Talk:LGBT parenting/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Nock[edit]

Here is a reply to the comment below of Destinero (who continues to suppress reasonable edits of this page):

More edit warring at LGBT parenting[edit]

Why do you[Destinero] insist on systematically suppressing all discussion of alternative viewpoints in the LGBT parenting article? Your deletion of the Stacey-Biblarz quotation, that "researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior" is particularly mystifying, since this paper is cited in every recent version of the page. You justify deleting the comments of Stephen Nock on the grounds that he "lacks expertise in developmental psychology", but this completely misses the point of his objection, which is raised on statistical and methodolgical grounds. Please consider that Wikipedia's readers are best served by having access to a full range of views. Vigilius4 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Vigilius4

His is not competent to raise statistic and methodolical points in the field he lacks expertize and he still dont know that psychology has other methods than demography. In fact, the research of LGBT parenting is very sound and reliable.--Destinero (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to get familiar with Wikipedia:MEDRS#Summarize scientific consensus: "Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)" and "Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf As I have shown, Wikipedia policies permits none of Nock's conjectures and guesses here. --Destinero (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The statements by Destinero are untrue. I have read the affidavit where Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz defend themselves against the late professor Nock's statements on gay-parenting studies. Nock's point was that on statistical grounds one cannot say, "gay parenting does not affect children," because of the flaws in the studies. Stacey's defense is that, these studies should not be held to the same standards as other statistical work. Moreover, she claims that if you criticize the methods used in studies of gay parenting, you are overturning all the work done in developmental psychology. That is not a very strong defense, because as anyone with a background in statistics can see, the field may not be credible on a statistical basis. If I were to reconcile the two positions I would represent them as: 1) Nock claims the studies are prone to error and therefore the null hypothesis (that gay parenting has no affect) cannot be disproved; this is an accepted fact by all parities, it is just not promoted and 2) Stacey says - sure the studies are flawed - but they are not supposed to be proofs, they are only evidence. Both of these statements are true. They should be represented in the article.Tobit2 (talk)
You are continuosly totally unable to react to the central argument: "The null hypothesis (in this case, that same-sex and heterosexual couples do not differ) cannot be proved. A more realistic standard is the one generally adopted in behavioral and social research, namely, that repeated failures to disprove the null hypothesis are accepted provisionally as a basis for concluding that the groups, in fact, do not differ. Moreover, it is important to recognize that some heterogeneity of findings across studies is to be expected simply because of random variations in sampling. For example, even if same-sex and heterosexual couples in the general population truly do not differ in their psychological dynamics, it is to be expected that a small number of studies (roughly 5% if probability sampling methods are employed and conventional levels of statistical significance are used) will report significant differences. This fact highlights the importance of examining the entire body of research rather than drawing conclusions from one or a few studies. In light of these caveats, the observed similarities between same-sex and different-sex couples are striking. The overall methodological sophistication and quality of studies in this domain have increased over the years, as would be expected for any new area of empirical inquiry. More recent research has reported data from probability and community-based convenience samples that were not originally recruited on the basis of sexual orientation, has used more rigorous assessment techniques, and has been published in highly respected and widely cited developmental psychology journals, including Child Development and Developmental Psychology. Data are increasingly available from prospective studies. In addition, recent samples are more likely to include children conceived within a same-sex relationship (e.g., by donor insemination) or adopted in infancy by a same-sex couple. Thus, they are less likely to confound the effects of having a sexual minority parent with the consequences of divorce. Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents. http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf
The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.
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.”);
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.”
The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
Thus, I definitely decline to discuss effort to destroy owerhelmingly accepted scientific consensus beyond serious dispute based on more than 100 studies from all the world. Please educate yourself first, then discuss and edit this topic. The FAQ was created for the same need to prevent disputes over and over again just the same as in Evolution article: Just becase somebody has unfounded beliefs refused by all the scientific evidence which can stand fair court trial and where is none evidence to the countrary, Wikipedia policies do not permit you to describe the reality as there is some uncertainty or controversy about experts. The only bodies who scream there is a controvery is political and religious ones. And I will continue to defent fundamental Wikipedia policies prohibiting to promote propaganda of extremelly small minorities (WP:UNDUE) here since it is critically important to do that. --Destinero (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
As David Boies put it: "In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination. And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined. But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that. That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost." Boies said. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/08/ftn/main6754443.shtml Also Canadian Psychological Association is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values.[1] According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics "Those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both. With all respects people are entitled to their beliefs and even their biases but it is plainly wrong to call those beliefs and biases science."[2] Thus, I absolutely refuse to accept discussion about junk science, prejudices and beliefs and call them expert or scientific controvery or uncertainty. He simply don't understand how the science works and how is the current state of research. Tobit2, you based most of your objections on a 2001 statement of one professor who has no expertise in the relevant field! Wake up! It's 2010. No 2000. --Destinero (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
You copied and pasted a lot words that you felt might be appropriate, and I had difficulty separating your point from the indirect and direct insults directed at me. The relevant field here is Statistics, a discipline some Sociologists may apply correctly and others do not. Nock's point was that it has been applied incorrectly. This is true. Stacey's point was that 'we sociologists never apply it correctly,' because they look for evidence only not proofs. This is also true. I do not expect you to be trained to understand why this is so, but to summarize, both parties are using two different standards for the test, one is weaker than the other, yet both have validity. To ignore Nock, however, is to subscribe to a POV based on the legal testimony of 2 people. Tobit2 (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
If you can not understand written text it is your problem, not my problem neither Wikipedia problem. We deal here with children and their development, the relevant expert and scientific field here is developmental psychology not statistics. We have to deal with content of the article on the ground of reliable sources in the relevant field which describes broadly accepted consensus where no research suggest otherwise and where no researcher disagree over the result. It is really just such simple. Please, stop destroying the effort to achieve good article quality. It seems that you have problem with that. Perhaps since you are a Catholic and every of your argument is based on your beliefs and not on documented and verifiable facts. But Wikipedia is not about unfounded beliefs. Please go to the Conservapedia rather. --Destinero (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, stop to use false arguments about others identity as "Perhaps since you are a Catholic...". this is inadequate, as somebody else can raise an issue, that "Perhaps you are a gay... (actually no doubts as you publicly point to your blog full of expressions that -you are- on Czech Wikipedia) and every your argument is based on liberal propaganda", and therefore you are removing all the content, which can possible harm the propaganda itself. So read please WP:NPOV, part "simple formulation" should be enough. You can't simply suppress facts about opinions, which have major support in States, and spread your bias only. Did you ever tried to "write for the enemy"?--83.208.153.249 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, you can't commandeer a page like this. You have to allow opposing view points, especially valid ones such as these. Your responses to tobit have not been adequate - all you do is go on about how proven lgbt parenting is, and I agree that it is. It doesn't mean that opposing viewpoints should not be taken into account. You are too emotionally tied to this topic. -Javsav (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help create a more balanced version of the article![edit]

