Talk:Same-sex parenting/Archive 1

Doesn't Make Sense
this sentence: "There is scientific consensus that children raised in single parent households tend to fare worse than those raised in two parent households (article). This generalization has been used by many groups to oppose adoption by same-sex couples" what?? so, if research show children do worse in single parent homes, why would people opposing adoption by two people use this argument?? and then the next sentence has nothing to do with the first two sentences.
 * The sentence on Dobson that follows is a cited example of the content you deleted. Whether or not the argument makes sense to you isn't the point, as long as the information about the argument is accurate. Maybe the wording needs to be changed to make the connection clearer? --Andrew Delong 20:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Disparity in space given to studies on different sides
The article accords two full paragraphs and upwards of 200 words to quotes from one literature review. Neither of the paragraph-long quotes from the Rekers literature review specifically addresses the fitness of same-sex couples as parents, or psychological or social outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples. The second para quote is a study of 14 to 21 year olds, who are frankly unlikely to be adopting children; this para is wholly irrelevant to the topic, as it contains no information about gay and lesbian adults or their fitness to raise children. The first para is slightly more relevant, but quotes the study without providing any context whatsoever (for example, the fact that mental illness among gays and lesbians could be exacerbated by social exclusion and hostility, or the fact that the subset of gays and lesbians in stable relationships and planning to adopt children is likely very different from the glbt population at large). Further, the text around the study uses terminology frowned upon on wikipedia: WP:NCI.

There are several studies specifically examining outcomes among children raised by same-sex couples; all are relevant to this article, none are quoted or cited in the body of this article, and if any have found that same-sex couples are, on average, less fit to raise children than hetero couples, I have yet to hear of it. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) I'll be introducing some specific quotes from studies of parenting by same-sex couples shortly; if someone else would like to help in giving equal time to the (narrower, more relevant, more numerous) studies affirming the suitability of same-sex couples, I'd be delighted. In the meanwhile, I will remove the New Zealand study until someone presents some rationale for dragging 14-year-old non-parents into this, and I will be providing some context for the Gilman study.

--Rocketfairy 01:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgot a bit: The "critics point to court cases" bit is largely irrelevant. SCOTUS sided with the Boy Scouts because they felt they had no grounds to intervene in the affairs of a private organization. Likewise, the majority holding in the Florida case had nothing to do with the fitness of same-sex couples and everything to do with the role of the court. I also fail to see the relevance of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: This article should not be a laundry list of court cases resolved unfavorably for gays and lesbians. Please keep it on topic. --Rocketfairy 01:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is evident that this following statment is clearly POV:--Cavris 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Critics claim that these rates of mental illness are attributable to the social exclusion of gays and lesbians (see homophobia), and that rates of mental illness among gays and lesbians in stable, long-term relationships (those likely to adopt) may be much lower.

You have no studies, no facts, just your opinion. Opinions without backing are called editorials and does not belong in a article claiming to be factual. Pointing to prejudice (homophobia) is a escape tatic commonly used when one has no backing for thier claim. Therefore I will delete this untill anyone can find any study claiming that long-term relationships (those likely to adopt) may be much lower than the facts stated in the Rekers study.--Cavris 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

''supporters note that such children are not more likely to be or become gay or lesbian themselves later in life. Supporters also note that, while heterosexual couples are more common, their perceived "normalcy" does not make them superior.''

Again, POV. No facts, No studies, nothing but the author's opinion. The studies provided by Rekers clearly states the opposite of this section of the paragraph. In addition the last sentence is cleary a jab at the opposing view, assuming that all heterosexual couple are arrogant. Without any foundation to support these claims, this will also be removed until a study is found that proves otherwise. --Cavris 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Again the third paragraph claims studies from the APA and other organization contradict the claims made by Rekers. Where are these claims? This will be removed until someone can cite these claims or any others supporting gay-adoption.--Cavris 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)--Cavris 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

They say that statistics do not indicate that children raised by same-sex couples are any more likely to be affected by social problems.

Again! The only study provided for this article clearly states the antithesis of the sentence. Read the study and look for yourself, a good example is on page 18. To simply say the statistics do not indicate that children raised by same-sex couples are any more likely to be affected by social problems. is ignorant to the facts. --Cavris 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This will be removed until it can be proven otherwise.

In support of same-sex adoption, I quoted a paragraph from Rekers stating the prejudice homsexuals suffer. However, don't be fooled to think that this contradicts the section I removed becuase it did not have factual backing. This is a conclusion of a individual section of a huge study, no numbers or figures were provided. --Cavris 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove something in the name of disparity of studies covered. It is the responsibilty of the supporters of same-sex adoption to do thier homework and find credible, supporting facts for thier opinion, not remove facts from the other side they dont agree with.--Cavris 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember that this is an article, not a battleground for liberals and conservatives, and not an editorial.

We must hold true to the credible stuides and findings, not opinions from homosexuals, or heterosexauls twisitng the text to their side.--Cavris 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, you managed to delete all "pro" material from the "controversy" section in the name of being npov. I'm impressed. As I said, I'll be going back and providing more citations when I have time; in the meanwhile, this article needs to provide a fair hearing to supporters of adoption by same-sex couples, and it is not npov to include a statement of their position along the "supporters claim" lines. --Rocketfairy 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Responding to some of Cavris's specific points: Yes, statements like "critics claim" are POV. The express one of several points of view about this issue, which is why they are in the "controversy" section. Re: the critical claims about the methodology of the Rekers study, none make any factual assertions other than "this is what one side believes." Given that they express concerns about the relevance and methodology of the only study cited in the article, they should be included. Wikipedia citations about controversial issues can and should include appropriate context, especially when the study is published by a political organization on one side of an issue.


 * supporters note that such children are not more likely to be or become gay or lesbian themselves later in life. Supporters also note that, while heterosexual couples are more common, their perceived "normalcy" does not make them superior.


 * You say that the Rekers study contradicts this claim; could you point me to a part in the study indicating that the children of same-sex couples are more likely to be gay? The second sentence is just noting one value judgement made by one side of this debate; there is no urgent need to source it, any more than we'd need to source "many opponents of same-sex marriage believe that heterosexuality is more normal." It's what one side believes, which is why it is in the controversy section.


 * Don't remove something in the name of disparity of studies covered. It is the responsibilty of the supporters of same-sex adoption to do thier homework and find credible, supporting facts for thier opinion, not remove facts from the other side they dont agree with.


