Talk:Same-sex parenting/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

section removed

I removed the 'support and objections' section -[14]. the section only contained one highly questionable claim from a non-scientific source interpreting scientific research polemically; that is clearly a violation pf wp:UNDUE and possibly even falls afoul of wp:FRINGE. I don't have any objection to such a section, actually - the article currently read a little bit like advocacy, and could use a reasonable discussion of the socio-political debate. but it needs to be better developed before it gets added to the article to avoid giving incorrect impressions about the prominence of the Catholic perspective on gay parenthood. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The section does need balance. My impression however is that leaving the claim in might prompt the other editors here to flesh out a paragraph. If there are concerns about WP:UNDUE I suggest the compromise of commenting out, but not deleting, the section until someone can get to this. The Catholic source is a representation of the Catholic view, and such views are what the new section would be about. K. the Surveyor (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Surveyor, this is a can of worms you need to be very careful about opening. There is some research that supports the idea that non-birth parents, whether step or adoptive, are more likely to abuse children. On the one hand, this could be used as an argument against same-sex parenthood. On the other, it could be used as an argument against adoption and in favor of abortion. This is what happens you synthesize sources: you pick and choose but nobody else is obligated to accept your choices.

I have to agree with Ludwigs2: we do need some balance in this article, but what you're doing isn't it. Let's fine some reliable, mainstream sources of criticism and include those. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It could be seen as undue weight, but there's no synthesis--it's exactly what Answers says. I picked them because they seem unusually thorough and I was hoping to reach the meat of the arguments. They appear to be a mainstream Catholic organization. I don't understand why their statement is inherently unsuitable when balanced by opposing views. K. the Surveyor (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, no that content is definitely not relevant to the article. Firstly because any Catholic group is going to have a strong bias against same-sex relationships, so we must treat such material with extreme care. Secondly their research is non-scientific and highly questionable, it is not peer reviewed for example - which pretty much kills it stone dead anyway. Plus the conclusion it draws is very dubious (it's basically "clutching at straws" to put it lightly) and I doubt we will find a reliable source that even names it as an alternate view, let alone support it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no difference if they say that 2+2=5. The section is about opinions. The only question is whether the opinion is the view of a significant minority. Catholics are one such minority; gay rights activists are another. Both can be added. K. the Surveyor (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I took out the other paragraph again because it placed undue weight on a tiny study that's based entirely on self-reports. If you look for more comprehensive studies, the conclusion is not supported. For example, this article says, "While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay." Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what that source says about the probability of having had a gay experience. The additions I wrote are sourced by the American Psychological Association, the very same source used to back up the current statement. That the children are no more likely to identify as gay was also given and acknowledged. But that is a different issue. K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets see.

1. http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp is not a WP:RS, and inclusion of that info is definitely not okay.
2. The info from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf is pretty unambigious, and does not support the claim made in the article. Effectvely, one study showed a small effect, but all other studies did not, so there is no consistent pattern that can be described.
3. The info from http://gbge.aclu.org/parenting/summaries-leading-research-gay-parents links back to http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/32/1/3.pdf , and the information is actually correct and stronger in the article than reported on the website. However, it is based on one older study, contrary to the previous summary that summarizes a far larger body of work.

Summary: The information is either based on unreliable sources, aka a source with an obvious agenda, or is not supported by the refs in question when the whole body of work is considered. I think therefore that removal of the information was correct. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"And, as with empirical studies of couples, it is important to examine the entire body of research rather than to draw conclusions from one or a few studies because random variations in sampling can be expected to produce some heterogeneity of findings. In the long term, for example, even if no differences in psychological adjustment exist between the children of heterosexual parents and the children of sexual minority parents in the general population, a small number of studies will inevitably find superior functioning among children in one group or the other." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf "We rely on the best empirical research available, focusing on general patterns rather than any single study. Whenever possible, we cite original empirical studies and literature reviews that have been peer-reviewed and published in reputable academic journals. Recognizing that academic journals differ widely in their publication criteria and the rigor of their peer review, we give the greatest credence to papers published in the most authoritative journals, and we critically evaluate the findings reported in all of the papers we cite." "Before citing any study, we critically evaluate its methodology, including the reliability and validity of the measures and tests it employed, and the quality of its data-collection procedures and statistical analyses. We also evaluate the adequacy of the study’s sample, which must always be considered in terms of the specific research question posed by the study. In this brief, we note when a study’s findings should be regarded as tentative because of methodological limitations." "When numerous studies with different samples reach similar conclusions, we place greater confidence in those conclusions than when they are derived from a single study. We therefore rely as much as possible on empirical findings that have been replicated in multiple studies by different researchers." "Scientific research cannot prove that a particular phenomenon does not exist or never occurs, or that two variables are never related to each other. However, when repeated studies with different samples consistently fail to establish the existence of a phenomenon or a relationship between two variables, researchers become increasingly convinced that, in fact, the phenomenon does not exist or the variables are unrelated. In that situation, if a researcher attempts to argue that two phenomena are correlated in the absence of supporting data from prior studies, the burden of proof is on that researcher to demonstrate empirically that the alleged relationship exists." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf --Destinero (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, assuming Catholic Answers has some weight in Catholic thought at large, the truly objectionable part of that section was the "points to ..." part. It could rephrased as "interprets scientific studies as ...", and it should be balanced by APA's interpretation of the said study, which is obviously way more reserved. It's generally known that religious/political groups do that kind of (re)interpretation of science. It doesn't seem unreasonable to include that discussion here. It would be preferable if a secondary source discussed the re-interpretation aspect in relation to this topic. E.g. you can find something like this discussing how homosexuality and pedophilia get conflated in certain types of discourse. As another example, Kim recently pointed me to this video in which a researcher tells how his research got used by a religious group. (The research itself was very questionable, to the point that an entire book got written by putting together the papers on the controversy generated [15], but the original researcher himself was far more upfront about the deficiencies of his work than the religious organizations that used it to promote their agenda.) I'm pretty sure that LGBT parenting is significant enough that studies about the political/religious discourse in this area do exist, including how they (re)interpret science. But it's not strictly necessary to find a source like that to discuss the matter if the difference in interpretation of a study is obvious between scientific and religious authorities. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Catholic Answers is geared towards showing LGBT parenting is bad, and they pull things together that have nothing to do with the issue. For example, they make the comparison between heterosexual step-parents and claim that it is the same as LGBT parent that were already together because one is not a biological parent. But it is a false comparison, because LGBT parents that are already together are better compared with couples who have children by artificial insemination or IVF. So, they try to pull a false comparison to show LGBT parenting is bad for the children, something that is not supported by research. So, yes, it is definably a very clear unreliable source.

Highlighting a single study with 25 children that shows a specific thing, while a multitude of studies showing no effect is basically a clear case of UNDUE.

Yes, we can discuss that studies about LGBT parenting are ALWAYS misrepresented by religious groups opposed to homosexuality. But it should be spelled out as such.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. There is a sentence about that somewhere in the article "The Canadian Psychological Association is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research ..." Perhaps that huge section needs some subsections. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with the revisions suggested by Tijfo three replies up about the support/opposition section. I completely agree on carrying out these changes. Again, it makes no difference if the Catholic source says gay parenting is bad because 2+2=5. The sole criteria for inclusion in an opinion section, I'd argue, is the prominence of the group in question. Catholics are one significant group.

Kim, can you please cite the specific studies in question contradicting the other claim? Are you sure they are talking about a sexual relationship/experience and not gender identity or sexual orientation? K. the Surveyor (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, see page 10, top left, to find the following references: Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mickach, 1995, Bozett, 1980, 1987, 1989, Gottman,1990, Golombok & Tasker, 1996, Green, 1978, Huggins, 1989, Miller, 1979, Paul, 1986, Rees, 1979, Tasker & Golombok, 1997. I have not checked them for the specific claim. Keep in mind that the APA brochure is several years old, and there could be newer material out that is not referenced. My point is that a single study is not conclusive, especially if it is merely 25 people. If it is added, it needs to be added with the necessary caveats. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that all reasonable qualifications should be made. However, there are at least two studies that come to the same or similar conclusions.

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html

"In two studies, a greater number of young adult children raised by lesbians had participated in or considered a same-sex relationship or had an attraction to the same sex."

I propose we add this statement verbatim. If you want some other material added at the same time, please specify it. K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you are making me laugh. I just read through that, and that is most decidedly not the point of the article at all. You cannot cherry-pick random out-of-context quotes that you can use to support your opinion. that would be a gross violation of wp:SYN.

So let's understand each other. You are clearly on a program to add some language to the article which suggests that same-sex parents are in some way bad for children. There is clearly nothing in reliable research sources that you can use to make that claim. You could easily find opinion-type articles that would suggest that LGBT parenting is bad, and could add those (with proper attribution), but you seem to be focused on making some more definitive claim (hence the strong tendency towards synthesis that you show). People here have been admirably patient with you thus far (which does them all great credit), but sooner or later you are going to have to lower your sights a good bit or give up your quest entirely, because there's just nothing in the literature which says what you want to say with the strength you want to say it. This is a moment where realism has to trump idealism, and you need to recognize that. --Ludwigs2 06:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Skipping the tirade, the information is relevant, reliably sourced and quoted exactly. Therefore, the only possible concern is WP:UNDUE. The article as a whole is about differences in child outcomes and this is one such outcome. It should be added, and not kept out due to POV objections. However, it is true that other information ought to be added too. I invite others to formulate some overall summary that they find balanced and includes more info. K. the Surveyor (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

don't skip the tirade, man, it's the part that's most useful to you. basically I'm trying to convince you to start putting the encyclopedia ahead of your personal viewpoint before you get yourself in trouble (which you will, if you keep this up). with respect to your other point: one issue may be UNDUE, but the more pressing issue is wp:synthesis. you cannot extract one relatively minor point from an article and re-present it as though it were the article's central theme. The first article is a non-notable trial excerpt. Go back and find the actual peer-reviewed research of this person so we can see what they really said; don't use the transcript of what a legal advocate got him/her to say. The theme of the second article, as I read it, is that children raised by same-sex parents (lesbians, at least) have a range of characteristics that are more adaptive to liberal democratic society then those raised by heterosexual parents. The 'same sex relationship' bit is a result found in only 2 of the 21 studies presented, and you carefully neglected to quote the statement immediately following: "However, statistically, they were no more likely to identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual." That's a serious misrepresentation through omission of the authors' point. --Ludwigs2 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis requires two or more statements. I recently proposed adding only one, and that moreover is an exact quote and so probably couldn't be synthesis anyway. You apparently do not understand what synthesis is. And what is the "first article" you mention? The ACLU source up thread? That could be incorporated but was not part of my recent simple proposal.

The 'same sex relationship bit' may have only been found in two studies because those were the only two studies that bothered to examine the issue. There is no contradiction that anyone has demonstrated from other studies. One well established and distinct conclusion is that there is no statistical difference in rates of homosexual identity. That is already noted on the page; I "carefully neglected" to mention it above because it is already mentioned. It is rather the current page that "carefully neglects" to mention the available findings on same-sex relationships and gender roles of children raised by same-sex couples. I proposed adding information on the former, with a reasonable qualification of "In two studies..." Adding the latter seems reasonable also.

Do you have a categorical problem with mentioning these subjects? K. the Surveyor (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Q. Have studies in your field examined whether children parented by gay men or lesbians are more likely to develop a gay or lesbian sexual orientation themselves? A. Yes, they have. Q. What conclusions have those studies reached? A. Those studies have shown that there is no significant increase in the proportion of children who become gay or lesbian themselves when they are raised by gay or lesbian parents. Q. I would now like to publish my next demonstrative from the "Why Gender Matters" article. (Document displayed) Q. Dr. Lamb, could you please read the highlighted text? A. Yes. The highlighted text says: "While various studies indicate that around two to three percent of persons have ever practiced homosexual behaviors in their lifetime, a study in developmental psychology found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves. Q. Dr. Lamb, does the text that you just read not call into conclusion -- not call into question the conclusion you just gave to the Court? A. No, it doesn't, because the referenced study that is cited here as footnote 84 reported that there was no significant difference between the group of children being raised by lesbian mothers and the groups of children being raised by 15 heterosexual mothers. Q. You were familiar with the study cited in footnote 84? A. I am, yes. Q. Do you know who wrote that study? A. It was a study conducted by Susan Golombok and her colleagues. Q. How do you know Susan Golombok, Professor Lamb? A. Well, I have known of her research for many years. She is now a colleague of mine at the University of Cambridge." http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010-01-15-Perry-Trial-Day-05-Lamb-Zia-mini.pdf This is the reason why the Wikipedia should rely on reliable secondary sources as much as possible as WP:SECONDARY demands. --Destinero (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The source I listed is a secondary source. It is about researchers who reviewed other studies. I don't understand your concern. By the way, the authors of the source are already quoted in the 'Sexuality of children' section from another secondary source of theirs. K. the Surveyor (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I recently came across the interesting fact that very similar material from the work of the same authors had been previously added in July by another user and was removed by Destinero. I understand the need for debate but there is a point at which this becomes tendentious (WP:HEAR). K. the Surveyor (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that my proposed statement is not a great summary of the source as a whole. That is a fair criticism, so how about adding this longer statement? We could add it to "Sexuality of children" and then broaden the scope of the section to "Behavior of children."

Stacey and Biblarz find evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to depart from traditional gender roles. Male children are found to be less aggressive and more nurturing, while female children are more likely to aspire to become doctors, lawyers and engineers. In two studies, a greater number of young adult children raised by lesbians had also participated in or considered a same-sex relationship or had an attraction to the same sex. These studies did not find that the children were any more likely to identify as homosexual. Stacey is careful to note that "a difference is not necessarily a deficit."

