Talk:Same-sex parenting/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Plagiarized Work from Unacceptable Source

Destinero has added the following text, which I am forced to remove due to multiple issues. Below, I compare the Original Wikipedia Text, sentence by sentence, with the source in question: the Amici submitted to the CA Supreme Court, noting the problems and determination. I am using as the threshold for plagiarism, the idea of have three words that appear in order as given in the source. This definition has been adopted from J.B. Owens, Iowa State University, the top google hit on the subject.

1st Sentence

Wikipedia Text
Scientific research comparing outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents consistently demonstrates that lesbian and gay parents are as suitable and capable of raising children as heterosexual parents are, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.
Source Text
….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.
Issues
1) this sentence has already been modified once, but material still plagiarized from source, 2) source itself does not support this statement, providing it only as consensus viewpoint of the Amici (The American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers), and 3) source is not peer-reviewed nor published so its reliability is questionable
Determination
removed. Even if we modified the sentence, we still have a problem that this is a consensus viewpoint of organizations that are not following peer-reviewed procedures.


2nd Sentence

Wikipedia Text
Empirical research over the past two decades has not found any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents.
Source Text
Empirical research over the past two decades has failed to find any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents.
Issues
1) material plagiarized from source, 2) source itself does not support this statement, providing it only as consensus viewpoint of the Amici (The American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers), and 3) source is not peer-reviewed nor published so its reliability is questionable
Determination
Removed. Even if we modified the sentence, we still have a problem that this is a consensus viewpoint of organizations that are not following peer-reviewed procedures.


3rd sentence

Wikipedia Text
In policy debates on lesbian and gay parenting, it has been suggested that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents; there is no support for this view in the scientific research literature.
Source Text
Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.
Issues
1) material plagiarized from source and 2) source is not peer-reviewed nor published so its reliability is questionable.
Determination
Removed for now, but should be replaced with the conclusion of the peer-reviewed source the Amici quote from.


4th Sentence

Wikipedia Text
The abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not disputed by any credible scientific researchers.
Source Text
Amici 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.
Issues
1) although sentence modified already, material still appears plagiarized from source, 2) source itself does not support this statement, providing only as a viewpoint of the therefore it appears to be a consensus viewpoint of the Amici (The American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers), and 3) source is not peer-reviewed nor published so its reliability is questionable
Determination
Removed. Even if we modified the sentence, we still have a problem that this is a consensus viewpoint of organizations that are not following peer-reviewed procedures.


5th Sentence

Wikipedia Text
The statements of leading associations of experts in this area are made on the basis of such research, and the professional consensus is that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents.
Source Text
These statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents.

Issues: 1) material plagiarized from source, 2) source itself does not support this statement, providing only as a viewpoint of the therefore it appears to be a consensus viewpoint of the Amici (The American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers), and 3) source is not peer-reviewed nor published so its reliability is questionable.

Determination
Removed. Even if we modified the sentence, we still have a problem that this is a consensus viewpoint of organizations that are not following peer-reviewed procedures.

Tobit2 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The amici brief is acceptable since (emphasis mine):
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is."
Wikipedia:No original research#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Medical and scientific organizations: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals..."
"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." ) http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
"Out of the 45 amicus briefs in the case, the only brief cited and quoted in support of the decision was the one APA co-filed." http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/marriage.html
What do you think are more credible and reliable sources for Wikipedia article than the largest and oldest scientific and professional organizations on the world which presents the facts of scientific research based mainly from the most reputable peer reviewed journals on the world? Not only American ones, but also Canadian, British, Australian etc. All presents same facts in similar manner. Editors can not base articles on fringe sources presented by small activist political (or connected) groups or due to Undue Weight, Verifiability and Exceptional claim policies and/or rest on primary sources such as tentative individual studies published mainly in low-reputable sources and often containing methodological flaws and thus they are ignored by virtually all scientific community as can be documented on statements all major scientific and professional organizations on this field and all reviews of studies published on more reputable journals. There is no indication that opponents of LGBT parenting rest on reliable sources and relevant facts ("it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation." this would be the same flaw argument as claiming that two blue-eyed parents are better than other constellations without direct comparison of such groups). --Destinero (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy directs us to published peer-reviewed sources and formal scientific reports. The Brief is neither published for professional consumption nor peer-reviewed. Moreover, it is not a formal scientific report, but akin to a position statement. It does, however, rely on and point us toward peer-reviewed sources that provide overviews of the research; these can be of great value. For example, Patterson.Tobit2 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia standards direct us (emhasis mine):
Wikipedia:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research: "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."
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources: 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.
Wikipedia: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.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship: "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. 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."
Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles): "Ideal sources for biomedical articles include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." Thus you are wrong. There is no doubt that this amicus curiae is more reliable source (internationally reputable expert bodies) than low-quality journal with low fact checking as was documented with several articles Psychological Reports for example. Reputable peer-reviewed sources that provide overviews of the research (such as http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349) are of course very good sources, too. --Destinero (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Plagiarized Work

1st Sentence from Australian Psychological Society

Wikipedia Text
The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, while acknowledging that this is in the context of the challenges that legal discrimination and inequity place upon such families.
Source Text
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. Source is

Elizabeth Short, Damien W. Riggs, Amaryll Perlesz, Rhonda Brown, Graeme Kane: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families - A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society

Issues
1) plagiarized material and 2) sense of changed. Source only says "likely to be" not

"are as." Big difference and this is based on the data available.

Determination
Removed. Potentially we could modify and put back (need to see if this is truly a reliable source first) but we should go right to the research lit and take the peer-reviewed conclusion directly.Tobit2 (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd Sentence from Australian Psychological Society

Wikipiedia Text
The family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.
Source Text
As detailed in this review, the family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents. Source is

Elizabeth Short, Damien W. Riggs, Amaryll Perlesz, Rhonda Brown, Graeme Kane: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families - A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society

Determination
Remove.Tobit2 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


From Harek

Wikiedpia Text
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 is not found. As yet no reliable evidence to the contrary has been forthcoming, despite the continued assertion that the contrary is the case.
Source Text
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. Given the consistent failures in this research

literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents. Source: http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf

Determination
Removed for now. This is great material. It deserves to be re-added as a block quote.Tobit2 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported Assertsions from Pediatrics Study

