mhaze,
Distressing or not, there is no evidence for that.

<<…children raised in non-traditional families do, on average, worse than those raised by a father-mother.>>

That is, assuming that you’re referring to the nuclear family as “traditional” (which depends on how far you want to go back); and that, by “non-traditional”, you just mean same-sex-parenting homes.

While it is well-established that children with only one parent fare worse than those with two live-in parents, there is no evidence that it matters what sexes the parents are.

http://dime159.dizinc.com/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2004.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/wp06.pdf
http://66.7.216.77/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2008.pdf
http://www.ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s2.0-S0049089X12000610-main.pdf
http://squareonemd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Same-Sex-Parenting-Meta-Analysis-Crowl-Ahn-Baker-2008.pdf

This is, however, some evidence that children in same-sex-parenting homes fare slightly better than children opposite-sex-parenting homes. Which would make sense given the additional effort same-sex couples have to go to to have children. Although a limitation with those findings is that they’re disproportionately based on homes with two female parents.

--

Josephus,

<<Who do you class as a hate preacher?>>

Anyone who is against same-sex marriage, is vocal about it, and continues to be vocal about it after it is shown to them that they don’t have a rational argument against same-sex marriage.

A plebiscite is mob rule, something representative democracy is designed to avoid. Why not a plebiscite on all 'conscience issues'? For example I want plebiscites to decide whether or not the following should be allowed...Divorce; No tax on religious corporations; IVF; abortion; voluntary assisted suicide; purchasing Nembutal; growing hemp and marijuana; whether Australia should keep it's defence force for defence and not go fighting other countries; whether we should be more frightened of the USA than Russia... Those will do for starters

'Why not a plebiscite on all 'conscience issues'?'

I think that is a good idea ybgirp. It works well in Switzerland. Instead of being dumped with policies and laws made by mainloy lefist ideology we might have decisions made by people whose consciences have not been seared. Any sane person would vote against sexualising and perverting young kids like to so called 'safe'sex vomit.

The anti-plebicite ferals demonstrate two things: they hate democracy, and they will never be satisfied - i.e they will always be back for more and more. That is what their game is all about: they are less interested in faux marriage for homosexuals than they are in the 'big picture', which is the ruination of Western society. This is all the foul, malicious far left is interested in. They are merely using homosexuals, many of whom just want want to live in peace without 'marriage', for plain political destruction.

A J Phillips,

Inter-racial marriage has always been legal. Homosexual marriage is not. Your comparison is entirely inappropriate and offensive. Find another horse to kick.

Joe

A J Philips:

"Anyone who is against same-sex marriage, is vocal about it, and continues to be vocal about it after it is shown to them that they don’t have a rational argument against same-sex marriage."

So it is safe to say that anyone who disagrees with someone vocally even after they have been shown they do not have a rational argument is a hater. Does this apply to all subjects or just this particular one?

If it only applies to this subject why is that?