any kind of sexual urge I felt. I was still attracted to guys, but was able to push the urges out of my mind and focus on Christ. During this time, I developed some deep friendships with both men and women (they were Christian students at the university or other nearby colleges), and really began to grow in my identity as an evangelical Christian. I went on international mission trips, preached on my university's campus, and viewed every interaction as an opportunity to share the gospel (if not by words, then by actions). I also began to espouse the political ideologies of the religious right, opposing both abortion and "homosexual" (as I called it then) rights. What's more, I continued focusing on seeming "masculine," being very self-conscious to repress and eliminate any behavior I thought was "gay" or feminine. I monitored the way I spoke, dressed, walked, sat -- any little thing I did, I scanned for masculinity and heterosexuality. At this point, I still wasn't attracted to women, but just took it as "God's gift"; he was shielding me from the sin of lust.

While I was in college, a few members of my university Christian group came out as gay (one left Christianity, the rest continued to identify as Christian), and the leader of my campus Christian group--a straight woman in her early 30s who was close with the gay students who came out--left the organization, citing its homophobia. At the time, I thought they were all blinded by the devil and turned away from the Christian faith to "seducing spirits." I vowed never to become like them.

During my senior year of college, I decided I was spiritually mature enough to start (heterosexual) dating. I still wasn't sexually attracted to women (actually pretty repulsed by the thought), but figured that God was just taking that away and giving me a purer, more moral desire for them in the form of friendship and "spiritual union" (men still intrigued me, but I was able to "take those thoughts captive to Christ" and remain celibate). I started seeking out women in my church and campus Christian group, but never met anyone with whom I wanted to have a relationship. That next year (2010), I graduated from college and moved to Minneapolis (the exciting "big city!" Yay!), becoming involved with a church group there (actually a parachurch organization for young [18-28] people in the Twin Cities). While attending this church, I became friends with a woman who attended the church group. I eventually asked her out and we started dating, but we broke up a few months later when I realized I wasn't attracted to her in any way (beyond friendship) and she was attracted to me and wanted our relationship to move forward. Later that summer, I visited my hometown and spoke with a (female) very close friend who I had known for years. She confessed her feelings toward me and we agreed to start dating. Later that summer, I broke it off because I wasn't feeling any (romantic or sexual) attraction toward her and didn't want to lead her on. After returning to Minneapolis, I felt horrible, like a failure as a man and a Christian. My faith in Jesus was all I had left.

Later that summer, I decided to apply to graduate school, figuring I should move on and pursue my dream of becoming a professor. I got accepted and started the fall of the next year. During that summer, I had a conversation with an evangelical Christian friend of mine and began to start looking for reasons to justify my belief in Christ. Over the next several months, I began to look for evidence and arguments related to Christian claims, trying desperately to find intellectual justification for my faith in the Lord, who I believed to be the center of my life (I was still a devout Christian and heavily involved in an evangelical church in my local area). During my first semester in grad school, after investigating the relevant scientific evidence, historical facts, and philosophical arguments surrounding theism in general and Christianity in particular (as well as other religions), I deconverted and became non-theist. I left the church in which I was heavily involved. I felt truly alone and became depressed.

During most of that school year, I wasn't much concerned with sexuality (or my studies, unfortunately ). I was just working through the shock of losing my faith, my church community, and the mission (advancing the gospel) that I thought was the very bedrock of my life. I joined this website then (in Feb 2012, I eventually closed that account [under the same name, Haven] for personal reasons and opened this one early this year). That spring, I began to reflect on my struggles with sexuality, and finally admitted to myself that I wasn't heterosexual and that there was nothing wrong with that. At that point, I wasn't ready to fully come out and identify as "gay"--I still felt it was too shocking--but I was willing to admit that I was deeply attracted to men. I stopped trying to act/dress/present as hegemonically "masculine," and finally allowed myself to just be "me." It was unbelievably liberating and freeing to do this. I became involved with a secular campus group and the university's LGBT center, began to figure out my research interests, and met new friends--LGBT and straight-cisgender, Christian and non-Christian, religious and atheistic. For the first time in as long as I can remember, I felt happy and comfortable being myself.

