Update: I received a similarly illogical reply (which can be seen with the same link); here's what I said.

Again, I will say - if marriage is to be a truly child-centric institution, then the people desiring to marry ought to already have children. If you object to that, then your motives clearly lie elsewhere in making that claim - most likely in Judeo-Christian tradition. The sources you seem to mainly rely upon are people who strongly identify with the Judeo-Christian faith, which causes me to suspect their motives and integrity in their treatment of this subject. At least if any of them were nontheists, I could rule out homophobia that stems from religious tradition. Alas, the credibility of those you cite - I refer here to outspoken Christians Lopez and Regnerus- is dubious because of the strong religious motivating factor to trump up reasons to disallow same-sex marriage.
Speaking of credibility! Regnerus has, it would seem, misrepresented his findings, as the following demonstrate. His research, many contend, is of dubious merit. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/mark_regnerus_testifies_in_michigan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/200-researchers-respond-to-regnerus-paper/

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255

The American Sociological Associaton has much to say on the subject as well: http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

Additionally, if you consider Robert Oscar Lopez your friend, I question your choices - he refers to gay men as  “rutting, uncontrolled animals” in a column he wrote. The more I delve into the people associated with this site, the stranger things get - lying researchers, homophobes who have nevertheless written gay fiction novels...  (http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201307240001)
----------
Arguing from tradition is fraught with issues (and would you like to argue that Congress is infallible? What happens if I bring up Roe vs. Wade, then? The fact that this misguided DOMA ruling agreed with your notions does not make it correct). Many cultures also had a strong tradition of incestuous marriage - will you defend that as well? Our own country has a tarnished reputation on the matter of marriage tradition also- unless, of course, you think it's acceptable that interracial marriage was banned until the Loving case of 1967! Lots of places have terrible traditions that violate human rights and ought not to be upheld, and this is one of them.
-----------
The "Cinderella effect" refers specifically to stepparents, not to "non-biological" parents. This is a relevant difference; as pHD-holder "EvoBio" says in the amazon review of the book some of that information came from (link here:http://www.amazon.com/review/R2WBAZQA140JLX/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0300080298#wasThisHelpful),  "It surprises me that, as psychologists, the authors ignored much more likely, psychologically and socially based explanations, such as the fact that step-parents are entering a family that, by definition, has suffered extreme emotional upset (divorce or death, etc.)" Same-sex couples do not always exist under those same circumstances (though some do). Please do not misrepresent the article you cite in this way- it's dishonest. On the subject of child abuse, since you brought it up, the fact that an unplanned pregnancy cannot occur within the confines of a same-sex relationship is actually a great indicator that the child will be able to avoid being abused, as unplanned pregnancy and later child abuse go hand in hand (see http://ecademy.agnesscott.edu/~mzavodny/documents/AERPP_abortionandchildabuse_000.pdf  and http://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/0315/p1577.html#afp19990315p1577-b25). It makes sense that a couple who MUST go through a lengthy,expensive VOLUNTARY process to have a child will really want that child. In addition, according to the second source cited, "[p]overty is the most frequently and persistently noted risk factor for child abuse". Since, as you yourself have pointed out, this process can be expensive, it would seem necessary that that same-sex couple be fairly well-off - and therefore avoid poverty and its associated dangers. The situations are not comparable and that little evo psych blurb you cited does not support your claims.
-----------
In response  to your constant stream of "but they're missing out"-themed comments, here's this little heartwarmer:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/30/the-neuroscience-of-my-gay-dad-mom-brain.html
-----------
I can't speak for the children who grew up and are growing up in same-sex households. Though you may have more experience in this realm, and your experiences - whatever they may have been- were definitely valid, you can speak only for yourself.

[This may have posted several times; apologies if it did.]

Do excuse me, I've got a life to get back to.
(I know you can sympathize on that point.)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Dear readers, I'm tired of dealing with this crazy site now. I think I'll be done.

My response to the "Marriage is about children and therefore marriage equality is bad" tack.

The original post can be found here: http://askthebigot.com/gay-marriage/

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The more I read, the more dismayed I became.

