Talk:Same-sex adoption/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More map changes needed

According to the article, Iceland should be in purple.

Oh, and why is Åland purple? They are a part of Finland, not Sweden -- so this should be changed as well. Daniel 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Also, I noticed that in the article it says "Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in . . . England and Wales . . .", and above somebody has commented "In Scotland, the question is under consideration. In Northern Ireland, nothing seems to be going on.". In the figure both places are coloured in purple indicating legal adoption by same-sex couples. I'm not sure about the status in Scotland and Northern Ireland so I can only point out the apparent contradiction not amend it. --Shastrix 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


I approve this change... Professor from NCSU.

U.S. Law Very Inaccurate

The map and listing of states where adoption by same-sex couples is legal includes Ohio and Wisconsin, both states where (according to Lambda Legal) such adoptions have been denied by the courts (although other courts have allowed same-sex adoption in Ohio, putting it in the "ambiguous" category). This listing also excludes Illinois, which both Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign indicate explicitly allows same-sex couples to adopt. Further, the court decision allowing same-sex couples to adopt in Washington state applies only to Kings County, not state-wide.

I will update the text with the accurate information from these two sources this weekend, but someone will need to update the maps as well, or else delete them. Viciouslies 20:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the text on US laws. I did not fix the maps. Given the constantly changing nature of these laws (e.g., Colorado will imminently allow second-parent adoption by statute), I propose deleting the maps. -- LGBT family law attorney. raggedmeadow 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Accuracy

Why is this article labeled as disputed? Is it because people are concerned that some of the legal information is incorrect? I just wanted to make sure that it isn't marked as disputed because there are people who think that LGBT people can't be good parents, which is irrelevant to a discussion of what laws exist. raggedmeadow 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like it was added a while ago. The History log doesn't show it being added recently. However, it is poorly written and also poorly referenced which may be part of the problem. (Legal sections should have tons of references available and cited.)--Hitsuji Kinno 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential name change

The name Gay Adoption is ambiguous, All of the article (other than the first para.) is about the legal status of adoptions by same-sex couples; as such, I'd like to change the title and most of the references to "Adoption by same-sex couples," which would be a more accurate characterization of the issue. Let me know if this is disagreeable to anyone; I'll make the change in a few days. --Rocketfairy 21:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who posted the above comment, or when, but I agree. Compare also Same-sex marriage. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and move the page now. Exploding Boy 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to rewrite it based on the new page title, but the term is clumsy - how about homosexual adoption? However, google gives five times as many hits for "gay adoption" than "homosexual adoption". Graham talk 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages and articles on Same-sex marriage, Homosexuality, and Gay, as well as our guidelines on GLBT topics (can't recall the link now). "Same-sex" is the best term. Exploding Boy 16:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to raise the issue of including transgender in LGBT because the article does not discuss these issues. I deleted "T" from the US paragraph because it does not address legal issues that transgender parents face. raggedmeadow 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is really same-sex adoption. "LGBT Adoption" isn't really accurate. (e.g. Bisexuals only face an issue if adopting with a same-sex partner.)71.208.11.171 07:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

---

How would people feel if this article were split into Parenting by same-sex couples and Adoption by same-sex couples? My feeling is that the controversy discussed in this article is more general and applies to both adoption and in vitro fertilisation, but the "legality" section only belongs in the current (more specific) article. -- Andrew Delong 06:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good change, because much of the controversy expressed on this page concerns parenting by same-sex parents, not adoption as such. rewinn 02:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. -Easlak 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks. There is an existing article called Gay parenting which is extremely sketchy, unsourced, and POV at the moment. I agree that a lot of the material presently on this page is really about parenting rather than adoption, and there's also a lot of notable stuff on parental rights for LGBT who are biological parents that is as yet undocumented on wiki.
So I strongly believe that there's room for two good articles here. But a ton of work is needed. I've put a few links to notable material for expansion on the Talk:Gay parenting page.
DanB DanD 22:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've split the 'controversy' section out into the Parenting by same-sex couples article, and have moved the related discussion there. --Andrew Delong 07:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


