<<No wonder there are many more stories of children who were psychologically damaged by being brought up by Christians than there are of those psychologically damaged by being brought up by gays>>

Well here is a topical story seeing as you asked:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
If only they'd been allowed to "marry" then this would never have happened.

But wait a minute, these two were "married":
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/married-homosexual-molested-dozens-at-dutch-day-care-centers-say-police
Hmmm. Not much social stability there either.
At least they were "provid(ing) a more secure environment for the nurturing of the children".

@Proxy One case of child abuse is one case too many. But, if we were to argue against marriage on the basis of one case of abuse, then we should start with banning heterosexual marriage.

In a major, long-running study, The Williams Institute, at the UCLA School of Law, found that not one of the 78 adolescents from lesbian households included in their study reported ever having been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26 percent of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html

Dr. Carole Jenny, an expert in pediatrics and child sexual abuse,
reviewed (with her colleagues) 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994). Study after study has failed to find any connection between homosexuals and higher than heterosexual levels of child abuse. For example:

Dr. A. Nicholas Groth who has a PhD in clinical psychology and specialises in male to male sexual abuse reviewed the literature and found that the research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

So, as your concern is so sincerely for the safety of children and the best peer reviewed literature from the most qualified sources suggests that children are statistically safer in homosexual households than heterosexual households, I assume you will now be campaigning in favour of gay marriage and against heterosexual marriage?

<<the adult male who (homo)sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual>>
A very convenient disassociation between homosexual acts and homosexuality!

I refer you once again to the seminal report on the sexual abuse of minors by catholic priests which demonstrated that 80.9% of the victims were boys:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

Male priests - boy victims > homosexual child abuse

As for the non-existence of lesbian abuse or violence:

"Police arrest lesbians for 'torturing' boy, 5"
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=67147

"Lesbians More Prone to Partner Violence Than Gay Men"
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/08/30/lesbians-more-prone-to-partner-violence-than-gay-men/

"Specifically, 27.9 percent of all lesbian or gay adults reported experiencing IPV in their adult lives. The rate of reported IPV is even higher among bisexual adults, at 40.6 percent. In contrast, only 16.7 percent of heterosexual adults reported incidences of IPV."
http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsReleaseDetails.aspx?id=51

As for the self-reported data on lesbians and their children:
"New Lesbian Parenting Study Makes Claims Unsupported by the Evidence"
http://www.narth.com/docs/makesclaims.html

We would all be better served by ignoring self-reported data collected by partisan "gay" studies activists.

And when someone quotes uncritically from NARTH as if it was a legitimate source of information it's time to cease the conversation as it's clear there's no reasonable discussion to be had.

The Executive Secretary of NARTH is a convicted felon - the judge who sentenced him provided this assessment of his character:

"a man who habitually took advantage of people who were economically dependent upon him; that he did not hesitate to lie or cheat or cover up to achieve his criminal aim. His greed has cause incalculable harm...”

Dr Lisa Diamond is not the only academic to complain that NARTH has grossly distorted their findings to suit it's own agenda.

Charles Socarides (President of NARTH)was threatened with court action by the American Psychoanalytical Association for misrepresentation. He made appear that his own views about pathology and treatment of homosexuality were consistent with those of the APsaA. He did this by quoting something written in 1968, which supported his views and which he called the "official position" of the APsaA, while ignoring a 1990 revised statement that drastically contradicted his views; he also failed to mention their only "official" policy, which was a 1991 statement of non-discrimination.)

The journal in which NARTH publishes its nonsense is not a real medical journal at all (although it's title suggests it is). The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed[36] nor the Web of Science. In other words, it's reputation as a source of scholarly data is around nil.

I could go on and on and on about NARTH, but won't.

1. Would gay marriage lead to greater social stability?
2. Would a married gay partnership be likely to provide a more secure environment for the nurturing of the children of a gay couple than an unmarried one?

The author fails to present any convincing argument for a "yes" answer to either of the above questions.

The welfare of children should be paramount. Children adopted by a gay couple would have to cope with the stigma of being seen to be raised differently to other children. This would not be changed one bit by socalled "gay couple marriage".

It is difficult to see how a parish priest sharing the author's view on this question, would be considered as improving the stability of a parish

"The welfare of children should be paramount. Children adopted by a gay couple would have to cope with the stigma of being seen to be raised differently to other children. "

And where does the stigma that hurts these children come from? Oh yes, that's right, those who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality.

We've heard this argument about protecting children from the stigma of being different to other children before, of course - it was the main objection to inter-racial marriage.

Funny how concern for the children so often masks the ugly face of prejudice and discrimination.