Talk:Same-sex parenting

FAQ Draft

I'm putting together a draft FAQ that can eventually take it's place at the head of the talk page and would like to get the impression of the community. I intend to keep it neutral and respectable to both sides of the discussion. I am aware of the version that Destinero is working on. Please take a look at the draft and comment here. Hasteur (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually like your draft. I think it can be used even if the article is further developed, since the FAQ can be further developed, too, if there is a need. --Destinero (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why this whole thing is beating the dog on "solely scientific". I'm not particularly interested in the topic, but if I came here to read, I would expect more than a defense based on science. I'm missing a history of it, a history of the legal regulations, a criticism-section, and perhaps more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we hold of about the FAQ till the article is better developed. I suspect that currently, a lot of repeat questions are about aspects that are insufficiently covered in the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. That was my point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to say (as an external observer, mediating the dispute from the Medcab -- see below) that I think the FAQ has a slightly strange interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia doesn't just present what is backed up by scientific evidence: it presents the points of view that exist on their own terms, as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. (emphasis mine)

I think it's beyond doubt that opposition to LGBT parenting exists as a significant view in society. The argument that there is no scientific opposition for the anti-LGBT parenting point of view is not relevant with reference to Wikipedia policy. I've removed the non-standard warning box above; if editors would like to put one of the standard talk page templates there instead, please do so. I don't think anyone can seriously claim there is no significant opposition to it, irrespective of the scientific merits or lack thereof of the arguments. Therefore, the FAQ above cannot be considered representative of the article in general.

I wonder if people would come over to the Mediation Cabal casepage for this article and talk about this, and read what I've written? It's over here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting

See you over there. Please let me know if there's anything I can do for you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Article structure

After looking at the article, I think there is substantial room for improvement. When I think about a topic like this one, I not only think about the scientific information, but also about other aspects, such as societal ideas, religious and philosophical ideas, court cases (gay adoption), etc. Maybe it would not be a bad idea if we would first try to kind of get an idea about the main topics that this article should cover? So, my question, what aspects should be covered in this article, and how should it be structured?

You basically got the list quite complete. See also my comment above. - I would add historical (if any info can be found). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed structure

My first stab at it:

1. Lead
2. Definition/concept
   1. Prevalence around the world
3. Historical background
   1. Legal recognition (US, Europe, other countries)
   2. Historical ideas (Romans? Greeks? Other cultures?)
   3. What happened with children of gays in the past?
4. Philosophical and religious ideas (around the globe)
5. Science
   1. Adjustment
   2. Stereotyping
   3. Child's sexuality
6. Legal issues
   1. US gay adoption cases (Florida, Arkansas)
   2. Europe adoption
   3. Other countries?
7. LGBT parenting and gay-marriage
8. Criticism

ideas? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. (It's a lot of work :P) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't know if we will need a separate legal recognition section if we have a legal issues section; most of that discussion is more suitably covered at LGBT adoption anyway. I'm also not sure that a separate criticism section is necessary; if the article discusses someone with notable philosophical arugments against LGBT parenting like Margaret Somerville, it would go in the philosophy section. I would suggest:

1. Lede
2. Forms (forms/prevalence/definitions)
3. Legal issues
   1. Main article: LGBT adoption
      (with a brief summary)
   2. Main article: Same-sex marriage
      (with a brief summary)
4. Science
   1. Outcomes
   2. Childrens's sexual orientaiton
5. Philosophical and religious views