I see the article title has been changed, but the maps read "gay adoption." Could this be changed to something like "same-sex adoption"? I know this is much longer and less practical, but it's more accurate. -Emiellaiendiay 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma adoption laws

According to this site, the law that was previously cited preventing joint couple adoptions has since been overturned, and there are now no explicit prohibitions against same-sex couples adopting. I've changed the chart accordingly. —Mears man (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New Hampshire

New Hampshire's civil union law extends the rights of married people to people in civil unions. Shouldn't the chart entitled "US States’ laws on adoption by same-sex couples" list New Hampshire as extending the right to couples in civil unions (though not necessarily other LGBT couples)? -Rrius (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Financial considerations

I have just comment out the following:

The study noted that gays, lesbians and bisexuals often take in children heterosexuals do not want, including those who are older (some already well into their teens), physically or mentally disabled, HIV+ from birth, or who have a history of misbehavior. The study states that finding suitable heterosexual couples willing to care for hard-to-place children would be difficult, a potential problem given the issues faced by children in long-term foster care.

I was unable to find this info in the cite given. Can someone clarify? -- Mdbrownmsw (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My best guess would be that somebody misunderstood the information presented in Table 7 on page 12. While it does indicate that they're slightly more likely to adopt children with disabilities, it looks to me like they misread the part about the ages of adopted children (I believe the study showed they were actually more likely to adopt younger children than any other group, not older). As far as the HIV and behavior problem thing goes, well, I'm not quite sure where they were drawing that from. Maybe they were just trying to come up with a few examples, not realizing that what they were saying wasn't supported by the study. I always could have missed something, though, so someone might want to give the study one last look before deleting the errors from the article entirely. —Mears man 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Norway

Norway passed in June 2008 a bill to allow same-sex marriage. Part of the new bill is also LGBT adoption. GLGermann (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Map of Europe

This topic seems slanted to me. With its appearence in the news, I'm suprised this topic hasn't gotten a bigger article.

Then perhaps you should take it upon yourself to work on improving the article yourself :) - that is the Wiki way. If you think you can change it for the better, click on "edit this page" and have at it. --FCYTravis 05:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I had some doubts about the Europe map as far as Iceland, Norway and the UK are concerned; so I checked the legislation in those countries:

Icelandic Act

Norwegian Act

Adoption and Children Act 2002

In Norway and Iceland, (only) stepchild-adoption is permitted. The (UK) Adoption and Children Act 2002 (legal basis for same-sex adoption) only extends to England and Wales (at least as far as gay adoption is concerned).

In Scotland, the question is under consideration. In Northern Ireland, nothing seems to be going on.

I've changed the text, but could someone more skilled take care of the map?

--- What are the changes required for the North American map? -Dan1113 00:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ---

Does the case ruling in France mean that gay adoption is universally allowed, or was it an isolated case. The way the text goes makes it seem like the former, but I just wanted to see if anyone on here knew exactly. I plan to research it myself just to be sure. If it's the former, then the map should also reflect that. Ryan 09:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The case allowing step-child adoption is totally isolated, because the Court of Cassation has rejected it. What remains is the possibility, under certain circumstances, to share parental responsibility - including custody rights - between a legal parent and their partner. If such a judgement is obtained, then both "social" parents will have equal rights in relation to the minor child, except that the second parent is not considered "related" for things like the name or inheritance. They can even have a nasty custody war on "divorce" just as enjoyed by straight couples! Sigur (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Belgium now allows full gay adoption: http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/04/042006belgium.htm Dan1113 16:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Finland

Finland now allows step child adoption so the map has to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan1113 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This claim is false. Finland allows gay fostering (and single gay adoption, but only theoretically) nevertheless Finland strictly bans gay couples adoption, even step-child adoption. The Ministry of Justice is currently debating this issue and they are proposing to allow the step-child adoption (Jan-Feb. 2008). The most important issues are to avoid possible violations of paternity rights and the fact that many Finnish laws are written so that they link legal parenthood to maternity and paternity, so that a gay adoption law would require special additional provisions for mother's or father's same-sex partners and their rights.