User Destinero continues to delete from inclusion both the observation of Stacey-Biblarz that "researchers[who have studied the subject of lgbt parenting] frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior", and any reference to the work of Steven Nock. Stacey-Biblarz are universally acknowledged as `mainstream', and are cited elsewhere in the article, making this omission clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. To justify the suppression of the work of Steven Nock, who may be regarded as representing ``a significant minority view", he either claims that Nock (a tenured professor of scoiology, late of the University of Virginia) lacks 'expertise' in developmental psychology, which is irrelevant (and possibly false), since Nock's objection is raised on statistical grounds, or that his view (which Destinero crudely caricatures), is too obscure to warrant inclusion. In fact, a more balanced view of the available research would include many voices like Nock's. I would like to appeal to the Wikipedia community to support the creation of such a more balanced version of the article, since the infantile edit warring with Destinero is growing tiresome. Vigilius4 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User Vigilius4 seems repeatedly to not understand Wikipedia policies which requires the most reliable secondary sources available to describe scientific consensus and expert views. I've already provided a evidence that professor Nock has no expertise in developmental psychology research and thus his opinion is not encyclopedic valuable: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Affidavit_of_J_Stacey.html As long as Vigilius4 is unable to understand and accept facts, his behaviour is problematic. --Destinero (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)