 * My earlier comments explain why I removed quotes from the Rekers study: They were irrelevant. I agree that the article needs more citations from studies favorable to adoption by same-sex couples, if for no other reason than because the only study cited does NOT specifically address outcomes among children raised by same-sex couples, and is a laundry-list literature review published by an anti-gay poltiical organization discredited by major psychiatric organizations. I will be introducing citations to studies that specifically address outcomes among adopted children; in the meanwhile, it is entirely inappropriate and POV to delete all the claims by one side from the controversy section in the name of being "neutral." Thanks. --Rocketfairy 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Cavris that the sentence "Supporters also note that, while heterosexual couples are more common, their perceived "normalcy" does not make them superior" does project a feeling of contempt for people who believe heterosexual couples are superior. While we may personally think there is no good reason for them to feel this way, this sentence doesn't do anything to refute that idea---instead it serves to make such people seem egocentric by oversimplifying their point of view. Regardless, there's something about the tone of that sentence that doesn't seem neutral. Maybe it's the perceived "normalcy" part (why the "" quotes? after all, heterosexual couples are more common), or maybe it's the way the sentence can be easily misinterpreted as "most opposite-sex couples feel that they are superior to same-sex ones." Meh, I dunno, but we should definitely think of something better. Andrew Delong 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend, but saying I'll be going back and providing more citations when I have time is not a excuse to state a claim WITHOUT SUPPORT OR ANY CITATION WHATSOEVER in a article. Adding the section about logical fallacies is just silly to state in a neutral article, and a product of an implusive and upset writer.


 * supporters note that such children are not more likely to be or become gay or lesbian themselves later in life. Supporters also note that, while heterosexual couples are more common, their perceived "normalcy" does not make them superior.

The phrase "critics claim, supporters note" is a disguise for "my opinion."

This does not belong in this article whatsoever. Rocketfairy, this is your opinion. Okay? Not fact. Not a study. You may write in to a newspaper and say this, but not in a factual article.

The study is credible, and is only linked to an organization that supports homosexuals seeking to change thier lifestyle. The APA does not issue any accrediations, so it is impossible to discredit NARTH. Read the study, there are plenty of references to the issues regarding same-sex parents, the quality of their upbringing, and the long term effects. If I stated and quoted every one, that would really make you upset, becuase you have no study to respond to Dr. Rekers claim. So out of respect of the opposition, I will not cite or quote anymore untill you actually spend some time and find a STUDY, with facts, appropriate methodologies and by experts in the field, and not an opinion.

Remember Rocketfairy, this is not your article, so you cant have it your way my friend. There must be a compromise, therefore I will divide the controversy section into stuides, and opinion. When you "have time" to find supporting citations for same-sex adoption, you may include it in there. So in the meantime, anything that has citations while be included in the Studies surronding the Controversy.

Your opinion is welcome in the opinion section, where you may say, "supporters claim" aka, "my opinion".--Cavris 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cavris: Please don't call me "my friend."


 * While I think Andrew is right about the phrasing of the "normalcy/superiority" bit being poor, the question of value judgements about homosexuality and gender norms -- which are simply not questions of fact -- should be in the article, with both sides expressing opinions. That is one of the roots of the controversy, and it is a point that hinges upon competing value systems and not questions of fact. --Rocketfairy 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you mean and it would be nice to have a section explaining more explicitly what you just posted (how the competing value systems are the source of the controversy). -- Andrew Delong 15:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The claim that no studies exist to support ... et cetera is unsourced and I have therefore deleted it. rewinn 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of Reckers' Study
Reading this article again, it dawned on me why the current use of the Reckers study makes me uncomfortable: the parts cited are about psychiatric problems of homosexuals, and this article then makes what are essentially unsourced conclusions about the effects of same-sex parenting on children. The study includes statements about parent/child relationships and childrens' well-being, so why not use them instead? I say scratch the current "Studies" section and rewrite it based on the relevant conclusions of the study (which are full of non-sequiturs and generalisations in my opinion, but it would take a followup study to point out any problems with Reckers'). -- Andrew Delong 20:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. One problem in particular: the Rekers paper cites the Co-morbidity study as finding that, out of all people having sex (regardless of orientation) over 1/4th of men and 1/3rd of women have psychiatric disorders. This seems implausible; either the Co-morbidity study has an uselessly broad definition of psychiatric disorder, or the Rekers paper is not citing it properly ... for the obvious conclusion from those statistics would be that only celebate people should adopt children ;-). rewinn 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Studies & Sources
Obviously we'd like more studies than the Reckers one, but the only other one I'm already familiar with is the National Lesbian Family Study that was updated in 2005:
 * In social and psychological development, the NLFS children were comparable to children raised in heterosexual families. The NLFS girls demonstrated fewer behavioral problems than age-matched peers. These findings are consistent with other studies demonstrating a high degree of emotional well-being in children of lesbian families (Anderssen et al., 2002; Bliss & Harris, 1999; Golombok et al., 2003).

As you can see they cite other studies, but I wanted to get some opinions before adding this result to the page because: So, what do you think: is this study informative if the above two disclaimers are provided or can we do better?
 * 1) The source could easily be biased
 * 2) The sample size is small (N=76)

--Andrew Delong 19:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With the two disclaimers provided, and given that this is the only study available, it would only be fair to mention it.

Speaking of fair,

"Statistics on the overall stability of same-sex households (such as the Rekers study) are often cited as evidence that same-sex couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Note that this is an instance of the logical fallacy of accident since the argument is based on a generalization: Persons in a same-sex relationship are more likely to have a psychiatric disorder than are persons in a heterosexual relationship. Joe and Jeff are in a same-sex relationship. Joe and Jeff likely have psychiatric disorders and are therefore unfit to raise a child. For example, studies have shown that artists have a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders than does the general population (see creativity and bipolar disorder); one could therefore make a similar (fallacious) argument that artists are unfit to raise children."

The phrase "Note that...." is stating that information from Rekers is a fallacy. This is POV and must be changed to relfect a opinion and not a fact.

A example of generalization is not revalent because the Rekers information is a comprehensive study, a long and through one at that, and not a random opinion. So you cannot annalogize joe and jeff to crazy painters because statistics from a credile soucres proves that homosexuals do have an increased chance of mental problems. This is a fact from a study and we as wikipedians must treat as that.

Therefore I will remove this untill someone can produce a rational argument that supports same-sex adoption without claiming the Rekers study is false.--Cavris 21:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the Rekers study concludes that homosexuals are more likely in general to have mental problems---okay, sure. That in and of itself has little to do with individual same-sex couples being fit for raising children, and that is where the fallacy occurrs. I'm not saying the Rekers study is flawed, I'm saying that the parts cited do not directly support or oppose same-sex adoption without appealing to the fallacy I gave as an example. If the study contains actual conclusions (NOT speculation) on children of same-sex couples, then that's the part that belongs in this article. As the article stands, my analogy with artists is entirely appropriate and highlights the danger of the present argument. Anyway, here's hoping we don't get into a revert war :~) -- Andrew Delong 22:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. I just finished reading the rest of that Rekers study. That was so, so so biased. I also just realised my problems are almost idental to Rocketfairy's. Considering Wikipedia's policy on undue weight, the Rekers study currently gets way too much space on the page considering it contradicts scientific consensus not only on gay parenting (see the ACLU survey which covers many studies that contradict both Rekers results, not to mention his unfounded claims) but also on the nature versus nurture debate (Reker claims many times, without evidence, that there is a direct causal link between children exposed to homosexual ideas and children becoming gay/gender-confused). -- Andrew Delong 03:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Andrew that Dr. Rekers mentions several times the link regarding childhood expouse to homosexuality and future sexuality of the child without verifiable data. That is why I did not include it in this article.