Wikipedia Text
The evidence accumulated over 25 years shows that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents; such research documents that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. It demonstrates that there is no risk to children growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. It suggests that having conscientious and nurturing adults as parents is more significant than the parents' sexual orientation, regardless of whether they are men or women, heterosexual, gay or lesbian. Source: Pawelski, James G., Perrin, Ellen C., Foy, Jane M., Allen, Carole E., Crawford, James E., Del Monte, Mark, Kaufman, Miriam, Klein, Jonathan D., Smith, Karen, Springer, Sarah, Tanner, J. Lane, Vickers, Dennis L. The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children [Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] 2006 118: 349-364</ref>
Source Text
Over 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between a parent’s sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial and behavioral adjustment. Absolutely no data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. Indeed, we know without question that conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents.
Issues
1) beyond additionally lifting, we see that the bolded conclusions do not appear in the cited text 2) the bigger problem we have is that the source is not actually quoting from a peer-reviewed reference. The conclusion is based on Testimony before Congress (I can't even find the Testimony!). Testimony does not equal peer-reviewed acceptance.
Determination
Remove for now. Potentially good if we stick to what it actually says and can determine whether the source is reliable.Tobit2 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. It is either the same as the source or it is different - if it is the same, then it needs to be clear it is a quote, if it is different, then it isn't a quote and uses different words. You seem to be saying that on the one hand it uses different words from the source, and on the other is plagiarism - it cannot be both. Make up your mind which it is. Pediatrics is a reliable source. It is not an issue. It is not our job to question material in reliable peer-review journals, to do so would be WP:OR, it is report them, because they represent mainstream scientific views on the issue. Mish (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This section is not criticizing the sentence for plagiarism (which does occurs starting with the phrase,"there is no relationship"). Rather it points out that the bolded sections in the Wikipedia Text are not based on the sourced material.Tobit2 (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You need to either allow the editor some means of paraphrasing the research, or else he will have no alternative but to reproduce the text directly. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot prevent an editor adding legitimate material by arguing the words differ from the source, and if they reflect the source too closely that they are plagiarism. The only alternative would be to reproduce the text as quotes - which I will do, exhaustively, if this blocking persists. And you can threaten all you wish, but your threats I will regard as more incivility on your part. Now, simply guide the editor into how to improve his edits and allow the material to feature in the article, rather than persistently finding excuses for deleting material you disagree with. Mish (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You have not been threatened. Per Wikipedia guidelines on plagiarism, you have been advised that repeated insertion of plagiarized material should be reported to the Admin team. Concerning, the Pediatrics article, you don't seem to understand the point: the text phrases in bold were not direct quotes from the source. Rather that text is unsupported by the source. So, for instance, the phrase, "the evidence accumulated over 25 years shows that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents," is not a conclusion one can reach from what the text says, which is "Over 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between a parent’s sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial and behavioral adjustment." In short, the text says they have not been able to find a relationship. That is very different from saying, children raised by same-gender parents are the same as those raised by heterosexual parents. The other bolded phrase is more blatant, the Wiki text says, "It suggests that having conscientious and nurturing adults as parents is more significant than the parents' sexual orientation, regardless of whether they are men or women, heterosexual, gay or lesbian," whereas the source says, "Indeed, we know without question that conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents;" having nothing it is which says nurturing is more important than sexual orientation.Tobit2 (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"In short, the text says they have not been able to find a relationship." is clearly not equivalent to "Over 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between a parent’s sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial and behavioral adjustment." Be very careful with logic and interpretation. --Destinero (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted the material from the two APA's position statements directly, with a brief reference to their role in the Supreme Court hearing. I will go through the Pediatrics article, then the non-USA associations and sources, to see what they have to say. I can see what you are saying above - the emphasis in most sources is that research shows that a person's sexual orientation is irrelevant, and in that context pediatrics states that conscientious and nurturing people make good parents, irrespective of sexual orientation. The only clear outcome that shows any difference (from the last two paragraphs, which appears to suffer from WP:UNDUE) is that children grow up with different ways of dealing with their own issues of gender and sexuality in gay and lesbian families than they do in heterosexual families (how one might interpret that data will differ according to one's POV, which is why it is important those findings are detailed accurately and briefly). The problem is that if you wish for statements such as the above to be rendered more accurately, but without plagiarism, then it entails incorporating the findings in more detail, relying on quotation where necessary, in order to ensure the source is properly reflected in the article. This is more important with primary sources where they are used - because brief citations can be used to provide synthetic or unbalanced renditions of the source more easily - which is why we are advised to use secondary sources where possible. In this respect, the use of the two APA statements is more valuable, as that summarises the primary sources, so serves as a secondary source in its own right. Mish (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I briefly read your newest edits, and they look excellent. You seemed to have pieced things together very well. When I get a chance, I will see whether I can help make any enhancements. And I see your point about the undue weight that seems to be given to children growing up as more prone to being gay or lesbian. These paragraphs are an artifact of the older article which had an entire (and not very good) section devoted to the issue. I think, though, that this is why so many of religious right opposes LGBT parenting, the heart of, what for them, are the culture wars. There should be something in the article about it, because it is in the lead, but probably should be skimmed down.Tobit2 (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Destinero

Destinero has been adding substantial amounts of plagiarized work to the article and in some cases appears to have changed the sense of the material in a way unsupported by the source. I believe most of this is due to the sheer volume of material Destinero is trying to add; that is, I believe Destinero is sincerely trying to improve the article. Therefore, I request that before Destinero makes any further edits, he/she should discuss the potential changes on the Talk page first. Destinero has a lot of potential to be a top-notch contributor on this subject. Until proven otherwise, though, all edits should be suspect.Tobit2 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I full agree that I should be more careful with using and quoting sources. I accept your point and I am sorry for the copyright issues. It's true that I have had a plan to develop this article rapidly over few days but obviously it is better to discuss changes first and then insert in the article. Yes, I am ambitious to be one a top-notch contributor on this subject due to a quantum of material I've read about it in recent years. --Destinero (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Tobit2 removed appropriate references

Tobit removed appropriate references supporting the facts. Why did you that? You don't provide exact reasons. --Destinero (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The references were not being used by the material. Considering that each sentence was found nearly word for word in the Brief, it made no sense that there were other references there as well. I did copy them, though, so if its easier for you, I'll send the links to you on your talk page.Tobit2 (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
All the references supported the facts mentioned. I don't se anything wrong with that. Yes, the intended text have to be reformulated to avoid copyright issues of course and I support that effort. Will you help with this or you want only criticise? --Destinero (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