I am skipping the mental health findings since that seems already well addressed in this article. K. the Surveyor (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

wedding.thejons.net

Why is this site used as the most reliable source for the statement "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed." Some editors above go down the deep end about WP:MEDRS and what not, but this statement is rather confusing (what's "type of sample" about?) and the source didn't convince me I want to spend time reading the ref. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Positive outcomes"

Please provide the page number in that 70-page amicus brief so I can see what is it talking about. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Picking up an expression from page 33 of that brief and sticking it the intro is spin (public relations), particularly cherry picking. I'm going to replace it with something more explicit and NPOV, which comes form a concise position statement of another equally respectable APA (more respectable to me if you consider that they took a position their members not participating in torture, which the Psychological association did not.) It says right in the first paragraph [16]: The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent. Which is almost certainly how "positive outcomes" should be interpreted in the brief as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever I think, whatever you think, that's simply not what the source says. This is your original research. Find a reliable source to support your interpretation or leave the section alone. While I am keeping your copyediting, I am going to remove the comparison against single-parent households unless you can source it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't expect this article to edited by remotely objective editors. How can you say it's my original research? Can't you even read the quoted statement I gave above? I'm boding it. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole section that contains the fabled page 33 is about same-sex couples, and it has the following self-abstracting title (on p. 26):

There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted

Saying that LGBT parents are associated with "postive outcomes" could mean in a different context for instance that a single LGBT parent is superior to a heterosexual one, which is not a conclusion supported by science, or by that document.

If you really think a statement taken out of context on page 33 of that brief, which was probably the creation of a paralegal and a handful of lawyers, is a better summary of research than a 4-paragraph statement, approved by the board and by the general assembly of a scientific organization, then I bow to your advocacy. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, an amicus brief is not a reliable source. There are enough good sources making clear that LGBT parenting is as good as heterosexual parenting. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even claiming that the brief is unreliable. There are degrees of reliability. But the brief is not as well written, nor did it have as many eyes over it, as far more concise statements in the same matter from the same scientific authorities. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is not the issue. Amicus briefs have as a purpose to support one side or the other in a legal dispute, and hence, they will highlight only their own preferred talking points. They are not limited to what is the truth, they are opinion pieces in a legal debate. And as such, they are not reliable. (even when what they write is actually correct. like in this case.) I would use something like this study http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Demography.pdf -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think there's some confusion what this dispute is about. It's not about:

2 LGBT parents == 2 heterosexual parents (which is the next sentence, and thankfully stated unambiguously)

The dispute is whether to write before that

LGTB parent(s) > ??? (from amicus brief p.33, comparison with unstated control)

or to write

2 LGTB parents > 1 parent (from 1st paragraph of APA statement)

Hope this helps. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

APA statement is generally okay to use, as they base their conclusions on the total of evidence, and they do not have a agenda other than to be as precise with reality as possible. However, there are two seperate issues in the statement:

1. LGBT and hetero's are equally good in raising kids. (2 LGBT parents == 2 heterosexual parents)
2. One parent is better than two parent, independent of the parents sexual orientation. (2 LGBT parents > 1 LGBT parent) && (2 heterosexual parents > 1 heterosexual parent)

The line as was before: There is a consensus among credible scientific researchers which confirms the parenting abilities of same-sex couples, and finds positive outcomes for their children compared to single parenting. is an incorrect concatenation of these two statements as it can be easily implied as that 2 LGBT parents < 2 heterosexual parents. I am sure that is not what was intended, and it is incorrect, and comparing an LGBT couple with a single heterosexual mixes two factors, and makes it impossible to clearly distinguish between the two factors. The APA statement is rather clear on that as they separate the two issues. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I wrote the 1st sentence did not say anything about 2 LGBT vs 2 hetero, so it doesn't imply anything for that case. The 2 LGBT vs 2 hetero matter was addressed in the (unchanged) 2nd sentence in the wiki article. I agree that the way the sentences are ordered in the APA statement is a better presentation though—the most important issue first. But I'm not the one insisting on comparisons with unspecified controls in the introduction (as first sentence or at all). My first attempt here was to remove the dubious first sentence instead of clarifying it. But I got reverted by someone who insists that p.33 of the amicus brief has the best presentation of the research. By the way, I read the conclusions of 2010 Rosenfeld's study you linked above, but it only addresses and confirms the undisputed issue, so it's of no real help for the dispute at hand (which really is one of presentation rather than results), but R's study should be added to the article somewhere, because it's the first large sample rather than a meta-analysis of small samples wrt school outcomes: "The analysis in this article, the first to use large sample nationally representative data, shows that children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school." (emphasis mine) Of course, you can spin that as "positive outcomes", but that's hardly a NPOV re-statement of this source.Tijfo098 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should summarize this text: "The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Another dubious statement, to say the least

"If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample." This statement is bollocks. Any scientist can tell you that. It comes from Herek p. 10, sadly. Compare it with what Rosenfeld writes "A second critique of the literature—that the sample sizes of the studies are too small to allow for statistically powerful tests—continues to be relevant." (p. 757) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, some can say, there is no science possible in polls with small samples.. We can just guess and it is the same - they do it as well :C). On the other hand, Herek have long list of expert witness experience, so we can thought that he is wrong, but at least remarkable on Wikipedia. Depend on my opinion, all this gender&s.orientation thing is a bubble and Herek is used / uses himself as an activist.--DeeMusil (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This can say only some people, mainly activist founding antigay organizations like you in the Czech republic, who are deeply uneducated in statistics and developmental psychology. Please stop commenting topic you simply don't understand its essential foundations for a long time. You need some knowledge and education first to be able to discuss these issues. "To confidently describe the prevalence or frequency with which a phenomenon occurs in the population at large, for example, it is necessary to collect data from a probability sample (often referred to in common parlance as a “representative sample”). By contrast, simply to document that a phenomenon occurs, case studies and nonprobability samples are often adequate. For comparisons of different populations, probability samples drawn from each group are desirable but not necessary and are often not feasible. Hence, researchers often rely on nonprobability samples that have been matched on relevant characteristics (e.g., educational level, age, income). Some groups are sufficiently few in number — relative to the entire population — that locating them with probability sampling methods is extremely expensive or practically impossible. In the latter cases, the use of nonprobability samples is often appropriate. When numerous studies with different samples reach similar conclusions, we place greater confidence in those conclusions than when they are derived from a single study. We therefore rely as much as possible on empirical findings that have been replicated in multiple studies by different researchers." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf The same problems you showed in the Czech Wikipedia. You misrepresented the science many times to push your propagandistic unfounded antigay agenda. And I won't let you to continue to do it here anymore. --Destinero (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Title

Usually we do not use abbreviations in the title thus shouldn't it be: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parenting? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Probably not the abbreviation is so common as to be a thing unto itself. We have LGBT as an article for example. A redirect from Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parenting would be okay, though not clearly needed IMO. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The title is good enough the way it is, I think. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lamb & "traditional"

Michael Lamb appears to be a poor source here. First, he is cited from a affidavit, which is a dead link, instead of his book(s). Second, he does not use the terms "traditional" and "non-traditional" consistently in his works. In his 1999 book, on p. 1 by traditional he means: mother homemaker, father breadwinner. On p. 39 in his book by traditional the same author understands exclusive maternal care, which may not include a father at all. Regardless which of these definitions of Lamb we would assume were used in the dead-link affidavit, they don't have direct relevance on arguments about LGBT parents. I propose we get rid of Lamb as a source because it only adds confusion to this article, particularly because in some interpretations (by Lamb himself) of "non-traditional" the statement that they are as good as "traditonal" is false (single parenting, institutional, etc.) The passage from the Australian review which makes distinction between structure and processes in a family is a sufficient introductory argument for that section, and that source doesn't use the polysemantic, thus confusing, terminology "traditional"/"non-traditional". Tijfo098 (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

1) http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf is not a dead link

Thanks for adding that one, the link when I wrote the post was http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf, and that one is dead. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

2) "In the social sciences, the term “traditional family” refers to the childrearing environment that social scientists formerly considered the norm -- a middleclass family with a bread-winning father and a stay-at-home mother, married to each other and raising their biological children. “Nontraditional” family forms, by definition, involve any kind of variation from this pattern. Thus, families with fathers who assume responsibility for childcare would qualify as nontraditional, as would families with employed mothers, with two employed parents, with one parent, or that rely on childcare centers instead of performing childcare exclusively within the home. Nontraditional families constitute the vast majority of families in the United States today. Society’s early assumptions about the superiority of the traditional family form have been challenged by the results of empirical research. Early in the Twentieth Century, it was widely believed that traditional family settings were necessary in order for children to adjust well. This view derived directly from psychoanalytic thinking that was based on clinical observations, but not on empirical research. As psychoanalysis yielded to more empirically-based psychology over the early parts of the last century, it became clear that this notion was unsupported. Research beginning in the late 1940’s and continuing until the present has tested many of the hypotheses that flowed from the assumption that children and adolescents need to be raised in traditional families in order to develop healthily. Specifically, there have been over 50 years of research into the effects on children or adolescents of having one parent, of divorce, and of maternal employment. Intense interest in the effects of daycare began in the 1970’s, as did interest in highly involved fathers (stay-at-home fathers or families in which mothers and fathers share childcare responsibilities) and in same-sex families and households. This research has demonstrated that the correlates of children’s or adolescents’ adjustment listed above are important regardless of whether children and adolescents are raised in traditional family settings or in nontraditional families. Children’s or adolescents’ adjustment depends overwhelmingly upon such qualities as the parents’ affection, consistency, reliability, responsiveness, and emotional commitment, as well as on the quality and character of the relationships between the parents and their intimates, and on the availability of sufficient economic and social resources. Since the end of the 1980’s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings." Thus it is completely clear what is thought as traditional family.

3) An affidavit with dozens of high quality references accepted by courts and those kind of reliability on which many courts relied so far is usable in Wikipedia. Michael Lamb is probably one of the most eminent researchers in the field nowadays, see his credits in the addidavit. Hardly you can find anobody more competent and distinguished.

4) Thus your arguments are completely invalid and Lamb should surely stay as a part of the Wikipedia article. --Destinero (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you insist on that winded introduction, I declare a no contest, but please read WP:COPYVIO besides WP:V; you have pasted (in the Wikipedia article itself) large sections from sources without quotes. For example, you have pasted the entire paragraph 17 (from p.7) here, and in the same edit you pasted the first few sentences from paragraph 18. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, when you omit a part of a quote, like here, you should use bracketed ellipsis as in "blah [...] blah". Tijfo098 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Schumm (again?)

Discussing this addition, Dylan Flaherty wrote on my talk page:

“ The problem with that paragraph is not neutrality, it's relevancy. There's no reason to report a fringe scientific view only to point out that it's discredited. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC) ”

Yes, I realized that after reading the reference given, and self-reverted. The paragraph added omitted to say how Schumm got kicked out of the APA, and with whom he is associated now. With the blanks filled, it's actually more suitable for the misrepresentation of research section. Does anyone think otherwise? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

While I was opposed to including him as a tacitly mainstream view, I cannot dispute the fact that he is a fine example of misrepresentation of research. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I searched the talk archive here, and I didn't find any substantive (see addendum) discussion on Schumm, except a note that someone had added the study (presumably without NPOV balance) at Talk:LGBT_parenting/Archive_1#Schumm_Study. And a correction to my first post: it was Cameron, who did a similar study, not Schumm who was kicked out of the APA, but otherwise the proposal to add the discussion to the misrepresentation of research stands. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was discussed in a giant, sprawling thread started on a different topic, a few section below that small note. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Schumm more recently wrote Schumm, W. R. (2010). "Evidence of Pro-Homosexual Bias in Social Science: Citation Rates and Research on Lesbian Parenting". Psychological Reports. 106 (2): 374–380. doi:10.2466/pr0.106.2.374-380. PMID 20524536.. Is there a Baez scale for social sciences? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I never realized that the crackpottery quotient had it had been formalized. While it's clearly aimed at physics crackpots, some parts apply here:

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

Some of these are a stretch, but I think it's quite fair to call Schumm a crackpot. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Paul Cameron write anything on LGBT parenting? He would be an easy and uncontestable example of misrepresentation of research, unlike Schumm, to whom only few have paid attention to either way. Mentioning Schumm even as fringe example seems WP:UNDUE, because he isn't notable among the fringe. (I wonder if Schumm just writes papers for their shock value, e.g. [17]. It seems more plausible that he has an agenda: [18] [19])Tijfo098 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and he's much more famous for this sort of thing than Schumm. He's the one who said "there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality", but couldn't back it up with evidence. There's more in his article and the links from it. My favorite sentence is:

Cameron was quoted in Rolling Stone as saying that homosexual sex was more pleasurable than most heterosexual sex, and as a result, if homosexuality were tolerated then it would become predominant within a few generations.

While I admire his willingness to do first-hand research, so to speak, my suspicion is that he's either doing heterosexual sex wrong or he's himself is not at all heterosexual.

Schumm's agenda is entirely transparent, due to his public admissions: rather than do honest science, he wants to make the science conform to his religion. I find this deeply offensive, not only because of the dishonesty, but because he's buying into the idea of science as the arbiter of morality, making him guilty of scientism. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the Cinderella effect?