1. I, Judith Stacey, was appointed to the Streisand Professorship of Contemporary Gender Studies in the Department of Sociology at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles in 1997. Prior to that I spent 17 years on the faculty of Department of Sociology at the University of California, Davis, where I received tenure in 1982, and was promoted to Full Professor in 1989. I received my Ph.D. in Sociology from Brandeis University, an M.A. in United States History from the University of Illinois (Chicago), and the B.A. from the University of Michigan. My areas of research and teaching center on the sociology of family, gender and sexuality, with a current specialization in gay and lesbian family forms. My research has received funding from the American Council of Learned Societies, the Rockefeller Foundation, the University of California, Davis Humanities Center, the Ford Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. My publications include three single-authored books on family change and numerous articles in scholarly journals and research anthologies. I have lectured widely in the U.S. and Europe on such themes. I am a founding board member of the Council for Contemporary Families in the U.S., a national group of family researchers and teaching clinicians committed to public education on the sources and effects of family diversity. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit “A” to this affidavit.

2. I, Timothy J. Biblarz, received my Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Washington-Seattle in 1992, and the same year joined the faculty of the Sociology Department at the University of Southern California where I am currently an Associate Professor of Sociology with tenure. I am also a Research Associate at U.S.C.’s Population Research Laboratory, and the Gerontology Research Institute in the Andrus Gerontology Center. My research focuses on the demography of social inequalities, with an emphasis on family and inter-generational issues. My papers have appeared in the American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Social Forces, and other journals, and I have a co-authored book in press at Cambridge University Press that explores the transmission of values and aspirations across multiple generations of family members. Current projects include an investigation of historical change in the relationship between family structure and children's educational transitions from middle school to graduate school, a study of occupational transmission from mothers and fathers to sons and daughters, and a test of an evolutionary theory of marital stability. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit "B" to this affidavit.

3. Recently, we published the co-authored findings of our comprehensive analysis of two decades of research literature that investigates the impact of sexual orientation of parents on children. Attached as Exhibit “C” to this affidavit is a copy of this study, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review (volume 66, number 2, April 2001). The American Sociological Review is the most prestigious, selective and rigorously reviewed journal in sociology in the United States. It was referee-reviewed in three rounds by seven reviewers. Professor Nock has personally complimented Professor Stacey on the quality and substance of the article on April 28 2001 at the Council on Contemporary Families Conference on marriage research in New York.

8. Professor Nock’s claims regarding generally accepted standards and methods for social science research are inaccurate and biased. Social scientists do not employ or accept exclusively one research method. Instead, social scientists employ and value diverse methodologies, research designs, and types of data which vary depending upon the discipline involved, the research area of specialty and investigation, the questions being raised and the theories that are being applied and evaluated.

9. Professor Nock is a survey researcher and demographer, which represents a specific methodology and a sub-field of inquiry within sociological research. When Professor Nock provides his lengthy description of research methodology, he adopts the extreme, untenable position that the genre of large-scale survey research that he generally conducts is the only acceptable research method in all of the social science disciplines and subfields.

10. Professor Nock inappropriately applies this model of research, which is only one model within his own particular sub-field of sociology – demography – to an entirely different discipline, child development, which is a branch of developmental psychology. This is a research specialty and sub-discipline in which Professor Nock has no expertise. The body of research with which he takes issue in his affidavit was conducted primarily, if not exclusively, by psychologists with expertise in the field of child development. None of the studies that Professor Nock is evaluating were conducted by sociologists or by demographers.

11. Proper research methods and standards in social sciences, like all research in the academy, are determined through a rigorous peer review process that is conducted by established scholars in individual disciplines and sub-fields. Research methods, analyses, and findings are reviewed and scrutinized by a scholar’s peers when scholarly papers are submitted for publication. Characteristically, an academic’s work must satisfy the scrutiny and standards of scholars considered to be experts in the field and in the model of research under review.