I dont understand what you mean by "the Rekers study...contradicts scientific consensus not only on gay parenting but also on the nature versus nuture debate."

I am no expert, but I think the debate between nature and nuture is still raging on. If the debate is still in the air, how does this "contradict scientific consensus"?

Like I said before, there is no other evidence I have found (besides statements by the APA and AAP, no studies found yet) that supports same-sex adoption. If anyone finds anything, please dont hesitate to post it up here so that there would be such unequal weighting of one side of the debate. In the mean time, the study we have should remain.--Cavris 04:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes you're right, what I said about "scientific consensus" when there is none makes no sense. I've added some references to the ACLU book as a survey of mostly-published papers that make gay adoption sound far from terrifying. By the way, I can't seem to find out if Rekers' paper was published in a journal/conference anywhere. Would you mind looking into that? If it didn't pass peer review then that doesn't bode well for its reliability and I think this should be noted as a disclaimer. Same goes for potential bias since George Rekers being a founder of the Family Research Council is analagous to the NLFS study I mentioned being conducted by a lesbian advocacy group. Not sure if quotes/citations for the ACLU's work needs any disclaimers though since their well-known stances may not qualify as 'bias.' I dunno. -- Andrew Delong 05:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One more question Cavris: I'd like you to respond to the criticism that Rocketfairy and I have had about the Rekers study's relevance to this article. We both basically said that, yes, Reker presents credible evidence concerning psychiatric disorders among gays in general, but there are two problems with the way the paper is cited here:
 * Rekers' actual conclusions concerning gay parenting are not cited, just the ones concerning mental problems are.
 * The relevant conclusions that Rekers draws do not directly follow from his corresponding evidence.
 * Earlier I was trying to leave the parts you cited, but I added the fallacy of accident (which you removed) because I wanted to highlight the logical gap present in the article. I've sort of covered that base with my little blurb at the end but---really---I won't be comfortable with that material in the article at all until I understand why it proves what it claims to prove. Convince me! -- Andrew Delong 06:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew said above: "Obviously we'd like more studies than the Reckers one, but the only other one I'm already familiar with is the National Lesbian Family Study...The source could easily be biased". The American Psychological Association should be considered an unbiased source I would think? So I will include a statement that the APA supports gay adoption, and add their policy statement in the bibliography, as it contains a list of studies in the references. --RLindley 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Adoption Article, Not Mental Illness
This article is about Adoption, not mental illness. Therefore any references to mental illness must be in the context of adoption and that context should be disclosed in the first sentence of the argument. This lets readers decide for themselves whether the evidence presented fits the argument being made. rewinn 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mental Illness?

 * That's of course a really valid point. Since the mental-illness thing is a common "con" argument, I think it belongs in the article (considering the critique of this reasoning that follows it, I wouldn't call the article biased on the whole -- all the con arguments have some cited refutation). It would be really informative if someone found a published study that breaks down the average mental condition of gays/lesbians based on the regional acceptance of homosexuality. After all, maybe you're right, in which case you can add to the article! --Andrew Delong 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No Single Parents?
Obviously, many gay and lesbian parents are divorced or never-married single parents. However, the article at the moment assumes that every child with a gay parent is the child of a gay couple.

At the moment, this is the broadest article on the subject of gay and lesbian parenting, but it ignores the existence of a large number of gay and lesbian parents.

I think it should be renamed to Lesbian and gay parenting or LGBT parenting. The use of the LGBT abbreviation is a Wikipedia standard.

Dan B † Dan D 17:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point I suppose. Consider the possibility that such parents could find a home under the single parent article. Meh, I could go either way... so to speak. Feel free to put a rename suggestion notice on the main page. --Andrew Delong 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No one spoke against this and I think it's obviously valid. So...off we go! Moving the article... Dan B † Dan D  05:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion on the LGBT Sidebar?
I was surprised that this article isn't linked to on the LGBT sidebar. It took a bit of surfing around to find it. It seems like an important issue that should be included, perhaps under culture? Siani 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Name and scope of article
The article begins, "LGBT parenting refers to the raising of children by gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents." However, the focus seems to be on same-sex parenting. Although LGBT people may be in a same-sex relationship while raising a child, this is definitely not certain. They may be single parents, or they may be in an opposite-sex relationship. In the latter case, almost if not all of this article is irrelevant. Consider changing the name to Same-sex parenting. -Emiellaiendiay 05:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The content in this article was originally named Gay parenting, then Adoption by same-sex couples and then split out into Parenting by same-sex couples before the most recent name change. I have to agree that, without major editing, the most recent name change is a mistake in that LGBT parenting is a much broader subject than this article presents or perhaps should present. Any plans DanB/DanD? --Andrew Delong 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Parenting by same-sex couples seems underinclusive. Where a gay man and a lesbian decide to raise a child together, or where a gay couple decides to raise a child with a biological mother (or vice verse), or in any other non-traditional LGBT parenting structures, the social and political issues are largely the same as for traditional same-sex couples. Fireplace 16:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
I don't believe that this article is neutral. It does not give equal space to arguments for and against LGBT Parenting. It only gives refutations of the briefly stated arguments against LGBT Parenting, but it doesn't give these arguments their own time.
 * Yeah, I can believe that. Personally I've found most of the newer studies tend to cast a lot of doubt on the typical con arguments (hence the current flavour of the article). Are there studies in the last few years that back up the original intuition about the dangers of gay parents? I'm too lazy/busy to dig around since, I admit, I'm skeptical of them (i.e. biased) from the outset. --Andrew Delong 20:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another way to put it: Nobody has done an actual study of the children of same-sex couples that indicates any substantial differences in outcomes other than in gender roles and in bullying by peers. I'd be happy to see more space given to these arguments by opponents of same-sex couples and their children, but if the article seems weighted on one side, it's because the other side cites precious little empirical evidence. It isn't wildly unreasonable or POV to give more space to arguments supported by evidence. Note the breakdown in citations: Mainstream medical or psychiatric authorities and peer-reviewed studies on one side, and Dr. Rekers on the other.
 * This leaves two obvious ways to increase the space given to arguments against lgbt parents: Find credible, relevant studies to cite (good luck!), or give more space to arguments over values or the existing evidence. I'd love to see more room for arguments pro and con as far as children's gender roles go (I tried this and got smacked down for weasel words; others may be able to do it better). I think this would actually clarify the debate somewhat: For many if not most, the debate has little to do with the material parenting bona fides of same-sex couples, and everything to do with legitimate questions about sexual morality, gender roles, and tradition. If the debate is focused on subjective values and not empirical questions, why not expand the conservative arguments in that territory? --Rocketfairy 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The External Links section seemes to contain only pro-gay sources. If this is so, anti-gay sources should be added for balance's sake, even if they're not scientific or on par with the pro-gay sources. --Safe-Keeper 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