What I don't get about these studies saying children of gay partners are no worse off is how they square with the known Cinderella effect. In gay-parent families at least one parent is a stepparent. This would seem to have increased risks on average, which Catholic groups have not failed to notice. See note 44:

http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

Are the studies claiming no impact comparing with heterosexual families with a stepparent or with families with two genetic parents? In any case, I think the studies cited above by that Catholic group should be mentioned on this page. K. the Surveyor (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting reliable scientific research just because you perhaps don't accept facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=388314172&oldid=383273923 First, stop doing inappropriate comparisons. Second, educate yourself to avoid typically religious and conservative fraud and manipulation: "When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf Then edit Wikipedia articles. --Destinero (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How you can rest on the link http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp full of lies of the Catholic Church to the readers with absence of the critical thinking and ability to check facts in professional reliable sources? "In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence. Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully." versus "There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim." http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf Wikipedia should be the reliable terciary source to educate public, not the Catholic church propaganda machine for their unsubstantiated claims! Those can be find in http://www.conservapedia.com/ for people without sufficient level of critical thinking to recognize the fraud. --Destinero (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Calm down! You sound like you're near a stroke. The point of citing the Catholic Answers source was not to back up any claim in itself, but to show added relevance for the other source to the present material. The Catholic source is not strictly needed, because the research source was already relevant due to the immediately following quote about biological parents. If you are going to include information about biological versus adoptive parents, readers should know the full research picture on the topic. That is why I am adding the research sources back in.

The Catholic Answers source is a self-published source and so under WP:SPS it needs to focus on information about itself, not third parties. Since this section seems only about scientific research and opinion, I could understand how focusing on itself might be irrelevant to the section. However, it can still be included in a section about controversy regarding same-sex parenting, where sources are cited chiefly about themselves. Unfortunately, there is no controversy section on this page. Comparing this article to Same-sex marriage and the family and LGBT adoption, both of these other articles do have controversy sections. Therefore I think one should be added here also. Clearly this is useful information to know; it might even be useful to you, so that you know your enemy!

As for the higher level of gay sexual experiences or relationships among children of gay parents, which you removed, it is confirmed both by a source that was already there and by the source I added. A better citation, showing the specific quote, might be helpful. K. the Surveyor (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

K., the passage you keep adding is polemical fringe theory - no scientist would assert that results from a study of heterosexual step parents could be applied to gay or lesbian parents (or if they did, they would get lambasted by other researchers pointing out that the populations in question are not even close to being equivalent). until it's replicated in mainstream research by scientists working under proper methodologies, it cannot be used to make the authoritative claim that you are trying to make. --Ludwigs2 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The page cites a sweeping claim about biological parenting in general, one that seems highly misleading when not qualified with the research on the subject. The claim is certainly relevant to LGBT parenting, but it is like a sledge hammer hitting a flea. It should be qualified to avoid unintended implications about heterosexual parenting. Otherwise I think it would be better off gone, but that would be a pity. K. the Surveyor (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. The Cinderella effect is in little doubt as a correlation. The causality aspect of it is less certain, but even there most of the detractors are philosophers and the like. (You may want to read the 2007 book chapter about it.) One can come up with a number of different explanations why it hasn't been observed for LG(BT) couples, including lack of studies, or a even a gene expression difference that doesn't trigger the "infanticide" or at abuse/neglect behavior in such couples. The latter seems more likely to me for LG couples, but who knows? Interesting discussion, but unless there is empirical data in this direction, I don't think that using speculation from religious groups is a substitute. Better say nothing, because the best we can say is something like "Religious groups have questioned LGBT parenting based on the C effect, but there are no studies to demonstrate relevance/applicability of the effect to LGBT couples." Tijfo098 (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

On a side-note: adoption appears to work as a "high-pass filter" that either negates or diminishes the C effect seen with stepparents, but adopted children still fare worse than biological ones. There are two recent papers (2007 & 2009) discussed here. (Beware that the end part of Barber's blog post is rather speculative, and not based on arguments from the two papers. Buying more stuff for adopted children does not necessarily imply, say, that the adopter is less likely to lose temper with the child.) You can read a summary of the actual papers in Adoption#Parenting. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maine Chapter statement

Thanks for this link. I can agree that including any such claims about LGBT parenting isn't warranted in this section. My main issue at this point is the quote by the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics that seems potentially misleading without some qualification by the literature on biological v. adoptive parents, or that is to say, on the Cinderella effect. I would like to signal that for heterosexual parents, who are the majority of those the quote applies to, this is not a great summary of what is known. In other words it seems overbroad. K. the Surveyor (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote in question is:

According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, "Those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both. With all respects people are entitled to their beliefs and even their biases but it is plainly wrong to call those beliefs and biases science."[49]

I propose that we add a short qualifier to the end: "Being raised without biological parents does on average have an observed effect in studies of children of heterosexual couples." This will correct any misinterpretation resulting from the quote being broad. K. the Surveyor (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What effect on adjustation/development it has? --Destinero (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See here. There are actually many average effects, one of the most obvious being a heightened risk of lethal beatings. K. the Surveyor (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And what is the relevance of a step-children study for same-sex couples? Even if one parent is not the biological parent, it is still not a step child, but a non-biological child similar as to artificial insemination children. Please stop pushing your POV with references that do not support your POV.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kim, it's pointless to discuss this further given the lack of data/studies for LGBT parenting in this respect. Note that some of the most striking studies of the Cinderella effect (those pertaining to infanticide) required large samples and/because in absolute numbers these are very rare events. Page 385 in that review chapter discusses this:

“ Fatal batterings of small children exhibit differences of the greatest magnitude: in several countries stepparents beat very young children to death at per capita rates more than 100 times higher than do genetic parents. The most thorough analyses are from Canada, where data in a national archive of all homicides known to police indicate that children under 5 years of age were beaten to death by their putative genetic fathers at a rate of 2.6 deaths per million child-years at risk (residing with their fathers) in 1974-1990, while the corresponding rate for stepfathers was over 120 times higher at 321.6 (Daly & Wilson, 2001). Note that because few small children have stepfathers, this rate differential does not in itself, convey anything about the absolute numbers of victims; what these rate represent are 74 fatal batterings by genetic fathers in 28.3 million child-years at risk and 55 by stepfathers in 0.17 million child-years at risk. ”

Also, I should add that adoptions and heterosexual re-marriage haven't been banned because of these findings, whereas a good part of the political & religious spectrum very much wants to prohibit same-sex marriage on the hunch that a Cinderella effect-like phenomenon might apply there as well. (Even if it does, you'd need to show a much larger effect size than for heterosexual stepparents to morally justify discrimination on this basis.) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer Kim's question, there is no relevance to LGBT parenting and there doesn't have to be. The problem is that the quote by the Maine Chapter is too broad -- it makes a very strong statement about biological parents in general, and at least 95% of those cases are heterosexual and not homosexual. An analogy would be if you were writing an article on condom use and included the following quote:

Those who claim that those who do not choose to remain abstinent cannot escape AIDS are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both. With all respects people are entitled to their beliefs and even their biases but it is plainly wrong to call those beliefs and biases science.

You are dealing with events with quite small absolute numbers: most sexually active adults don't contract AIDS. However, despite the fact that it might appear in an article on condom use and that such use basically neutralizes AIDS risk, the quote would clearly be misleading without further qualification. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the statement from the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics appears ignorant of the Cinderella effect, and thus contradicts some of the science on biological parents. Rather than counter-argue them on a side-issue, it would be better to remove that statement, and perhaps find more informed sources for that section. There's one other source there, so the section won't go away completely. (A quote from Fisher applies well enough to this Wikipedia article: "the best causes tend to attract to their support the worst arguments") Tijfo098 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you want to do then I'll agree. I had hoped to avoid removing the quote, but whatever. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do not see the issue with that statement that you are seeing, so, could you try to explain to me why that statement is overly broad? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you view the analogy I posted? K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that as equivalent. This would be more equivalent:

""Those who claim that evolution is incorrect are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both. With all respects people are entitled to their beliefs and even their biases but it is plainly wrong to call those beliefs and biases science."

So, the Maine statement is only incorrect if you can show that the statement is incorrect, which it is not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends how you're willing to interpret "need" and "flourish" in "children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish". Do dead children flourish? Do children more likely to die flourish? Etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you take that kind of extremes, every statement needs a qualifier..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that the Maine statement is formulated as biological parents vs. everything else, including step-parents, institutional care, etc. Surely a random individual may end up fine, thus not need biological parents, but in expectation that individual will fare worse in a number of alternatives to biological parents, including stepparents. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with above. I do also want to point out that I am not actually saying the Maine statement is incorrect. The analogous statement on AIDS I gave is not incorrect either. It's just too broad and therefore misleading. K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the Maine statement can be shown incorrect for reasonable alternatives to biological parents (stepparents), and interpreting the "need ... to flourish" part as expected value, which is almost surely how the speaker intended it, rather than "an exception can almost always happen", which would entail that there's almost never a need for biological parents; that is the actual problem. What you, K, are describing with your abstinence & AIDS example is something else: nearly vacuous truth because only some nutcases would claim that abstinence is necessary to escape AIDS. I'm going to add that the Maine statement was transcribed here from the recording of a public speech, and these are often said in way that sounds good in the heat of the moment, but may have smaller or larger gaps in logic. It's best that we use print sources which have had a number of eyes over them. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading the issue with the statement, I think it is best to remove it all together, especially because it is transcribed from a speech. Furthermore, there are probably far better quotes available that are actually found in a solid reliable source. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that section better have some concrete examples of how research is being misrepresented rather than repetitive abstract declarations that misrepresentation does happen. I think Herek's paper had an example or two... Tijfo098 (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote again (added back and expanded)

THe Maine chapter quote is way too long and rambling; I propose reducing it to this:

According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, "Those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both... ...it is scientifically untenable to use studies about the effects on children of divorce or being raised in one parent households, to draw conclusions about the children raised in two parents households whether the parents are same or opposite-sex gender."Dr. Dan Summers, American Academy of Pediatrics, Maine Chapter

On the basis that these sentences adequately deal with the mater at hand (which in that section is not to do with the consensus but to do with the bad science/misrepresentation). We can only have quotes of certain length before it becomes problematic (for a number of reasons) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to leave it off, for the reasons I detailed above. The "need biologically related ... to flourish" is problematic. On the other hand, it's attributed and in quotes, so it need not be correct, only verifiable. An educated reader will probably chuckle on it, but that's true of many Wikipedia articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone besides the reverting editor that continues to support including the quote? K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I reduced it to your proposal. I left the final sentence. Now I believe Errant support this and editorial consensus will be reached. I see no good reason why a pretty strong official position of pediatrics should be avoided just because it states the difference between science and unfounded beliefs and values, since this is actually the main reason of controversy in the issue. There is virtually no controversy in several scientific fields about the facts related to the issue, all controversy (with negative impact on LGBT minority and children) is due to uninformed attitudes. As Encyclopedia quotes Diderot: "Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come." Let's set forth the collected knowledge, let's educate the public about the differences between unfounded assumptions and documented verifiable facts. --Destinero (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that at least at this point the consensus is that all parts of the original quote should be removed, unless Errant or someone else expresses a clear opinion that they should stay. The issue was previously discussed in detail and that was the conclusion. Personally I have no problem keeping the "biological parenting" part but only if there is a short qualifier about the issues other than LGBT parenting that it touches upon. Unfortunately I think prospects for consensus about such a qualifier are slim, the above statement by Diderot notwithstanding. Therefore I am forced to support removal. K. the Surveyor (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on my small proposal?

It's at the end of the "Cinderella effect" section. K. the Surveyor (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks fair to me.Tobit2 (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As "see also"

I think it's quite resonable to add it that way if the Maine quote stays. "Those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both. It is scientifically untenable to use studies about the effects on children of divorce or being raised in one parent households, to draw conclusions about the children raised in two parents households whether the parents are same or opposite-sex gender."

Terms in bold are relevant to Cinderella effect. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the only mention of the idea behind the Cinderella effect is to show that it's irrelevant. If we wanted to link to Cinderella effect as part of that text, that would make sense, but adding it as a "see also " is confusing because the whole point of the article is that there's no reason to bother. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable per WP:SEEALSO A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Given that there's no research on how C's effect relates or doesn't to LGBT, but there is research about C effect in divorce/re-marriage (and more recently in adoption), and that those issues are mentioned in this article in contrast or in relation with LGBT parenting, it doesn't seem wholly absurd to add the link. But it's also a matter of editorial preference. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Falito and NARTH

As justification for removing a well-supported statement, Falito invoked http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

NARTH is an ex-gay organization, so its views conflict with the medical/scientific mainstream. As such, it does not qualify as a reliable medical source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems

This article was listed at the Copyright Problems board for review. It contains subsantial content copied from this affadavit. For one example, the affadavit includes the following at p. 7 and 8:

Society’s early assumptions about the superiority of the traditional family form have been challenged by the results of empirical research. Early in the Twentieth Century, it was widely believed that traditional family settings were necessary in order for children to adjust well....Since the end of the 1980’s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.

This content is reproduced in its entirety in this article; it is not handled in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline.

Court documents are a matter of public record, but they are not automatically public domain. The "edicts of government" exclusion of U.S. Copyright law specifically says, "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments."([20]) Affadavits are not judicial opinion or commentary and unless this affadavit was produced by a federal employee in the scope of his employment, the content needs to be removed or revised in accordance with copyright policies.

