Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father?
Glad you were able to fill us in on that.
And I've never seen any study that could be construed to lead to that conclusion.
There are studies that show pretty much everything in the social sciences that somebody wants to show, so if you haven't seen a particular result, it's pretty much for lack of looking. (And yes, that is a pathetic state of affairs in social sciences.) I'd suggest that the "equality of marriages" with regard to child development outcomes is just as firmly established as that increases in CO2 lead to more frequent and intense hurricanes. The science is settled, people!
Your assertion is that adopted kids are inferior. That has been studied, and hasn't been found to be true.
Nah, that's a straw man. I will readily agree that adopted kids can turn out really great, and better in many cases than with their lousy birth parents. A selection of data points doesn't refute the existence of a trend in a noisy dataset.
So your assertions seem to be based on bigotry, not reason.
Nonsense. Asking questions and discussing issues is not bigotry.
(Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it,
Yeah, like when interracial marriage was talked about, and "the half-breed kids will belong to neither race, and will obviously be inferior to either" was "honest" talk. Thankfully, your type of "honest" talk is considered irrational bigotry. That's not a fault in the "political climate" as you assert.
You are a real jerk, aren't you? Since you prefer insults to courteous debate, I have no interest in engaging further with you.
So just take the above and apply it to child rearing, and I've successfully made my case that it's at least an issue worth considering/discussing. Diversity minus women equals "???". I suggest that the trolls in this conversation are those who say there's nothing to talk about, and everybody who disagrees with them is an idiot. I believe that would be you?
The people against gay marriage certainly are not arguing for what is best for the children
Actually, many such arguments have been made, so not sure what "people" you are referencing here. Can you be more specific?
When a person argues against raising a child in a family that loves and supports each other, all while arguing for raising children in abusive families where the children aren't fed, clothed, schooled, and thrown out on the street to work and fend for themselves at age 16, I see absolutely NO situation where "what is best for the children" matters at all to be argued about.
You're entitled to your opinion; I think there's still material for debate here. I agree that broken homes, single parent homes, and abusive homes are not the model we want to aim at, and I think many of the children who grew up in such homes would agree with me. So let's not just concede failure from the start and say "anything goes". When answering the question "what is marriage", with regard to the state's interest in it, the answer will largely involve the welfare of children. Think of the children, dude!
Well, in my defense, it's hard to imagine a sane person getting worked up over something as petty as whether or not some people they know nothing about can marry.
Hmmm: "hard to imagine"... "a sane person"... "they know nothing about".
You seem pretty confident that you know what's best for raising children, and people who disagree with you know nothing. Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father? Do you think it (can) make a difference whether a real, live woman is involved in the parenting of a child? How about a real, live man? Of course generalizations and simplifications are often wrong, but sometimes there is signal in the data that can be studied if one is willing to think honestly about it. (Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it, and rewards mindless, one-sided drivel like you wrote above.)
Awful lot of trolls post in favor of citizens united. Didn't know the Koch Brothers bot army was running so well.
Of course you yourself are trolling here. It is perfectly reasonable (though still subject to debate) to agree with the SCOTUS that businesses should be allowed free speech, and to characterize me and others as Koch Brothers bots is... well, it's pretty lame trolling, notwithstanding your current "+4 Insightful". I don't typically feed trolls, so this comment is directed at those who mis-moderated your post.
So answer me this: is a newspaper recommendation of a political candidate speech? Deny companies political speech, and you have all kinds of unpleasant fallout. You are suggesting censoring the NYT. (Were you aware of that?)
I have no doubt the information will be spread, too. If Snowden can be widely hailed as a hero for leaking the NSA's rampant cybercrime, just imagine the pats on the back for the guy who leaks the key to cancer. (Yeah, yeah, along with threats of jail time, so he'll have to light out for Cambodia or whatever.)