recent edits

Destinero,

You removed an agreed edit from the section - and inserted with detail mainly focused on the USA & California. One of the problems with this article is that it is already overwhelmed with US material. I have inserted the deleted material agreed upon here, but left your edits intact (with some minor editing for readability). Why is the California hearing significant to somebody outside the USA? The positions of both APAs are significant internationally, but I am not sure why the Amicus should be so important. If it is - then place it in a subsection which gives a source that explains this, please. The reference to to Australian, Canadian and British sources are welcome, although I had said I would look into these. I will confine this to the UK sources for now. I think that if you relocated the Amicus to a subsection, and reduce the repetition of detail about US organisations, and let me put some material from the UK in here, it will start to improve - but reiterating the same points by the same US organisations over and over again does not improve the article - it makes it look like we are pushing a certain US POV, which weakens the article, because it will incite others to make more of some other POV to balance this (whether we consider that POV viable then becomes irrelevant). Mish (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Amici, the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists presented this brief to provide with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature. The both APA and NASW is the largest and oldest associations on the world in respective scientific and professional field and internationally reputable bodies. The quote includes the most important facts relevant to the topic based on scientific research literature not only from the US. There is nothing wrong to continue with brief quotations from one of the most reputable journal (Pediatrics) and Canadian, Australian and UK bodies with the same or very similar positions. There is none scientific or professional and internationally reputable body which present opposite views. The only ones are fringe political activist groups with about promiles of memberships of established associations. Thus, tiny minority views shouldn't be presented in Wikipedia at all according to policies. Hovewer I fully agree to reduce space for US associations after quotations. Maybe only the list of supporters would be sufficient, but the info about social prejudice and health issues I consider quite important too. Suggestions are welcome. --Destinero (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
And (reasonable) quotations are welcome on Wikipedia for many reasons. Quotations of the most reliable sources possible illustrate both scientific facts and the professional consensus. This is relevant content for encyclopedia article and very useful for the reader. --Destinero (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thing is, you are using this single source in different places - not just here, but Homosexuality, and maybe others for all I know. I am not disputing its importance, and am glad you have clarified why you consider it so important. The thing is that these organisations are important and significant sources in their own rights - because they all state their expert professional opinion. As such, they all deserve to be cited in realtion to the article topic in their own right. What this source does is pulls these all together, and explains that there is no other reliable scientific evidence. That is how it needs to be treated - not as a synthesis of these views, but in a way that complements these views. So, the way to do this best (in relation to this article in an encyclopedia) is to explain what the positions of the two APAs, the BCP, and whoever else, and then cite the legal affadavit as putting all these views forward in a specific context, with a quote of necessary, and pointing out that it stated that there were no contrary reputable scientific views. That is sticking to the sources. It does not do justice to the various organisations involved by using the legal source itself as a single source for them - they need to be cited in their own right independently of this document. The document is a source for the hearing itself, not for their views other than in the context of that hearing. You need to set the context of the statement in a way that explains what it is, but without doing so in a way that renders what you say about as original research. A subsection at the end of the section covering the hearing would be the best way to do that, but with the positions of the organisations involved derived from their own sources in the main section.
I have no issue with the Pediatrics paper, as long as it is described (or cited) accurately, and placed in a way that is relevant.
There are people who are vocal about a contrary view - it is important to describe that opposition, at the same time pointing out that it is not underpinned by any scientific evidence. Lots of people believe things that has no basis in science, and we do not normally exclude those views if they are notable in their own right. There is little in science that supports people being homophobic, and some would argue that in many cases it is linked to an unscientific world-view based on a religious upbringing - but we do not shrink from dealing with homophobia in an article simply because there is no scientific justification for it. If you look at the way the paper that covers sexual and gender identity outcomes was dealt with earlier, returning to source shows more clearly that the conclusion of the paper was that there was nothing in the findings that could be considered a cause for social concern - so that item has been re-written to more closely reflect the source. That is all we are meant to do here, not promote a position one way or the other, but to accurately reflect the sources. If a scientific opinion is marginal or fringe, it should be excluded - although if there is a strong body of opinion that holds a scientifically unsubstantiable position, that does need to be included in a way that demonstrates that position accurately. Mish (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The document is a source for statements of these associations. The first version of the quote included the quotes of all these associations. I don't see any reason why why couldn't cover this by one source which includes everything most important relevant. Thus I am extending the quote of amicus. We can even source every signle in-quotation.
I virtually agree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraph. --Destinero (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I just want to note that a preliminary edit was made to include the material by various associations included in the High Court hearing, and agreed upon here between myself and another editor. This was then changed by Destinero without discussion. I then pointed out that this source was primarily relevant within the US State of California, and why I had been trying to present the views of the contributors (who are all notable sources in their own right), with a brief description about the Californian hearing, and replaced the material removed alongside the new and extensive quote based on one source. These was then removed again, arguing that the document presented to the High Court covered this anyway, so it was unnecessary. This was all done without discussion and agreement here, but by stating what the editor was doing. This fundamentally weakens the section in the article, because it concentrates on one source with an extensive single quote instead of writing about the issue; this renders it vulnerable to erasure in the future; for example, the length of quote arguably falls outside 'fair use' of a document which is (presumably) owned by the authors or the State of California - potentially rendering this in breach of copyright; there may be other issues with it being a local legal hearing, outside national or international scope. If this quote is deleted at some point in the future for some reason, it will leave this section virtually bereft of citations and text relating to mainstream positions in the USA. That is of no particular concern to me, but I am putting this here for the record. I am now leaving this article, as it is no interest to me, I came because I was asked to comment - I have done so, and my assistance has been declined. I will now remove this article and talk page from my watchlist, so don't respond, if you wish to discuss this article again, contact me on my talk page. Mish (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There was no reason provided to claim the source was primarily relevant within US State of California. That is nonsense. All quotes are nationally and internationally relevant. --Destinero (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Destinero

Seeing you seem determined to plaster the details of this Californian in place of existing references by the APA etc wherever you can:

Case No. S147999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION, AND BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION

Would you please convert this citation to normal case, and then replace where you have inserted this as a source using the decapitalised version. Mish (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific languague used in vague terms

some dictionary English vocabulary 

  to document:
  1. To furnish with a document or documents.
  2. To support an assertion or claim with evidence or decisive information.
  3. To support with written references or citations; annotate.

note: it is impossible to document that there is no correlation, only that, if there is a correlation, that is was found. The mere observation, namely, that no correlation was found only suggests that it is likely that there is no correlation, this observation does not document that no correlation exists. The observation that no correlation was found only shows that no correlation was found even though such correlation may exist. Summary, 1.no correlation was found because no correlation exists. 2.correlation exits but was not found. Please do not eliminate possibility 2 because of biased point of view. Respect those who hold it. to show: 1. to cause or allow to be seen 2. to present or perform as a public entertainment or spectacle 3. to indicate; point out 4. to guide, escort, or usher 5. to explain or make clear; make known 6. to make known to; inform, instruct, or prove to 7. to prove; demonstrate 8. to indicate, register, or mark 9. to exhibit or offer for sale 10. to allege, as in a legal document; plead, as a reason or cause. 11. to produce, as facts in an affidavit or at a hearing. 12. to express or make evident by appearance, behavior, speech, etc. 13. to accord or grant (favor, kindness, etc.) Likewise, research cannot show that there is no correlation for the same reasons.

Neutral wording encompasses both possibilities, yet it mentions the one in light of the findings that is more likely to be factual. to suggest: 

  1. To offer for consideration or action; propose
  2. To bring or call to mind by logic or association; evoke: 
  3. To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply
  4. To serve as or provide a motive for; prompt or demand

here focus on 1, 2, 3 meaning. Research having failed after many trials to observe a correlation offer for consideration the proposition that there is no correlation or, Research having failed after many trials to observe a correlation evoke the proposition that there is no correlation or, Research having failed after many trials to observe a correlation imply that there is no correlation. Moreover, the study of human behaviour can't hardly be call a science for science uses unambiguous, clear, precise words and concepts to study the natural world. Social science, like economics, even though it uses many scientific ideas and methods, is not as rigorous and conclusive as science. For example, the phrase in dispute proclaims: The scientific research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents. What is the scientific definition of being a fit parent; A parent who provides health care, quality food, love, shelter, recreation, friends, toys, education? or is it outcome e.g. good grades, graduation rate? or is it the subjective well being of the child, levels of depression, suicide rate or it is the lack of physical punishment the child suffers? If any of the above, are wealthy parents more fit than poor ones? Do kids with learning disabilities have bad parents? Does lightly slapping a child even once for disobedience make a parent unfit? maybe in the eyes of the law. Science can't tell you what is right and wrong. I digress but it suffices to say parental fitness is hardly a scientific term, let alone the determination of who is fit or unfit, more remotely yet the silly suggestion that parent sexual orientation has anything to do with parental fitness. Whatever it is, it is not a science. So I submit, this is a social science study matter because of its subjective nature. I submit the finding of the study is not the same as its conclusions and ought not to be presented as such and that it is impossible to prove a null hypothesis, in fact it would impossible to scientifically show that, if it were the case, gay parents were unfit. Those terms are so vague to be taken as scientific. Now the spaghetti monster better known as the flying teapot. If somebody were to claim a flying teapot existed in the orbit on Jupiter nobody would believe him, most likely they would not even considered the possibility let alone spend money to prove him wrong. Yet as a scientist all one can say is that no such flying teapot has been detected and that is reasonable for one to personally bet one's house that there is no such thing there. Even if one looked, and did not see, one could not say: well I haven't found it, science proves it doesn't exist, because perhaps one did not look everywhere. 1. It is suggested that spaguetti moster does not exist because Spaghetti monster has not been detected,. 2. Spaghetti moster has not been detected, but it exists