I am not blanking this article as is standard practice with copyright concerns, but will relist it for another week. At the end of that time, I or another uninvolved administrator experience in copyright will review the listing and return to see what additional action may be needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I thought I had caught all of those. There were some other copyvio problems from other sources too in the past. Will have to run through the article with a fine tooth comb, thanks for the heads up Moonriddengirl :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a spectator to this process, am I to understand certain public records are not in the public domain because the federal or state government could theoretically charge a fee for viewing? K. the Surveyor (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I found this page that explains the situation pretty well, so never mind. K. the Surveyor (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. :) Sorry I didn't link that in the first place. I agree its counterintuitive, but so the law currently goes. In this case, copyright belongs to the person who spoke the words that were recorded in the Affadavit, although court stenographers have also attempted to assert copyright for transcribing them!([21]) People will find profit whereever they think they can. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Community editing restriction of Destinero (talk · contribs)

Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting. Community discussion on AN/I. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Map has issues

Firstly there is the issue of why "ambiguous" and "opposed" are lumped into the same color. This seems likely to create an inaccurate impression. Then we have the question of whether the map is showing states where people who participate in gay sexual activity can adopt children or is showing where same-sexed couples can adopt jointly. This needs clarification. Finally and simply, where are the sources? —K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have posted this on the Talk:LGBT adoption page, where it seems more relevant. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What A Mess

This article needs to be proofread top to bottom. In addition, it has pervasive POV problems--which it has had for quite some time.184.74.22.161 (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying it has pervasive POV problems is not enough for a POV tag. We dont put a POV tag to holocaust because few extremists deny it. Phoenix of9 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to fight about whether the article should be tagged, but I am going to explain my reasoning. With the exception of a couple of items in the Controversy section, this article contains only one point of view on the subject at hand--a pro-LGBT parenting point of view. Any mention of a point of view that articulates concern about--let alone opposition to--LGBT parenting has, many times, been deleted from the article. The usual basis is some absurd argument about undue weight. If someone were to demand equal space in the article for perspectives that don't fall within the pro-LGBT POV, I could understand the objection. When pretty much anything that even mentions the existence of such a perspective gets deleted, the undue weight argument does not hold water. Your snarky comment about Holocaust deniers illustrates my concern exactly.184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense?

The statment that some cultures oppose gay parenting has been removed as "nonsense" and a warning sent that such a "bold" and controversial statement must be sourced. Also removed was a previously sourced statement that laws and attitudes vary across the world. Neutral point of view means including all notable sides of a controversy. Even if such opponents are bad people with incorrect or immoral motives, how would a reader determine that there is any controversy or any parties who disagree with the practices? What are ideas about how the article should be balanced to reflect what is a controversial topic outside of the LGBT community? As it currently stands, the lead makes no mention of any nations, cultures, groups, persons, laws, religions, or organizations who consider the topic to be controversial. Redhanker (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

From Christian mainstream opposition Orthodox, Roman Catholic and conservative Evangelicals within the Anglican and Baptist churches are opposed to people of the same sex having sex together, having committed partnerships, raising children, etc.; they oppose people changing sex as well.

Removed: Historically, many cultures have opposed LGBT practices on moral and religious grounds, including adoption and parenting. Laws and attitudes regarding LGBT parenting vary across the world and cultures.

What is a LGBT practice? Like a gay person going to grocery shopping? A gay doctor's clinic? Your sentences do not even make semantic sense, let alone contain reliable sources. Phoenix of9 01:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what practices distinguish LGBT that are of a concern to traditional cultures. How do you propose to incorporate a balanced NPOV that everybody can accept a consensus on? Redhanker (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What is a traditional culture? Like the UK retaining its monarchy? You can't put NPOV tags with abstract arguments. Phoenix of9 16:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not being helpful. I hope you recognize the lack of balance and support the principle of NPOV. What would be an acceptable way to balance so that all notable sides of the topic are reflected in the lead, so as to avoid future conflict? Redhanker (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Balance is not talking about all sides, it is talking about notable sides with due weight. Read WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. So, religious arguments do not carry the same weight with scientific evidence when we are talking about child development, because religious arguments are not expert views with respect to child development. So basically you need to find reliable sources without making WP:OR and add them with due weight. Phoenix of9 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix_of9, this page is entitled "LGBT Parenting." If it were entitled "Mainstream Social Science Viewpoints on LGBT Parenting in the United States," you would be correct in your comments about religious arguments and scientific arguments. The problem with your thinking is that the article is not necessarily limited to science or social science perspectives. While I do not necessarily agree with Redhanker's suggested changes to the article, Redhanker does bring up a very important point: Why should "scientific" arguments about LGBT parenting be deemed any more (or less) worthy of inclusion on this page than "religious" ones? Related question: Do you see your own POV here?184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of child development the religious view is irrelevant next to the academic research. No view, based on religious feelings, has any relevancy in defining how having LGBT parents affects children. However, the religious view of such things is reasonable significant so long as we give those views due weight. So, for example, we could discuss, in a short section, religious moral objections. But we can't really, for example, say "priest X claimed that children of LGBT parents would be adversely affected... etc.". --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Partially truth. But some religious opinions could be significant enough to be properly mentioned in the article... because if they are not, then it is NPOV.--DeeMusil (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing Revert Problems

The following material (which I have since modified slightly) keeps getting reverted from the "Controversy" section for reasons that I, quite frankly, find to be bogus. Thoughts?

NARTH and American College of Pediatricians (a religious conservative organization; not to be confused with American Academy of Pediatrics) argue that mainstream health and mental health organizations have, in many cases, taken public positions on parenting by same-sex couples that are based on their own social and political views rather than the available science. The American Psychological Association, on the other hand, considers positions of NARTH unscientific, and the Canadian Psychological Association has expressed concern that "some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values."

In a 2005 piece entitled "Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children," William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch, two openly gay scholars who favor same-sex marriage,, state that “virtually no empirical evidence on how same-sex parents' marriage might affect their children.”

Some critics of LGBT parenting cite a research brief published by Child Trends, an organization which describes itself as “the nation’s only independent research and policy center focused exclusively on improving outcomes for children,” for the proposition that an “"extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage…it is not simply the presence of two parents…but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development." Such critics also cite a policy brief from the Center for Law and Social Policy, which states, “most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do better when raised by two married, biological parents…" 184.74.22.161 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have modified the text just to get it included, without reading the sources. For example even your first source [22] does not say anything about parenting. Phoenix of9 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a problem with one of the four citations, and there were a couple of dead links which I have resuscitated below:

NARTH and American College of Pediatricians (a religious conservative organization; not to be confused with American Academy of Pediatrics) argue that mainstream health and mental health organizations have, in many cases, taken public positions on parenting by same-sex couples that are based on their own social and political views rather than the available science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.22.161 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No comments or objections since December 9, so I am reinserting this text.184.74.22.161 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We should be careful not to put too much material that's from fringe organizations. Some of the sources above are more editorial than anything else. Mattnad (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

POV Issue

In the section on child outcomes that refers to mainstream research indicating that parenting by same-sex partners produces outcomes that are equivalent to parenting by a child's married mother and father, the following sentence is present: "No credible empirical research suggests otherwise." I proposed the following revision: "Mainstream North American mental health organizations and researchers aver that no credible empirical research suggests otherwise." My change has already gotten reverted once, and if I push the issue it will just turn into an edit war. So I have reverted my own edit and taken it here, even though I, frankly, have little confidence that this will resolve anything.

I am not sure how to argue this point, except to say that the existing sentence is so blatantly POV that I don't see how it could be defensible by anyone, ever. How can I even argue something so obvious? If folks want to keep a sentence like that in this article, I suggest that you visit Liberal-Pedia--"the leftist encyclopedia that anyone can edit"--and put this entire article there. Here is a link: http://liberalpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Liberal-Pedia_Wiki. The problem is that THIS encyclopedia is supposed to be a real encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. That includes (a) not presenting one's own point of view as if it is a universal truth; and (b) not sanitizing articles of any mention of different perspectives on an issue. I look forward to the dialogue, although I fully expect it to be one-sided.184.74.22.161 (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's the mainstream POV, as it should be. Neutrality does not mean what you think it does. Dylan Flaherty 06:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask you to undo your own reversion. There's really not much point trying to talk to you while you edit war. Fix your error, declare a truce, and then come back here. Dylan Flaherty 06:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you did not bother to identify what you believe to be my "error" and instead opted to revert a set of ten (10) changes I made to the article in their entirety (some of which consist of copyediting) without identifying what you believe that the problem is. I attempted to guess what the "error" might be and brought it here for discussion, but apparently I guessed wrong. (You recently gave some hints on your talk page, but then concluded that "the bad outweighed the good" and that it was best to just zap everything.) You have coupled that with a series of condescending pronouncements on my talk page and yours. It seems to me that you are the one who is being uncooperative. And I'm sure we could all do without the bossy tone of your last sentence above. When you are ready to identify the issues you have, let me know and I will make every effort to resolve them with you so that we can work toward a consensus and a better article. Thank you.184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

*Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view

Learn the basic Wikipedia policies first to prevent your obvious and continous inablity to show how this fact is disputed. "No credible empirical research suggests otherwise." Sorry, your inablity to dispute the fact is insufficient reason to attribute the fact and present it as a mere opinion. --Destinero (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The anon editor has a point. The original sentence, "No credible empirical research suggests otherwise," uses the word "credible," thus begging the question, "credible to whom?" The anon is just trying to answer that question. Reverting him is not being very constructive. You might want to try a more accurate sentence though, something like, "Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise." That would be a more accurate and complete sentence.Tobit2 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tobit2.

Destinero, the language you cited has nothing whatever to do with this situation because the proposition at issue IS contested. Your editing habits and your persistent unwillingness to allow any points of view that you don't agree with to appear in articles like this speak for themselves (as do the instances where you have been blocked), so I am not even going to waste time arguing with you. Also, if you are going to post bologna like this about me on article talk pages, you could at least learn how to spell the words "continuous" and "inability."184.74.22.161 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of credible, empirical evidence that suggests children of same-sex couples are less well-adjusted or otherwise are reared worse than children of opposite-sex parents? Because I'm not seeing any contest here, beyond "you don't know for sure". --King Öomie 18:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please see "Continuing Revert Problems" above for credible perspectives that question the mainstream social science view on this point. If peer-reviewed studies are what you're after, I would have to dig, but I probably won't find any; I doubt that many social scientists at mainstream universities in the U.S. would put their careers on the line by even attempting to publish something along those lines. Check out what happened to Robert Spitzer for daring to suggest sexual orientation could be changed. There are some perspectives that the mainstream social science community just won't allow.184.74.22.161 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you like to believe nonsenses that there is empirical evidence that suggests children of same-sex couples are less well-adjusted or otherwise are reared worse than children of opposite-sex parents it is impossible to cooperate with you in editing Wikipedia, since you and others are simply continuously absolutely unable to show any reliable sources for it. With people with irrational thinking (believing nonsenses without reliable sources) it is impossible to build credible encyclopedia. Simply put, intelligence of some editors is not sufficient enough or they are homophobes who do not like empirical facts based on decades of research. There is no other explanation for their position, which is undignified and outrageous to same-sex couples. Wikipedia is not and should not propaganda machine for your harmful prejudice to this group of people. --Destinero (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the diatribe. I will be sure to avoid believing "nonsenses," or including them on Wikipedia.184.74.22.161 (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think Tobit2's phrasing is ideal and fixes a very real problem (the "credible to whom" issue) and suggest we go with that. 184.74.22.161, does that address your issue with respect to that point? As an aside, Destinero, you need to take it down a notch. Yes, there is no peer-reviewed data that says otherwise. But that doesn't mean you should be calling folks names or stating that anyone who disagrees with you is a nutjob. This article does have NPOV problems, but they are largely pretty subtle (thing like the "credible to whom" issue). 184.74.22.161, that there are perspectives that question mainstream social science, none of them seem to have any meaningful science behind them (at least that I could find). Even if that is due to the bias academia itself, it puts us in the situation that we don't have RSes which do anything other than assert a fact. That doesn't buy much space here without violating WP:FRINGE (which is a weird thing to say for something that probably has majority opinion, but even if the majority of the world felt the world were flat, we'd not then claim that it was flat or that there were creditable arguments that it was). Hobit (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hobit, I am completely on board with Tobit2's phrasing. Thanks.184.74.22.161 (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT parenting vs. Same-sex parenting

I think this article would greatly benefit from clarifying the scope in the lede, and tightening the use of the terminology used throughout. Looking at terminology used in the studies cited, 'LGBT parenting' most typically includes:

• Same-sex parenting (two gay/bi men or two lesbian/bi women).
• Children with a single LGBT parent.
• Children raised by an opposite-sex couple, one or both of whom is LGBT.

I think the article needs to make this clearer, and in particular, separate sources talking specifically about same-sex parenting from those talking about LGBT parenting more broadly. Thoughts?--Trystan (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

molestation claim and debunking

I'm surprised there's no reference to the myth that homosexual parents are more likely to molest their children. I'm sure there's some scholarly journal that's debunked this myth. All I've found so far is http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM - but I don't think that's scholarly enough for an actual entry at this point.Hendrixjoseph (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing some research now so I'm just going to throw up resources for potential later use:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

that's about all i got right now, but I think the ACLU article might be considered biased

Hendrixjoseph (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage

• The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Behavior of children - Schumm study

I've reverted an edit to the Behaviour of Children section, which removed the first paragraph and replaced it with one stating the polar opposite. The original is cited to a systematic review of several studies by the APA, while the replacement version is cited to a single study by Schumm. If the Schumm study is to be included in the section, it shouldn't be given undue weight.--Trystan (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT parenting conventions

• Role taken on by homosexual parents ( gender-structured or equal, employment)
• Naming conventions used by children of LGBT parents (e.g. dad & dad, dad & daddy, mom & mom , mom & dad, surname1 & surname2)
• Early childhood methodology for surrogate parents (focus on issues such as breastfeeding in a male-male couple)
• Realtionship between biological parents
• etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.30.225.226 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Schumm Study

I’ve added back in previously undid revision to give two points of view on the topic, and added, “However, according to Dr. Michael Lamb” to the beginning of the second paragraph as it offers a better transition from the first paragraph and originally seemed to be purporting a statement of fact. The Schumm study was published in a peer reviewed journal (Journal of Biosocial Science) and its findings can be accepted or rejected accordingly, but it should not be deleted based on the fact that it conflicts with the findings of other studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedfghs12345 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, the original version of the section was based on an APA systematic review of a dozen peer-reviewed studies, while your version is based on the results of a single study. Cherry-picking the Schumm study (and it's outlier findings) to anchor the section gives it undue weight.