88.114.29.104 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Queer:Finnland für Homo-Adoption (german)
it is correct. In Finland a bill allowed LGBT adoption. GLGermann (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a bill but it is yet to pass (as of Sept. 2008). Therefore, step-child adoption of same-sex couples is still illegal. Who has removed the "fostering allowed"-remarks, anyway???

91.152.96.222 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I propose that this section should stand on its own, rather than serve as a summary of a LGBT parenting article which may be irrelevant. Currently, this section refers to the main article on LGBT parenting, yet the controversy is about adopting children not parenting them. There is a difference. As an example of the problem this causes: while studies may prove that LGBT's have successfully parented their own natural children this does not prove they are equally prepared to parent adopted children. Tobit2 (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am rolling in the Financial Consideration section into the Controversy section; the cited report is an outgrowth of the controversy and meant to support unrelated adoptions by LGBT persons. Tobit2 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Australia

New law reform push parenting rights in Australia. GLGermann (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

POV language

Regarding.

  • the controversy concerns vs. it has been suggested -- the latter is more favorable to the suggestions
  • studies do not account vs. they fail to account -- the latter suggest incompetence, while the former is neutral
  • as qualified as heterosexuals vs. simply "qualified" -- the latter suggests there was a question about whether LGBT persons were qualified at all to be parents
  • total drop of paragraph about existing parenting, without any explanation at all
  • insertion of new paragraph that mentions only the objections to LGBT parenting, not the support.

WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • the controversy concerns vs. it has been suggested -- the latter is more favorable to the suggestions
I'm okay with that. I'll make that change.
  • studies do not account vs. they fail to account -- the latter suggest incompetence, while the former is neutral
Actually, the phrase "do not account" is simply poor english. The word "fail" is its one word equivalent. That said, I will retain the phrase as you suggest, if that helps maintain a NPOV.
  • as qualified as heterosexuals vs. simply "qualified" -- the latter suggests there was a question about whether LGBT persons were qualified at all to be parents
I see your point. Thanks.
  • total drop of paragraph about existing parenting, without any explanation at all
Are existing LGBT parents controversal? Maybe it upsets people, but I've never heard someone say we should remove kids from an LGBT parent. Let me know whether you still think this fits in the controversy section.
  • insertion of new paragraph that mentions only the objections to LGBT parenting, not the support.
Could you call out the paragraph you are referring to. I have no idea what you mean. Thanks.

Tobit2 (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I missed that a sentence had been moved. The bit about the culture war should not, I think, merely say "with objections based on". This makes them sound disembodied, and therefore more objective than "some object because of". WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not strong on this point. If you want to edit to say "some object because of," okay with me. But I question your intent. It sure sounds like you are trying to make these people less credible, less objective.Tobit2 (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Europe map, shouldn't the "Gay adoptiop illegal" legend now be removed? It seems to me that not a single European country forbids gay adoption, so this criterion is now obsolete. Either it should be removed, or (a better choice), the map should now be changed to include gay adoption laws of the WORLD, and not just one continent. 78.105.209.114 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Petitions and Relevance in general

Reference link #4 is a link to a petition to curtail gay adoption rights. I doubt that this kind of content (a link to a petition) is appropriate in any article, particularly of this variety.