12. The journals Child Development and Developmental Psychology are the two flagship peer-review journals in the field of child development. The former is published by the 5,000-member academic Society for Research in Child Development, and the latter is published by the American Psychological Association. Several of the Vermont studies appeared in these rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective periodicals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child development.

13. The research methods that Professor Nock advocates, that is, research based on statistically representative national samples, are rarely employed by scholars who publish in Child Development and Developmental Psychology. There is a simple explanation for this. Large-scale survey research methods are too blunt and rigid to adequately address the complex and nuanced questions that are generally at issue when scholars attempt to assess and compare child development under different forms of parenting or adult intervention. Most child development studies profit from having in-depth observations of children with multiple reporters (parents, teachers, clinicians, researchers, etc.) and instruments. Research often benefits when rapport develops between the researcher, the observer, the parents and the children. This is precisely the opposite methodology from the method Professor Nock advocates: he prefers a “fly on the wall” ideal involving a neutral observer conducting abstract survey research.

14. If the court were to accept Professor Nock’s primary criticisms of these studies, it would have to dismiss virtually the entire discipline of psychology. The vast majority of research in child development, and in the field of psychology more broadly, would be invalidated as unscientific. The research design of the studies on lesbian and gay parenting that Professor Nock criticizes is by no means peculiar to or below the generally accepted scientific standards of the field. On the contrary, most of the research designs used in these studies characterize predominant methods employed throughout the entire discipline of psychology. In essence, Professor Nock appears to be claiming that psychologists would have to become demographers in order for their work to have scientific value.

15. By that standard, almost every study published in the premier journals Child Development and Developmental Psychology would be rejected out of hand. Take, for example, the Nov-Dec 2000 issue of Child Development, in which at least 10 of the 15 empirical studies published employ one or another of the methodological features that Nock rejects as “fatal flaws.” Seven or more of 10 empirical studies in the November 2000 issue of the APA journal Developmental Psychology likewise would end up in Professor Nock’s dustbin. Smentana’s (2000) research on the attitudes of African American adolescents, Martin and Fabes’s (2000) research on children’s choices of playmates and gender development, Taylor et al’s (2000) study of outcomes in children with low birth weight, Kilgore, Snyder and Lentz’s (2000) investigation of the effects of parenting practices on children’s conduct - all of these studies and many more would be deemed unworthy of Professor Nock’s seal of “good science.” On the other hand, they were all deemed scientifically worthy enough to be accepted for publication by the external reviewers and the highly-regarded editors of the most exclusive and tightly-peer reviewed social science journals in their field. Professor Nock’s Insistence on Probability Samples 16. Professor Nock has confused two research goals: 1) to paint a statistical portrait of a population; and 2) to isolate the unique effect of a particular variable on an outcome. Professor Nock is arguing inappropriately that rules guiding the first goal are the same as those for - or must be applied to - the second goal. While the samples of, most often, lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers used in the Vermont studies are always drawn from their larger populations, they are not always drawn randomly. Nock argues that this means that we cannot be sure that the samples represent an accurate picture of their larger populations. While this makes achieving the first goal - painting a statistical portrait of a population - more difficult, it does not by definition preclude researchers’ ability to achieve the second goal - that of determining whether parental sexual orientation per se has any unique or problematic effects on child development. By matching lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers on a wide variety of variables including age, race, family structure, age of children, socioeconomic position, donor insemination, and so on, researchers ensure that whatever differences may exist between their samples and the larger population are the same for both groups of mothers. Hence, tests for whether differences by maternal sexual orientation are statistically significant are appropriate and valid. These tests uniformly show that a lesbian sexual orientation per se has no negative effect on parenting, nor on children’s healthy psychological development and social adjustment.