If the point of marriage is children, then no marriages ought to be condoned unless the parents [edit: people who wish to be married] already have them. Otherwise it’s making a mockery of child-centric marriage.

“If marriage is a child-centric institution”… but it isn’t. There are myriad legal, social, emotional, and economic benefits to marriage, regardless of whether a child comes into the picture. There is no – and should BE no – requirement to involve children in a marriage for it to claim legitimacy, as would be necessary if it were truly a “child-centric institution”. This isn’t 17th-century England. You are entitled to your opinion that marriage is a “child-centric” institution, but to give that opinion force of law is not something you are entitled to. That’s the issue that I, as a supporter of marriage equality, have with those against it. Believe what you like, but when your beliefs limit anyone else’s legal freedoms to engage in society on equal terms, we have a problem. If marriages and civil unions are more or less the same in legal standing, then there ought to be no problems with calling them the same thing; if they don’t have the same legal standing, then our government has a duty to address that inequality.

To answer the loaded question you posed here: “If that is the case, then why have some gay marriage advocates sought, bought, and/or trumpeted the “studies” which are aimed at “proving” that children do not suffer any ill effects by being systematically separated from a natural parent?” Because some same-sex couples desire to raise children. Not all do, but some do. People who disagree with same-sex parentage often trot that idea that “children suffer… ill effects” out, so the science is there to repudiate their claims that same-sex parents, married or not, are unfit.

(Citing a movie as evidence of your claim, as you did with that bit about The Parent Trap, is is also perhaps not the best tack to take; it proves nothing and gives the impression that you believe that movies are real.)

Children ought to have positive role models of all sexes, regardless of their family makeup. A heterosexual marriage certainly does not ensure that; nor does it absolve those parents of that obligation to provide outside adult role models.

The cherry-picking of examples (one child’s statements do not an argument make, if the article by FrauM on your website regarding transgender children is to be believed – be consistent in your content! [Edit - this is meant to point out the site’s inconsistency and not to invalidate the statements or experiences of transgender or any other children. It is inappropriate and dishonest to only listen to children and give their statements weight when the things they say seem to back up the arguments you are trying to make. That little girl’s experience is not to be invalidated, but neither can it be used to definitively say that all children raised in same-sex households feel that way.], loaded questions (as above), and hyperbole don’t need to be there, either. “[H]uman trafficking”? Heavens. Questionable rhetoric, and a dangerous misappropriation of the phrase at that. It is also inappropriate overall to attempt to influence the concrete details of others’ lives based on your own abstract musings and beliefs on the subject. To state that heterosexual marriage is “natural” marriage clearly implies that you consider any other marriage to be unnatural; again, while you are entitled to your beliefs, our government would be sorely amiss to give such backwards views force of law.

To the person above who has stated that they intend to link to this post during debates on this subject: I’d advise against it. It won’t persuade anyone who thinks about it critically, and will only serve to solidly reinforce the beliefs of those who disagree. I can personally vouch for that.

Oh, Pinterest.

I like Pinterest. It's full of lovely clothes and interesting do-it-yourself ideas and beautiful home decor.
However.
It's an interesting space to navigate, because (as I see it) it's not really intended for public comment. Until recently, it wasn't possible to message other users, and even commenting seems to take a backseat in comparison with Facebook and the like. The point of Pinterest, to me, is to make my very own collection of pictures and words that please me while everyone else around me does the same. Occasionally, I'll see a thing that makes me unhappy, like a little girl's onesie with some sexist "Lock up your sons/ my daddy has guns" kind of thing. (Seriously? Do we really have to impose gender stereotypes on a tiny person who can't even recognize their own hand? Or impose them on anyone, for that matter?) Usually, though, I choose not to comment, because that's not my space and I feel that negative comments ought not to be posted.
I do feel, though, that if someone is attacking my beliefs - as was an ill-informed rant on feminism I saw earlier today- that it is permissible to step in and defend them. I don't like to, though, and it makes me feel weird and uncomfortable, because Pinterest is where I come to escape the rest of the internet when it wears me out with its idiocy.

I don't post things that belittle, insult, or spread falsehoods about others or their beliefs, and I expect the same consideration from my fellow pinners. That's not too much to ask.