Talk:Same-sex marriage and the family

Organization

Dividing up by country makes sense when dealing with legal issues; it makes less sense when dealing with family structure studies. May need to think about that. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think I agree that the article should be organized along sociological themes instead of national ones. -->David Shankbone 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing two primary sections for arguments concerning children (and I'm not sure that arguments is the term we want, as this article is not about a debate but about a situation; perhaps concerns?) One is the concern that homosexual marriage will lead to more children being raised by homosexual couples, coupled with the concern over whether children raised by homosexual couples have lesser outcomes. The other is the concern that those children who are being raised by homosexual couples are left in a lesser position (in terms of benefits and stability) if the couple is not allowed a marriage that they would otherwise choose. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It's an interesting point, because the basis of opposition to same-sex marriage often boils down to opposition to homosexuality itself. I've struggled with trying not to write sections that delve too much into the "homosexuality is bad, thus homosexual marriage is bad" traps that can weigh down an article. Nevertheless, it's an important foundational principle that can't be overlooked entirely (in my haphazard creation of Same-sex marriage and Judaism you can see I left in a lof the 'homosexuality is bad' basis in the opening). -->David Shankbone 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Move from main article

This overly detailed an d NPOV text was added to the parent article again. It is now cited, so could have something to be salvaged for here.

"In contradiction with the results of scientific research and the consensus of all the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare supporting of gay and lesbian parental rights"

(Adding to Yobmods sources above)This one might make for some balance:

Ragazz (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that very document argues against its own usage: "Our conceptualization has been developed based on studies of heterosexual couples and is, we think, appropriate for these couples; but we do not know whether it would be found appropriate for same-sex couples." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we have more problems here than that. The central claim of the sentence, " Focus on the Family points to academic studies which state that children raised with both parents, as opposed to children raised by single mothers, increase students' cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health", appears to be undocumented here; none of the findable cites indicate that Focus said anything of the kind. And if it did, then the relevant studies to include would be the studies the Focus cited. Then we've got problems like the use of the Fatherneed source; Fatherneed is not a study, and as with the ChildTrends source, the author distanced the use of his statements from making statements about same-sex couples. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding a quick note for my own future usage: the previous discussion on Fatherneed as a source is here. - Nat Gertler (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nat raises good points, and as long as they aren't fringe, we shouldn't be citing to Focus on the Family (those are my photos on the article :-), but to the studies that they cite. -->David Shankbone 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with quoting David Blankenhorn, Institute for American Values or National Fatherhood Initiative (I don't really no much at all about these organizations, but they seem quotable for this). Also, we are reporting here. Why no Focus on the Family? I don't like them personally, but they are a voice in the public discourse and are not a fringe view, as they are popular, like them or not. Same-sex marriage and children is definately a controversial topic, whether it should be or not. Please don't make me stake out the middle ground constantly guys (I don't like playing devil's advocate either for that matter).Ragazz (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. As for the Child Trends study, it has been quoted by opponent of gay couples raising children. The study favors children being raised by both biological parents. Clearly that doesn't include gay couples, as well as single parents and step-parents.Ragazz (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"The study favors children being raised by both biological parents. Clearly that doesn't include gay couples, as well as single parents and step-parents." What you say is "clearly" is something that the research brief specifically denies as an application. If there are studies that say something about gay parenting, then yes, we should use them. But saying that Focus claims a study represents something when the study itself states differently is a separate question; it can be used to cover what the discussion is, but when it goes to the science, we cannot simply point out the citation of a study without pointing out that it is being mis-cited. There's a difference between documenting same-sex marriage and documenting the battle over same-sex marriage. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would we cite Focus on the Family when they aren't the ones conducting the research, but repeating it? Using advocacy groups as sources is discouraged because they don't represent the 'middle ground' - I would also say the same thing if someone was proposing using Freedom to Marry's citation of statistics about how children of LGBT families are better adjusted than straight ones. I would want to look at the studies they cite, figure out whether they are advocacy studies or independent studies, and present the information if it was use-able (i.e. non-fringe-y) directly from the source. That seems reasonable, no? -->David Shankbone 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a controversial topic. This needs to be documented here. Maybe there are no legitimate studies showing any benifit to having straight biological parents. But if opponents point to a study, even if their argument is BS, doesn't that fall under the category of something we are bound to report? Nat said: "What you say is "clearly" is something that the research brief specifically denies as an application." In the Child Trends pdf doc itself? I didn't see anything about same-sex marriage in there at all. Only that studies favored both biological parents. If studies show that kids do better with both biological parents, how is that not relevent? Anyway, this wasn't my synthesis, I saw it somewhere. I thought it was Blankhorn. Yes David, I agree Focus is not the place to get data from (and I think you guys know me well enough that I wouldn't think it was), that should come from journals, etc. But this is clearly a controversial topic (rightly or wrongly so) and this controversy should be mentioned.Ragazz (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nat said: "What you say is "clearly" is something that the research brief specifically denies as an application." In the Child Trends pdf doc itself? I didn't see anything about same-sex marriage in there at all. As I quoted above: "Our conceptualization has been developed based on studies of heterosexual couples and is, we think, appropriate for these couples; but we do not know whether it would be found appropriate for same-sex couples." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It could read like this then (if I'm not getting my info mixed up, I think it was Balnkenhorn but I'm not certain):