The link is referenced in the section "Legal Status Around the World" after the sentence: "A petition for rejecting gay adoption law outright or allowing it in very restricted form is here." The paragraph from which both the sentence and the link come from goes very in-depth about gay adoption rights in Finland. Personally, I'd shorten the paragraph and take out the sentence and links in question, but I'm not sure if that would be the most constructive way to go about this particular edit, so I'm just bringing it to the general attention instead. Levi3o4 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename "controversy" section

"Controversy" or "scandal" sections are discouraged - they imply a POV and poorly written article. I tried a simple renaming to "Societal concerns" but that wasn't apprepriated. Any ideas what could work so we can improve that section? -- Banjeboi 02:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Position of the Catholic Church

The subject of gay adoption is a an issue in the UK right now as the government is attempting to pass into law new legislation banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Catholic adoption agencies are seeking an exemption on faith grounds, and furthermore have said they will cease to operate rather than be forced to do something that is contrary to their faith. I understand that the catholic church is not against a single gay person adopting a child but is against same sex couples adopting. What I do not understand is why the church has this stance. Does anyone understand the theological argument? I hear the argument that "same sex parenting falls short of perfection", but then surely so should being raised by a single parent fall short. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.248.216.165 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

The Church takes the position that homosexuality is not a sin per se. It is the act of engaging in a homosexual relationship that is sinful. Thus, the Church sees nothing sinful if a single person happens to be gay; that person cannot be denied the Sacraments. This seems to extend to the adoption of children. As an example of this, I was once at St. Francis Xavier in Manhattan and when reading the Church bulletin was surprised to find that it apparently has an active gay congregation.Tobit2 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an interesting quote here from Cardinal Trujillo which rather neatly represents the Church's position. ADM (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Guam

Since when (in what year) adoption for SSCs been legal in Guam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

The actual text of the citation is clear that the proposal has been tabled, not adopted: "A majority vote in parliament yesterday will see the introduction of a bill giving equal adoption rights for civil partners and straight married couples in Denmark. The Copenhagen Post reports that the proposal ..."—EqualRights (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Gay adoption legal"???

I think it rather bias and limeted to have the color description say "Gay adoption legal" or "Gay adoption legal illegal"... It would be more correct to say "non-heterosexual adoption legal" etc. Cause unless the law says explicitly "no gay people can adopt", then it would be false. There is a difference between only no gays and heterosexual only.--cooljuno411 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

LGBT adoption among non-human species

I created a section called "LGBT adoption among non-human species," but two different people have erased it. It said:

"In 2009 at a zoo in Bremerhaven, Germany, two gay adult humboldt penguins adopted an egg that had been abandoned by its biological parents. After the egg hatched, the two gay penguins raised, protected, cared for, and fed the chick in the same manner that heterosexual penguins raise their own biological offspring. [1]"

  1. ^ 'Gay penguins' rear adopted chick, BBC, June 3, 2009

Despite what the reverters seem to think, I was not joking, and I was not trying to be offensive. If you look at my userboxes on my userpage, you will see that I favor legalizing gay marriages. And if you look at the list of articles that I started on my userpage, you will see that I love writing about animals too. I think this penguin adoption is quite interesting. But I won't put it back in without a consensus.

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Grundle, I see your point. However, I think the problem is that the term adoption, as used here, is a legal act, an institution to change the legal parents of children. So two animals who go around stealing eggs doesn't qualify as adoption.Tobit2 (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. I just thought this would be a good way to counter the claims that gay adoption isn't "natural." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I added it to Animal sexual behaviour. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to put it back in this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is NOT legal in the ACT

As the federal government blocked the legislation. The source given is valid only for WA, not the ACT - unless there's an ACT source clearly showing its legal status has changed, it is NOT legal. 210.11.147.184 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you find a source that says that? I found some stories of previous 'moves' against adoption, but no successful blocking. Noble Spear (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The proposed legislation FAILED. Since 2002 in WA and since 2005 in the ACT, same-sex couples have ALL the same rights under the law - no exceptions.

  • This is incorrect in the ACT and WA, any two adult persons in a de facto or domestic relationship CAN legally and fully jointly adopt a child.