Biased: Astronomers, having not found a spaghetti monster in Jupiter orbit, document no such object exist. Neutral: Astronomers, having not found a spaguetti moster in Jupiter orbit, suggest no such object exist. Hope this clarifies my objections. Science is cold and impersonal yet powerful. If one is going to claim science says anything about anything, well one have to abide by science's strict rules. The fact that a neutral point of view doesn't sound as convincing to one's argument should be no excuse. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes

This page has been sanitized into a cheerleading piece for same-sex parenting. Any view that conflicts with same-sex parenting has been removed or explained away, despite the fact that there is verifiable scientific testimony that much of the research into this area of social science is limited and suffers from various methodological flaws. This is not acceptable as per wikipedia policy. When an actual controversy does exist, we need to acknowledge it. Sanitizing articles does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. I included information from University of Virginia professor Steven Nock, who testified under oath in various Court proceedings that the research into this area is not as cut and dry as this article is making it out to be. What is interesting is that Nock is agnostic on the issue of same-sex parenting, so one cannot claim that he is biased against it in an attempt to shove his views under the rug. I am glad that many are making improvements in the article, but sanitizing the article to include only ONE view is completely unacceptable. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is Professor Nock? Is he a credible authority in this area?Tobit2 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. He was a Commonwealth Professor, Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia. He is published in numerous journals and has written extensively on various sociological aspects of marriage. Moreover, he is agnostic when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage. He has been called as an expert witness by several Courts on this issue. His credentials are impeccable. He outlined specific methodological flaws in every available study on same-sex parenting and has called for more research and funding into this area of social science. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Continuing on the above, I note that amicus briefs from the APA were included as sources in the article, but no mention was made of any brief which was filed in any court that offered a different perspective. I agree that the APA briefs are an important addition to the article, but to pretend that no other perspective exists is absolutely unconscionable. Let's work together to bring a small bit of balance to this article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The article's quality has been degraded in recent weeks. It now suffers redundancy and a creative arrangement of selected points of view. I agree balance should be brought to it to provide a complete and accurate story.Tobit2 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I can see what the problem is - you (Ghostmonkey) changed text that was attributable to a statement made by all the major agencies working in this area, and I reverted the change on that basis (as it did not correspond with the source). It should have been clearer in the statement that this is the view of these agencies, etc., not the editors. Then you reverted my change, and appended some text with a citation that challenged the views of the experts from somebody at a hearing in Canada - but somebody reverted your reversion of my reversion, and the material you inserted after your reversion was lost in the process. The passage needs to be clearer that this is the view of all the professional bodies and agencies working in this area - but that there are views that question the evidence as being as clear cut as they do. However, given the views are of all major professional bodies and experts, such dissent has to be accorded the weight it is due in relation to the mainstream view - as there are two policies that operate in this situation, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Where there is dissent to a mainstream view, it has to be afforded less weight if it is a minority view, unless is falls under WP:FRINGE (in which case it would have to be excluded. The way to deal with that is to insert the minority view after the main view - not to edit what the mainstream view is to make it more acceptable, as that introduces inaccuracy that is inconsistent with the source it is gleaned from. We obviously need to ensure that it is clearer that this is the view of groups like the APAs and other bodies qualified to speak on these matters - but that there are those who dispute the evidence. Mish (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The APA does not represent all sociologists or psychiatrists. While their positions are very important, and should be included in the article, even they did not state the absolute position that has been inserted into the article. Moreover, there is far more dissent on this topic that the current article suggests. We need to make sure that the readers are aware that this issue is far from settled. As for Steven Nock, Nock's credentials are impeccable. He has been widely published in his field, and is a recognized expert witness in this area. I included Nock, because unlike many others, Nock only limited his claim to the methodological flaws in the available research. As I stated before, he is agnostic on the issue of same-sex parenting. He stresses that better designed research is needed in this area before any conclusion can hold weight in this area. The position statements of the professional bodies should remain, but it is important that a reader realize that there is a problem with the research behind that position. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Not only American Psychological Association, but also American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, Canadian Psychological Association, Australian Psychological Society, Pediatrics and so on. "The abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#cite_ref-amici_15-3 + “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#cite_ref-amici_15-3 Nock's arguments are invalid nowadays as I point out a whole ago later on this page. Wikipedia editors simple cannot add his 8 years old remarks to article, his notability/prominence is not probably even one promile of the mainstream established highly valuable sources used in the article which contradict Undue weight policy. --Destinero (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the most recent edits, and ensured that it was clear in the text whose view this was - and the details about Knock are still in there - do not put back 'despite this' as it gives their findings a weight that was not in the original - their conclusion was as stated. That there are no social consequences of note. My apologies if anything got caught up in this - but what is there does appear to reflect the sources - and when when sequential erroneous edits are made the simplest method is to revert back to the earlier version. If you don't agree with it, then the way of dealing with that is either to demonstrate that the source does not say this, or find a notable source that contradicts this and insert it separately - not to alter what sources say. You might want to add something to knock to locate the context of his statement. Mish (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
"Despite this" is an important thing for a reader to know. The reader must be aware that the conclusion reached by the study authors was reached in spite of their findings on the greater likihood of same-sex relationships by the children raised in such homes. We cannot state the Authors findings as a categorical fact, especially since even they admit that the research in this area is limited. I am willing to reword the section in another way, but it needs to be clear to the reader that the author's views were reached in spite of their findings regarding the sexual activity of the children. You did a pretty good job on the APA statement, why not have a go with finding a way to fix this section? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
We are reporting a source which found that there was this increased incidence, AND that there was nothing of social consequence - they do not say despite this, they say there were none, and clearly state that there is nothing socially problematic about kids growing up open to being lesbian or gay. "Despite this" inserts a reading that suggests that this is socially problematic, as that does not come from the researchers, it is original and it implies a certain POV that is not in the article. Mish (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement Concerning "No relationship"

The following sentence appears in the article,

"Research has documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment." Can someone please demonstrate where this appears in the cited sources?