--Trystan (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good as the Kim van der Linde suggestion. --Destinero (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we have roughly the same idea, except for the historical section, for which it might be difficult to find reliable sources. If nobody else has something to add, I think we can start working on some of the missing sections. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to say that a rewrite of this article is admirable and part of the reason it is in dispute is because it should be given a more thorough treatment with the best sources available. Tying into that, the outline of the article should come from source material, not consensus. If sources cover the above areas, that's the way to go. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my experience, it is a back and forth process. We do not need to have consensus, but a better idea about what sections would be nice is definitely good. because having an idea about those sections drives the search for reliable sources, and those reliable sources than in part drive the refinement of the structure. I have for exampole a hard time finding reliable sopurces about the history of gay parenting. Did it happen? If so, hidden in 'special arrangements' like pretending to be two sisters who raise the children of one of them? But generally, I think there won;t be much available on that regardless, just because homosexuality was most of the time condemned and it was already difficult enough to deal with that. But that by itself is good to add if we have good sources for it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The new sections should be added only after a suffiient number of the best reliable sources exists. It is a nonsense to add a new section with one or two sentences or one paragraph based on one or two sources only. But the suggestions for futher development of the article here is a good idea. --Destinero (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree here. Many article have short sections because the aspect is important even when there is limited information available or when all the information available does not warrant more than two sentences. Especially during a expansion phase, short sections can be very effective in getting more editors involved. I do not think we should require that each section is first hashed out in all details at the talk before adding it. If we can go with the 'Add, Revert, Discuss' cycle, that could be far more efficient. Basically, add something you think is relevant, if someone else thinks it is not relavant, take it out and bring it to the talk page for discussion. I really do not like it when the discussion is fought out in the edit summaries, instead, just bring it to the talk page for discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have one comment and one concern. Comment: I don't think LGBT adoption is a legal issue for LGBT parenting. Most self-identified LGBT parents did not adopt. Moreover, one could say that donor insemination rights are just as much of a legal issue for them. Legal issues for LGBT parenting are two fold: 1) the problems of parenting children without legal affiliation (the main article here is probably guardianship or a similar article) and 2) the implications under common law (e.g. the basis of Walker's prop8 decision, is very broad and would could allow a significant overthrow of U.S. legislation that promote's economic equality/redistrubution of wealth); I am sure there are articles in legal journals that oppose LGBT parenting for these reasons. Concern: how do the LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting articles intersect? Right now the articles are very separate. Should they be? So much of the opposition to LGBT parenting is really to LGBT adoption; but the "science" around adoption consists of maybe 1 article. This is an open question that I have not yet solved in my own head.Tobit2 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tobit2. LGBT parenting and LGBT adoption intersect substantially, not in adopting a non-biological child, but in adopting the biological child of your partner. In that context, birth certificates, artificial insemination etc are additional legal issues that might need to be mentioned. In many ways, this is a field that is very much in development, because many aspects are still very new. I think one of the central issues is that in LGBT parenting, you by definition have always at least one adopting/step parent. In that way, many of the literature addresses that, whithout explicitly addressing it. Do you get what I mean? Anyway, I personally think we should highlight only those aspects of LGBT adoption that are actually of relevance to LGBT parenting, such as the inherent risk that you loose your non-biological parent if your biological parent would be killed in a car accident just because the law prohibits LGBT parenting. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Birth certificates

Another section that could be added to Legal Issues is the ability of same-sex parents in some jurisdictions (Canada, UK) to put both parents' names on the birth certificate, so that they are the legal parents from birth without the need for adoption. I'll see if I can track down some comprehensive sources on this.--Trystan (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but it could be that ut is already covered in LGBT adoption page. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely an LGBT adoption issue but likely can only be addressed by sources from the main adoption article. If Trystan can provide sources I can work it in.Tobit2 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just want to add that this is a very important area that needs more depth. Consider a situation where a woman married under civil law to another woman has an extra-martial affair, resulting in pregnancy. The couple divorces before the child is born. Should both partners' names go on the birth certificate? How is this not a lie to the child? It raises important questions: what is a birth certificate? Is it a record of parents at a certain point in time, does the record change as new parents come into a child's life, or is it a record of lineage? Confusing times we live in.Tobit2 (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Too promotional

This article is really one sided. I personally strongly suspect that LGBT parents are just as good as any other, but there are certainly those that disagree, and in fact I suspect a majority of people disagree. Plus there are _certainly_ issues for the parents and kids that seem to be being ignored. I find it unlikely that _all_ credible research comes out on one side, if for no other reason that statistical error there should be some on the other side. Thoughts? Is there _anything_ on the other side of this worth a cite? Any external links that aren't just hate groups? Hobit (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• For example [1] addresses some of the issues people had and have with disclosing their parent's status as LGB. Hobit (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What you think or what the majority of public think is irrelevant here. Get failiar with WP:WEIGHT. If American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Social Workers, Canadian Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrists the leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists including clinical experts (pediatrics) point out there is nothing in the scientific literature to support the view of gay and lesbians as inferior parents to heterosexuals, it is credible enough to be stated as a fact supported by the multiple highly credible sources. It is very good you check the facts here, since it is hard to get a reliable knowledge and informed opinion after all the religious and ultraright biased, unfounded and sicentifically invalid propaganda. --Destinero (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

