Your first source
“The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America” doesn’t actually show which studies it is about, and does not show how they actually violate each claim. Also, bias much? This is not scientific literature, it is not peer-reviewed, and so is completely useless.
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpubli...astrophies.pdf
Really, another Christian, non-scientific publication? No, this is not science. Also, I this only evaluates the outcomes of children raised by their original parents, compared to broken homes, single parents, etc. It does not in any way compare children raised by their original parents to children adopted and raised by a gay couple, or children who are born to a gay couple by IVF and then raised by that couple. So, aside from being uselessly biased drivel, this article does nothing to support your point.
Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk
Family Research Council? I’m beginning to think you don’t actually know what an unbiased, scientific source is. Also, this does not show that children raised by homosexual parents are worse off. It simply criticizes a subset of the research that is out there. Again, does not support your conclusion.
The following is my letter which told the truth about homosexual parenting, (reference a search of any objective reporting of
This is a letter. It is not scientific in any way and does not provide any evidence for its claims. Useless.
Homosexual Parenting
I don’t have time to check all of the sources this document sites but I checked a couple. The first one said having homosexual fathers does not have an effect on a child, and another study said that being raised by lesbians had no effect on the sexual orientation of the children. So, this author is misusing sources, assuming that if there is a citation no one will bother to check. Another useless source. You cannot say something, and then cite as evidence an article which contradicts what you have said.
Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk
This one is a religious blog that does the same thing as the others, making broad sweeping criticisms of research without actually showing the studies it is criticizing, and without making any argument that the studies they looked at encompass the entirety of research into the subject. Just because someone has a Ph.D. does not make them right.
Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence - Conservapedia
Conservapedia? When I thought the useless drivel could not get any more useless…this is not a scientific source, it has nothing to do with child rearing, and it’s not even remotely related to a process of peer review.
Is Homosexuality Healthy?
This one is by the Exodus Global Alliance. It says nothing about raising children. Same bias as the rest. Do you know what science is?
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
Again, the Family Research Council is a biased religious source. This is useless and says nothing about children raised by homosexual parents.
Why Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Disastrous For America. Numerous Scientific Studies Cited.
Conservative non-scientific BS, citing more conservative non-scientific BS. You cited articles which point out scientific flaws in some research about gay parentage, and then post an entire page of scientifically invalid, non-peer reviewed “research” that speaks against gays. Do you see how ridiculous that is?
I think there is a bigger issue here than gay marriage. Someone, anyone, needs to teach you what science means and what it is. When you can post evidence from a scientific, non-biased, peer-reviewed journal that supports your argument, I will give credence to it. Until then, it doesn’t matter how many useless links you post. They are still useless. Give an argument, give valid supporting evidence, and then people will believe you. That's how this logic thing works. In your quest to understand science, I would also advise looking up and pondering the word "propaganda".