Based on the available sources, the section should not give primacy to the view that increased rates of homosexuality are found among children of LGBT parents. Nor should it put forward that view as an equal alternative to the mainstream conclusions. It should state that the preponderance of research shows this not to be the case, with some studies coming to different conclusions.--Trystan (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Identifying personal characteristics of researchers to insinuate bias

Regarding this edit, I think this article could use clarity on when it is appropriate to identify personal characteristics of academic researchers such as sexual orientation, religion, or political leanings.

I think highlighting these characteristics because of "possible researcher bias" is ad hominem original research, and therefore a violation of WP:BLP. I can't find anything specifically on point in the guidelines, but extrapolating from similar standards in WP:EGRS, I would suggest that we would need, at the very least, a reliable source that the author's personal characteristic is directly relevant to their work being discussed. Even then, to warrant being included in a short summary, we would need to conclude that not only is it relevant, but it is in fact one of the most important pieces of information to convey. I really can't see this standard being met for the current examples in the article.

Where institutions with particular mandates are involved, whether it be the Marriage Law Project or the Gill Foundation, I think it absolutely makes sense to note that involvement. But ascribing that same lack of objectivity to academic researchers in an effort to discredit them strikes me as deeply inappropriate. For example, we could say that "In a paper published by the Marriage Law Project, Dr. Smith said..." but not "Dr. Smith, a heterosexual, conservative Catholic, found that..."--Trystan (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully support your reasoning. There is a very weak argument (rather a logical fallacy) presented by Valm99 to suggest the author's personal characteristic is directly relevant to their work being discussed. We even do not provide the race of researchers, since it is completely irrelevant to the methodological standards and acceptance in a particular scientific field. --84.42.249.213 (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. On this article we are interested in the bias of the research and opinions, rather than of the researcher. If the research was flawed, or the opinions are not broadly accepted, we need to include additional material to balance the bias. We have an article about Gregory M. Herek where the reader can go to learn more general information about the person. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the New Scientist article: "John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings." Valm99 (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Valm99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That researcher bias exists in a general sense is not in question; the scientific process is designed to minimize it. That it exists in these specific cases and has invalidated these specific studies and reviews is another claim altogether. A review of studies identifying bias (as Stacey and Biblarz did) would be a reliable source for including such an assertion in the article.--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have drafted a revised section of the "Sexual orientation in children" section (which has been reverted and restored to address the problems with the way it was previously drafted. I've limited the sources to reviews, rather than giving WP:UNDUE weight to individual studies, affidavits and other documents. Restricting the sources to comprehensive reviews also helps us avoid the trap of cherry-picking which studies or papers to include.

I've also written the section in an encyclopedic style, to get away from the WP:QUOTEFARM aspect that dominates much of the article. Again, pulling selected quotations, rather than trying to provide an overview of what each author says, leaves us vulnerable to cherry-picking, and doesn't make for a readable article.

The new section can of course always be improved and expanded with additional reviews, but I am very disinclined to return to the previous version. This article needs considerable work, and it's not going to happen if it remains a selection of quotations.--Trystan (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Valm's reverting of your edits. He isn't explaining his reasoning for why he or others (who I have reported for a sock puppet case) are doing their reverting after they do them. SarahStierch (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Valm's recent edits before I realize the 3RR. A reason needs to be stated. Jab843 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete all individual studies, but you deleted only studies added by me, because you like Herek's, Gartrell's and Patterson's propaganda. Valm99 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Easy there with the accusations and buzz words, Valm99. I undid your NPOV tag. Could you explain why the longitudinal study should be deleted? If I am not mistaken User:Trystan summarized the quotefarm in a completely different section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 

I see there is a discussion going here, which is a good thing - keep it up! Yet I also see that there are reverts back-and-forth in the article, which isn't that good to be honest. To make sure that the focus remains on the discussion rather then on reverting back and forth i fully protected the page for the next 3 days, so things can be discussed peacefully. If this one is solved within 3 days just place an unprotect request on WP:RFPP, or drop me a note so i can remove the protection again. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Valm, I was focused on rewriting just the one section, so I didn't look at individual studies in other sections. I did not select which sources to retain based on whether or not I liked their findings, but whether they met the objective standard of being a comprehensive review. Indeed, all three reviews we have reach slightly different conclusions on this topic. I've tried to accurately characterize the authors' main findings for each one we include.

I do think a thorough review of other sections is warranted, particularly the Maturity of Research section. I would agree that the Gartrell & Bos study, for example, doesn't really fit in that section. Longitudinal studies are more significant that other studies, but it remains an individual study, and so is just one among many points of data on the overall topic of maturity of research. We can't synthesize our own findings on how it has contributed to the overall state of the research. (A secondary source saying something like "This Gartrell & Bos study has advances the field considerably..." might make it worthy of special mention, but even then, for the purposes of maturity of research specifically, we wouldn't need to do more than mention it.)--Trystan (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Lamb affidavits

I have removed this addition because it is a primary source (an Affidavit, by Michael Lamb (psychologist), signed September 14, 2011) without peer-review. I think the court case in question is the ongoing Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management.

While he is accepted as an expert according to the court, we only consider him to be an expert based on the academic articles he has published as they are subject to peer-review.

I see we are using another affidavit extensively in the article (this one). We need to find better (peer-reviewed) sources for these statements. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is strictly required by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but I think restricting our sources to peer-reviewed articles would help. What I think we need to do is go through several sections and replace what has become a sort of dueling WP:QUOTEFARM with encyclopedic prose, and having a clear standard for sources will make that process easier. Other non-peer-reviewed sources currently used in the article include the Lerner and Nagai paper, the Riggs letter to the editor, and the LA Times article.--Trystan (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP added back the material. As WP:SPS states: "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." That's the policy that the IP is citing, even though this isn't a self published source. And GLAAD is also an advocacy group, though it's an affidavit, #justsayin. :) Here are some secondary published sources that touch on Michael Lamb's work..this is what you get when you Google "same sex marriage" and "Michael Lamb":

• Prop. 8 Trial: Cambridge Professor Says Gays Raise 'Well-Adjusted' Kids
• Children thrive equally with same-sex, heterosexual parents, psychologist testifies at Prop. 8 trial.
• Gays make fine parents, psychologist testifies
• Proposition 8 trial turns its attention to children
• Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 5: Children
• Prop. 8 Trial: Gay Dollars Lost and Lawyers Play the 'Child Card'
• Proposition 8 Trial: Witness Testifies Kids Do Fine With Gay Parents
• Psychology and the Prop 8 Ruling

There must be something here :) SarahStierch (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I also just completed a scan of my scholarly research sites (i.e. jstor, etc) and barely found anything viable. SarahStierch (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

In the controversy section, which is supposed to express a different stance compared to the rest of the article, there is more information in support of same-sex marriage, than against it. NARTH and ACP have 2 lines to express both their views, while another 18 lines is criticising it. A larger summary of their views is needed, while any criticisms should be summarised in 2 lines. 2.103.15.209 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what the Controversy section is supposed to do. It's supposed to describe any noteworthy controversies surrounding the topic, explaining the nature of the debates and noting their major players, giving due weight to the most reliable sources. As far as I can see, that's pretty much what it does, although there may be room for improvement. Rivertorch (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Rivertorch is correct. The key to having an accurate Encyclopedia is actually reporting the facts, and organizations such as NARTH and ACP use outdated, disproved, inaccurate or nonexistent information to support their positions, contrary to the vast majority of accepted, empirically studied science. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 04:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's basically what I said of the controversy section. This particular article would be focused more on a different stance, as opposed to a biography of somebody. NARTH and ACP are generally like that, but giving their influential/popular views 2 lines, whilst greatly expanding upon criticism of it makes the section biased. The 18 lines of criticism is not even directed at their statement, but the organisations themselves. 2.103.15.209 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be a little hard to separate the statement from the organization, since the latter pretty much defines itself through the former. But let's try this from another angle: what specific wording would you propose to replace the wording in question? Rivertorch (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure their views can be reflected in more than 2 lines. So expanding that is a start. A short and shared criticism of their views/organisation would come after, listing those that do not agree with them. The statement by Canadian Psychological Association doesn't adress NARTH or ACP so should be moved out of the controversy section or deleted; same action for the second paragraph. 2.103.15.209 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody edit the controversy to make it more balanced? Stuff that didn't belong there was removed but it still needs work. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

New 2012 study by Mark Regnerus, sociology professor at the University of Texas

A new study conducted by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas has revealed, among other things, that 40% of children (aged 18 to 39) whose parents are homosexual have had an affair while married or cohabiting, compared to only 13% of children from heterosexual families. It also showed that 23% of children whose parents are lesbian or gay have been touched sexually by a parent or an adult, compared to 2% of children from heterosexual families, and that 31% of them have had sex against their will, compared to 8% from heterosexual families. The study stresses, however, that it would be wrong to conclude from its data that the abuser was necessarily one of the parents, or that the abuse had anything to do with the parent's sexual orientation. The study also shows that 12% of those with lesbian parents and 24% of those with homosexual fathers have considered suicide, compared to 5% of those from heterosexual families. Children with homosexual parents are also more than twice as likely to be in therapy "for a problem connected with anxiety, depression or relationships" - 19% of children compared to 8% of children from heterosexual families. Furthermore, 20% of children with lesbian parents and 25% of children with homosexual fathers have had a sexually transmitted disease, compared to 8% of children from heterosexual families. 28% of children with lesbian parents and 20% of children with homosexual fathers are currently unemployed compared to 8% of children from heterosexual families. Adult children with homosexual parents are also more likely to smoke marijuana and to get arrested.

Due to the findings, it is very controversial, and that is why my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=497585303&oldid=497583187 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_psychology&diff=497579176&oldid=497039907 has been undone, simply because another user disagreed and claimed the study is: "widely criticized and flawed." Criticized by whom? It is a new study, nobody had yet written an article debunking it. Flawed according to whom? Your personal opinion? That is not a reason to vandalise the article and undo my edit.

The study is published and available here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

The fact that this is not allowed on the article prior a "discussion" is unfair. What difference does it make? They are findings from a study; how could a "talk" about it make any difference? Do we have to come to an "agreement" to put this information into the article itself? And if we don't, we will just ignore it and purposely leave the study out of the article, because somebody's opinion about it disagrees? This is not objective and completely unprofessional, not to mention biased. This is nothing more than intentionally leaving a study out of the article because somebody disagrees with the findings.

There is no valid, honest, objective reason to remove this information from the article, yet I was forced to open a "talk" about it because of no other reason than somebody not liking the results of the study. This is unacceptable, yet here I am anyway, opening a "talk" about it. So, what is there to discuss? Your opinion disagreeing with the results? That is not a reason and is completely subjective. In other words, it is irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing to talk about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.23.111 (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

89.142.23.111, first, thank you for taking this discussion to the article Talk page, instead of continuing to revert. Second, you need to be aware that Wikipedia has standards for evaluating and prioritizing published scientific studies, and certain studies or types of studies will be given more weight than others in Wikipedia articles. For example, please review WP:MEDRS. Also, not everything that is published will be given equal emphasis in articles, please also review WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Regarding "Criticized by whom? It is a new study, nobody had yet written an article debunking it"--actually, several articles have already been written criticizing the Regnerus study. Please give your fellow editors some time to come up with a response. Finally, civility is a Wikipedia policy that all editors are required to follow, and part of that policy is that you are required to assume good faith. For more detail, please review "assume good faith". Saying things like "This is nothing more than intentionally leaving a study out of the article because somebody disagrees with the findings" as you did above fails to assume good faith, and repeated violations of Wikipedia policy can lead to your ability to edit being restricted. Zad68 18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

89.142.23.111, thanks for giving me some time to read the study and its criticism. Here are several reliable sources that criticize the study:

• Do Children of Same-Sex Parents Really Fare Worse?, a Time magazine article by Belinda Luscombe
• Back in the Gay: Does a new study indict gay parenthood or make a case for gay marriage?, a Slate article by William Saletan, Slate Science reporter
• A Faulty “Gay Parenting” Study, a New Yorker article by Amy Davidson, senior editor
• Are Gay Parents Really Worse For Children? How a New Study Gets Everything Wrong, in The New Republic, by John Corvino

among others. All the criticism of the study is basically that it is not a study about gay parenting outcomes, because of how the study asks the respondents about their relationships. In particular, the study asks "From when you were born until age 18 did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?" Regarding this, the Time article says,

Another damning critique: the NFSS compares kids of “any parent who ever ‘had a relationship’ with someone of the same sex to those who lived with both married biological parents from birth to age 18,” says Philip N. Cohen, professor of sociology at University of Maryland, College Park. “It is not about people who were ‘raised by’ lesbians or gay men.” (Only two respondents in the entire survey fit that description.) In other words, the study does not fairly compare apples to apples.

The Time article even quotes Regnerus saying, "This is not a parenting study." So, although the study is interesting, and it was done by a Ph.D. at a university, and published in a peer-reviewed journal, it does not appear to be on-topic enough regarding the subject of this article, LGBT parenting, to be used here, and certainly not to directly refute the well-established studies that have been done directly on the subject of LGBT parenting. Zad68 20:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Let's be clear on the meaning of this study:

1. it evaluates children who come from broken heterosexual marriages, where one parent has been or is now in a same-sex relationship
2. it doesn't evaluate children raised by gay couples – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also, it's not unfair for this study to be excluded from the article before discussion because it inherently is unrepresentative of the subject at hand. There's a major difference between a gay parent who was "in the closet" in a heterosexual relationship where children were born/raised... and gay couples raising children together. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For criticism and full understanding of the study, please see these links:

• Researchers criticize new study questioning same-sex parenting (archived)
• First Look at Mark Regnerus’s Study on Children of Parents In Same-Sex Relationships (archived)
• Dad and dad vs. mom and dad (archived)
• Study of Gay Parenting Draws Criticism - ABC News (archived)
• Social Science Malpractice: Slandering Same Sex Couples as Parents (archived)
• Further comments on the papers by Marks and Regnerus (archived)
• Overview: Three Responses to Mark Regnerus’s Study of Children of Parents In Same-Sex Relationships (archived) etc.