True enough. But I think Hobits raises two good points. If there are reliable sources discussing the hardline religious point of view that needs to be reported (where WP:WEIGHT come in is in representing those as criticism from the point of "morality" rather than a scientific criticism). Secondly there do appear to be some good sources for the social difficulties faced by Children of LGBT parents - kids are harsh, I'm not surprised there are difficulties. Please don't consider such sourcing as a slight on the idea of LGBT parenting --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Secondly there do appear to be some good sources for the social difficulties faced by Children of LGBT parents - kids are harsh, I'm not surprised there are difficulties." Why then you have not linked those sources yet?

"Research indicates that children of lesbian or gay parents, like their parents, use a range of strategies in an attempt to lessen the likelihood that they will be treated in a discriminatory or prejudiced way, including being selective in talking about and/or letting people know about the sexuality of the parents in the family or the family structure, or not correcting people’s incorrect assumptions about the family, and seeking out contact with other children and families who have same-sex parents (e.g., Barrett & Tasker, 2001; Bozett, 1987; O’Connell, 1993; Ray & Gregory, 2001; Perlesz et al., 2006b; Lindsay et al., 2006; Vanfraussen, et al., 2002). However, researchers who have explicitly compared the amount of victimisation or teasing experienced by the children of lesbian parents and by the children of heterosexual parents have found no differences (see Anderssen et al., 2000; Golombok & Tasker, 1994; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Vanfraussen et al., 2002; Wainwright & Patterson, 2006)." http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

"The studies conclude that whether or not children are raised by heterosexual or same-sex parents, there were no differences in their ability to establish appropriate social relationships with peers, either as children or as adolescents. The studies show that while children with gay or lesbian parents are more likely to be teased about their family configuration, they aren't more likely to be teased in general. Children tease one another for a variety of reasons. Children get teased because their ethnic group is different, because they have curly hair, because they are fat, because they have a funny accent. Children can be very cruel to one another. And when it's possible to tease somebody about the sexual orientation of their parents, they may be teased for that but that doesn't mean that they are more likely to be teased overall." http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010-01-15-Perry-Trial-Day-05-Lamb-Zia-mini.pdf --Destinero (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, well there you go - that last one is exactly the point I was raising! Why does the article not mention this? It is interesting information, they are teased for being the children of a LGBT couple but they are not teased, in general, more --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, "what the majority of public think"s is actually of importance. Not as a scientific fact, but as an opinion. I think we have to realize that there are several aspects to this topic. One is how people feel about it, and whether we like it or not, many people oppose to the fact that LGBTIQ parents raise children. Whether they do this for scientific valid reasons is a separate issue. I personally think that an article that addresses both components, the popular opinion based on whatever reason people conceive, and the reality based on what actually is supported by scientific data, is a far better article than an article that solely looks at the science. The trick is, the data is at the side of LGBT parenting. If people perceive this article as a promotional piece, they are not going to be open to the actual data. That is why we want to have it NPOV, which means, reporting that many people for religious, moral or philosophical reasons object to it. Once this article highlights the plectra of opinions, the contrast with the reality of what is uncovered in research will be far better understood. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you do two things.