My understanding from reading the sources suggests that,

"Research has documented that there is no evidence of a relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment evidence." This is a very different thing.Tobit2 (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your underestanding is totally irrelevant. Interpretation of scientific research should provide most reliable sources available under the Wikipedia policies. --Destinero (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify my question: could you point out, anywhere in one of the cited sources, that is says this? Because I cannot find it. Maybe it's there. My reading of the sources (and perhaps I'm too close to the facts rather than position statements) is that there is no evidence of a relationship.Tobit2 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course I can point out and you would be able to do that yourself if you had use the search function: 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. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families." --Destinero (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, this statement is from the AAP source. The problem is there are four references on this sentence, even though it is taken directly from one of them. That makes it hard to figure out where the commentary is from. We need to pare down the references used on this sentence. Also, we should add page numbers. This will help future editors know where the idea is coming from and avoid confusion. Lastly, I didn't realize this sentence was plagarized, nearly word for word. Now I do. We need to modify the sentence. Please try to avoid repeated plagarisim, it hurts Wikipedia's credibility and can get you banned.Tobit2 (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Split Same-sex procreation?

Until I created a section heading just now, the passage on same-sex procreation was just mixed in with "How LGBT become parents". It seems so different in focus from the rest of the article that I think maybe it ought to be split off into its own article -- especially as, while sourced quite well, it's speculative: it isn't about how LGBT become parents, but about how they may become parents someday. Thoughts?

Dybryd (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not our job to speculate on what might be possible - has it happened yet? If not then it probably should be moved elsewhere, as it has nothing to do with the topic until somebody has a child this way. The sourcing needs sorting out, the first paragraph appears to have no sources, but there are in the last, which apply to the first. The sources also need checking for accuracy. Mish (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't seem to belong in this article.Tobit2 (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
as there appears to be consensus with no dissent, I have removed the speculative material to Assisted reproduction. Mish (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Sentence

The following sentence appears in the article on a rather stand-alone basis.

The literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.

This statement is generic; it certainly fits into an article on marriage, but lacks a direct relationship to the article at hand. It should be either deleted or weaved into the article somehow. I move for deletion.Tobit2 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is obviously directly related with the topic of children's outcomes. No discussion about it. --Destinero (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
If it was obvious, I would not be asking about it. Could you please explain how a generic statement on marriage fits into a subject on LGBT parenting?Tobit2 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of a response, I assume you also recognize that a generic statement on marriage does not fit into a article specific to LGBT parenting (although it may fit into an LGBT marriage article).Tobit2 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You assume wrong. I don't know how to react to self-evident things such as "The literarute indicates that ... children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.". It's your problem if you are not able to understand that. --Destinero (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No reason to get nasty. I am not arguing the validity of the statment. It's a generic statement and simple seems out of place. I could just as well add to the article, "Children who get fed three meals a day by their parents are more healthy." A true sentence, but what does it have to do with LGBT parenting? If LGBT people fed their children more regularly, then it would make sense to include. So by extension, when talking about legal unions, it would be fair to state that since, LGBT people are less likely to be in a legalized union, their children would be at a disadvantage compared to all other children. If this is what you are trying to say, that makes sense to include. However, it would be a conclusion that borders on Original Research. Given that it's probably unwise to draw a conclusion on the statement, such a genric sentence has no business in the article.Tobit2 (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You are manipulating with an example which is not directly connected with same-sex couple. But the reality is that same-sex couples genereally have not chance to marry and thus the well-being of children is affected. You should accept the fact as it is. We can consider to adding this: "Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples. Children benefit from the greater stability and security that is likely to characterize their parents’ relationship when it is legally recognized through marriage. Children obviously benefit to the extent that their parents are financially secure, physically and psychologically healthy, and not subjected to high levels of stress. They also benefit to the extent that their parents’ relationship is stable and likely to endure.85 Research on parent-child relations in heterosexual parent families has consistently revealed that children’s adjustment is often related to indices of parental mental health. Thus, to the extent that legal recognition of their parents’ relationship enhances the stability and security of that relationship, the children of same-sex couples can be expected to benefit from that recognition." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf "The children of unmarried gay and lesbian parents do not have the same protection that civil marriage affords the children of heterosexual couples. Adoptive and divorced lesbian and gay parents face additional obstacles. An adoptive parent who is lesbian or gay is often prejudicially presumed as unfit in many U.S. jurisdictions. Furthermore, when unmarried couples do adopt, usually one parent is granted legal rights, while the other parent may have no legal standing. These obstacles occur even though no research has shown that the children raised by lesbians and gay men are less well adjusted than those reared within heterosexual relationships." "Prohibiting civil marriage for same-sex couples is discriminatory and unfairly denies such couples, their children and other members of their families the legal, financial and social advantages of civil marriage." http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destinero (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. So your point is that the children of LGBT people might benefit if parents were allowed to marry. If that's your point, the text should be modified to say that. However, I suggest that you would have to be very careful to avoid: 1) adding speculation rather than fact into the article and 2) focusing on same-sex marriage rights rather than childrens' issues.Tobit2 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement Concerning "Parents As Fit As"

The article includes the following sentence,

In their evidence to the Supreme Court of the State of California, the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter expressed the view (also held by the Canadian Psychological Association and the Australian Psychological Society) that scientific research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents.

This statement has been taken out of context and requires clairification. For example, in the APA's Brief, this statement indeed starts off a paragraph, however, the paragraph ends with further detail, which I earlier summarized as,

"Researchers have concluded that lesbian mothers do not differ from heterosexual mothers in parenting ability. Moreover, although few studies exist on the subject, the body of research suggests that gay men may be similar in parenting ability to heterosexual men."

In the APA Brief, the position statement is saying that a lesbian mother = heterosexual mother and a gay father probably = heterosexual father. This clarification is needed to ensure the words "parents" is correctly understood in this context. The Canadian PA and Aussie papers appear consistent with this idea in their position statements as well. I will enhanced the article by adding the fuller context.Tobit2 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

From the Amici Curiae Brief: "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. Empirical research over the past two decades has failed to find any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents." "Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men." "Perrin & Committee, supra note 46 at 342 (finding “no differences” between gay and heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy, or “dealing with general problems of parenting,” and finding that “[g]ay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their parental role”); C.J. Patterson, Gay Fathers, in The Role of the Father in Child Development 397, 413 (M.E. Lamb ed., 4th ed. 2004) (reviewing published empirical studies and concluding that, although additional research is needed, “[o]n the basis of existing research, we can conclude that there is no reason for concern about the development of children living in the custody of gay fathers; on the contrary, there is every reason to believe that gay fathers are as likely as heterosexual fathers to provide home environments in which children grow and flourish”)"

Canadian Psychological Association: "A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by

same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts."

Australian Psychological Society: "Parenting Practices: Parenting by Gay Fathers

A study using self-report measures with a sample of 33 gay and 33 heterosexual fathers found that although the two groups rated themselves as similar in terms of level of intimacy and involvement in the children’s lives, the gay fathers reported that their behaviour was characterised by greater responsiveness and warmth, more reasoning, and more limit setting than did the heterosexual fathers (Bigner & Jacobson, 1989). Gay male couples have been found to share parenting more equally and with less of a polarisation in levels and type of interactions than heterosexual couples, although to a lesser extent than female parenting couples do (Biblarz & Stacey, 2006; Johnson & O’Connor, 2002; McPherson, 1993). Biblarz & Stacey (2006) concluded, “numerous qualitative studies offer evidence that when two (gay) men co-parent, they do so in a number of ways that seems closer, but not identical, to that of two (lesbian) women than to a (heterosexual) woman and man” (p. 35). Positive findings about intentional gay parenting couples would seem likely to be related not just to the different patterns of organising family life that arise when both members of a couple are of the same gender, but to the fact that gay men who choose to parent need to have a high level of motivation to parent, along with the range of skills required to successfully apply and be assessed for adoption or fostering, to negotiate co-parenting arrangements with women who want to conceive, or to organise surrogacy. Further, they are choosing to parent in a situation in which there is not another person who can be assumed to be likely to take on a greater proportion of the day-to-day parenting tasks."