17. By Professor Nock's standard, we would throw out a good portion of research in medicine that uses inferential statistics (e.g., all of those that conduct t-tests or chi-square tests for treatment effects on small non-probability samples). We would also have to reject the preponderance of research in psychology, psychiatry, social-psychology, anthropology, clinical research, and so on. In fact, some of Professor Nock’s own published research fails to meet his unreasonably narrow methodological standards. For example, Willets-Bloom and Nock’s (1992, 1994) response rate of 49% is well below the 60% rate that Professor Nock says in his Affidavit (para. 83) is the minimum standard for scientific acceptability, and the Willets-Bloom and Nock papers make claims about young people in general based on a very small - by Professor Nock’s standards - sample of 111 male and 131 female undergraduate students at a single university in Virginia - one of the United States’s smallest and most suburban states. To argue that good research is only that which draws large probability samples from larger populations is an unreasonable, extreme position that exhibits also a certain misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the statistical issues. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Affidavit_of_J_Stacey.html --Destinero (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As above, the statement by Destinero against Professor Nock is untrue and represents a POV. I have read the affidavit where Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz defend themselves against the late professor Nock's statements on gay-parenting studies. Nock's point was that on statistical grounds one cannot say, "gay parenting does not affect children," because of the flaws in the studies. Stacey's defense is that, these studies should not be held to the same standards as other statistical work. Moreover, she claims that if you criticize the methods used in studies of gay parenting, you are overturning all the work done in developmental psychology. That is not a very strong defense, because as anyone with a background in statistics can see, the field may not be credible on a statistical basis. If I were to reconcile the two positions I would represent them as: 1) Nock claims the studies are prone to error and therefore the null hypothesis (that gay parenting has no affect) cannot be disproved; this is an accepted fact by all parities, it is just not promoted and 2) Stacey says - sure the studies are flawed - but they are not supposed to be proofs, they are only evidence. Both of these statements are true. They should be represented in the article.Tobit2 (talk)

Tobit2, please stop doing vandalism immediately![edit]

In your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=prev&oldid=376590260 edit you removed such important info such as: "The investigation has confirmed: Where children are loved, they are growing up well. The key is a good relationship between child and parents and not their sexual orientation. According to the results of the study, the child's welfare in rainbow families is as safeguarded as in other forms of union. Homosexual couples are no worse parents, children with two mothers or two fathers develop as well as in other family forms. The study is extremely robust and representative. It demonstrates on a scientifically sound basis, that family is where children are. The situation of 693 of these children (32%) was analyzed through interviews with parents, and 95 children (5%) were personally interviewed separately. Even a survey of 1% of the target group is generally considered representative."

In your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=next&oldid=376592065 edit you removed such important info such as: "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. 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. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples." which is directly relevant to discussion and parenting. You should definitely not to remove information you dont like.

In your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=next&oldid=376592065 edit you removed such important info such as: ">Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents, or that the psychosocial development of the children of gay and lesbian parents is compromised, have no basis in science. Our position is based on a review representing approximately 50 empirical studies and at least another 50 articles and book chapters and does not rest on the results of any one study.[3] According to Herek’s extensive review of the literature in 2006, the research on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples rely, look at the functioning of children in intact families with heterosexual parents compared to those children raised by a single parent following divorce or death of a spouse. They do not include studies that compare the functioning of children raised by heterosexual couples with the functioning of children raised by same-sex couples. In this group of studies, any differences observed are more accurately attributable to the effects of death or divorce, and/or to the effects of living with a single parent, rather than to parents’ sexual orientation. These studies do not tell us that the children of same-sex parents in an intact relationship fair worse than the children of opposite-sex parents in an intact relationship. A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values."