Williams Institute Study

I plan to remove this paragraph because it isn't adding anything. It comes off defensively, like an attempt find some positive aspect of LGBT adoption in the face of the proceeding paragraph. If that is its aim then a) it POV and b) there surely must be something better than money to justify LGBT adoption. Moreover, it is US centric, soon-to-be dated, and based on a POV reference rather than a third-party reference. In short, the paragraph has little redeeming value.Tobit2 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nunavut

In the section about North America it says that same-sex couple adoptions are legal in Nunavut, but on the map Nunavut is marked in red. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.117.47 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Arkansas

The paragraph relating to the Act 1 adoption ban in Arkansas had this lead in sentence: "Until recently, Florida was the only state with an outright ban on adoption by gay parents." I have deleted it because Florida is still the only state with an outright ban on adoption by gay parents. Act 1 prohibits couples who are cohabiting outside of marriage from adopting, regardless of sexual orientation. Because gay and lesbian couples cannot marry in Arkansas, this is a de facto ban on adoption by same-sex couples who live together, but single gay men or lesbians who live by themselves are eligible to adopt. Viciouslies (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Domestic Violence

Viciouslies...you amended the article to point out that the greater prevalence of domestic violence is alleged. Personally, I am not aware of any studies in this area, but I am sure you are correct and, if so, I completely agree the article should be modified. The only problem is that the current reference doesn't support this. Could you dig up another reference so that we can support the addition of the word alleged? That would be very helpful. Thank you.Tobit2 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I will look for a simple reference, but I have to say that the research is sparse and misrepresentation by anti-LGBT organizations is fairly complicated. First, the only "conclusive" studies showing that domestic violence is more prevalent among same-sex couples were conducted by Paul Cameron, who was expelled from the American Psychological Association for unethical research practices. Anti-LGBT organizations have misrepresented the findings of other studies by comparing the rates at which gay men are victimized by their male partners to the rates at which straight men are victimized by their FEMALE partners. By comparing these two statistics, they can claim that the rate of domestic violence is higher among gay male couples. As more ethical researchers point out, the majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men, so the more accurate comparison would be to compare the rate at which gay men are victimized to the rate at which straight women are victimized. When you do so, the rates are roughly equivalent. Studies by researchers other than Paul Cameron show lower domestic violence rates in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual or gay male relationships.
I'll try to find some source that summarizes this. Failing that, perhaps I should just cite some of the studies that come to the opposite conclusion (that domestic violence is NOT more prevalent in LGBT relationships) and leave it at that. Viciouslies (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Florida

Someone "updated" the status of Florida, citing an article on the In re: Gill case. While that case is being appealed, adoptions by gay and lesbian people are still prohibited, so it is inaccurate to say that they are allowed. Further, the cited article regarding Florida being required to respect second-parent adoptions was about second-parent adoptions from other states. The same law at question in Gill still bans second-parent same-sex adoptions in Florida. Viciouslies (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Countries where single gay can adopt should be marked on the map too

I think especially the map of Europe should be updated to show countries that allow single gay person to adopt (Poland, Ireland, Estonia,Croatia, Bulgaria, Portugal and maybe more).I think its very important subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.209.211 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Redundant material add to Debate over LGBT adoption section

Destinero has added three paragraphs at the end of the Debate section that concern LGBT parenting rather than adoption. These ideas are already covered in the LGBT parenting article which is Wiki-linked here.Tobit2 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove this material as it is unrelated to adoption issues.Tobit2 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Argentina

The Argentine Senate passed a bill on July 15, 2010, previosly passed by the Chamber of Deputies, legalizing same-sex marriage with full adoption and other rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachocorreas (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reponse to Tobit2 edits

"There is a substantial body of research on parents who have chosen to raise biologically unrelated children rather than remain childless. These studies show that such parents are at least as competent as parents raising their biological children; indeed, many studies show that these parents are more competent or committed in some respects." http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf --Destinero (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a link to a person's POV in a court case. He may be correct, but 1) he fails to cite any studies and 2) may not be talking about adoption.Tobit2 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are incopetent to see references on the page 19-27 written by most eminent development psychologist on the field in the world then do not edit encyclopedia end Wikipedia because it requires some elementary abilities. --Destinero (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Destinero, in his last edit to the LGBT adoption article said, "editors can't make up interpretations of sources, stick strickly to the highly reliable sources and do not add bullshit." This use of profanity is in addition to his calling me "incompetent," above.