Thus, your statement that quoted statement has been taken out of context and requires clarification is untrue. I am reverting your edits. --Destinero (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is the full paragraph from the Brief (bold added)
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 children reared by heterosexual parents. Empirical research over the past two decades has failed to find any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents. Most research on this topic has focused on lesbian mothers and refutes the stereotype that lesbian parents are not as child-oriented or maternal as non-lesbian mothers. 'Researchers have concluded that heterosexual and lesbian mothers do not differ in their parenting ability. Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men.
As you can see my additions are fully supported by the text. Misch edits were also fully supported. There was no reason to remove them. This is not a battle-field. We are working together, not fighting to see who can win a war of ideas. If other editors add context you should support this. Please find ways of weaving the text in better rather than deleting facts.Tobit2 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
"the body of research suggests that gay men may be similar in parenting ability to heterosexual men." is YOUR sythesis unsupported by the source. The important quotes is here (bold added): 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 children reared by heterosexual parents. Empirical research over the past two decades has failed to find any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents. "Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men." "Perrin & Committee, supra note 46 at 342 (finding “no differences” between gay and heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy, or “dealing with general problems of parenting,” and finding that “[g]ay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their parental role”); C.J. Patterson, Gay Fathers, in The Role of the Father in Child Development 397, 413 (M.E. Lamb ed., 4th ed. 2004) (reviewing published empirical studies and concluding that, although additional research is needed, “[o]n the basis of existing research, we can conclude that there is no reason for concern about the development of children living in the custody of gay fathers; on the contrary, there is every reason to believe that gay fathers are as likely as heterosexual fathers to provide home environments in which children grow and flourish”)" Canadian Psychological Association: "A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts." Australial Psychological Society: 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. "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. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf
Destinero, it is impossible to follow your point when you copy and paste so much. Are you trying to say that you take exception to the statement, the body of research suggests that gay men may be similar in parenting ability to heterosexual men. My wording was trying to capture that point that the source makes, i.e., there is little research in this area. If you think my wording introduces an error, how would you change it? Tobit2 (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have modified the sentence to remove the latest instance of plagiarism. The new sentence is now consistent with the Harek quote and all the referenced sources.Tobit2 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of Mish's Edits