homosexuality and paedophilia
The article says that the American Family Assocation or whatever it is has found revealed the homosexuality and paedophilia are strongly linked. It claims this because the majority of paedophiles and the majority of child victims are male, therefore it reasons, a man who molests a boy is a homosexual. This simplistic and uneducated view is very damaging to LGBT people and should not be offered as scientific or factual on a non-biased website. This could be presented as a 'view' of paedophilia, but not as 'the view'. Enzedbrit 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could someone dig up an opposing citation? The ACLU is not a good pick here, as it is an advocacy organization; I know many psychiatric orgs have noted that the absence of a relationship between the abuse of male children and adult homosexuality. --Rocketfairy 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think read something by the American Pedatric Assocation a long time ago that said their was no connection...I can't remember where it was, but I imagine that their website would be a good place to look for information. Asarelah 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The majority of child victims are female. So the initial claim would be false anyway.Kairos (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

POV--Necessity of Adoption
Firstly this contradicts the Adoption article, secondly it's entirely POV (it grates against me as an adoptee because many of the things stated are wrong and are using adoption as a leverage for issues outside of adoption itself--not because it related to a LGBT POV), thirdly if there is a reason for this being in this article space rather than the adoption article space, it should be stated. If there are no objections by the end of next week, I'm moving it off of this article space and merging and rewriting it for the LGBT adoption article space. --Hitsuji Kinno 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that (1) it's not written with encyclopedic tone and (2) it doesn't really belong here anyway. --Andrew Delong 06:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the second para of "Necessity of adoption" has some tone problems, but I think the first para provides useful background information to one of the major arguments about LGBT parenting (incl foster care, not just adoption). That said, I'd be open to a rewrite and replacement of it, as long as that occurs in a neutral fashion.
 * Hitsuji, what in the section do you think is wrong or POV? Could we parse out a solution here before changing both of the pages?
 * Thanks -- --Rocketfairy 11:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the article is that it doesn't belong to this article space. There is *already* something about adoption at the top. There is a whole article on it. As for POV bits...


 * "Many advocates for lesbians and gays..." makes it POV without a counterbalancing opinion. Also it's not really cited.


 * In addition many of the assertions made are either bent or false such as, note the shortage of prospective adoptive or foster parents, particularly for certain groups of children. Many adoptive parents prefer to adopt infant children, and children with disabilities, HIV infection, or behavioral issues (issues common in foster care in the United States), who may otherwise spend years moving from foster placement to foster placement. The baby statement is a bit old, and that should be part of the adoption article, which softens the issue, puts a better wording on it. It also makes it sound very politically bent. In this, as an adoptee, while I respect LGBT to adopt, I dislike using aspects of adoption for political gains outside adoption. (Such as Suicide and adoption which uses it to support unsupported theories about suicide and genetics v. environment, which is why I'm having trouble posting it.) Since this contradicts the adoption article, it should instead refer to the adoption article. I would advocate for it to be cut.


 * The next part:


 * According to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, "About 30% of children in foster care have severe emotional, behavioral, or developmental problems." 


 * should belong to the article on adoption. It has nothing to do with LGBT issues on adoption.


 * A study by UCLA Law School's Williams Institute reports that gays or lesbians are disproportionately willing to accept older, disabled, ill, or otherwise hard-to-place children; for some children, bans thus may lead to years of movement in the oft-criticized foster care system. 


 * This has a problem with the neutrality of references. Since the reference is POV, so is this section. I would be open to finding a third party reference where the study is meant to be neutral, but as I said this contradicts the tone and sayings of the adoption article.


 * Additionally, many gays and lesbians are already raising children with whom they have no legally recognized parent-child relationship. These may be foster children, relatives, or their partners' biological and adoptive children. Without the right to adopt or achieve recognition of their parental rights, the relationships between these parents and their children are unprotected. If they do not have a legal relationship to their parents, children can be denied public benefits, child support, and ongoing contact with their parents. Because these families already exist, advocates argue that prohibiting adoption exposes children in existing gay and lesbian parent families to financial and familial instability that could be avoided by allowing gay and lesbian parents to adopt.


 * This sounds like an argument. Incidentally it has fallacies even for an argument. It has nothing to do with adoption and much of the stuff is already addressed in either the LGBT adoption article, or is already in this article.


 * In general it also addresses issues of adoption and then puts a bent in such a way it sounds like non-LGBT parents never adopt HIV positive children, older children, etc. It also makes it sound like LGBT prospective adoptive parents would like to *only* adopt these children. There it creates a huge fallacy since it has nothing to do with LGBT's *right* to adopt. LGBT's right to adopt should not be put on numbers, but should be put on the core issue, the prejudice that adoption agencies might have towards the idea that a child should have a parent of each sex to end up functional in the given society. Present both sides of that issue. The best way to solve that is to go over the history of such adoptions, and psychological studies in *both* directions, plus numbers of adoptees that end up LGBT (because the idea is that these children will more likely be "gay" if placed in such homes or be "traumatized."). Isn't that the real point on the "necessity of adoption" is that LGBT should have the right to adopt in the first place, rather than children need to be adopted? (That still belongs to the Adoption by same-sex couples article anyhow.)


 * I *still* say that it needs to be moved to the Adoption by same-sex couples article. It does need to be rewritten. If you prefer to do it over me, here's what I suggest. 1. Take the main idea of the article without the strong thesis statement and arguing to the top part about main article on LGBT parenting. What are you trying to *inform* people about? Not change their minds about. 2. Show *both* sides of the issues. (I realize how difficult this is, however NPOV is like that, or you can simply not put any POV in. Wikipedia proper suggests looking at the abortion article for examples of hot button issues and how to get around them.) 3. Read through the adoption and the Adoption by same-sex couples articles. Make sure that the overlap is consistent. I don't mean write it in tandem in such a way it doesn't overlap, but have the overlap be consistent in tone and information. 4. Keep main idea to the appropriate article and don't be afraid to link between them. 5. Be careful of POV wording, such as "advocates" without a counterbalance of "detractors" and argumentative wording such as "If they do not have a legal relationship..." which is starting to argue rather than inform.--Hitsuji Kinno 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've cut the section, but expanded (a bit) the foster parenting and adoption section. I have also added, in briefer form, the arguments there to the "lgbt adoption" article. I put in a countervailing view as to legal status for preexisting couples: I don't have cites for either side, but I think they are fair if brief capsules of the two major camps. I did not put in a countervailing view to the Williams Institute article, as I haven't found one. In particular, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that LGBT couples are vastly more willing to adopt hard-to-place kids. This isn't an argument, nor is it predicated upon a logical fallacy; it's a fact, one cited to a legal think tank at a prominent public university.