Nevertheless, I will try to respond in a civil tone. My last edit took the article you added to the article and included critical details specific to adoption: 1) that there are a limited number of studies on adoption, a fact recognized by the article and 2) its limitations as identified by the study itself. Nothing has been made up here.Tobit2 (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

single gay people allowed to adopt

Maybe we could update the maps to show where single gay people may adopt I know Ireland allows it and many other countries I am sure do also. Rctycoplay (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


Couples only? How so?

This article discusses LGBT adoption in general, but the title refers only to adoption by couples, excluding single parents and households with more than two partners (and appearing to include adoption by same-sex pairs who aren't gay, such as siblings who become co-guardians of a child). I propose renaming the article to LGBT adoption. DanB†DanD 08:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one has replied so I going to go ahead and move the page DanB†DanD 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This article currently contains no information on the adoption rights of transgender people. Unless someone is planning to add such material, the name should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.88 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As noted in the case of Paraguay, sexual orientation or expression is no legal issue there if the person will adopt as a single parent. That includes cases of transgender people, which in that country are not legally recognized as such and are regarded according to the sex stated in their birth certificate (females are given preference over males for single-parent adoption, but there is no legal impediment). I wonder if other countries' legislations also contain this kind of loopholes through which gay and transgender people can adopt...
Of course, all the above is theoretical and discrimination is still a problem in that country. Though the National Constitution guarantees that "every person has the right to the free expression of her or his personality, to creativity and to the formation of her or his own identity and image", a more precise and outspoken "banning-of-all-kind-of-discrimination" law was rejected three times in the National Congress. Yep, those same lobbiers... Aldo L (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Florida - September 22 Court Ruling

Both the text relating to Florida and the image for North America need to be updated regarding today's appellate ruling. The unconstitutional nature of Florida's ban on gay adoption has been affirmed, the state does not intend to appeal at this time, and Governor Charlie Crist has issued an executive order immediately ceasing enforcement of the law. Gay adoption is legal in Florida. 66.229.211.131 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Info on Canada

The map of North America and the info provided a few paragraphs below do not match in regard to the legality in Canada. Can someone please fix this? Thanks -- Ann X Wa: Torontonian

Canada map is wrong. I and my same-sex spouse adopted a child legally in Dec 2004 in Alberta. The were no barriers whatever to doing so and are none today (Oct 2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.167.250 (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Adoption vs "parenting"

Not sure that I need to go into where babies come from here. But it seems to be that for LGBT, there is a fair amount of overlap between parenting and adoption, until they perfect cloning. 50% overlap at least. For male LGBT adoption, the overlap ought to be pretty close to 100% unless there is something I don't know. And I'm sure there is. So why must there be two articles, this one, and LGBT parenting? Student7 (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that most LGBT people are biologically capable of reproducing, and some do. As such, they get to be parents without ever adopting. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

MAP NEEDS TO BE CHANGED

in the section about Europe there is a map which is sayin for example gay people allow to adopt but other countries that are marked gray allow gay people to adopt like Ireland and Poland just not joint adoption but single gay ppl adoption.I think map should be changed to include countries where single gay ppl can adopt and the section "gay ppl allowed to adopt" should be changed to "gay couples allow to adopt" that would be much more accurate --89.204.198.105 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Map has issues

Firstly there is the issue of why "ambiguous" and "opposed" are lumped into the same color. This seems likely to create an inaccurate impression. Then we have the question of whether the map is showing states where people who participate in gay sexual activity can adopt children or is showing where same-sexed couples can adopt jointly.