About a year later, I fully came out of the closet, admitting to myself and my friends that I was gay. I moved again to begin a Ph.D. program (which I'm finally finishing up soon !). A few months later, I came out to my family. Despite their devout Christianity and their disapproval of my "lifestyle," they still said that they loved me and would stand by me. My fears of rejection were wrong, and I was still loved, even being my true self. It was wonderful .

Now, the present day. I'm an out gay man who is (almost) fully accepting of myself and who I am. I'm also a vocal supporter of LGBT rights, and specifically advocate for those non-heterosexuals trapped in anti-gay religious traditions. I'm close to finishing a Ph.D. program, and I hope to use my education to serve other people who are going through the same things that I once went through. Freedom from the closet is beautiful, but in my opinion, it also carries some responsibility--both to myself (to live authentically) and to others (to empower them to be themselves). I can only hope I live up to this standard.

_________________________
Footnotes:

1) I never made a choice on my sexual orientation. If anything, I chose to be straight.

2) None of the Christian-right propaganda events happened to me. I was never molested, I had a close relationship with my dad (and still do today), I didn't experiment sexually at an early age (my first sexual experience wasn't until I was in my 20s) -- I just happen to be attracted to men and not women.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 36 by Haven]
This is such an honest and informative post I can only hope others who seek truth rather than confirmation of their biases will examine it closely. Among other things this post demonstrates how profound these innate differences must be to keep an honest person from following the path that is easiest. This autobiography is like many others and demonstrates most emphatically that in this area one's nature is not a choice. Why on earth would anyone endure such prejudice, disadvantage, and hatred if they could choose otherwise? The continued prejudice against gays and lesbians is shameful and blaming one's 'religious' convictions for the prejudice is a sign of despicable, willful ignorance.

One not in particular struck home to me, the lack of appreciation for typical male locker room humor. I have not always been sympathetic or sensitive to the point of view of gays, lesbians, and transgender folk. I suppose I could, at least in the past been accurately accused of having some of the same prejudices against them that I frequently see on this forum, dressed up in 'doctrinal' sheep's clothing.

One summer in Death Valley while at a large motorcycle rally I was privileged to hang out for an hour or two with a couple of lesbians and a transgender woman who had previously been male, along with a couple of my straight buddies. The conversation was very entertaining, interesting, personal, and profound, tho' it had nothing to do with sexual or gender issues.

Later that night I found myself at a campfire conversation with the "regular guys." That conversation consisted exclusively of typical and crass male locker room humor attuned to the level of the average 13 year old. I'm afraid that from that day on I associated homophobes with ignorance and juvenalia, and associating lesbians and gays with intelligence, education, and sensitivity to the human condition.

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 36 by Haven]

Cool. That's very constructive and I appreciate your story. I think perhaps we could continue this conversation in the near future, if you'd like. I say that because I really am looking for a standpoint that reconciles tradition with experience like yours. I don't think ostracizing is the way to handle it, but I do think there's a problem here... if nothing else, it's that people go nuts over this topic and it will never be resolved that way.

I normally try to post on weekends, but this weekend I'll be out of town. It may be 2 weeks, but I will follow up.

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 35 by Haven]

In the mean time, let me say one thing in response to this. The reason I post evidence, and encourage others to do research, is not because I trust it, nor do I trust that of others. It's for a few reasons:

1. The act of doing research requires time and effort. If a person puts effort into their argument, I am more likely to take it seriously. I discovered this several months ago when debating Jack Stoddart about the Bible on this site. ref:The Bible Says So....

2. I have had to check myself since getting out of college. I found that I was far less skeptical of information if it was presented in a classroom, or if it was called science. The exercise of checking sources and sources' sources shows that information is rarely as certain as it seems, and injects a healthy amount of doubt into even the most well-formatted of publications.

3. I do not argue against evidence. I argue against the mislabeling of evidence. Empiricism stops being empirical when it is communicated in words. But of course, if I argued this without actually putting in the effort to provide some (if only to prove its futility), people would say it's a cop-out. By putting in the effort to gather research anyway, I legitimize my opinion.

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 36 by Haven]

I've come up with a reply. I put it in the "questions for a specific user" section, because it might be considered off-topic.

ref:a response to Haven