Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

This should be obvious, Jar. This is the scenario:1) The country legalizes same-sex marriage
2) Hallmark cards jumps on the bandwagon and produces a slew of cards endorsing all possible combination of gay relationships.
3) Heterosexual men, following a long tradition of relationship confusion, are even more confused by the extra racks of cards.
4) Rather than picking out the right card they pick out one that would probably be better suited to an eight year old as it has buttons and fake fur glued to it and says "Be-ar my Valentine" (when it was an anniversery in the first place).
5) The card leads to a series of arguments ultimately leading to a nasty divorce.
6) With the divorce rate skyrocketing millions of otherwise straight men decide that being gay is easier because the Hallmark cards are easier to find due to the people in front of the rack holding "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" placards
7) Society destabilized.This should have been obvious.

Hi Faith,
I hope CK doesn't mind me butting in here but I want to make a point that I hope you will take to heart. As I understand what he is saying isn't that the philosophy of the site necessarily affects the statistics but that you should question the source of the stats themselves (wherever they are from!).A stat from the NIH maybe be trustworthy whether it is on a pro-choice or pro-life website (although both may interpret the results differently). What I found to be questionable in the Probe Ministries article, for example, was the source of the statistics, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health. This organization first of all is quite right-wing and biased toward abstinence-only sex educaztion. That alone might be fine but they do not cite any sources for the data that is then cited by Probe. You see the point? With few exceptions it appears that the Medical Institute for Sexual Health cites other Christian-abstinence sources for data that is then re-cited as scientific. These data ate simply not supported by legitimate studies (at least that I could find).I want to agree with others here that you are very articulate and seemingly intelligent. I think you could do your viewpoint a great service (and bring some fresh views here) if you would concentrate on backing up assertion (or not making them without fact-in-hand) and polishing debate style. The post I am replying to is a great example. You put out some data with references, that data was then disputed. This was a great start. But you followed it with a "all stats are biased, mine as much as yours" instead of a defense/rebuttal etc. based on the cites. Anyway, my two-cents worth.