I think ultimately there are times when one must get off one's own backside and review the data for himself.
I'm not sure that this is relevant though. Most liberals support gay marriage for political/social reasons.I have a lot of respect for Christians, also. I defend them, often, in the Religious forum. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Mon-moderate Christians do not support gay marriage and this is mostly for religious reasons.
I know all of this. The point is that Christians sites to me are no more generally less valid than liberal ones or for that matter moderators on message boards(). The point is to actually look at these things and not assume and dismiss.Every site that has been posted with "data", the data has been spun or misrepresented to fit in with the site's agenda. Further the methodology of the data is flawed, or if they reviewed some positive data, that review was flawed. One must be cognizant of the sites presented for evidence. Presenting a study done by evangelicals on the dangers of abortion is far less valid than presenting a similar study by the AMA. Hence, a study on gay marriage presented by the APA has far more weight than one presented by a pro-Christian organization. One must look at agenda, validity, credentialing, etc... Questioning a source is valid in debate.
One can question the source, and one must remember that this is mostly the author(and in this particular case the author seemed to be accredited.) not the site which matters, but dismissing it because it is from a site with a particular viewpoint is not valid. Even official bodies often have agendas, they are far from immune. I don't for instance consider the EUroplot or New Labour as better sources than well-reasoned Christian ones, in fact I'd be more inclined to think the other way.