I agree with user Teammm. The study is not about LGBT parenting, anyone who reads these links will reach the same conclusion.--В и к и T 21:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Gay Parents Study: Dollarship Disguised as Scholarship
• National Organization for Marriage Hiding Ties to 'Objective' Anti-Gay Parenting Study
• Sign Petition: Help Launch Investigation into Anti-Gay Junk Science Study – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-emptive

There's a difference between a study being funded by an advocacy group and conducted by an advocacy group. The appropriateness of including a study (Gartrell and Bos's) by published experts on these topics, which ran in a real journal (Pediatrics), which was funded partly by LGBT research organizations but also by APA grants and other funding, may be debated (though probably not for very long...), but the inappropriateness of a paper published by an agenda-based organization, written by people with no history of publication on this topic or anything similar in reliable sources, is not debatable.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Check this out: Funding bias. Nanette Gartrell is also openly lesbian scholar. 91.146.243.37 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RFPP

RFPP submitted. Zad68 14:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RFPP cancelled as this isn't something for RFPP. Rather I have opened an edit-warring noticeboard discussion about it: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#several_editors_at_LGBT_parenting_reported_by_User:Zad68_.28Result:_.29. Zad68 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Page now full-protected. Zad68 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are all the links pro-LGBT?

Why is every single one of the links referenced pro-LGBT? Doesn't that make this article seem just a tiny bit biased? Shouldn't there be at least one link which is critical of LGBT parenting such as the study done at the university in Texas recently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AveMaria02 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the study that failed an audit, and has been widely criticized by the scientific community as fundamentally flawed? Not a reliable source for information by our standards. We rely on reliable sources for writing WP articles, and so far, none of the studies that are critical of LGBT parenting have been published in reliable sources and gained acceptance in the scientific community. The bias is in the reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Shhhh! You aren't supposed to notice, but it's the Cabal. Belchfire-TALK 05:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, Dominus... spend some time looking at the work done by Judith Stacey. She and her research partner did a meta-study that wasn't necessarily critical to gay parenting, but did find serious problems with political pandering in the work done by many others. Needless to say, there is some disagreement here on Wikipedia about what that actually means. Belchfire-TALK 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide some references to the "serious problems with political pandering in the work done by many others" that Stacey found? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, Arty.

We wish to acknowledge that the political stakes of this body of research are so high that the ideological “family values” of scholars play a greater part than usual in how they design, conduct, and interpret their studies.

And,

We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children with lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity.

And,

Given the weighty political implications of this body of research, it is easy to understand the social sources of such a defensive stance. As long as sexual orientation can deprive a gay parent of child custody, fertility services, and adoption rights, sensitive scholars are apt to tread gingerly around the terrain of differences. Unfortunately, however, this reticence compromises the development of knowledge not only in child development and psychology, but also within the sociology of sexuality, gender, and family more broadly. For if homophobic theories seem crude, too many psychologists who are sympathetic to lesbigay parenting seem hesitant to theorize at all. When researchers downplay the significance of any findings of differences, they forfeit a unique opportunity to take full advantage of the “natural laboratory” that the advent of lesbigay-parent families provides for exploring the effects and acquisition of gender and sexual identity, ideology, and behavior. This reticence is most evident in analyses of sexual behavior and identity—the most politically sensitive issue in the debate.

And also:

Paradoxically, if the sexual orientation of parents were to matter less for political rights, it could matter more for social theory.

Important to note here that Stacey and Biblarz themselves didn't find any parenting deficiencies worth getting excited about (I mention that for others' benefit, I'm sure you already know that), but their data for the study was made up entirely of earlier work and they did find that earlier researchers were reluctant to produce such findings, for political reasons.

Tell the Cabal hello for me. Belchfire-TALK 08:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We already cite Stacey's study, including its conclusions about the sexual orientation and gender role conformity of children and about previous studies. What is it that you would like to add? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, you'll notice that I was answering a direct question, one that I felt deserved an answer. I suppose yours does, too, though. Yes, this article, and at least one of its numerous forks that I know of off-hand, does indeed cite Stacey's work - the part of Stacey's work that is most helpful to the LGBT community. Unsurprisingly, I see no mention of Stacey's published observations regarding the quality and objectivity of other research, even though some of that research is also cited here. Just so you know, I'm not arguing for edits because, clearly, this article (as well as the other articles covering and re-covering the exact same subject matter) is much more important to a particular group of other editors than it is to myself, and I have better things to do with my time than to argue with editors who will not allow themselves to be convinced of anything. And with that, I think I have finished replying to the original query that opened this section. Belchfire-TALK 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, the Stacey study's statements about previous research are already discussed in the article. If you think there are changes that should be made, suggest them. Hopefully we will reach an agreement about how the edits can be implemented in a neutral manner. Pre-emptively flouncing off because you think that your edits won't pass NPOV muster does save time for those editors who care about those sorts of policies, but it is also rather childish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Regnerus follow up

I've read the fine discussion above of the Regnerus study and some of the articles referenced there. My question is: how should Wikipedia (not necessarily the LGBT parenting entry) handle this study? I'm afraid that the ink is out of the inkwell and it's not going to go away. It came to my attention last week when it was cited in the decision of a U.S. District Court in Hawaii. See the coverage of the case, Jackson v. Abercrombie in the National Catholic Reporter here or the excellent recap of the case by Arthur Leonard of NYU Law here. It will continue to be cited by opponents of same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption in such lawsuits, and some courts will buy into it and cite it in their decisions. If you look for info about it on WP, the most you get is one sentence in the Witherspoon Institute entry. Should there be more info somewhere for someone who tries to follow up on a court decision or the coverage found in the National Catholic Reporter?

On a related note, the politics of the funding of the Regnerus study are getting interesting, as Prop 8 Trial Tracker reports here.

Apologies if this is somewhat off-topic for this talk page. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

While Regnerus doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC or anything, do you think there's enough coverage of the study for a GNG pass? That would certainly allow the best consolidation of the material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think so, but I'd prefer not to author that entry. And I'd like to hear from some of the contributors to the discussion above. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bmclaughlin9, it wouldn't normally occur to me to write a Wikipedia article about one of the many tens of thousands of published studies that are out there in the various journals. I use studies to support claims in articles and don't think to write articles about the studies themselves. I only think some small handful of studies are notable in and of themselves, like the Milgram experiment or the studies that produced the Kinsey Reports, and deserve articles. However, looking at just the Google news hits for "Regnerus study", you could quite easily write an article on the social and popular-press impact of the study with sourcing equal to or better than the average Wikipedia article, and expect it to survive an AFD. I'm not interested in writing such an article, although someone else might be.

As for the question, what articles might the Regnerus study be useful for? It makes sense for it to appear in Witherspoon Institute or in an article on a high-profile legal case that uses it, but those articles make mention of the study without actually using its results to support article content. Given the peculiar intersection of things it studied, I can't think of an article that might use its results directly. Zad68 20:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't imaging an article that would use the study's results directly so much as legal decisions that use it simply to say something along the lines of "the quality of gay parenting is disputed", as one just did. I'm leaning toward a subhead in the Witherspoon entry. The point being that we can write that carefully once and relieve court case articles from having to go over the same ground in any detail. No hurry though. Probably better to let the dust settle. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point: even if it does merit an article of its own, there would at least be a moderate-sized summary of it in the Witherspoon article. As such, it would serve as the parent article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Current legal status of gay-couple adoption map

I was looking for the source information for this map and could not find it. I do not quite understand whether the map is considering single-parent adoption as an equivalent of gay-couple adoption. At least for Uruguay (marked as gay-couple adoption allowed) no legislation exists that explicitly allows gay-couples to adopt children (and gay marriage is not currently permitted), although single-parent adoption is permitted.

Can we get a source for this?

PS: I am new here, so I apologize if I am not following any established protocols for article/image discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChocolateMoccaFrappe (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Methodology section has too many large quotes--summarize

The Methodology section is basically a list of huge quotes. All the big quotes lifted from the sources might be COPYVIO problems. Even if not, they make for a bad article section. The big quotes should be summarized and removed. Zad68 04:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of which are cherry picked, twisted, and misleading. That section needs a good culling and a source check for WP:POV pushing and WP:SYNTH by omission. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Allen. et. al.

What do you think? Should this study be included? http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13524-012-0169-x 128.187.97.22 (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

At first look, Allen doesn't look as authoritative as the Rosenfeld study--the journal article is described as 'commentary' and not a study, and the list of just four sources cited by the article reflect this. Also the Rosenfeld study was published in a PUBMED-indexed journal and I do not see that Allen was. I'm uncomfortable with using Allen here. Zad68 02:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Allen was published in Demography (just online first), the same one as Rosenfeld. If you look at the full text of the study, it concludes children of same-sex couples are 35% morelikely to be held back in school. see link: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/11/28/journal-reexamines-controversial-gay-parenting-study/ 128.187.97.22 (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes you're right, they're both published in Demography, my oversight. Before it gets used, I'd like to see what the PUBMED Publication Type is for the article; Rosenfeld's was listed as a Comparative Study. Allen's own article title describes it as "A Comment on Rosenfeld" and so I don't see how it can be said to be a study like Rosenfeld. Google Scholar shows Rosenfeld's article has 21 cites, and Allen's has none. I'm not seeing (yet) in the reliable sources equivalent academic weight given to Allen's article as compared Rosenfeld's study, and so I am leery of seeing it given equivalent weight in the article. Ideally, we shouldn't be using primary sources like Rosenfeld's in this way in the first place. Instead, we should be using reliable secondary sources like review articles and systematic reviews, and for just this reason.

Regarding the rest of the edit, Regnerus was discussed earlier and there was no consensus for including it. And we shouldn't be including general "letter to the editor" commentary for either study. Zad68 03:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously we'll need to get more input from others. However, Allen's article was just published last week-- hence why it has no cites. As to your no primary sources argument, there aren't secondary sources on Allen yet, hence why they would be relevant. And since Allen implicitly supports Regnerus, I think that means we should rediscuss whether to include Regnerus. Allen makes conclusions independent of Rosenfeld's conclusions, so I think it is a study in its own right. 128.187.97.22 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "ideally" we shouldn't be using primary sources but when you have an area of study that, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to have 'em, obviously you can't use 'em. Looking at the article, I'm not liking how Rosenfeld is getting used. There should be more detail about the kind of family unit Rosenfeld studied. This is probably a fault of the Rosenfeld article itself, the "five years" requirement for inclusion in his study is all over the body of the journal article but doesn't appear in his abstract or conclusion. Rosenfeld was going for as close to an 'apples-to-apples' comparison of parenting outcomes as he could get with stable, biologically related families. I understand Allen's point, that if you remove some of Rosenfeld's restrictions, you get a different result. (This might be an argument that Rosenfeld's restrictions are indeed justified and useful for removing confounding factors related to underlying reasons for moving or adopting, etc.) There might be a conclusion to draw from looking at Rosenfeld vs. Allen, something along the lines that unstable family homes (< 5 years at one location) disproportionately negatively affect the school progress of same-sex parents' kids, but this is original research and we can't say it. Actually, can you find in Allen's article where exactly the "35%" comes from? I see every bit of data Allen is describing in the tables, except the 35% conclusion--where is that? Zad68 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

See Table 3, row 1, model 4. 128.187.97.20 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We have a number of secondary sources on outcomes to work with; I think we are well past the point where we should be including any individual studies at all. There are far too studies many to cover them all individually, so how do we decide which ones to mention? It inevitably ends up that, in trying to analyze, organize, and present individual studies, we stray into WP:OR, trying to do an ersatz review ourselves.--Trystan (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is true that we do have good secondary sources like review articles and systematic reviews, I'd support ripping out all the individual studies and using those exclusively, in all the topic areas covered by the article that we have such sourcing for. Zad68 04:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The sample size of the Allen study is almost as large as all the past studies combined, by my own calculation. 128.187.97.20 (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

See the supplement to the original Rosenfeld article. 128.187.97.20 (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, what about the Marks study? . Marks, Allen and Regnerus together support a different conclusion than the majority of the research. All studies are, however, peer-reviewed and deserve note. 128.187.97.20 (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply in full later if I can / have the time, but the Regnerus one has been discredited, and is accepted as having being discredited by the scientific community. --Grotekennis (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I support mentioning Marks as a criticism where we discuss the APA brief. We aren't in a position to pass judgment on the Allen, Regenerus, or Rosenfeld studies, or meaningfully synthesize them into the overall perspective offered by the included secondary sources and reviews, and shouldn't be addressing them individually. We aren't a news source, and can wait for further secondary sources to be published covering new research.--Trystan (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed 128.187.97.19 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC). Trystan, want to do it? I don't want to be rv.

I went ahead and did it. Please comment here if you object. 128.187.97.19 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I adjusted the wording a little bit. All these huge quotes lifted from the sources should come out of the article, and they need to be replaced with original content that summarizes the content of the sources. The way it is now, it looks like a huge list of quotes and not an encyclopedia article. Zad68 04:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Rosenfeld's study is mentioned in the article. Should we either mention Allen or eliminate Rosenfeld in favor of these secondary sources? 128.187.97.19 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If we have secondary sources that summarize the results of the best/most important primary studies, we should indeed remove primary studies and instead simply summarize what the secondary sources say. Zad68 04:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Marks

Marks' paper has precisely zero WP:WEIGHT on this topic. He has never done any research on child outcomes nor is he educated in the field. In fact, his belief that the "ideal family structure is marriage between a man and a woman and a child biologically related to each" predates his college graduation. He is simply not a credible or reliable source for anything other than his own beliefs (for which he is not a notable scholar).