It is only your problem you dont like facts and prefer hold unfounded bigot opinions, not problem of highly credible sources which belongs to reliable encyclopedia! --Destinero (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is impossible to read what you said above because there is too much. What is your point? I re-inserted the German material you asked for. The other material appeared irrelevant to me that is why I deleted it. Many editors have already complained that this article has become very poor because of its excessive use of quotes. This is not vandalism; I am trying to improve the article.Tobit2 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You are intentionally removing essential info. Right-wing propaganda is self evident. If you are unable or do not want read comment of other editors (me) above then simply do not cooperate on Wikipedia. --Destinero (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, your lack of fluency in English is well known (Ed: Destinero edits from the Czech Republic), which is why this article has become so bogged down in long and excessive quotations. I and others do not believe those quotations are necessary. This is why they were removed. Your edit warring is unconstructive and, given the long history of your abuses, frankly, no longer tolerable. I believe the Wikipedia Community should ban Destinero as he has been in the Czech version of WIkipedia.Tobit2 (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm constructive editor. I summarized the quoted directly to the article. No need to scream like you. Your accusations and bringing up another issues from other Wikipedia is a illustration of your lack of relevant argumentation. --Destinero (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress!! Destinero has begun to dismantle the excessive quotations! Destinero, what is your overall plan to reconstruct?Tobit2 (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Those edits have basically gutted the entire article of valuable information from widely renowned and trusted sources. What's the reasoning behind it? --67.240.74.244 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Those studies were done by groups who studied gay families for over 25 years why, why is it suddenly removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.205.33 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it is more encyclopedic to integrate knowledge and facts with references directly to the article prose. Nothing relevant and importand was ommited. The relevant quotes are still available via references. Actually believe it or not, I am the last person on the Wikipedia who want to remove or gut this article, since I am responsible for more than 95% of its content developed over several years. --Destinero (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
In other words, there was a need to deal with a lot of duplicate info and similar lengthy quotes to be more well-arranged, and thus Tobit2 can be satisfied. :-) --Destinero (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems[edit]

This section was created by banned user Skoojal (talk · contribs). Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users are to be reverted on sight regardless of content.— dαlus Contribs 08:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Skoojal (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— dαlus Contribs 08:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)>

Be sure to have at it. This article is prone to edit wars, however, largely because most of the academic research on the subject is flawed and subject to bias.Tobit2 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FAQ Section[edit]

I think a FAQ has a lot of potential to help the article, and I support its inclusion. Nevertheless, the current draft certainly does not represent a consensus view of the editors just yet nor the significant discussion that has occurred on this page to date. So, at this point, I have tagged it as POV. I look forward to removing that.Tobit2 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than building on them, Destinero has reverted all edits to his disliking, The FAQ section should be removed because
1) It attempts to institutionalize a POV.
2) It represents itself as the consensus of editors on the page. This is false. It was written by one person.
3) It states that LGBT parenting is a science article like "physics." This is untrue, LGBT parenting is a phenomenon that can be studied by science but also have cultural implications and concerns.
I will request mediation on this topic.Tobit2 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the link to the mediation request,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT_parenting#What_would_you_like_to_change_about_this.3F
Frankly, I am rather tired on being drawn into this article and its disputes, but I still feel someone has to stand up and point out intolerable behavior. Tobit2 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what you said about it yesterday, it could be good for the article, and I think it should stay. I also agree that it needs to be changed to reflect a consensus view, and Destinero needs to be open to changes regarding it. Nowyouseemetalk2me 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you changed the WARNING back to way I had edited it yesterday. I can support this, but I still cannot support the FAQ section for the above reasons. Destinero do you have a response?Tobit2 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Since Destinero has refused to discuss the matter, I went ahead and edited the FAQ, making it compliant with Wiki policies and hopefully reaching consensus. With that, I am done and hope not to have to return to this article again, unless, of course, it starts to impinge on the quality of the LGBT adoption article once more.Tobit2 (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated the FAQ for deletion as it appears to have serious POV issues. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nock Refs[edit]