Btw, these talk pages are littered with requests for empirical studies from 'the other side' on LGBT parenting. I'd absolutely invite their inclusion if they existed; I have yet to see a study that found statistically significant harm to children raised by queers or same-sex couples (unless you count higher rates of gender flexibility as 'harm'). There are two sides to every argument, but we should consider that one side may have a different, say, relationship with the actual facts of the matter. Rocketfairy 04:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-political aspects?
Why is this article strictly about the politics of gay parenting? I came here looking for information _about_ gay parenting, not about the argument of whether or not it's correct. Quite frankly, I don't care who supports it and who doesn't. I want to know what is unique about gay parenting and how those families structure themselves. Perhaps some of the prejudices they face, and then a small section on the subject's controversy. In short, the article is poorly named and has become an excuse for jerks on both sides to pontificate. Have we ever considered the POV error of limiting a subject to one particular discourse? It's absolutely maddening! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.168.16 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely -- the article should be expanded in this area. Fireplace 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Reference
The following may be of some use

Rickard, Maurice "Children of Lesbian and Single Women Parents" Research Note no. 41 2001-02, Social Policy Group, Parliament of Australia

--Check12 (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Parenting in marriage categories
Shouldn't LGBT Parenting fall under rights, not marriage? If so, shouldn't these categories be removed: Marriage | Same-sex marriage | Marriage, unions and partnerships by country. Is the thought that first you get married, then you have kids? Looking at the pages in some of these categories, this page seems out of place. Just curious, thanks.--Ikzing (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Images
I love the images of the two mothers and two fathers at the top of the article, but is there another place in the article where we could move them? They just really seem to be squishing the text at the top, and are actually a bit distracting with their current placement. I was mildly bothered by it when the image of the mothers was first added, and now with the addition of the fathers it's even more noticeable. — MearsMan  talk  06:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick! By the time I posted this question and went back to the article, the images had already been moved to the Gender roles section.  I think it looks great there, so thanks User0529! — MearsMan   talk  06:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm psychic and didn't even know it !............ there is some level of infobox squish going on up top -- User0529 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Major omission: parenting by LGBT biological parents
I don't have numbers, but many, many LGBT parents had children as part of a heterosexual relationship, and the article at the moment leaves them out completely.

Dybryd (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking it deserves to be simply mentioned, for completeness, or are you thinking a short subsection should be devoted to it? I have read many of the studies cited in this article and I don't remember them focusing in on children from former heterosexual relationships. I imagine the repercussions for a child would be similar to divorce, but there's nothing I can cite for this article. &mdash;Andrew Delong (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it deserves a subsection. But I don't mean to task you or any other editor with writing it -- sorry if I gave that impression. I'll browse around and see what kind of info I can find. Dybryd (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gender roles
Uh, per the last revert. The lead section of this article (also in dispute at Talk:Same-sex marriage, is a clear violation of a host of policies/guidelines, but possibly fixable with the correct sourcing. And though I hate to cross post, I'll go ahead and do it here. The reports on gender roles in parenting themselves make zero reference to LGBT parenting, which would make this an instant violation of original synthesis without more direct sources. The problem is that those more direct sources obviously have an extremist point of view (rendering them unreliable), and the wording used made their claims sound credible. Now, I'm not saying they are or aren't, but the neutral point of view, specifically the section on undue weight forbids the promotion of views that are not discussed by reliable sources. They do not need to be discussed positively, or with any judgement at all, in fact. They just need to be discussed, and the content must honestly report the RS's take on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this line in the article?
"**The term "psychiatric disorder" is defined here in such a way as to encompass over 28% and 31% of all sexually active men and women respectively."