Destinero, you have recently reverted edits by Mish on the basis of Wikipedia policy, citing views can be treated as facts if there is no serious dispute. I support Mish's edits, because those facts are disputed which is why there continue to be legal battles on this issue and serious scientists like the late Steven Nock who pointed out the problems. Since two editors support the edits - unless Mish changes his mind - the consensus goes to keeping his edits. Wikipedia works on consensus.Tobit2 (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV is that this doesn't mean endorsing any particular view, but where viewpoints are presented, they need to be cited and attributed to the source. In the case of an imbalance, where there is a majority and a minority view, the weight has to be be mainstream view, but not to the exclusion of dissenting views - and the views have to be presented in a way they are not to be read as our view as editors, nor as 'the truth', but as the views of the experts/authorities. Whether to include dissenting views is a matter of judgment, and consensus. So, in article about the earth, one might want to say something about those who once thought the world was flat, but not pay attention to people who still maintain that the earth is flat, because all the evidence is against them. In this situation, if notable bodies are claiming that something is the case, and there is a dissenting view, the notability and significance would need to be established. In the case of Knock, the fact that he presented his findings to a hearing in Canada of a similar nature to that in California would suggest notability - however, it has to be clear that he does not challenge the statements cited and attributable to all the reputable agencies - simply he questions the methodology of the evidence upon which their statements in part derive from, and the significance of statements based on extrapolating findings from heterosexual marriage to formal same-sex partnerships when the latter have been in existence for such a short time that it is not possible to conclude that the benefits of marriage would apply there also. This does not affect what is stated in the article, only that one person has challenged the basis underlying of what is stated, not the statement itself.
I think you will need to refer this to an RfC if this cannot be resolved here. Mish (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Mish, I'm a bit unclear. I put your original edits back into the article. Do you continue to support them?Tobit2 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
If they help to clarify that this is the view of the contributors to the brief, yes. If there is some briefer way of stating this, then fine - I was seeking to diffuse the situation where what was cited was modified because it appears that we (Wikipedia) are stating something - when actually it is us citing the view of the main authorities on this matter. If we cite views of notable sources, it has to be done accurately, and has to be apparent that this is their view, backed up using reliable source(s). The material did all that, but it did not make clear whose view it was. Thanks. Mish (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Use_up-to-date_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#cite_note-26 this is from the 2001!)
2) "Studies published in the 1970s and 1980s often utilized small, select convenience samples and often employed unstandardized measures. Published reports did not always include adequate descriptions of research methodology. Sometimes key variables (e.g., whether or not an ostensibly single parent was in a cohabiting relationship) were not controlled. However, the overall methodological sophistication and quality of studies in this domain have increased over the years, as would be expected for any new area of empirical inquiry. More recent research has reported data from probability and community-based convenience samples that were not originally recruited on the basis of sexual orientation (Golombok et al., 2003; Wainright, Russell, & Patterson, 2004), has used more rigorous assessment techniques, and has been published in highly respected and widely cited developmental psychology journals, including Child Development and Developmental Psychology. Data are increasingly available from prospective studies (e.g., Gartrell, Deck, Rodas, Peyser, & Banks, 2005; MacCallum & Golombok, 2004). In addition, whereas early study samples consisted mainly of children originally born into heterosexual relationships that subsequently dissolved when one parent came out as gay or lesbian, recent samples are more likely to include children conceived within a same-sex relationship (e.g., by donor insemination) or adopted in infancy by a same-sex couple. Thus, they are less likely to confound the effects of having a sexual minority parent with the consequences of divorce (Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991). Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). Differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers (Golombok et al., 2003; Parks, 1998; Perrin, 2002). Studies examining gay fathers are fewer in number (e.g., Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989, 1992; Miller, 1979) but do not show that gay men are any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men (for reviews, see Patterson, 2004; Perrin & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002)." "Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. 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. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf
--Destinero (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
3) "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Undue_weight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destinero (talk • contribs) 23:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What are you trying to say, Destinero? Are you disputing that there is consensus here? If so, I'll set up a Support / Oppose mechanism. Just let me know if I should.Tobit2 (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait just a minute. The stuff from Patterson has been discredited several times, in fact her research was excluded from a Court in Florida because she refused to allow access to her research methods, even in the face of a Court Order. There was also an allegation that she used friends as subjects for her research. Paul Cameron's stuff is generally not accepted on Wikipedia because of research shenanigans. Charlotte Patterson's stuff shouldn't be either. Shoddy research is shoddy research, no matter if we like the conclusions or not. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Destinero, this does not give you license to exclude material you don't want, nor to avoid attributing text to the authors as if it is something we say. This is not a medical article, it is about society, and a review from 2001 should not be disregarded - the policies you refer to is clear, what matters is the weight attributed. Undue weight would be to make out this in some way overrides the POV expressed in the brief, but including it as background is not undue - undue weight is also to exclude such alternative views altogether. The material reviewed by Knock will have been the same material reviewed by those who formulated the response in the brief - and the APA etc did say that concrete data was lacking in some areas. There is no data to support the benefits that are extrapolated from heterosexual marriage to formal LGBT partnerships, because they are novel and it will take time before such data will become available. The data on same-sex parenting is mostly from lesbian couples, not gay men, for historical reasons. The limited availability of data the APA etc. made their statement does not seem to have changed since Knock's report on the methodology, and by the sound of it, while there may have been some articles in-between, much of what Knock says will apply to some of the research they based their decisions on. So, unless a more recent critical source can be found, Knock's view should be included. Otherwise all you have is what reads like a very biased article - even if it isn't. Mish (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Mish, you simply cannot to include supersed research or review or amicus virtually not notable person who even doesn't have article on Wikipedia. Compare him with Herek for example (his biography and Wikipedia article here, the prestige journals he is continuosly publishing I quoted here). Nock's remarks about methodology flaws have been answered by a lot of research in this decade (see newer amicus reviews by most competent bodies and other quotes in the article on the world pointing out the rarely much consensus where no credible researcher disagree). You would be able to include such views on the better grounds for instance when there was significiant minority of notable researchers currently holding different views from maisntram. The tiny minority views, mainly those of unimportant individuals publishing outdated and superseded research in lower prestige journals, should be excluded under Wikipedia policies. And this is the reason I am reverting your edits. If you disagree, please use Request for comments or another instrumets to settle this issue down. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Show me an expert on research methodology who does have a page on Wikipedia. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not the universe of notability - there are plenty of artciles about obscure insignificance, while notable academics are missing until somebody takes the time to create them. Because academics tend to shun the encyclopedia because of the perception of bias and inaccuracy, it is not surprising he is not in here. However, he is notable in as much as he was called upon as an expert on methods to assess the research, and he makes some good points (some of which have yet to be addressed). If there is research that shows that gay male parenting is as efficacious as lesbian parenting - fine, where is it? If there is evidence that shows that children brought up within formalised gay civil partnerships/unions/marriages 'fare as well' as those bought up in heterosexual marriages, cite it. You do not bring about balance by elimination of contrary views - that is WP:UNDUE. Even if a view has been superseded (and you have avoided showing this), it still merits inclusion as something that is being contradicted by subsequent findings. Otherwise it is just propaganda. It is patronising to assume that the Canadian hearing would take evidence from somebody they did not esteem worthy of contributing, and that for some reason a Californian hearing has more authenticity than one in Canada. Mish (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You are manipulating my comments. In fact you are the one who are doing propaganda here by including 8 years old testimony and formulate it as it would be relevant nowadays. And you also assume that Amicus Curiae brief of APA, Cadadian Psychological Association, Australian Psychological Society etc. from last 3 years is similarly authentic as old Canadian one. You are also lying that I avoided to show superseded Nock's criticism. I've quoted it in my previous comment but you obviously need it again: "Studies published in the 1970s and 1980s often utilized small, select convenience samples and often employed unstandardized measures. Published reports did not always include adequate descriptions of research methodology. Sometimes key variables (e.g., whether or not an ostensibly single parent was in a cohabiting relationship) were not controlled. However, the overall methodological sophistication and quality of studies in this domain have increased over the years, as would be expected for any new area of empirical inquiry. More recent research has reported data from probability and community-based convenience samples that were not originally recruited on the basis of sexual orientation (Golombok et al., 2003; Wainright, Russell, & Patterson, 2004), has used more rigorous assessment techniques, and has been published in highly respected and widely cited developmental psychology journals, including Child Development and Developmental Psychology. Data are increasingly available from prospective studies (e.g., Gartrell, Deck, Rodas, Peyser, & Banks, 2005; MacCallum & Golombok, 2004). In addition, whereas early study samples consisted mainly of children originally born into heterosexual relationships that subsequently dissolved when one parent came out as gay or lesbian, recent samples are more likely to include children conceived within a same-sex relationship (e.g., by donor insemination) or adopted in infancy by a same-sex couple. Thus, they are less likely to confound the effects of having a sexual minority parent with the consequences of divorce (Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991). Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). Differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers (Golombok et al., 2003; Parks, 1998; Perrin, 2002). Studies examining gay fathers are fewer in number (e.g., Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989, 1992; Miller, 1979) but do not show that gay men are any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men (for reviews, see Patterson, 2004; Perrin & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002)." "The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents. Because

these studies used convenience samples (as have the vast majority of empirical studies of child development in general), they do not provide a basis for estimating population parameters for all children of sexual minority parents relative to those with heterosexual parents. One recent study, however, used a probability sample and thus provides a valid basis for generalization to the population. Wainright et al. (2004) analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which drew its participants from a stratified random sample of all U.S. high schools with at least 30 students (AddHealth, 2004). The researchers compared 44 adolescents parented by female couples and 44 adolescents parented by heterosexual couples, matched on relevant demographic characteristics, and found no significant differences in psychological wellbeing or family and relationship processes (e.g., parental warmth, integration into one’s neighborhood). Adolescents with parents in female couples felt significantly more integrated into their schools than did those with parents in male–female couples (Wainright et al., 2004)." "Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. 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. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf "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." "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 Or is Mish suggesting that quoting this source is propaganda? Do you think these bodies are deliberately misinterpreting scientific research or they are unaware of valid scientific methods? Do you think they are incompetent? Are you really serious? --Destinero (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter what I think. What matters is that this is their view, and instead of swamping discussion with lots of detail about individual research papers (most of which pre-date 2001, so by your own standards are inadmissable) - you still have to present the view of the APA et al as their view. There is nothing that will get you round this. It is central to NPOV. You cannot do a systematic review of papers - you have to summarise the main points, and that includes views that differ. There is nothing that will get you round this. It is central to NPOV. If you are concerned about how the item is dealt with, then locate it chronologically - so that the view presented to the Canadian hearing comes first, and then, you say, however, more recently, all the major psychiatric and social welfare organisation in North America, Australia, and the UK have overturned this for example, in the Amicus, the APA etc, state ... blah, blah, blah ... and so on. But you have to make it clear that this is their professional opinion based on the evidence. For goodness sake - we all know opinions change. 50 years ago the APA sanctioned plugging gay people into the mains - you wouldn't expect an article on psychiatry and homosexuality to ignore that would you? Or make out that the only relevant views are those that have existed in the past eight years? Mish (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Destinero you are dead wrong here. Nock's views are not limited to himself. He is a recognized authority in this area, and the research that he has done is impeccable. Moreover, the APA's position was not formulated solely on the 2001-2005 Studies that you mention. Moreover, several of those studies were linked to Charlotte Patterson, which is problematic on its own. Please do not delete this information again. Nock's views are important. Nock has been certified as an expert witness in this area, AND he has testified in several Court cases, not just the Canadian case. You might not like that the research in this area is limited, but it is, and more work needs to be done. You can't present this as a settled issue when it clearly is not. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is Nock's CV. He's widely published and highly respected. He isn't some crank. http://www.virginia.edu/sociology/peopleofsociology/CVs/Nock-CV.pdf Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