1. Read the above section about the structure of the page, it is in a rewrite and your input is more than welcome.
2. Provide links to good research articles that provide evidence for the opposite. I would be curious about them because I have looked, but not find them.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw the rewrite plan and agree with it, though I think it's a bit orthogonal to my comment. The article I provided would be an example of one that shows that LGB (no T in it) parenting can lead to issues for the kid (so can lots of things, my kids I'm sure will be in counseling for years for me making them do the dishes...) This isn't my area, but given I only spent 5 minutes looking I'm guessing there are more and better ones, but at the least we could use the one I found. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'd missed all the previous issues with the FAQ and the like, sorry if I'm stepping on raw toes. But this does seem very one sided. I did just did a quick-and-dirty review of the literature and I think the science is pretty strong in the support of what is here. But the social and public-policy aspects could use exploration. Hobit (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, people come and go and some are new when other are trying to resolve old issues. I looked at your article, and I think it is an interesting article, although it is largely descriptive of how people cope with their parents LGB status. I did not come across as very negative or highlighting a reason why LGBT parenting is bad. But yes, it is an important issue that I trhink needs to have a place in the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting study that should get worked into the article. I've had a crack at it, but it's pretty complex. The study looks at a wide variety of participants: a few raised by lesbian couples, some with one openly gay parent, and some with parents that are not openly gay. What do you think of the following?--Trystan (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some research has investigated the extent to which, and manner in which, the children of one or more LGB parents disclose their parent's sexual orientation to others. For adults with one or more LGB parents, motivators to "come out" about their parent's sexual orientation include a desire to educate others, a dislike of secrecy, and a way of screening homophobic individuals. Others disclosed only reluctantly or not at all, due to feelings of shame about their parent's sexual orientation.

• • • Sounds reasonable to me. I'm not a subject-matter expert here, but I think it hits the high points. Hobit (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"No support in the scientific literature"

I had hoped that the change from "no support" to "not supported by" would stick, but it seems not. In the article it currently states:

"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."

