Bah humbug, balderdash, bird's fur and horse feathers!

As always with these brainwashed for birth, Troglodytes. The science/evidence is simply ignored in favor of endlessly repeated (flat earth) stone age dogma and ideology.

In any event, many divorcees would take issue with most of this single sex parenting, risible rubbish?

As for swaying my vote with this patent propaganda?

To late Sir and how dare you conflate SSM, with, as you put so very conveniently, homosexual parenting!

What are you trying to infer? That people who are born different, might have or want a sexual relationship with their children? Or maybe their dogs, horses, pigs or camels?

Bring on the next election and a return to focusing on actual issues that actually matter. AFFORDABLE ENERGY AND HOUSING. REAL JOBS AND GOOD GROWTH!

And an end to using hapless folk, unfortunate enough to be born different, and a crime in many glazed over blinkered eyes, and a very convenient political football!

Turn or bury your head, close your eyes and karate chop the air as vigorously as you can, with both hands! And or, just spit foam laden invective into the faces of folk, who simply cannot in all good conscience, share your fact free dogma!

ENOUGH PUNISHMENT/SOCIAL INJUSTICE ALREADY! AND TIME FOR THE EVIDENCE, THERE FOR ALL WITH EYES AND EARS TO SEE AND HEAR, TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE!
Alan B.

Dear Alan B.,

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill
not easily acquired. It is always best to argue in a
logical manner because sound reasoning will conquer
unreasonable generalisations every time. We don't
want to appear to be arguing on an emotional level
instead of a mature intelligent one.

I understand you have strong feelings on this subject.
As do I. However, I've learned from Tiernan Brady
that we'll get much further if we show respect for
the opinions of those who happen to disagree with our
point of view. Even though at times this may not be
an easy thing to do due to the nonsense that is being
put out by some over zealous people.

Anyway, I'll get down from my soap-box and continue to
try to take my own advice on this issue. No-one likes
or supports an abusive, illogical or weak debater.
The author of this article will undoubtedly learn this
from experience.

I have been through many of the studies spoken about here and it is correct, they all contain many flaws and nearly all are based on questionaires filled in by volunteer lesbians mothers, hardly an impartial source of information.
So it is not possible to assess how successful gay parenting is by looking at these studies. And until same sex parenting has been around for a few decades in bigger numbers, we won't have studies that give measurable outcomes.
However, long before same sex parenting became an issue, many studies were being done on outcomes for children raised without fathers, because professionals had come to realise these children were featuring in all the negative situations in the community.
All research shows that children growing up without fathers have higher incidence of mental health disorders, suicide, criminal activity, addiction problems, relationship problems, lower academic achievements, lower incomes as adults etc.
Some of these problems can be attributed to some single parent famiies having lower incomes, but not all the problems.
Professionals have long known that mothers and fathers bring different parenting styles into a child's life as well as providing positive same sex role models. Girls growing up without fathers come into puberty younger, are more at risk for teen pregnancy and tend to make poor choices of partners, all apparently in their search for a missing father figure.
This is not about gay people not being loving, protective parents. No one has ever said that gay people are any different to heterosexuals in their love or care for children.
This is all about the lack of one or two biological parent from a child's life and the associated problems that brings.

If the NO campaign continue to resort to dubious claims about gay parenting, we'll almost certainly end up with a YES outcome. It's not about the children, and if it were I'd be voting YES.

But this vote is about values.

If you think gender really doesn't matter, and that once your kids are grown up (and discover they're bisexual) you think it's no better for them to spend the rest of their life with someone of the opposite sex than with someone of the same sex, vote YES.

But if you consider same sex relationships to be ersatz, vote NO.

Can someone please let the author know that a person does not have to be married to be a parent. Therefore, trying to conflate parenting with same-sex marriage is pointless and a diversion. Typical of the 'vote no' brigade's tactics thus far. Distract and divert from the issue. Weak and pathetic.

The article dismayed me. Well written and articulate, but in not putting forward a reasonable case for voting no it fails to convince or validate the author's position.

Denying the other's position by repeatedly questioning validity, authenticity and of the lacking of 'absolute' poof has been the time honoured technique of the deniers of change and of questioning a 'status quo' position aka James Hardy, Big Tobacco, climate change...

I am sure there are many valid reasons for voting no. Just give them, and let those who are promoting yes give there's.

As it stands to this point the no'ers have only tried to sow disquiet, and place a sanctity on an institution that is simply a social construct... one that that is discriminatory.
I am going to vote, give me your position to consider
MN