Those questioning whether same-sex parents are best for children{citation about Blankenhorn here} have quoted studies showing children do better with both biological parents{Child Trends source here} although these sources do not deal with the question of gay parenting directly.{cite Child Trends quote about application of the studies}Ragazz (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the source your mentioning (and I'm not sure which one you're invoking, today is not my day to go into the history of this article to find it) specifically invoke the Child Trends source? If so, then something in that direction might be appropriate, but the latter portion is misleadingly weak. It's not that they happen not to mention gay couples, they do to cast doubt on applying the study to them, so "although these studies specifically cast doubt on their applicability to same-sex couples." - Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If opponents of same-sex marriage are citing a study to say straight parents are better than gay ones, but that study's authors specifically state that their study should not be used to evaluate same-sex couples, then that needs to be stated explicitly. -->David Shankbone 13:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Genetic Inheritance

It's well known fact about genetic inheritance and yet this article does not cover this important aspect very well at all. Why is this?

Thanks

Grant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.41.153 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What "well known fact" is that? If you have something relevant with reliable sources, please feel free to add it, although be sure to add the appropriate references. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That IP has posted the same ignorant nonsense in the talk page for the Same-sex marriage article. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - he only posted it here after I noted elsewhere that if it were substantial and sourced, it would be more appropriate over here. Which I did merely in the interest of being technically correct; I have no expectation that this would ever amount to anything substantial. We haven't even gotten the usual POV-pushers to try to back this. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

One reason possibly being that a same-sex marriage cannot procreate. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm motivated to interject a Brüno-inspired joke about a gayby, but I can't seem to make any that come to mind actually relevant to the discussion. -->David Shankbone 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WIKI another institution taken over by the gay community, how many is that now? Can i ask a member of the gay community to answer a question? - which is, what do you get when you cross a gay with a lesbian? or a lesbian with hermaphrodite? or 2 paedophiles? hmmmm, I'm sure kids across the world would like to know the answer to those questions. Or will this be DELETED again! Freedom of speech!? HA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.251.147 (talk • contribs)

Erm, what? Nope it isn't, you obviously don't like homosexuals from your comment, but this is just a neutral encyclopedia article on the subject. And I'm sure that no one understands your question enough to answer it, as it appears to not make much sense. Best regards, Captain n00dle ^T/_C 14:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense if children inheriate gay genes from gay parents. Have children been asked if they want gay genes? NO! Will teenages be asked if they want gay parents? NO! Children have no say in this whole debate which is criminal because they will have to live with the consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.251.147 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

They have no say in whether they're nearsighted, either. Or if they have dwarfism or down's syndrome, or the unwillingness to create a registered user account. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place to ask for an education in genetics or discuss whether not-yet-conceived people should somehow be given the vote. This is the place to discuss the editing of this article. If you have sourced information, please produce it. Otherwise, there are better fora for your concerns. - Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

the Larry King transcript source

The Larry King source does not support the sentence that it was attempting to be used in support of regarding the citation of studies. The Larry King transcript neither actually cites any of the specific studies listed, nor is Dobson even claiming to use those studies in objection to same-sex marriage. He is using them to speak against gay adoption. - Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the source is being used to say "James Dobson says he read these studies", I think it is being used to say opponents of same-sex marriages have turned to studies, like these ones, to form and then back their opinions. - Schrandit (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In this context, I rather strongly believe that the source substantiates the paragraph and that even in lieu of that sentence most of the paragraph could stand without it, I am even willing to go out and look for more sources. In any case, I will wait for your reply. - Schrandit (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So what it boils down to is not "Opponents of same-sex marriage point to academic studies", but "one opponent of same-sex marriage, when not discussing same-sex marriage, says that there are studies, but doesn't mention them, but here are a list of studies and essays that say things that are kind of like what that one opponent of same-sex marriage was talking about when he wasn't talking about same-sex marriage, and these studies actually say nothing about same-sex marriage", is that it? Sorry, no the fact that one SSM opponent once used the word "study" in some other discussion does not open the door for dumping various irrelevant references into the article. The King source does not serve this sentence, and with that gone, the central statement of the sentence is without support. Most of the paragraph has been left intact; it's that one sentence which has gone away. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is a reference after the word "studies", it means that there has to be real evidence of these studies, not just that Dobson said, "I mean, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and studies in the journals that show that children do best when you have a mother and a father providing role modeling for those kids and who are committed to each other.". It is the journal articles that must be cited, not a rush transcript of something someone who wasn't even sure of how many such studies existed said.