Who put it in and why? Seems like possible vandalism/POV/OR. GeneralBelly (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it's not vandalism, but is OR. Since the quote states that "...28.2% of men having sex with women...31.8% of women who have sex with men" had psychiatric disorders, the section you're questioning was probably inserted to emphasize that the study was using a fairly broad definition of psychiatric disorder, to provide perspective on the higher LGB figures. I do not find the disputed text in the cited source.- Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll remove it and if someone finds a source for it they can add it back. Cheers. GeneralBelly (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
A major concern over same-sex couples should adopt is whether gay men can be good mothers or lesbians can be good fathers. The question arises whether their is a difference in gender roles of the parents. Simply deleting anything that might possibly imply that gender does make a difference is not helpful. In order to NPOV, you need to present both sides of the argument. Simply slapping a NPOV on someone you disagree with is not helpful. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Popenoe is a legitimate sociologist and his book on Fatherhood seems to be regarded as significant. What is insignificant is the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints quote from it. Their opinion is not notworthy. His is. Also Popenoe is essentially discussing single-parent families with absent fathers. We'd need clear evidence that his assertions in that context are applicable to parenting by gay couples, since it is not simply the absence of a biological father that's the the issue but the presence of an example of a working long-term relationship into which the child is enfolded. Also there are two sentences trhat are being forced together there. We need to know the context, and the importance that is attached in context to very sweeping generalisations like "fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being" (is this really always true? There are no laybout, short-term thinking fathers?) The fact is that every couple will have some negative factors. Education is desirable. Should couples with no higher qualiiocations not be allowed to adopt? Wealth is desirable, and is statistically correlated to later success for the child. Should poorer couples not be allowed to adopt? What matters is what professionals say about whether on average gay couples can be effective parents, not whether there are some positive aspects to "gender differentiation". What's needed is a fair summing up of evidence, and that includes the question of how much importance is attached by professionals to gender difference and also whether that equates to sexual difference (there are couples in which the mother is more "masculine" in some respectrs than the father. That's just normal human variation). Paul B (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He said "the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable." That means the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.  We are discussing if a second mother could replace the father, and he is clear that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.  BTW, why is the LDS church's opinion insignificant, but the ACLU opinion is significant? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree strongly with Paul B that while Popenoe is legit, his comments are not directly relevant; he is not comparing like for like. GeneralBelly (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Controversy" section
Per our NPOV and MOS policies we should not have a "Controversy" section - it's a sign that the article is written poorly and is POV. Instead, any relevant material needs to salvaged and placed appropriately within context of other material. Anything that you think is useful but doesn't have a home can be parked on the talkpage for future editors to try to resolve. -- Banj e b oi   01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Schumm Study
I added a small reference to recent work by Dr. Schumm at Kansas State University that contradicts previous research into this area. I have a weblink to the abstract but I am not sure how to include it with the cite to the article. Can someone help? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18982959?dopt=Abstract Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Myths and legends about pedophilia
There are many myths connecting LGBT parenting and Gay adoption with pedophilia, it is a topic of concern for gays and lesbians. There is a source here dealing with this controversial topic. ADM (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, "Will Children be Molested by Homosexual Parents?" from About.com? That's quite unhelpful. -- Banj e  b oi   19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed Research
I found a relevant passage from the Stacey and Biblarz study that was published in the American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2. (Apr., 2001), pp. 159-183. I'd like some help summarizing it rather than placing it verbatim. I also noted that an editor deleted research from Dr. Walter Schumm, apparently not realizing that it has been published in a peer reviewed journal. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the cite to the Schumm article: Psychol Rep. 2008 Aug;103(1):275-304. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the passage from the Stacey and Biblarz study: "A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers in the sample reported having had a homoerotic relationship (6 of the 25 young adults raised by lesbian mothers 24% compared with 0 of the 20 raised by heterosexual mothers.)" and that "The young adults reared by lesbian mothers were also significantly more likely to report having thought they might experience homoerotic attraction or relationships. The difference in their openness to this possibility is striking: 64 percent of the young adults raised by lesbian mothers report having considered same-sex relationships (in the past, now or in the future), compared with only 17 percent of those raised by heterosexual mothers." I propose a relatively simple summary such as "Some significant differences have been noted in the children raised by same-sex parents including in their openness to experiencing a homoerotic relationship (64% vs 17%) and an actual homoerotic experience (24% vs 0%)." Oh, by the way, Stacey and Biblarz are supportive of same-sex parenting, so no one can play the Paul Cameron card on them. Despite their overall support, they did notice some statistically significant differences and these SHOULD be noted. Science is not served by ignoring what one doesn't like. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not posting sooner. I think you should tweak it a bit - A 2001 study noted significant differences in openness to experiencing a homoerotic relationship (64% vs 17%) and an actual homoerotic experience (24% vs 0%) comparing children raised by same-sex parents. Not sure on the style of the actual numbers but if it conforms to the other text then it's either fine or they're all equally flawed. -- Banj e  b oi   04:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Destinero
We seem to have a determined editor with an agenda. Destinero has attempted twice to wipe away a very large section of the article, the section discussing the impact of LGBT parenting on children. The interests of children would seem to be a vital aspect of the article. Currently, that section is unbalanced and should be revised. In the past, I have contributed to this article by substantially revising the "Fitness as Parents" section, trying to bring balance, citing expert - as oppossed to ideological - sources. The other portions of the Impact on Children section warrant equal attention. If Destinero is a serious editor, he will attempt to revise them or discuss their elimination here. Otherwise, we can safely say he is a vandal with a lower-case "v."Tobit2 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am serious editor and I want to discuss it later today or tomorrow. No time to do it now. Sorry. --Destinero (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I've removed dead references.
 * 2. I've removed only obviously exceptional personal opinions of obviously unreliable sources in full agreement with Neutral point of view, Neutral point of view, Neutral point of view, Neutral point of view,Verifiability, Verifiability, Verifiability policies and Reliable sources, Reliable sources, Reliable sources, Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) guidelines.
 * 3. I've edited text accordingly.
 * 4. I am ready to discuss and clarify every edit in depth if needed and I am open to collaboration under List of policies of course. --Destinero (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Glad to hear it. Since you want to significantly revise a poor article anyway, I joined in, largely by consolidating material. Also your new section needs to be skimmed down; extensive quotes should be summarized, Quotations.Tobit2 (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for underestanding. I expect this article to be in heavy development and consolidation over next few days. I am happy to find good spirit in collaborating on that and I welcome it warmly. I fully agree, that the quatation will have to be reduced ASAP, but I want to be there have some rough initial state to editations and further development. The point is that the key message but effectively should be communicated to the reader: The scientific background, the proffessional consensus (not only American, but globally). The duplicates in quotations should be removed for sure. --Destinero (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Amicus curiae brief of Ca Supreme Court
There is a suggestion that an amicus curiae brief, a document that is by definition aiming to persuade the court to reach a point of view, should be treated as objective. This seems odd for a subject that demand scientific fact. A court may decide something, but that does not mean it is true. Within IP law, for example, the courts consistently make incorrect decisions as to what is scientific fact. The pronouncements of political bodies have no bearing on what is the objective impact on children of LGBT parenting. Although we can state their point of view, we must stick with the facts we have, even though they are sadly scant.Tobit2 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The American Psychological Association is a nonprofit scientific and professional organization founded in 1892. The Association has more than 155,000 members and affiliates, including the majority of psychologists holding doctoral degrees from accredited universities in this country. Among the Association’s major purposes is to increase and disseminate knowledge regarding human behavior and to foster the application of psychology to important human concerns. Human sexuality, familial relationships, and stigma and prejudice are professional concerns of a substantial number of the Association’s members, either as researchers or as clinicians.
 * The American Psychiatric Association, with more than 38,000 members, is the Nation’s largest organization of physicians specializing in psychiatry.
 * The National Association of Social Workers (“NASW”) was founded in 1955 by the merger of seven predecessor social work organizations. It is the largest membership organization of professional social workers in the world, with 145,000 members and 56 chapters throughout the United States and abroad. The NASW, California Chapter has approximately 11,600 members. In furthering its purposes of developing and disseminating high standards of social work practice while strengthening and unifying the social work profession as a whole, NASW promulgates professional standards and criteria, conducts research, publishes studies of interest to the profession, provides continuing education and enforces the NASW Code of Ethics. NASW has participated in numerous cases involving mental health, social science, family and discrimination issues, and is deeply committed to providing scientific information to help inform the courts on issues of importance before them.
 * Amici, the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists present this brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature pertinent to the issues before the Court. In preparing this brief, amici have been guided solely by criteria relating to the scientific rigor and reliability of studies and literature, not by whether a given study supports or undermines a particular conclusion. The brief was prepared primarily by the American Psychological Association. The views expressed herein, however, are shared by all amici.
