Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Thanks for your attempt at deception and ridicule. But then how else could you promote something that takes little more than common sense to refute. Since I cant access your link, (I would love to see how that study was conducted or even funded) I will use my own (of which by the way there are many suggesting otherwise), not funded by agenda driven or tax funded political groups determining the outcome.I guess its only fair that I state I am not a psychologist, I do hold 2 undergraduate degrees and a masters, however I have a sister with a PhD. in child psychology from William and Mary. (who wrote her dissertation on Nature vs Nurture.) Its a good read, you should look into it.Doesnt make a difference Im still able to research and reason better than most. I think its because Im more interested in truth than I am emotional bias, or personal agenda. Firstly when discussing something as important as this (the sake of the children) you really should try to take your obvious bias and uncontrollable desire to humiliate someone out of the picture. Furthermore posting a link to one article that cant be accessed for scrutiny and claiming all the others say the same thing is disingenuous at best. 1. No one gives you the right to have children, so your comment about single parents is null and void. As for adoption Despite the greater acceptance of single-parent adoption, the traditional view of parenting, that a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and development, still exists. ""Mental health experts say that the "ideal" is to place a child in a two-parent home with a mother and father who are compatible and loving."" Not my words theirs, but the conclusion is obvious. Im not against single parent adoption, simply because of the demand not because it would be as good, anyone can plainly see, for developmental and ideal child rearing Nature beats Nurture hands down, it always has and always will. The more you stray from the natural order of things (Nature), the more you decay societyand ultimately aid it demise. Read some history on the fall of ancient civilizations, i.e.ROME, Constantinople etc. the similarities are un-ignorable. 2. Taking issue with 20 years of research conclusions that say there are no differences, two University of California sociologists recently re-examined data from 21 studies on gay parenting dating back to 1980.(wow 20 whole years and 21 studies and you find that conclusive?)One study even said that its data suggests that children in same-sex households are less susceptible to child abuse because when the study asked same-sex parents if they abused their children, they answered "no."Joseph Nicolosi offered the following comments: "This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprisingly that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense -- lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters. 3. Whats the difference? are you kidding me? Aside from the simple fact that several studies have now found serious flaws in methodology with the ones you are using, but they have also found boys are becoming more feminized, and are more likely to go have a homosexual experience (hmmm indoctrination, I could have guessed that from the start)http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html4. An amicus brief filed by Professor’s Leon Kass and Harvey Mansfield. There is no scientific basis to make any conclusions about what gay marriage would do for children raised by gay parents or do for society at large, Kass and Mansfield argued.Professor Douglas W. Allen, who teaches economics at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, came to a similar conclusion. In a paper published last year, Allen reviewed studies of gay parenting from 1995 to 2010. Most of these studies concluded that gay parents performed just as well, or better, than opposite-sex parents – a conclusion that was not warranted given the limitations of those studies, Allen found. Besides being based upon small, non-random samples, Allen found numerous other methodological problems. One problem, for instance, was that for many of the studies the well-being of the children was determined by asking the parents. Parents, obviously, are not an objective source. This may be even more true if the parents know that their answers will be used to answer whether their lifestyle choice is the best setting for the raising of their children.http://theperpetualview.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/the-supreme-court-gay-parenting-and-science-part-1/ It seems there are only 3 or 4 actual studies being referenced by a multitude of journals including your Medscape article, isnt it interesting that all of the studies were not only by social sciences teachers (not psychologists) but none of them were long term, not even multiple years, most of the children arent even grown yet, so how could they possible no what affects there are coming.It took me all of 30 minutes to dig all this up, Im astonished at the number of fallacies and flawed statements from someone who begins with condemning someone for speculation, your closing statement isnt any better. The Bible is a mix of fact and fiction, of history and religion. As to history, some of the Old Testament has been shown to be historically correct by archeology. Writings and inscriptions in other cultures, and in the Holy Land, have confirmed events which are mentioned in the Bible. The testaments are first hand writings of the time Christ was alive, by the disciples, and have also been proven historically accurate.Now lets get to the good part The Constitution, which I have considerable knowledge of, and find your justification comment particularly humorous since all of your rights were endowed by the creator, kind of ridiculous for you to now claim political atheism using an amendment endowed by the creator. Not to mention the large majority of laws actually do come from the bible, and religion. As for your claim it violates the establishment clause or even the free exercise clause is absurd since it plainly states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So how does using the bible as a source of ethics and morality (which is what we've been doing since the old testament. And does nothing to establish a national religion,violate either of those?