Talk:LGBT parenting/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Doesn't Make Sense 2 Disparity in space given to studies on different sides 2.1 Use of Reckers' Study 3 Studies & Sources 4 Adoption Article, Not Mental Illness 5 Mental Illness? 6 No Single Parents? 7 Inclusion on the LGBT Sidebar? 8 Name and scope of article 9 Neutrality 10 homosexuality and paedophilia 11 POV--Necessity of Adoption 12 Non-political aspects? 13 External Links

Doesn't Make Sense

this sentence: "There is scientific consensus that children raised in single parent households tend to fare worse than those raised in two parent households (article). This generalization has been used by many groups to oppose adoption by same-sex couples" what?? so, if research show children do worse in single parent homes, why would people opposing adoption by two people use this argument?? and then the next sentence has nothing to do with the first two sentences.

The sentence on Dobson that follows is a cited example of the content you deleted. Whether or not the argument makes sense to you isn't the point, as long as the information about the argument is accurate. Maybe the wording needs to be changed to make the connection clearer? --Andrew Delong 20:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Disparity in space given to studies on different sides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This will be removed until it can be proven otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Use of Reckers' Study

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

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

Studies & Sources

Obviously we'd like more studies than the Reckers one, but the only other one I'm already familiar with is the National Lesbian Family Study that was updated in 2005:

In social and psychological development, the NLFS children were comparable to children raised in heterosexual families. The NLFS girls demonstrated fewer behavioral problems than age-matched peers. These findings are consistent with other studies demonstrating a high degree of emotional well-being in children of lesbian families (Anderssen et al., 2002; Bliss & Harris, 1999; Golombok et al., 2003).

As you can see they cite other studies, but I wanted to get some opinions before adding this result to the page because:

1. The source could easily be biased
2. The sample size is small (N=76)

So, what do you think: is this study informative if the above two disclaimers are provided or can we do better?

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

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

Speaking of fair,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more question Cavris: I'd like you to respond to the criticism that Rocketfairy and I have had about the Rekers study's relevance to this article. We both basically said that, yes, Reker presents credible evidence concerning psychiatric disorders among gays in general, but there are two problems with the way the paper is cited here:

1. Rekers' actual conclusions concerning gay parenting are not cited, just the ones concerning mental problems are.
2. The relevant conclusions that Rekers draws do not directly follow from his corresponding evidence.

Earlier I was trying to leave the parts you cited, but I added the fallacy of accident (which you removed) because I wanted to highlight the logical gap present in the article. I've sort of covered that base with my little blurb at the end but---really---I won't be comfortable with that material in the article at all until I understand why it proves what it claims to prove. Convince me! -- Andrew Delong 06:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Adoption Article, Not Mental Illness

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

Mental Illness?

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

No Single Parents?

Obviously, many gay and lesbian parents are divorced or never-married single parents. However, the article at the moment assumes that every child with a gay parent is the child of a gay couple.

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

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

DanB†DanD 17:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Inclusion on the LGBT Sidebar?

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

Name and scope of article

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

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

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

Neutrality

I don't believe that this article is neutral. It does not give equal space to arguments for and against LGBT Parenting. It only gives refutations of the briefly stated arguments against LGBT Parenting, but it doesn't give these arguments their own time.

Yeah, I can believe that. Personally I've found most of the newer studies tend to cast a lot of doubt on the typical con arguments (hence the current flavour of the article). Are there studies in the last few years that back up the original intuition about the dangers of gay parents? I'm too lazy/busy to dig around since, I admit, I'm skeptical of them (i.e. biased) from the outset. --Andrew Delong 20:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another way to put it: Nobody has done an actual study of the children of same-sex couples that indicates any substantial differences in outcomes other than in gender roles and in bullying by peers. I'd be happy to see more space given to these arguments by opponents of same-sex couples and their children, but if the article seems weighted on one side, it's because the other side cites precious little empirical evidence. It isn't wildly unreasonable or POV to give more space to arguments supported by evidence. Note the breakdown in citations: Mainstream medical or psychiatric authorities and peer-reviewed studies on one side, and Dr. Rekers on the other.

This leaves two obvious ways to increase the space given to arguments against lgbt parents: Find credible, relevant studies to cite (good luck!), or give more space to arguments over values or the existing evidence. I'd love to see more room for arguments pro and con as far as children's gender roles go (I tried this and got smacked down for weasel words; others may be able to do it better). I think this would actually clarify the debate somewhat: For many if not most, the debate has little to do with the material parenting bona fides of same-sex couples, and everything to do with legitimate questions about sexual morality, gender roles, and tradition. If the debate is focused on subjective values and not empirical questions, why not expand the conservative arguments in that territory? --Rocketfairy 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The External Links section seemes to contain only pro-gay sources. If this is so, anti-gay sources should be added for balance's sake, even if they're not scientific or on par with the pro-gay sources. --Safe-Keeper 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

homosexuality and paedophilia

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

Could someone dig up an opposing citation? The ACLU is not a good pick here, as it is an advocacy organization; I know many psychiatric orgs have noted that the absence of a relationship between the abuse of male children and adult homosexuality. --Rocketfairy 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think read something by the American Pedatric Assocation a long time ago that said their was no connection...I can't remember where it was, but I imagine that their website would be a good place to look for information. Asarelah 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

POV--Necessity of Adoption

Firstly this contradicts the Adoption article, secondly it's entirely POV (it grates against me as an adoptee because many of the things stated are wrong and are using adoption as a leverage for issues outside of adoption itself--not because it related to a LGBT POV), thirdly if there is a reason for this being in this article space rather than the adoption article space, it should be stated. If there are no objections by the end of next week, I'm moving it off of this article space and merging and rewriting it for the LGBT adoption article space. --Hitsuji Kinno 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that (1) it's not written with encyclopedic tone and (2) it doesn't really belong here anyway. --Andrew Delong 06:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the second para of "Necessity of adoption" has some tone problems, but I think the first para provides useful background information to one of the major arguments about LGBT parenting (incl foster care, not just adoption). That said, I'd be open to a rewrite and replacement of it, as long as that occurs in a neutral fashion.

Hitsuji, what in the section do you think is wrong or POV? Could we parse out a solution here before changing both of the pages?

Thanks -- --Rocketfairy 11:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

The next part:

According to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, "About 30% of children in foster care have severe emotional, behavioral, or developmental problems."^[1]

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

A study by UCLA Law School's Williams Institute reports that gays or lesbians are disproportionately willing to accept older, disabled, ill, or otherwise hard-to-place children; for some children, bans thus may lead to years of movement in the oft-criticized foster care system.^[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-political aspects?

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

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

External Links

I'm writing on behalf of the Tufts University Child and Family Webguide to ask that our website be considered for an external link on this Wikipedia page. Our website is maintained and developed by a staff of evaluators who search the web for articles and sites that contain valuable information for children and their parents regarding various medical/developmental topics. This link leads to our page "Same-sex Parenting", which contains information on strategies for same-sex parents as well as information on the effects of same-sex parenting on children:

http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/189.htm 130.64.134.109 (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can add it yourself in the future, if it's not locked. BUt sign in by hitting the tilde key four times.Kairos 09:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.