"While it appears to conduct a lowbrow meta-analysis of studies of the effect of same sex parents on children, no original data were collected or analyzed, nor was a systematic meta-analysis conducted. It is an argumentative review paper trying to make a case against a particular conclusion in an APA brief."

The American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Medical Association, American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics...

"...emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree."

And that...

"...the conclusions by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect a consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents."

Specifically noting that...

"The Marks paper presents no new empirical data. Rather, it simply reviews studies cited in a 2005 pamphlet and ignores all subsequent research. It notes limitations of the cited studies but does not contest their findings, and its argument that the children of same-sex couples are disadvantaged relies solely on the unreplicated work of a single researcher, Sarantakos (at 742-44)."

Including Marks pushes the idea that there is an academic, scholarly, or scientific debate where there is none and gives his paper a false patina of scientific credibility.

This violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree First, thank you for posting on here. Had you done this before, we wouldn't have had another rv cycle.

You may have missed our discussion above, where consensus accepted Marks. Thus, unless more people agree with you, we have to deal with a conflict. Further, you rv the work of two editors.

As to your allegations: WP:UNDUE is for examples such as flat earth, where, as you note, there is no academic, scientific studies. There have been 3 peer-reviewed studies (Allen, Marks and Regnerus) published in reputable journals which have cast into doubt the norm--this year alone. Allen presented the largest empirical study using census data (hence, very credible) ever done, and it gets ignored, even though it clarifies a paper cited in this article: Rosenfeld. Marks is a secondary analysis, like the APA brief, and it was added in that context. I'd be happy to add more recent sources on the other sids, but you are saying that there is no debate, when I can give you three peer-reviewed, published studies in the last 6 months that say there is a debate. I'd like other commentators to weigh in on this. Further, the Marks paper was inserted right after the APA brief, and modified by another editor before you rv.

You say Marks is irrelevant because it is a secondary source. Others say Allen is irrelevant because it isn't a secondary source. If we allow both of these standards to stand, no paper could be inserted

Also, and this is disconcerting, you claim he has no experience in the field. Studying families in general (as Marks does) does inform what happens in LGBT homes.

Support adding Marks or Allen in the context of APA or Rosenfeld 174.52.219.167 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm the IP. Finally logged in under my Username. jj (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:UNDUE is a fundamental part of the WP:NPOV policy and applies to all articles (i.e. it is not exclusive to pseudoscience and the like). The last bullet point of WP:YESPOV is an important bit...

Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

2. "Peer-reviewed" is not a magic phrase that renders all other considerations moot. An independent review, at the request of the journal's editor, found the publication and review process applied to the Marks and Regnerus papers highly suspect...

Obviously, the reviewers did not do a good job—because of both ideology and inattention—but the clear signal to the editor was "publish these papers". Still, once they were accepted there was an unseemly rush to publication (at least for the Regnerus paper), and that was justified based on the attention that these studies would generate. The published responses were milquetoast critiques by scholars with ties to Regnerus and/or the Witherspoon Institute, and Elsevier assisted with the politicization by helping to publicize the study and by placing these papers in front of the pay wall.

— Sherkat, D. E. (2012). "The Editorial Process and Politicized Scholarship: Monday Morning Editorial Quarterbacking and a Call for Scientific Vigilance". Social Science Research. 41 (6): 1346–1349.

3. "I can give you three peer-reviewed, published studies in the last 6 months that say there is a debate."

• The Regnerus paper is irrelevant as it does not cover the topic of this article.
• Without a reliable source, the claim that "Allen presented the largest empirical study using census data (hence, very credible) ever done..." does not satisfy WP:V.
• Allen attempts the Regnerus Ploy™ of changing the selection criteria in his "reexamination" of Rosenfeld's research.

Using the same data set, we replicate and generalize Rosenfeld’s findings and show that the implications of his study are different when using either alternative comparison groups or alternative sample restrictions. Compared with traditional married households, we find that children being raised by same-sex couples are 35 % less likely to make normal progress through school; this difference is statistically significant at the 1 % level.

— Allen, D. W.; Pakaluk, C.; Price, J. (2012). "Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld". Demography.

To which Rosenfeld replies...

Allen et al.'s finding of worse school performance by children living with same-sex couples is due to their conflating the initial disadvantage of children who come into same-sex couple families (a disadvantage that appears to be substantial) with the progress children experience during the time when they are actually being raised by same-sex couples (progress that is excellent).

— Rosenfeld, M. J. (2012). "Reply to Allen et al". Demography.

Of course this is not really surprising given that Allen is an economist by training and member of the Ruth Institute's, a creation of the National Organization for Marriage, "Circle of Experts".

• I did not say, "Marks is irrelevant because it is a secondary source." What I did said was, "Marks' paper has precisely zero WP:WEIGHT on this topic. He has never done any research on child outcomes nor is he educated in the field. In fact, his belief that the "ideal family structure is marriage between a man and a woman and a child biologically related to each" predates his college graduation. He is simply not a credible or reliable source for anything other than his own beliefs (for which he is not a notable scholar)."

4. Marks and Allen are in the extreme minority of scholarship on this topic and their view's should not be given equal validity...

We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world.

In sum, using either author's paper as a rebuttal to or "in the context of APA or Rosenfeld." would be a violation several policies, including the non-negotiable policy of WP:NPOV. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring a central point of Allen's paper-- the fact that the statistical conclusions found in Rosenfeld is an artifact of a small sample size. This is exactly what Allen's Table 2 concludes--a high chance of type 2 error-- before any modification of the data set. We should at least eliminate Rosenfeld from this article, sticking to the meta-samples. I don't see what being an economist has to do with anything--this is a statistical analysis of a given set of data.

Your immediate response to my last sentence is that there are important factors in deciding which children to include. To this, I say that a selection criteria of children simply that they are living with same-sex parents is much narrower then Regnerus--and I am slightly insulted that you would compare the two. In essence, this is a trade off, we can either have enough data to prevent type 2 error (which Rosenfeld completely ignores) or we can assume stability (which is an important factor in outcomes itself). I argue that type 2 error is a serious problem and should be equally important.

Also, I never ever said equal weight should be given. A mention does not give equal weight. You have 40 sources saying the majority view, and honestly could easily get more. I'm asking that 1 or 2 be included that show it has survived peer review.

Your critique of the peer review in Regnerus/Marks has nothing to do with the validity of Allen. You act like Rosenfeld settled the matter, when I have pointed out two flaws (1. sample size of Rosenfeld's study; 2. stability is relevant to public policy) which Allen allows us to get at that he takes no effort to address.

Of course, this all (what I said) is completely Original Research, I just don't want you to walk all over me citing the pro-LGBT talking points when the media is willing to publicize studies of 80 kids, not randomly chosen, under lesbian researchers as if they were sufficient to say things about the broader issue, and shoots down every sample that probably avoids Type II error. Hence, I agree with the controversial nature of this topic--I merely point out I could poke so many holes in the studies you have, but I don't support eliminating them and rebuilding the article.

Rest assured I have nothing against lesbians doing studies--it makes sense. I just needed to point out we should judge people on their merits, not their connections to the Ruth Institute.

We've both said far too much. I'll try and refrain from posting again until others post. jj (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" I am arguing the proportion of prominence is not no weight, and Marks/Allen deserve some (albeit a little) weight jj (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

We do have a good number of reliable sources that address the limitations of past studies. I suggest we use those. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No one else has commented. I still advocate my position of including the recent studies. jj (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC ???

• Where is the RFC? I saw notification that an RFC has been published here, but it is very unclear what the actual RFC question is. Please provide a brief, simple and neutral statement that we're looking for comments on. Zad68 15:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Should the papers by Marks and Allen be included in the article?" 128.187.97.22 (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Allen revisited.

I would like to have an RFC or more commentators weigh in on the Allen discussion. As of right now only I and ArtifexMayhem have commented at length, and we disagree. I tried to put up an RFC following requests for comments didn't attract interest and the RFC was taken down. jj (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You might try creating an RFC and posting notifications at some related wiki projects, user talk pages of past editors of this article and using the RFC notification service. - MrX 18:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe there is unanimous agreement to remove all the primary study results and rewrite the article to use only summaries of reliable secondary sources like we are supposed to. Doing so would eliminate the question of whether or not to include the individual Regnerus, Marks and Allen studies, and it would also eliminate the cherry-picking of primary sources and get rid of the probable WP:COPYVIO problems and huge WP:UNDUE weight issue the Methodology section introduces. Why not do that? This isn't an article I'm interesting in devoting big editing time into but I'd support changes along the line described. Zad68 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against deleting the entire "methodologies" section. It only exists to cast doubt on the current science. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! You cast every study that doubts the consensus as irrelevant, but you provide insufficient backing to eliminate such. For instance, you completely ignore that Allen went through the same peer review process as Rosenfeld, and was published in the same journal. You put it down for being labeled a "comment", but that is just nomenclature in the journal to signify a response. I'd be fine with eliminating the school outcomes section, but the methodologies section needs to stay, especially since some of those are secondary studies. With due respect, I disagree and continue to push to include Marsh and modify or eliminate the school outcomes section.jj (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing to push for the inclusion of politically motivated journal comments and articles by authors outside of their field of expertise is not recommended. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And an article by Boz and Gartrell, who have motivations in the opposite direction (one or both of them happen to be a lesbian), where the conclusions wildly exceed the scope of the study is reccommended? Let's put all the peer-reviewed studies in, and all the criticism. jj (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Re "Motivations in the opposite direction", an individual's sexual orientation should never be used to assign political motivations to her as a researcher. Rivertorch (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you distinguish those papers from the three I mentioned (Marks, Allen, Regnerus), Gartrell and Boz have obvious political motives, as does Rosenfeld (whose sexual orientation I neither know or care). Rosenfeld ended his response to Allen, et. al. with logic that had nothing to do with his specific study (but could be extrapolated from the general literature). "If formal marriage of the parents is beneficial to children, and if the goal of public policy is to maximize children’s chances of success, then perhaps the logical public policy prescription would be to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the United States."

Both sides are politically motivated, so by excluding one side that is politically motivated, this page adapts the policy position of those on one side of the argument. In the last year, 3 peer-reviewed papers have been published (one of which is a meta-study, which is a preferred secondary source, one of which was extensively covered in the media, and one of which sheds light on a study already in the Wiki article), and I cannot add any of them.

Put simply, if you applied the same standards you've applied here ("politically motivated") to each of the pro-LGBT articles cited, this would be a much shorter article. jj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you're replying to my comment, the only standard I'm applying here is the one I mentioned above: that the sexual orientation of a study's author is irrelevant vis-à-vis the validity of his or her study. Regarding the broader questions about the relative validity of the different studies and the possible motivations of their authors, I haven't expressed an opinion and don't intend to without looking into it in more depth than I currently have time for. I will say this much: I suspect it is possible to assess the studies without dividing them into polarized categories such as "pro-LGBT". Rivertorch (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

On this subject

On this subject, a brief filed on behalf of the American Sociological Association in the case Windsor v. United States is available HERE.

And contrary arguments made by 7 social science professionals are available HERE.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A brief filed on behalf of the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, The National Association of Social Workers and others in the case Windsor v. United States is available HERE.--В и к и T 20:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

The American Academy of Pediatrics on 20 March 2013 issued the following report and policy statement. I think that this statement could be called a policy from a top-level children's health medical organization, as probably most pediatricians in the United States belong to this society.

• "Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian". Pediatrics. 131 (4): 827. 2013. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0376.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Scope in lede

It seems reasonable to convey in some way in the lede that most studies of "LGBT parenting" have to do with same-sex couples; we can phrase it in a way that doesn't exclude single parents and people in opposite-sex relationships from the definition, but the vast majority of research appears to focus on couples. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that it's true that same-sex parenting constitutes the vast majority of the research. While there is certainly a lot written about same-sex parenting, there is also lot written about LGBT parenting more broadly. Many studies, including major ones like Gartrell and Bos' longitudinal study, include single parents. --Trystan (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Politifact

This article might have something useful. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/apr/07/susan-yoshihara/same-sex-marriage-foe-says-latest-research-has-sha/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably the most useful thing for Wikipedia's purposes is the statement that "the question is by no means settled." Except that that seems to contradict the lede. --107.212.21.56 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple commentators have repeatedly refused to allow a variety of studies that state just that, ex. Marks, Allen. I support rewriting the lede, or in the alternative, adding 2012 studies in. jj (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We also should consider the logical flaw that, if there is "no difference" then, as US Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, the claim that marriage benefits the children of same-sex couples doesn't work. jj (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

At least those 3 legal items that were in the lead without support in the article body are now out of the lead, per WP:LEAD. However at least the individual court transcripts are a WP:PRIMARY problem - Florida, SCOTUS. These PDFs of court transcripts are used without a good secondary source to establish notability and interpret them. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. Zad68 16:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed for SCOTUS; I'm skeptical that the Fla. Court is notable, but I don't want to delete it without consensus. jj (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I ended up removing almost all the content in the Marriage section as problematic. There were serious misrepresentations of the sources, the usefulness of the sources as cited was very questionable, and there were several WP:PRIMARY problems. This section needs to be rebuilt from the ground up using proper sourcing, please consider going to the main Same-sex marriage article to try to find appropriate sourcing. Zad68 17:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tend to feel that the criticism of same-sex parenting studies as being inadequate to be certain tends to be deleted, no matter the framing. I can get you a variety of sources, from peer-reviewed studies to the sources you just deleted. How can we rework this article to add the sources in in a fair way? The sources you just deleted indicates there is no consensus. jj (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I also deleted a source (Florida appeals court statement) that said same-sex marriage is awesome. The only thing I am trying to do is to make sure Wikipedia sourcing standards are applied correctly, especially as concerns WP:PRIMARY and WP:V (especially in making sure the article content actually represents the source accurately). I really don't care about the conclusions of the sources I've been removing because the sources were inadequate, I really don't care about which side of the debate the article content I've been removing is on because the content failed to represent the sources accurately. 1) Identify the best sources, 2) Represent them in the article accurately, and with due weight. That's it, really.