Also, I feel that there is significant undue weight in the first paragraph of the body. The entire paragraph is about opponents of same-sex marriage in an article about "same-sex marriage and the family". I haven't put an ugly tag on it however. Awickert (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this article about, really?

It seems like most of the information belongs in same-sex parenting and similar articles. "Same-sex marriage and the family" is an incredibly vague title, and I really can't see anything in this short article that couldn't be reasonably kept elsewhere. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Same-Sex marraige and family are two wholly different things. And this is needed especially because of the huge gulf between opinion and reality. being able to be *married* does not necessarily confer the rights to a child. Unlike other cases, where all you need to get a child is the right set of organs, the issues here talk about the specific challenges of getting married and having a child with a member of the same gender.

The article on Same-Sex parenting already ASSUMES you to have a child, or have one on the way. That page doesnt need to be clutterd up with the legal mess that gay parents go through, thats what THIS article is for. Two very different situations, even if they're related; we shouldnt put anything about Earth in an article about the Sun for just the same reason. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Reverted Edits

I am restoring reverted edits on the grounds that (a) my edits were appropriately sourced; (b) organizations that disagree with same-sex marriage and/or LGBT parenting are appropriate primary sources in regard to disagreement with same-sex marriage and/or LGBT parenting; and (c) the organizations referred to as fringe or hate groups by another editor are neither.184.74.22.161 (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But the sources you use are very poor sources on the Child Trends material, which specifically did not specifically study same-sex-headed families, which would on later studies using this language note that lack of applicability ("Our conceptualization has been developed based on studies of heterosexual couples and is, we think, appropriate for these couples; but we do not know whether it would be found appropriate for same-sex couples.") and which has since - and before these articles were written - shifted their language to "children fare best when they are reared in a two-parent family headed by their married, biological or adoptive parents". --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (adjusted for clarity --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC) )

Also, FRC as a source is unacceptable, since it is a hate group [1].

And there are already bunch of religious info, giving additional space to NARTH, which is a fringe organization, is violating WP:UNDUE. Phoenix of9 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree completely on WP:UNDUE. The fact that Southern Poverty Law Center labeled FRC as a hate group is ridiculous, but I guess it makes some folks happy by giving them a basis to purge the encyclopedia of anything they disagree with.184.74.22.161 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that the LGBT Parenting article be merged into this article. The two articles have significant overlap, and there is unnecessary duplication of content. Thoughts?184.74.22.161 (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, parenting is independent of marriage, they are not necessarily correlated.Phoenix of9 02:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

To expand, Same-sex marriage and the family is about political debates, where LGBT parenting is about LGBT families and should offer more detail on that such as demographics, etc...Phoenix of9 02:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix is quite right: parenting is independent of marriage, so the articles are on different, although related, subjects. Dylan Flaherty 02:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I share these views, too. Moreover, LGBT Parenting article was selected as Wikipedia 0.8 article and there is no reason to lessen its importance by merging. --Destinero (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it a step further. Let's delete this. It's not an encyclopedia article. It's more of a magazine feature's infobox. 204.65.210.160 (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Once your WP:SPEEDY tag has been deleted by someone other than the page creator, you do not simply keep readding that tag. If you wish to see this page deleted, then the Article for Deletion process is the proper route. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This article may need a major update/rework

I'm okay with this article existing. But as it stands, most of the info is outdated (other than the AAP statement from last year I just added), and nearly all of it feels like a rehash of LGBT Parenting. I removed a reference to primary research that was outdated, had a small sample, didn't include gay male couples, and lacked a citation. There are lots of good secondary sources to look to here, like the APA, AAP, etc. If we're going to use primary sources let's use the most recent ones with the best datasets. I also think that there's too much material discussing parenting in this article, because that's covered thoroughly in LGBT Parenting. The section on divorce could be expanded, and maybe we could add research on other family topics unrelated to parenting. Thoughts? TheArmadillo (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage and the family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090523004739/http://www.svgla.org:80/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&JAS_File_id=5&2f8d38d14523aa8f4042065cde1a5216=964e204e9824d505541efa48eb2208b5 to http://www.svgla.org/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&JAS_File_id=5&2f8d38d14523aa8f4042065cde1a5216=964e204e9824d505541efa48eb2208b5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)