I don't want to dispute the general line of this claim, as the vast majority of the literature supports it. However, to say "no support" is very strong, and it isn't necessarily the case. For example, Patterson in Lesbian & Gay Parenting refers to Sarantakos's 1996 study, (Sarantakos, S. (1996). "Children in three contexts: Family, education, and social development". Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31), in which it was claimed that there were some strong negative outcomes for children of same sex couples. That's a poor study, and Sarantakos noted its limitations, but it is enough to make me concerned that we can't say that there is no support for the claim. That said, to say that there is "little support" is to give too much weight to what is at best a small minority of the research, hence my suggestion of simply writing "not supported by the scientific literature", as that doesn't presuppose that there is no support at all, but still makes the claim sufficiently strong. Of course, alternative wordings would also be fine - I'm just uncomfortable with the current claim as it stands. I guess I should also note that some authors have noted a claimed lack of research into gay couples with children, which again makes me want to write something slightly less strong than what currently stands. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I get your point. However, "no support" to "not supported by" are functional equivalents as far as I see. But I get your point, because, yes, there are a few, especially older and poorly executed articles that suggest that LGBT parenting has negative effects on children. I think we have to address that, simultaneously with the 10 year old criticism of Nock that most positive studies have been executed poorly, because in general, older studies going either way have been poorly executed. I think the key is to see what the recent literature says, and I would be very interested in seeing if there are any recent well-executed studies that show that LGBT parenting is bad.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect any, as I would agree with the general findings that sexual orientation of parents is not going to be a significant factor in a child's upbringing - although I'd like to see more studies of gay parents. That said, I agree that they are pretty much functionally equivalent, but I was hoping the minor change would give a bit of room to move. :) I do think we need to change the wording, though, as there have been studies which found disadvantages for children of same-sex couples, and while they may be poor, they make the claim of "no support" false. I don't want to put too much weight on such studies, but at the same time I don't think we should deny that they have ever existed. - Bilby (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the solution is not to try to worth smith it, because I think it would be far better if we would rewrite the research section such that it acknowledges that the older literature contains some poorly executed studies that are giving the opposite result. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Agreed. That's a small part of what I was trying to get to above. There _are_ issues, however minor, and there are studies, however flawed. The article can explain why things are minor or flawed but can't just indicate they don't exist. Even if LGBT folks are better parents (and there is some evidence of that for the "L" at least) there are going to be issues. As it stands this article doesn't really acknowledge that and thus feels like a whitewash. An honest acknowledgment of the issues followed by an explanation of why they are minor or flawed is key. I'd guess the majority of the US, and certainly the world, doesn't believe that this is a good idea. To ignore that is a mistake. Address the misconceptions and mistaken science. Cite the science that does indicate issues (however minor). Think about the Monty Hall problem. There is one right answer. But to just state the answer would make it useless. You need to explain the flawed reasoning and carefully outline the right answer. This is no where near so black-and-white (though I will say the literature is darn close to black and white) and so should walk the research so that anyone reading it understands the results, isn't just told all results point in the same direction. Same for global warming, greenhouse gasses and all the rest. Science may be darn sure it has the answer, but rather than just expecting everyone to accept that let's explain the studies. Hobit (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No! No! No! WP:MEDRS applies here! "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:No original synthesis that advances a position). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field." You cannot do WP:SYN which is a violation of WP:OR. I am fully prepared to legitimately defend these policies as needed. --Destinero (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And so we keep having the same issue. Try to discuss the issue, instead of smacking around with policy 1, policy 2, policy 3, etc. And yes., there are reliable secondary sources that highlight this issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But why you are continuously unable to show such recent credible secondary sources highlihting this issue as Wikipedia policies demand? --Destinero (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to fight policies, or improve the article. If the latter, read WP:IAR, because sometimes, doing that a bit helps. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. In addition to the above, I'd like to see some comment made in regard to the limitations of current studies, as they mostly focused on lesbian couples, but that would need a reasonable change anyway. - Bilby (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Q. Dr. Lamb, do you remember your brief review of the Sarantakos study with Mr. Thompson? A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that appeared at tab 49, I believe, which would now be binder three. A. Do I need to get that out? Q. You needn't bring it out. I just wanted to ask you if there was anything else you wanted to say about the Sarantakos study. A. Well, the key thing about the Sarantakos study are actually some problems that Sarantakos himself acknowledges in this report. And most importantly is the fact that while it's a study that ostensibly compares the adjustment of children being raised by two parent married -- two heterosexual parent married, two heterosexual parent cohabiting, and gay and lesbian families, the groups are clearly not comparable in very important ways. Notably the fact that the children in the cohabiting and the same-sex parents groups had frequently experienced the separation and divorce of their parents, in many cases not long before the data about them were gathered. And, as we have talked about today, there's a substantial body of evidence showing that the experience of the parents' divorce, the conflict around that and, as Sarantakos noted, the fact that many of these children frequently moved home are all factors that would have affected their adjustment, as well, and that that would clearly be needed to be taken into account in trying to interpret the results. In many ways, this is more illustrative of the effects of divorce than it is a study that really illustrates much about the effects of same-sex parenting. A second problem, again, as Sarantakos does acknowledge later in his article, is the fact that all of the data were gathered by interviewing the teachers. And he recognizes this as a particular problem in this case because many of the teachers acknowledged having homophobic attitudes; and the fact that that may have biased their reports is clearly something that one would need to take into account. Finally, they used very different ways of selecting the samples for this study; which, again, compromises the ability to use that in the body of literature. And so while the results themselves are out of step with the results of the rest of the research, understanding those deficiencies of the study makes it clearer to understand exactly why those results are so far out of step with the rest of the literature. Q. Have the findings of the Sarantakos study ever been corroborated or duplicated in another study? A. They have not. Q. Are you aware of any other study that finds children who are parented by gays or lesbians to be less well-adjusted than children who are parented by heterosexual parents? A. No, there's no other study that finds that as the major report. There are a couple of studies that we talked about over the course of the day, in which there would be one measure showing a difference one way or another. And, clearly, you expect to find those kinds of local variations when you are talking about a large body of literature. But there is no other study that shows, in this way, major problems on the part of children being raised by gay and lesbian parents. Q. Do you recall where the Sarantakos study was published? A. It was published in an Australian magazine called Children Australia. Q. Is that a peer-reviewed journal, to your knowledge? A. I don't think so, but I don't know. Q. Does it appear on any of the electronic databases that are used in your field? A. No, it does not. Q. Has it ever been relied upon in -- by one of your colleagues, or someone else who's viewed as an authority in the field of developmental psychology? A. I think most people in the field of studying children's adjustment have the same concerns about this study that I do. Q. Why do the hundred or so studies on which you rely provide a reliable basis for your opinion in this case? A. Well, I think they provide a reliable basis because, firstly, they provide a very consistent account of the healthy adjustment of most children being raised by gay and lesbian parents. But, secondly, I think what makes that literature persuasive is the fact that the patterns of results are very similar to the patterns of results that have been obtained in the wider body of research on factors that affect children's adjustment. For example, children whose lesbian parents have a conflictual relationship are less well-adjusted than children with lesbian parents who have a more harmonious relationship, just as you find in the literature on heterosexual families. So with respect to all of the broad factors that we spoke about first thing this morning, we see that it's the same factors that predict the adjustment of children in gay and lesbian families as they do in when children have heterosexual parents. And that, as I said before, the evidence makes clear that having a gay or lesbian parent does not make children more likely to be maladjusted than if those children were raised by heterosexual parents. http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010-01-15-Perry-Trial-Day-05-Lamb-Zia-mini.pdf by Michael Lamb (professor)