section break

I have applied your criterion of discounting material from before 2001, to ensure that we have only the most up-to-date perspectives - apart from the 2000 census (I am assuming this was the last such census for which data is available) and massaged the material that is left, removing anything that is unsourced or tagging it as in need of citation. Do you feel this omission improves the article? The second sentence in the lead really needs to be in its own section 'demographics'. But I'll leave that for now. Mish (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reorganised the section to locate the Nock item in context, and re-written some of the text to enhance the flow and lose some of the weighted words. Because the way the templates were messing up the 'edit' tabs, I have lost the 'Global' template (now text includes Canada, Australia and the UK, the issue of US-centrism has been dealt with) and prevented the bunching-up of the 'edit' tabs. Personally, I feel that my removal of older material from the article detracts from it, but I will look at whether we want to put it back in tomorrow. Mish (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I like your edits Mish. You did a better job on the information from Nock. Tks. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no justification to include superseded opinion of an individual to start the section at the expense of peer-reviewed article by leading expert in this area in the most reputable psychological journal on the world. Thus, I am removing Nock under the Reliable Sources guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_%28medicine-related_articles%29#Use_up-to-date_evidence --Destinero (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Nock is just as widely published as Herek, and just as credentialed. Moreover, one could argue that Herek has a bias that Nock does not. Nock has repeated his findings post 2001. Check the CV I posted. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes there is. This provides the context against which the experts opinions were cast. It is appropriate to have it at the beginning, because that is the correct chronological sequence. This is not a medical article, either, so citing medicine-related-articles is irrelevant. This is comes under LGBT project, which is part of society etc. - and us socio-wotsits tend deal with things contextually. LGBT parenting is a rights and society issue, not a medical issue - perhaps this confusion is what is causing you so much difficulty? Mish (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad Destinero added Herek back into the article. The quote represents the research and complements Nock. Whereas Nock points to the problems with the bulk of the research, Herek says, a) it's been improving but not yet great and b) what we do have, has not found any disparities. This is true. I think we can weave these two paragraphs together. Also, I am not sure whether the casual reader though can read through the lines on Harek, though. His text is carefully worded, putting all claims in the negative, thus acknowledging that while the research to date has not found anything, better studies may.Tobit2 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I have looked through Google Scholar, and in all honesty, Nock does not appear in the first twenty-odd papers, but most of those papers are about the experiences of discrimination of LGBT parents and their children. However, I still support his inclusion because some contrary discussion is necessary to make sense of the consensus amongst the organisations cited. I was not able to access the few papers that did feature, as I do not have subscriptions to the relevant journals. The one I do have access to is Sexualities, which along with GLQ tend to be the two journals I rely on most, because they are two of only three journals that that publish on my own specialism. This paper seems quite relevant to the problem presented in how to present evidence in this article, so I am presenting the conclusion here:
  • I do not support the view that we live in a society in which lesbians and gay men are ‘just different’. Instead we live in one that organizes sexual discourse to produce hierarchies in which traditional and heteronormative family forms are dominant, and this is reinforced through a series of textual, legal, social and cultural practices. I accept that Stacey and Biblarz write from an anti-heterosexist standpoint, and I also accept their argument that some research into lesbian and gay parenting has had to argue ‘no differences’ because of that very heterosexism. However, if we start from the baseline that differences between gay and straight families simply exist, then such ideas can play into the hands of the Christian right because they do not question the very system of sexual knowledge that organizes contemporary ideas about ‘sexuality’. That is, the ‘idea of difference’ shapes our practices of knowing (Seidman, 1997), so that we start to ask whether and how the children of lesbians and gay men turn out different, instead of asking how contemporary discourses organize ‘sexual identities’ into discrete groupings.
  • It is for this reason that we cannot and should not assess lesbian and gay parenting on the basis of ‘research evidence’ alone, since evidence is always open to a series of interpretations which ultimately relate to a moral and political stance. I have used this article to dispute the views of UK Christian writers (Christian Institute, 2002b, 2002d; Holloway, 2002; Morgan, 2002) because they pretend or claim to assess the ‘evidence’ from a position of objectivity. However, such homophobic discourses (as I see them) cannot be simply opposed by rational arguments that suggest an alternative ‘truth’ because there are no such truths about sexuality that can be based upon readings of ‘the evidence’.
  • Instead of asking whether gay parenting is bad for kids, I think we should ask how contemporary discourses of sexuality maintain the very idea that lesbian and gay families are essentially different and, indeed, deficient. But, in order to ask this, I think that we need a wider range of research into lesbian and gay parenting that employs interpretivist methodologies, which does not rely upon statements of fact, and which moves away from an obsession with outcome-based evidence. Qualitative, in-depth studies, and even personal accounts by lesbian and gay parents and their children, allow us some ‘tolerance for complexity’ (Gubrium and Holstein, 1997: 13) with which to examine the variety of lesbian and gay lives. They also allow us to begin to ask how ideas about who counts as a ‘family’ are achieved. This does not mean that qualitative accounts are any less partial, but it also does not mean that they are illegitimate. More work of this sort will help us to ask more complex questions about forms of parenting that continue to offer some novel and challenging approaches to family life.
  • Stephen Hicks, Is Gay Parenting Bad for Kids? Responding to the ‘Very Idea of Difference’ in Research on Lesbian and Gay Parents Sexualities 2005; 8; 153
I am biased in this, because I am much more interested in qualitative research, and want to know about people's experiences and understandings rather than papers about their 'outcomes'. Mish (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Stephen Hicks argument is lucid, reflective, and powerful. Moreover, it side-steps the culture wars - the name calling of "you're different" along with its response of "am not," - and looks to acknowledge what actually exists in all of it aspects. How would you see this article bringing his ideas in? Do the qualitative studies exist?Tobit2 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Bearing in mind this is not the place to discuss this, and I am not sure how well an encyclopedia can deal with qualitative research... It strikes me that what we seem to have in this article is one half of that dialog - which looks odd. What we have is 'LGBT parents are no different' when there is no indication that anybody has ever suggested they might be - but somebody must have said they were at some time, else why would there be any opposition and investment in disproving they are different? I see this quote, apart from the intrinsic value of what he says, as shedding some light on what Nock says. People who specialise in quantitative research often oppose qualitative research in precisely the ways he does - sampling issues, sample size, methodological flaws, etc. What he is doing is saying 'I don't like the types of research methods used' - and in 2001 that was a sustainable criticism. Today it would not be. I still think it needs stating as background to the APA comments, etc. From what I can see (which is limited) on the sorts of evidence people base their opinion on, it seems to be undertaken using methods I would associate with qualitative methodologies, but used in the way he seeks to avoid - to show lesbian and gay parents are 'as fit' as heterosexual people. He seems to think that anything that starts trying to show they are 'as fit' is as flawed as the assertion that they are 'unfit'. Mish (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_parenting/Archive_2&oldid=1212334971"