What we're looking for is authoritative, secondary sources that review and summarize the primary literature. Regnerus was a primary source that has been marginalized, the court transcripts were all WP:PRIMARY problems, content based on the Politifact column overstated and misrepresented something the journal editor Wright said. The standard for sourcing currently in this article appears to be statements from major national medical and psychological organizations. Any new sourcing should be at least that authoritative or better, otherwise we will run into WP:GEVAL problems. Can you bring new sourcing at this standard? Zad68 18:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding: Try using a scholarly database to look for sources. For example, here's a search I did on JSTOR: JSTOR search. You can also try PubMed PubMed search but you will need to find recent secondary sources like Review articles. Using these databases will bring up results that will be much more likely to be useful as sources, more so than WP:PRIMARY court transcripts or newsblog-style items. Zad68 19:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What about Marks' paper? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580.

If not, it seems like no new study that comes out could meet your requirements then. Thus, unless major organizations change their view, you are arguing it is impossible to even mention both sides of a real debate, regardless of empirical data. If we have 10 new peer-reviewed studies, does that really mean nothing? jj (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, these are not my standards, they are Wikipedia's. Read WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL carefully, it is policy. I'm not sure it applies here, but also review WP:FRINGE. Ten new peer-reviewed studies of unspecified quality that haven't been reviewed in secondary sources do indeed mean pretty much nothing, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Wikipedia heavily weights scientific consensus and authoritative secondary sources. This is not unique to this article's topic, I could point to dozens of other articles with the same situation: Overwhelmingly, large national organizations and well-respected secondary sources espouse View X, and particular not-very-notable individuals espouse View Y. Wikipedia will report View X. It is possible that View Y might get a mention, depending on how authoritative the sourcing can be found for it. If you're talking about influential, large national bodies like the AMA, the APA or the AAP vs. a critic associated with a partisan institution (and he's the best source), most likely View Y will not get a mention. Zad68 02:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay compared to Lesbian

Given the amount of research into child well-being by family format, is there any research comparing children of gays and lesbians as their individual subgroup? Do children of lesbians face less discrimination than gays? Do they perform better at school? etc. –User:catwith9lives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.188.206 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court

Question: Supposing the upcoming marriage decisions cite the Regnerus study (or Allen or Marks). Would we include them at that point? What if it's a dissent or concurrence jj (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It depends, I guess. My first thought would be that their decision would be useful at Same-sex marriage but I'm not sure exactly how it'd be worked into the content in this article. This article currently has next to nothing in its Marriage subsection, and the SC is considering same-sex marriage, and not really LGBT parenting. They are related but not at all identical topics. SC judges are legal experts but not scientists. Their opinions are definitely noteworthy, very influential, and likely to have a lasting impact, at least in the USA, so Wikipedia should carry that information, but not sure this is the article for it. We'll just have to wait and see. Zad68 14:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Welfare of the Child

The following is a section to this article which was placed in January 2012. It contains internal references as well as multiple links to referenced studies and articles which are already in the public domain where they can influence opinion. The section fully complies with all Wikipedia's rules for inclusion and its standards of reference are equal to or exceed the refereces already in the article. The subject matter is wholly concerned with the suitability of homosexual couples as parents. Its wholesale, unedited removal in 2012 cannot be justified by reference to Wikipedia rules and therefore will be re-inserted. It presents some evidence on the statistical suitability of homosexual parents for bringing up young which is not necessarily positive. By placing it here I hope that committed contributors who have a different personal viewpoint will be engaged enough to find competant referenced evidence to either suppliment (especially with regard to transgender parents) or counter the evidence presented here. In re-instating the section, I have made some minor alterations.

Welfare of the Child section: – The rights of a child to know its biological parents may be compromised by same sex partnerships. Elton John and his civil union partner, David Furnish, successfuly applied to have both their names entered onto their child's British birth certificate even though they cannot both be the child's biological parents. The effects on a child bought up to believe he or she has two male parents who later discovers he or she was born of a female surrogate cannot yet be guaged.

– Studies have shown that children have fewer behavioural and mental health problems when they are bought up with stable parents. [43] Yet on average, homosexual couples are more likely to have other sexual partners and stay together for a shorter time than heterosexual couples, [44] prompting the question of how far same sex parenting is in the long-term interests of children. In his The Sexual Organization of the City, sociologist Edward Laumann from the University of Chicago wrote that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months". [45] and Michael Pollak, who conducted a series of enquiries into male sexuality found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners." [46]

– Comparison between homosexual or lesbian relationships and heterosexual married couples shows a marked diffference in the amount of domestic violence reported. A study by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2000 found that while 0.26% of heterosexual married women had reported experiencing domestic violence; 11.4% of lesbian couples had reported a violent domestic incident. Surprisingly, while only 0.05% of conventionally married men had reported experiencing domestic violence, the comparable figure for homosexual men is 15.4%. [47] Island and Letellier in their book about battered homosexual couples reckon that violence between male homosexuals is twice that experienced by heterosexual males. [48] Parental stability is also bought into question by the fact that homosexual couples experience a markedly greater risk of mental health problems than married couples.[49]. Further, studies show that males in homosexual relationships have disproportionally high suicide rates. [50] Health risks for homosexual parents are also a problem. A study in the journal AIDS found that life-threatening diseases are more prevalent among homosexual couples than with heterosexual married couples and that homosexuals in a stable relationship are more likely to practise unsafe sex. - End of article. [51] Cacadores (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

– I have altered the title to Stability of Homosexual Partners in order to better specify its contents. I have also removed the previous first paragarph of the section as it is seen above because its point was speculative. I will remove the suggestion of taking a position evidenced in the beginning of the second (as it appears above) paragragh. The result is information specifically relevant to the stability of homosexual partners as parents and all of that information is referenced by sources as reliable or more so than any others found in this article. There is now no unjustified sythesis of argument. There are two ideas joined together by logical concurrence. The first is that children gow up better with stable parents. This idea is referenced and therefore not dependant on argumentation here. The second is whether homosexual couples or heterosexual couples on average are stable, which justifies the examination of referenced facts in rest of the section. Cacadores (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

– I have another look at this section and its place in the article and these are some relevant facts: First it is sandwiched between two other sections presenting an opposing viewpoint and therefore meets the criteria of aiding balance. Second, it is the only section presenting an alternative set of facts. This is rather surprising reflection. Third, argumetation is minimised and restricted to aiding the readiblity and ordering of the facts. Fourth: there are no unsupported assertions, unlike in other parts of this article. Fifth, this section has more than one reference, mostly academic, for every two lines of text; a factual backing far in excess of anything else in the rest of article. Cacadores (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If sources don't discuss LGBT parenting, it is synthesis to use them to try and establish an argument about LGBT parenting. This rule exists for good reason, as the section you propose would fail a peer-review process rather quickly. One central flaw is that, to the extent the statistics you include are accurate, they are not restricted to same-sex couples that choose to become parents.

Much more problematic is the clear misrepresentation of sources used. The 2000 US DOJ study did find that 11.4% of women in same-sex relationships reported having experienced domestic violence from another woman, but the comparable figure for heterosexual women is 20.3%, not 0.26%. The figures for men are 15.4% in same-sex relationships and 7.7% (not 0.05%) for opposite-sex relationships. Far from being "surprising", as your commentary claims, the study arrives at the rather unsurprising conclusion that "intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female partners."

Per WP:BRD, please establish a consensus here first before readding it to the article.--Trystan (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

New study out - July 2013

There's a new study out that should probably be included here. I'm not sure where in the article it would be appropriate to include it though. I'll just leave it here, formatted, for easy use by another editor.

• Goldberg, Abbie E.; Smith, JuliAnna Z. (2013). "Predictors of Psychological Adjustment in Early Placed Adopted Children With Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parents" (PDF). Journal of Family Psychology. 27 (3). American Psychological Association: 431–442. doi:10.1037/a0032911. Retrieved 10 July 2013.

Hope that helps! Silverseren^C 20:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting new research. However, that's a primary study and we're generally looking for secondary sources. Hopefully it gets picked up in a review soon. Zad68 20:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly more than enough media coverage of it so far. But, yeah, it'll probably be a month or two before there are any reviews. Silverseren^C 20:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Another study

Here's another new one. Wow, two in two weeks.

• Farr, Rachel H.; Patterson, Charlotte J. (July/August 2013). "Coparenting Among Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Couples: Associations With Adopted Children's Outcomes". Child Development. 84 (4). Wiley-Blackwell: 1226–1240. doi:10.1111/cdev.12046. Retrieved 16 July 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

I hope that's useful at some point too. Silverseren^C 19:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexual orientation of children

I tried to add this part:

"which may be at least partly explained by inherited predisposition to same-sex desire and that same-sex couples often raise their biological children"

The source:

This reticence is most evident in analyses

of sexual behavior and identity-the most politically sensitive issue in the debate. Virtually all of the published research claims to find no differences in the sexuality of children reared by lesbigay parents and those raised by nongay parents-but none of the studies that report this finding attempts to theorize about such an implausible outcome. Yet it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents. For example, biological determinist theory should predict at least some difference in an inherited predisposition to same-sex desire; a social constructionist theory would expect lesbigay parents to provide an environment in which children would feel freer to explore and affirm such desires; psychoanalytic theory might hypothesize that the absence of a male parent would weaken a daughter's need to relinquish her pre-oedipal desire for her mother or that the absence of a female parent would foster a son's pre-oedipal love

for his father that no fear of castration or oedipal crisis would interrupt.[23]

So, what is not supported by the source? Cavann (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that biological determinist theory should predict a given behavior does not mean that the behavior "may be at least partly explained by inherited predisposition". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That was just background. Forgot to put the main part here. It's in the article.

Children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do seem to grow up more open to homoerotic relationships. This may be partly due to genetic and family socialization processes, but what sociologists refer to as "contextual effects" not yet investigated by psychologists may also be important...even though children of lesbian and gay parents appear to express a significant increase in homoeroticism, the majority of all children nonetheless identify as heterosexual, as most theories across the essentialistt" to "social constructionist" spectrum seem (perhaps too hastily) to expect

Cavann (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled - as evidence for inserting one particular supposition, you're citing a paragraph of several different suppositions. Why mention the biological guess but not the sociological one, etc.? Also what Artifex said about "should predict"; the authors aren't saying this is what they found or even guessing that this is the explanation for their findings, they're talking about theories that are out there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Read the newer edit, where I mentioned the sociological one. As for the latter part of your response, read the above (2nd) quote.Cavann (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources you are citing do not support the edit...

...snip... Their findings indicate that the children with lesbian or gay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and are more likely to be open to homoerotic relationships, partly due to genetic (80% of the children being raised by same-sex couples in US are their biological children) and family socialization processes (children grow up in relatively more tolerant school, neighborhood, and social contexts, which are less heterosexist), even though children raised by same-sex couples are not more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay and most of them identify as heterosexual. ...snip...

• The ABC News source is does not say anything about genetics. Using it to support "partly due to genetic" is WP:OR.
• Stacey and Biblarz did not find anything was "partly due to genetic". Using the partial quote out of context is WP:CHERRY. Here's the full quote Emphasis mine,

Children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do seem to grow up more open to homoerotic relationships. This may be partly due to genetic and family socialization processes, but what sociologists refer to as "contextual effects" not yet investigated by psychologists may also be important. Because lesbigay parents are disproportionately more likely to inhabit diverse, cosmopolitan cities—Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco—and progressive university communities—such as Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Madison, and Ann Arbor (Black, Gates, et al. 2000)—their children grow up in comparatively tolerant school, neighborhood, and social contexts, which foster less hostility to homoeroticism. Sociology could make a valuable contribution to this field by researching processes that interact at the individual, family, and community level to undergird parent-child links between gender and sexuality.

• Putting the two sources together is WP:SYNTH.
• The omitted context in the ref quote shows more cherry-picking,

Indeed, we believe that if one suspends the hetero-normative presumption, one fascinating riddle to explain in this field is why, even though children of lesbigay parents appear to express a significant increase in homoeroticism, the majority of all children nonetheless identify as heterosexual, as most theories across the "essentialist" to "social constructionist" spectrum seem (perhaps too hastily) to expect. A nondefensive look at the anomalous data on this question could pose fruitful challenges to social constructionist, genetic, and bio-evolutionary theories.

Thanks for reminding me to read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CHERRY. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any wording should be used unless it has a recent, reliable study to back it up. I mean, 2001, seriously? We've learned so much about the LGBT community in the past 12 years that a study from 2001 would practically be in the Dark Ages. Silverseren^C 20:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but these attempts at deleting everything but the null hypothesis smack of heterosexism. So, kids of lesbian parents experimented more with same-sex partners. So what? Cavann (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, first of all, it was a review study. Technically, they did not "find anything."

1) ABC study talks about biological children. When you have biological children, you pass your genes in case you did not know. This is because the avg reader may assume the child is adopted and may not understand the genetic connection.

2) "which may be at least partly explained" was in my original edit, but got left out un the second.

3) With respect to "A nondefensive look at the anomalous data on this question could pose fruitful challenges to social constructionist, genetic, and bio-evolutionary theories,"

Yet it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents.

4) I also made few adjustments. WP:OR or WP:SYNTH cannot apply anymore. WP:CHERRY was always irrelevant if you read the discussion in its entirety.

Cavann (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)