 * This brief has been prepared and reviewed by expert members of the amici – the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists – who are thoroughly familiar with current scientific theory, research methods, empirical findings, and clinical techniques concerning sexual orientation, marriage and non-marital relationships, parenting, and stigma and prejudice. Counsel have assisted the psychologist amici in identifying issues potentially relevant to this case, presenting scientific information herein in a manner that will assist the Court, and preparing the brief for filing with the Court in compliance with applicable rules. In preparing this brief, however, the psychologist amici and their expert members have taken responsibility for reviewing the scientific literature and summarizing the conclusions to be drawn therefrom. In the informed judgment of amici, this brief presents an accurate and balanced summary of the current state of scientific and professional knowledge about these issues. To further assist the Court, we briefly explain the professional standards we have followed for selecting individual studies and literature reviews for citation and for drawing conclusions from research data and theory.
 * (1) We are ethically bound to be accurate and truthful in describing research findings and in characterizing the current state of scientific knowledge.
 * (2) 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. We cite chapters, academic books, and technical reports -- which typically are not subject to the same peer-review standards as journal articles -- when they report research employing rigorous methods, are authored by well-established researchers, and accurately reflect professional consensus about the current state of knowledge. In assessing the scientific literature, we have been guided solely by criteria of scientific validity, and have neither included studies merely because they support, nor excluded credible studies merely because they contradict, particular conclusions.
 * (3) 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. 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. In this brief, we note when a study’s findings should be regarded as tentative because of methodological limitations.
 * (4) No empirical study is perfect in its design and execution. All scientific studies can be constructively criticized, and scientists continually try to identify ways to improve and refine their own work and that of their colleagues. Critiques are part of the process by which science is advanced. Thus, when a scientist identifies limitations or qualifications to a study’s findings (whether the scientist’s own research or that of a colleague), or when she or he notes areas in which additional research is needed, this should not necessarily be interpreted as a dismissal or discounting of the research.
 * (5) 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
 * Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources to describe facts. Out of the 45 amicus briefs in the case, the only brief cited and quoted in support of the decision was this one. Almost exactly the same amicus curiae brief served as basis for decision of The Supreme Court of Iowa. My contributions are based on the most reliable and credbile sources on the world. Tobit2 promote references and sources that are at least thousand times less credible and reliable and are published by activist groups or the worst quality journals. What a difference. --Destinero (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh where do I begin?
 * First let's do a little defense. Per the accusation above - where Destinero suggests I am promoting sources that, what was it again, oh yeah, that are "at least a thousand times less credible" than his - sorry, but I'm not offering much in the way of sources. I'm using what's in the article already.  I did, however, insert the reference to the professor from Univ. of SC; which I thought seemed more credible than what existed before it: a Focus on the Family diatribe.  So I'm glad you pointed out that was not a good reference.  Otherwise, nope, sorry, just using references from scientific studies that were placed in the article by someone else.  Your apology is forthcoming, I see....
 * Now let's proceed. We could remove your edits because they are blatant plagiarism.  You do realize that you cannot copy text verbatim from other sources?  Here's hoping.  But, I'd much rather deal with the issue itself rather than the messy technicalities.  If we accept the Amicus Curiae as a source - and it's not bad in its summary of the studies- we have to separate the source into two parts: 1) there is one aspect of the AC which is attempting to persuade the court, a portion that uses phrases like "remarkably consistent," and "Rarely have we seen," you know things that a congressman would say, vs. 2) the actual core of the paper.  The core of the paper says very clearly, that there is no scientific evidence against LGBT parenting. The negative is the crux of the issue here.  If I have not done a study or the results were inconclusive, then, voila, there is no evidence.  Or if my studies were limited to children below the age of 14, those just hitting adolescence, then again, voila, there is no conclusive evidence.  That is largely what we are dealing with here.  I assume you've actually read the existing studies, right?  Here's hoping.  Maybe that's a poor assumption.  But, I digress.  So, anyway, I can accept the use of the AC if we focus on its core rather than its attempt to persuade.  Just the facts.Tobit2 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see you are willing to discuss things. You reverted sources such as Schumm, WR. Psychol Rep. 2008 Aug ;103 (1):275-304; which is unacceptable since it is based on unrealiable source (Psychological Reports). See Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals in those fields well covered by such indexes, but not included, should be used with caution. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." Thus I expect your apology.
 * I agree that the citation and copyright issues should be improved quickly. But phrases like "remarkably consistent," and "Rarely have we seen," are facts and the burden of proof rest on you if you disagree. I highly recommend you to stick to the facts from the AC and don't manipulate: "Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents." Thus your point is invalid. --Destinero (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And since the things mentioned are facts, there are directly supported by numerous other independent high reliable sources such as
 * http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf "The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families."
 * http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf "lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children, and the development of sexual identity, personality and social relationships develops similarly in children of homosexual and heterosexual parents."
 * http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349 "There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment."
 * http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Justice_Child_Development.pdf "The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence."
 * --Destinero (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding lots of words and quotations to your reply. Trying to tease out your point was an enjoyable exercise.  Two items seem to be covered, though: 1) your exception to the Schumm reference.  I understand it wasn't acceptable to you, but you never actually said why.  Thus the reason for the revert.  Above, you quoted Wikipedia policy. That's nice. Demonstrating literacy is always a good thing.  But you actually have to indicate how and why the source violates the policy too.  The second item or number 2) is where you suggested the burden of proof is on other editors to overturn any hyperbole.  Ummm...no.  You see Wikipedia has two cornerstone policies: 1) Verifiability (which you already quote so extensively) and 2) Neutral Point of View.  Now at the risk of being hypocritical and at the risk of getting you to extract long quotations from that policy, I, myself, will quote from it, but just a snippet, so not to worry. In short, the policy says, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." You see, interpretations of facts, comments like "rarely have we seen such wonderful agreement among such remarkably consistent studies," are....drum roll please....opinions.  Looks like we should start editing.  All joking aside, Destinero, I really think you are helping get a much better article here.  I am just hoping you demonstrate that the crux of the issue is the negative not the positive: as the AC said, there is no scientific evidence against LGBT parenting.  Voila.Tobit2 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Science is a collective enterprise. Published research papers can be considered scientifically significant to the extent that they influence the thinking and research of other scientists and have an impact on the formulation of new research questions and the design of future studies. Based on this rationale, research studies are often evaluated, in part, by the prestige of the scientific journals in which they are published and by how often they are subsequently cited in the scientific literature by other researchers and professional colleagues. Objective measures are available for both of these criteria, using data published regularly in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Impact factor is widely used by librarians, information scientists, and researchers from a variety of disciplines as an objective indicator of a journal's quality, value, and impact. What are the impact factors for the journals in which the Cameron group has published its papers? Four of the Cameron group's publication outlets – Journal of Psychology, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Omega, and Psychological Reports – were categorized as General Psychology journals in the JCR. They are listed here, along with examples of some of the top- and bottom-ranked journals in that category for 1994 and 1995, and again in 2005. The average number of citations for a paper published in the highest-ranked journals (e.g., Psychological Review in 1994, Psychological Bulletin in 1995) was approximately seven or higher. In other words, articles published in these journals were cited, on average, at least seven times during the two years after their initial publication. All of the journals used by the Cameron group were in the lower half of the rankings and, in many cases, near the bottom. For those journals, the impact factors were substantially less than 1.0, meaning that the average article published in them was not cited at all in the two years after its initial publication. Instead of publishing in highly-respected, scientifically rigorous, and highly influential psychological journals (such as those in the top half of the JCR rankings), most of the Cameron group's research reports have appeared in Psychological Reports. As shown in the table below, Psychological Reports consistently ranks near the bottom of the list for impact. Other approaches to ranking the prestige and significance of journals have similarly ranked Psychological Reports at a low level in comparison to other psychology journals. Psychological Reports publishes a larger number of articles and has a lower rejection rate than is typical for psychology journals. According to JCR in 1994 and 1995, for example, Psychological Reports was the third largest journal for which statistics were collected, publishing 510 articles in 1994 and 504 articles in 1995. Psychological Reports is also different from the vast majority of psychology and social science journals in that it requires contributing authors to pay a fee (in recent years, $27.50 per page). The practice of charging a per-page fee or requiring purchase of preprinted copies of the article is rare in psychological and social science journals. Such per-page fees are not charged by the high-prestige psychology journals (e.g., those published by the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science). Thus, the Cameron group has published its empirical research in academic journals with low prestige and, at least in the case of Psychological Reports, with a low rejection rate and a publication fee required from authors. Given the serious methodological flaws in their survey studies and obituary study, it is reasonable to conclude that the Cameron group's papers would have been rejected by more prestigious scientific journals." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_cameron_journals.html