"As with empirical empirical studies of couples, it is important to examine the entire body of research rather than to draw conclusions from one or a few studies because random variations in sampling can be expected to produce some heterogeneity of findings. In the long term, for example, even if no differences in psychological adjustment exist between the children of heterosexual parents and the children of sexual minority parents in the general population, a small number of studies will inevitably find superior functioning among children in one group or the other." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf by Gregory M. Herek

This brief has been prepared and reviewed by expert members of the amici – the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists – who are thoroughly familiar with current scientific theory, research methods, empirical findings, and clinical techniques concerning sexual orientation, marriage and non-marital relationships, parenting, and stigma and prejudice.2 In the informed judgment of amici, this brief presents an accurate and balanced summary of the current state of scientific and professional knowledge about these issues. To further assist the Court, we briefly explain the professional standards we have followed for selecting individual studies and literature reviews for citation and for drawing conclusions from research data and theory. (1) We are ethically bound to be accurate and truthful in describing research findings and in characterizing the current state of scientific knowledge. (2) We rely on the best empirical research available, focusing on general patterns rather than any single study. Whenever possible, we cite original empirical studies and literature reviews that have been peer-reviewed and published in reputable academic journals. Recognizing that academic journals differ widely in their publication criteria and the rigor of their peer review, we give the greatest credence to papers published in the most authoritative journals, and we critically evaluate the findings reported in all of the papers we cite. We cite chapters, academic books, and technical reports -- which typically are not subject to the same peer-review standards as journal articles -- when they report research employing rigorous methods, are authored by well-established researchers, and accurately reflect professional consensus about the current state of knowledge. In assessing the scientific literature, we have been guided solely by criteria of scientific validity, and have neither included studies merely because they support, nor excluded credible studies merely because they contradict, particular conclusions. (3) Before citing any study, we critically evaluate its methodology, including the reliability and validity of the measures and tests it employed, and the quality of its data-collection procedures and statistical analyses. We also evaluate the adequacy of the study’s sample, which must always be considered in terms of the specific research question posed by the study. In this brief, we note when a study’s findings should be regarded as tentative because of methodological limitations. (4) No empirical study is perfect in its design and execution. All scientific studies can be constructively criticized, and scientists continually try to identify ways to improve and refine their own work and that of their colleagues. Critiques are part of the process by which science is advanced. Thus, when a scientist identifies limitations or qualifications to a study’s findings (whether the scientist’s own research or that of a colleague), or when she or he notes areas in which additional research is needed, this should not necessarily be interpreted as a dismissal or discounting of the research. (5) Scientific research cannot prove that a particular phenomenon does not exist or never occurs, or that two variables are never related to each other. However, when repeated studies with different samples consistently fail to establish the existence of a phenomenon or a relationship between two variables, researchers become increasingly convinced that, in fact, the phenomenon does not exist or the variables are unrelated. In that situation, if a researcher attempts to argue that two phenomena are correlated in the absence of supporting data from prior studies, the burden of proof is on that researcher to demonstrate empirically that the alleged relationship exists. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