Ok, I have been reading about this Nock guy, can someone provide the relevant links to his work that are of importance here so I can reqad tham for myself and make a judgment about his argument.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Law/cases/Canada/ontario/halpern/aff_nock.pdf The point is that Nock is a demograpgher, he is unaware of the widely-accepted methodology of the development psychology as Stacey and Biblarz pointed out (quoted on this page), he ask to do developmental psychology research the same way like demography, which is either not needed (convenient sample) to make appropriate conclusions or even impossible. The measure of current acceptance of research and its conclusion are expert bodies such as associations and prestigeous peer-reviewed journals in development psychology which represent its field. --Destinero (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Nobody with half a brain can compare Nock's 2001 affidavit with the eminent and reputable researcher of the relevant field Michael Lamb: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf who was even cross-examined in Perry vs Schwarzenneger trail where provided undisputed evidence http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010-01-15-Perry-Trial-Day-05-Lamb-Zia-mini.pdf from which the Judge concluded: The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. 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.”); 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.”; c. PX2547 (Nathanson Nov 12, 2009 Dep Tr 49:05-49:19: Sociological and psychological peer-reviewed studies conclude that permitting gay and lesbian individuals to marry does not cause any problems for children); PX2546 at 2:20-3:10 (video of same). https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf --Destinero (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The methodology of the research examining same-sex parenting is standard, reliable, and accepted in the field.
32. Social scientists use and value diverse methodologies, research designs, and types of data that vary depending on the discipline involved, the specific area of research, the questions being raised, and the theories being applied and evaluated. Developmental psychologists (and psychologists more generally) tend to emphasize intensive examination of relatively small numbers of individuals, often studied in the context of social relationships and influences. Developmental psychologists rarely use research methods based on statistically representative national samples. Such large-scale survey research methods are often too blunt to address adequately the complex and nuanced questions that generally are at issue when scholars attempt to assess and compare the course of development in different circumstances. It is more common for researchers to use what might be called “convenience” samples, and to explore those samples intensively, rather than to study large samples more superficially.
33. The methodologies used in the major studies of same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally. Proper research methods and standards in social sciences are determined through a rigorous peer review process that is conducted by established scholars in individual disciplines and sub-fields. When scholarly papers are submitted for publication, the research methods used, the analyses conducted, and the findings drawn are critically reviewed. In order to be published, an academic’s work must satisfy the scrutiny and standards of scholars considered to be experts in the field of research under review.
34. The studies specific to same-sex parenting from which I draw my conclusions were published in leading journals in the field of child and adolescent development, such as Child Development, Developmental Psychology, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. The journals Child Development, published by the Society for Research in Child Development, Developmental Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry are the flagship peer-review journals in the field of child development. Most of the studies on which I rely appeared in these (or similar) rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Prior to publication in these journals, these studies were required to go through a rigorous peer-review process, and as a result, they constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. The body of research on same-sex families is consistent with standards in the relevant fields and produces reliable conclusions.
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf

Enough[edit]

Destinero will you just knock it off? Your persistant edit-warring is hindering the progress and work of other members of the community, you aren't contributing positively in instigating an edit-war and you certainly aren't making any friends in the process, if you have something positive to contribute then please do so, reverting edits to the article and removing sections for no obvious reason just shows that you are too immature to engage in a discussion with the editors involved as to why you think your strongly asserted (and biased) opinions are right.

If you cannot even construe the evidence you supply properly, why then do you remove large chunks of information and edit others in order to suit your liking? Since it's clear to me that you are refusing to accept the facts as they're laid out. Your adamancy is, as I said previously, hindering the positive contributions of other users. You aren't gaining anything positive in the process and you certainly aren't being a net positive contributor to the article. No one supports your factually incorrect and biased opinions on the matter and certain users involved have already expressed concerns, said users involved have already asked you kindly (and indirectly) to stop, now I ask that you stop before you get yourself into a deeper trench.

Regards, --Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are even you totally incapable to point out a single issue why you think my opinions are not backed by a science and empirism? It is really starting you just come here and delete thing you obviously do not underestand. You need to be bold. Either provide a evidence that my opinions are factually incorrect or go away. I am here to defend here the reliable sources and undue weight principles. --Destinero (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Based on the arguments and points raised by other users you seem to be replacing facts with nonsense. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 01:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The only inable person to point out to the facts is your at this time. I provided facts documented by the most credible sources available in this World. It is your problem you are not able to accept and understand this and claim these sources as nonsense. It is really offending and it undermines your ability to contribute something benefical to the Wikipedia if you do not understand such basic things. --Destinero (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, have you ever considered that people of equal or greater ability may not agree with you?Tobit2 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
And why are you still inable to show who are those people? Who is of equal or greater ability than sources I've provided who holds different opinion than the scientific consensus is? Nobody? I think it is fair to say you have nothing and noone to rely on. --Destinero (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I say all the time the opposing views should get a limited amount of space and should not be framed as a founded scientific or expert view. That's all. --Destinero (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FAQ Draft[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. (with a brief summary)
    2. (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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[4]
      • 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)