The Schumm reference is unacceptable to Wikipedia under the above cited policies and guidelines, since it is one tentative study published in unreliable source. His article was cited by Cameron itself only in Psychological Reports a year later. Thus I am removing undoubtedly unreliable reference and I believe you would not be unable to read the provided links to save my time next time. --Destinero (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for presenting yet another well-reasoned argument, copied and pasted, word for word, from yet another source without bothering to provide attribution to its author, in this case Herek's blog (excuse me for asking, but how did you write before IBM invented Control-C?). While, Herek's opinion warrants respect, it does not change the fact that citation rate is not part of Wikipedia's criteria.  Moreover, it does not overturn the fact that the Schumm article appears in a peer-reviewed journal. So - although it does not support your agenda - the article does conform to Wikipedia's policy.  I'll put it back.  Thanks, this time, for providing reasons for your actions, even if they are other people's reasons. Tobit2 (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Civility applies here, as much as anywhere; if you take a glance at the top of the page, this and other policies like WP:NPA are specifically detailed. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've included the link to the source which I quoted in quotation marks immediately after. Herek's blog wasn't used as a source. Thus I am expecting your apology. The relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines are these (I am sorry to quote this but there is a need for discussing in proper and visible context):
 * Neutral_point_of_view Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.


 * Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.


 * From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.


 * Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.


 * Neutral point of view: Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.


 * Neutral_point_of_view: A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.


 * In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be used in a way that is not neutral. For example, it might be:
 * *cited selectively
 * *painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate
 * *made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present
 * *subject to other factors suggestive of bias


 * Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.


 * Verifiability: Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.


 * Reliable sources: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.


 * Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals in those fields well covered by such indexes, but not included, should be used with caution. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available."


 * Reliable sources (medicine-related articles): it is vital that medical articles be based on reliable published sources. These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at Reliable sources with specific attention to sources appropriate for medical and health-related articles. Ideal sources for these articles include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is also useful to reference seminal papers on a subject to document its history and provide context for the experts' conclusions.


 * Reliable_sources (medicine-related articles): Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Neutral Point of View.)


 * With respect to the quoted Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Herek's quotation and evidence which demonstrates the papers published in Psychological Reports cannot automatically be assumed to meet high scientific standards and that Schumm's conclusions is ignored by all scientific field there is no justification to include discussed reference to this article otherwise it would infringe the rules. --Destinero (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop copying and pasting so much text. It would be most helpful if you just stated your point.  Anyway, I think you are trying to say that the journal Psychological Reports is not among the most cited and a paper by Cameron (?) is not yet cited at all, thus a peer-reviewed journal falls into the category of fringe-theories. That isn't very convincing.  First, the article in question seems to have been published less than a year ago; so we wouldn't expect much citation.  Second, citation is not a criteria, i.e., citation rate does not equal acceptance in the field, it equals what people happen to be working on at the moment.  Third, the fringe-theory argument doesn't apply to a peer-reviewed study in a journal that, even if not the most important in the field, is recognized in the field and publishes continuously.  If you respond to this post, could you please resist copying and pasting so much text, it is impossible to read your point otherwise.  Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a bit of delving into Schumm. His specialism is in heterosexual families, and has a credible record of publications in the field.  He has never undertaken research on lesbian and gay families, from what I can see. He has written one paper in this area, the challenged citation, and this is a review of several previous research papers in this area, not research.  It is primarily a critique of some aspects of the methodology relating to data analysis in previous research, and from which some possible conclusions are drawn based on that research.  It has never been responded to in any way in any academic paper.  The only reasonable way to utilise this paper would be in relation to the research and papers it reviews, not the subject of those papers.  It would be quite justifiable to cite the findings of those papers published in respectable journals, and to add that some aspects of that research has been criticised, although the weight should reflect the location of the original papers as being those of experts in the field, the Schumm review mentioned in a way that reflects its academic insignificance (being by a professional who has not worked on the issue other than this one paper, and publishing in a publication that is not usually concerned with this issue, and that it has never been cited elsewhere).  To develop any conclusions from such a paper about the research it is based on would sit somewhere between WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as it is primarily about other papers, not about the subject of the article.  This is a problem with using primary sources, they are liable to interpretation, and why we are recommended to use secondary sources if possible.  If it is decided that the reference to Schumm needs to be retained in some form, then one way to avoid giving it undue weight would be to ensure that all the papers it discusses (as being part of the review it details) need to be discussed - giving each of them at least as equal a weight to the sole paper that has reviewed them.  However, given they are authored by specialists in the field, and in recognised publications, it seems fairly obvious they should each have more weight than the Schumm paper.  How you assess the right balance I am unclear, but my estimate would be 2:1, so for the eight papers Schumm reviews that yields an overall ratio of 16:1. If Schumm can be summed up in two lines, the papers he reviews would need at least 30 lines to avoid giving the Schumm paper undue weight (given its insignificance in the field).  It would allow the reference to be there, and allow for people to follow it up if they need more information on it. That's my opinion, anyway.Mish (just an editor) (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that Psychological Reports is a journal with suspect quality and fact-checking as I documented on Herek's quotation. It published Cameron's fringes and Cameron's is with no doubt discredited and insignificant researcher in the field. Only Cameron cited Schumm. If Schumm's or someone conclusion are important and worthy enough they would be published on really reputable source. There is a several accepted systems which can provide answers about reputation of the journal and acceptance of a idea in the field. Both I provided. Please stop relying on this dubious reference and try to find more reliable sources if you want, since we should present reality and facts described by their prominence among the most reliable sources available. I personaly think it is impossible to give space for describing dozens of studies in the field and this is a reason why we should rely and stick to the most reliable sources providing credible reviews and summaries of the studies in terms of widely accepted standards in the field. --Destinero (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)