Wikipedia:MEDRS: "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:No original synthesis that advances a position). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field." Enough? I try to explain why we shoud stick to the best reliable secondary sources available and that it is fair to say exactly the same as those. It is not up to the editors to synthetize or advance or change the secondary sources. One study with those methodological limitation do not permit to conclude there is a single evidence in scientific literature to support the position that the outcomes of children are worse. It's fair to stick to the current version of article based on highly credible secondary sources. We don't need to list every single study here where there are a lot of current secondary sources. We can support them by the single studies from German (http://www.bmj.bund.de/enid/6eb07462fbadb82e39aa87767c661a64,803e69706d635f6964092d0936313035093a0979656172092d0932303039093a096d6f6e7468092d093037093a095f7472636964092d0936313035/Pressestelle/Pressemitteilungen_58.html), Spain (http://www.gipuzkoa.ehu.es/p210-content/es/contenidos/noticia/20100310_libro_arranz/es_np/20100310_libro_arranz.html http://www.gara.net/paperezkoa/20100320/189288/es/Un-estudio-UPV-resalta-educacion-tolerancia-parejas-homosexuales), US longtitudal (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3153v1), US Sociological Study of Educational Achievement based on Census Data (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/gay-study-083010.html), Justice Department of Canada (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Justice_Child_Development.pdf) etc. to illustrate the point that the research is ongoing and add a new interesting info which secondary sources don't catch yet. --Destinero (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what do I have to do with this datadump? I am not going to read it. Don't you get it, we are all here in agreement, the MINOR difference is how much weight should be given to certain older studies, not because it undermines the general conclusion, but because it are issues brought up in discusions about LGBT parenting, and if this article shows that, "yes, there are some older, poorly executed studies, but those results are not repeated by the more recent better executed studies", we have a much stronger article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No. You simply cannot do that. WP:MEDRS#Respect secondary sources You should not to give unde weight to the study where recent secondary sources, meta-analyses and peer-reviewed articles deals with comprehensinve review of the literature to give appropriate and valid conslusions based on it. --Destinero (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:IAR. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Be constructive! What exactly should I read? I pointed you to study the WP:MEDRS where specialized contributors established consensus long ago about such issues. Do you want break to break it? --Destinero (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am confused at how the proposal to mention older studies that appeared to show problems but were later shown to be flawed and incorrect by later studies is an issue. We can't not mention them if they exist. Period. Undue is not always about not including material - it is about ensuring fair coverage. Clearly research comes down in support of LGBT parenting, if older, discredited studies had opposing viewpoints we should deal them and the reasons for them being discredited! otherwise it is a poor attempt at an article. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am constructive, I just do not do the continued policy trumping crap, which is not going to help in the long run, just keeps this article under continued objection from editor after editor. You can try keeping it there, but I suspect that it won't be pleasant in the long run. Or, you can choose to think outside the box and think about a way to make this article less prone to objections because it actually addresses the issues people have with it. It is your choice. I have made mine. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am curious how it will be framed, formulated and referenced. Then I make up my opinion on that. Is it okay? --Destinero (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is okay. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS

Just a note to point of that WP:MEDRS unequivocally does not apply to this article. It is designed to ensure that biomedical information is accurately portrayed by reliable medical sources. This is more of a social-science (and possibly pshycology) issue and is not covered by such concerns. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But there is no logic why the same principles should not to apply here. --Destinero (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Arg. You are arguing for the letter of the rule above, but what what you see to be the spirit applied when it helps your argument. That's not exactly helpful. In any case, this is a social issue and so should, in part, be treated like one. We should have a (rather significant) section on the science, but even there we should discuss it broadly. Consider Thiomersal controversy. That is a purely biomedical issue but see how it is covered. We should be doing something like that here. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but if you want it to apply here you're going ot have to address it on a wider level and show that this is the case. I suggest an RFC on the relevant talk page --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I will wait what you will bring up to the article. Then I will ask for a comment to be constructive and willing to cooperate, okay? I am still persuaded that Reliable Sources, NPOV and NOR applies here asking for the most current and reliable secondary sources since there are available here, there is no need to provide POV or Undue weight to every singular studies. This is the work for expert bodies and peer-reviewed journals to make conclusions for a existing literature review not for the Wikipedia editors. I still think it is not possible to describe dozens or hundreds of studies here separately. It is a totally nonsense. The role of Wikipedia is to provide the current knowledge based on the most reliable secondary sources where there is no controversy and not a single thought about evidence in the scientific literature about inferiority of gay and lesbians parents. Period. --Destinero (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted strong claims