MEDRS[edit]

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[edit]

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)

"No support in the scientific literature"[edit]

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)

Ten narrative studies involving family histories of 262 children of gay fathers and lesbian mothers were evaluated statistically in response to Morrison's (2007) concerns about Cameron's (2006) research that had involved three narrative studies. Despite numerous attempts to bias the results in favour of the null hypothesis and allowing for up to 20 (of 63, 32%) coding errors, Cameron's (2006) hypothesis that gay and lesbian parents would be more likely to have gay, lesbian, bisexual or unsure (of sexual orientation) sons and daughters was confirmed. Percentages of children of gay and lesbian parents who adopted non-heterosexual identities ranged between 16% and 57%, with odds ratios of 1.7 to 12.1, depending on the mix of child and parent genders. Daughters of lesbian mothers were most likely (33% to 57%; odds ratios from 4.5 to 12.1) to report non-heterosexual identities. Data from ethnographic sources and from previous studies on gay and lesbian parenting were re-examined and found to support the hypothesis that social and parental influences may influence the expression of non-heterosexual identities and/or behaviour. Thus, evidence is presented from three different sources, contrary to most previous scientific opinion, even most previous scientific consensus, that suggests intergenerational transfer of sexual orientation can occur at statistically significant and substantial rates, especially for female parents or female children. In some analyses for sons, intergenerational transfer was not significant. Further research is needed with respect to pathways by which intergenerational transfer of sexual orientation may occur. The results confirm an evolving tendency among scholars to cite the possibility of some degree of intergenerational crossover of sexual orientation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20642872 Views? --Qunniq (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is Walter R. Schumm at it again. He's been grinding this ax for years, to the point where his bias is so obvious as to make reliance on him as a source entirely undue. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you think I'm being harsh on Shumm, here's an example of his work being discounted:

The court took particular note of the state’s “expert witnesses” in support of the adoption ban. The court noted that Dr. Walter Schumm, who has defended the research of discredited anti-gay extremist Paul Cameron, was not a psychologist and was “of no assistance to the Department’s argument.”

See what I mean? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
With almost no effort, I found a review of this paper that should make it entirely clear that he is not a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Or we could evaluate his credibility based on his own words. In the Journal of Psychology and Theology, he wrote, "With respect to the integration of faith and research, I have been trying to use statistics to highlight the truth of the Scripture."
Here's a longer quote of his views:

Within the limitations imposed by context, errors in translation and errors of individual interpretation, we prefer to accept the authority

of the Bible as the best guide for sexual decision making, as well as for many other areas of life. We consider Scripture to be important, not because of tradition or institutional affiliation, but because after reasoned study, we make the assumption that they contain the wisdom of the Creator regarding the human condition and effective ways of relating to others interpersonally. In particular, we turn to the

life of Jesus as a guide for our own value system.
I'd classify him as a just another Bible worshiper, as opposed to a true Christian. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
According to a judgment in the Florida Third District Court of Appeal Schumm admitted that he applied "statistical standards that depart from conventions in the field". Susan Cochran, Professor of Epidemiology and Statistics at the University of California in Los Angeles, and Michael Lamb, Professor of Psychology at the University of Cambridge, London, England, testified that "Schumm’s statistical reanalysis contained a number of fundamental errors". Schumm stated that he "understands that much of the scientific community disagrees with his conclusions". http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf --Destinero (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, based on this and other evidence, I just reverted an attempt to include Schumm in the article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that this is Schumm and Paul Cameron, also disavowed by other statisticians or whoever measures this stuff. Anyway, two disavowed researchers, not just one by hisself. Schumm did not care for Cameron's research and examined it himself and came to the same conclusion. Very unpopular, I am sure. http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089
Anyway, it was just on aol, so let's just bury it and forget it! Student7 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)