I just reverted some fairly strong claims about science from a judge's finding of facts. I don't think we should be relying on a judge to summarize research. This is way too strong of a statement to make about science without a stronger source. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The finding of fact was supported by multiple highly regarded strong sources. Everobydy can check it. --Destinero (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But we can discuss more if you are able to show some reliable evidence to the contrary. Till then, Wikipedia users deserve the know the current state of things supported by the reliable sources. --Destinero (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. You've been bold, I've reverted and we're discussing. There is no need to continue reverting. As the one adding the material you need to show it's reasonable to have here (WP:BURDEN). As it's using a judicial opinion to make a sweeping scientific statement, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a better source. If there isn't one, the statements should be removed. Keep in mind that this judicial opinion has a number of issues associated with it. A) Folks on the losing side of the fight were really out-gunned and largely didn't challenge any of the science. B) The judge clearly (per a lot of RSes) trying to write a water-tight decision to stand up to appeals and such sweeping statements are needed to do so. I'm thrilled with that ruling, but it's just not the right kind of source for this type of claim. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The judge quoted in the finding of fact a. Tr 1025:4-23 (Lamb: Studies have demonstrated “very conclusively that children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.” These results are “completely consistent with our broader understanding of the factors that affect children’s adjustment.”) (http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010-01-15-Perry-Trial-Day-05-Lamb-Zia-mini.pdf http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf); b. PX2565 American Psychological Association, Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality at 5 (2008): “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents —— concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people —— are unfounded.” (http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf) Since those are highly reliable sources for making such claims which nobody here was/is able to dispute by other reliable sources of the same level of quality, thus I ask politely for revert the deletion of the content. --Destinero (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works, Destinero. Just because one POV in a battle between two POVs has a better source doesn't mean it "wins" and becomes the unilateral statement of fact on Wikipedia. I've tried to say this to you so many times now, and although you say that you understand I really don't think you do. I am wondering if this might be a slight language barrier -- the meaning of the word "source" with reference to Wikipedia not meaning the origin of a claim, but meaning the reference material from which the existence of the claim is discussed. I am getting the sense you don't really understand me, since you haven't actually addressed this with me so far and have simply avoided the issue. I repeat, a reliable source does not mean a reliable person who makes a claim. It means a reliable reference resource in which a claim is made. You can't ask for the opposing POV to be removed because you have a source referring to an opposing POV, no matter how mainstream or validated by science, which is "better" than the other one: it doesn't work like that. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* I hope you will forgive me for saying this recent mediation case has the colour of a one-person dispute, since only you are the one who has produced a self-exculpatory and unusual interpretation of Wikipedia policy based on your own literalistic reading of it. I cannot get why it is only you who cannot understand the way the policies work, though it may be again because of a language barrier. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then pleas explain why Wikipedia should not a sentence "The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology."? Why the Wikipedia cannot say the fact, truth, whatever supported by the reliable source? This is essentially the sam case why Evolution article contain the sentence "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs." Please tell me why the LGBT Parenting does not deserve the same effort and procedure when nobody here has not been able to point to a single source saying otherwise. Whe the Wikipedia readers does not deserve to know the fact that "The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology."? A really don't understand the efforts to shut facts up. --Destinero (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again you don't seem to get it: you say; "the fact, truth, whatever supported by the reliable source..." which I take to mean you are interpreting the WP:CITE policy as meaning the sources are there to prove the claims. They are not. Sources do not prove or disprove claims as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We do not assess article content on the basis of "truth", which in many cases is POV-specific. From WP:V:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Just want to get an explanation why my proposed phrasing was not verifiable and prepared to be checked by the every reader for being published by reliable sources? As you said, whether it is true or whether editors think it is true is irrelavant here. The only relevant thing here is whether it can be checked. --Destinero (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is that the material has been published by a reliable source; not that the ideas expressed are true or reliable. I am beginning to get the impression you either don't want to understand, because you have found a way of lawyering the appropriate policies to your advantage; or perhaps that you don't understand because again, I can see something of a language barrier here. You've read a different interpretation and a different weight into the policy elements that you quote that differs from the rest of the community. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to work the material into the article in a way that I think should address concerns about whether the type of source is appropriate for the type of claim. By making the source explicit in the text, I think it's more informative to the reader.--Trystan (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, that addresses my issues. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agre with that. Thank you all for cooperating and explaining! Seems we can finish the Mediation. --Destinero (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the Cinderella effect?

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

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

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

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

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