Also I think there needs to be a link to this page everywhere the map is posted so that the sources can be easily found. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

what kind of demographics do we need to put here? like how many children are adopted by gay and lesbian parents, in certain locals (i.e. this many children adopted in the us, this many in uk, etc).? Hendrixjoseph (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems with intro

Rather shocked by the glaring errors in the intro of what is surely a somewhat high-profile article. I corrected some as best I could without changing too much but as the article is semi-protected I'm worried about making things worse. IMO the reason people are opposed to LGBT adoption doesn't need to mentioned in the intro at all but as it seems it's a large piece of the article, then Wiki standards say it should be there. However, this line "although debates in many jurisdiction take place to allow it" (which is part of the full sentence "Adoption by same-sex couples is however prohibited by a majority of countries, although debates in many jurisdiction take place to allow it.") needs to go. I would fix it myself, however, I'm not sure whether the editor who wrote it meant "currently debates are ongoing within various jurisdictions to try to legalize adoption by same-sex couples" or "due to previous debates in smaller jurisdictions within countries, LGBT adoption is now legal in those places even if there is no national law legalizing it for the entire country." These are 2 very different things so I don't know how to correct the grammatical (and related) errors without knowing the context. Perhaps another editor who has been working on this article knows or can figure it out? I suppose if no one makes a move I'll just decide myself, but I didn't want to ruffle any feathers unnecessarily. Paranoid Android 2600! (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was originally intended (or what the series of edits leading to this version were), but I would suggest both readings are correct. There are ongoing movements in countries (and, in federal states, in states & provinces) in favour of allowing same-sex couples to adopt, some of which have succeeded in legalizing same-sex adoption. How about: "Full joint adoption by same-sex couples is legal nationwide in 14 countries, and in parts of Australia, Mexico, and the US. It is prohibited by a majority of countries. Both where legal and where not, it is often a controversial issue."--Trystan (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Arkansas Court Ruling

http://arkansasnews.com/2011/04/07/state-supreme-court-strikes-down-adoption-ban/

"A state law banning unmarried, cohabiting couples from adopting children or becoming foster parents is unconstitutional, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled unanimously today."

Should the article be changed to reflect this? It currently indicates that lgbt couples cannot jointly petition to adopt.

mdkarazim (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Latin America and Caribbean Summary Table

I tried to sort the summary laws alphabetically, but it was changed because it was considered vandalism. Can someone sort it, Europe and USA are already sorted alphabetically, if I can't maybe someone who is a regular user and have permissions may edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.227.146 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sketchy - mostly seems to cover where it's legal, not address where it's not

I came upon this article after reading various notices on the US Department of State's page about international adoption, where I saw that China has resumed allowing single women to adopt provided that (among other requirements) they be certified as single and "non-homosexual." It's surprising to me how sketchy the information on this page is; for instance, the only entry under "Asia" is for Israel. In looking through the prose sections, I notice that the article mostly seems to discuss the areas where different permutations of LGBT adoption are legal and, where applicable, how they came to be legal if they were previously explicitly prohibited. It would be helpful to the user, I believe, if there were more information filled in about the current state of things in a wider variety of countries, perhaps partly through referring the user to articles on laws regarding LGBT issues in different countries or regions (I know Uganda, for instance, has had major movement toward a death penalty for homosexuality, which would of course be mutually exclusive with permitting adoption by LGBT couples or individuals). While I'm aware of the Be Bold policy, I really know so little on this topic that I would not be a good candidate to try to fill in the gaps. Anyone? Anyone? Lawikitejana (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubious map

Tagged the map as dubious. What is our source that Cambodia and the Philippines allow? Is this maybe for foreign adoptions? And why is French Guiana colored for step-adoption, but not France? — kwami (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Portugal

Same-sex adoptions are totally illegal in Portugal. (Articles 1577, 1979 and 1992 of the Portuguese Civil Code). Portugal should be, therefore, painted in red in Europe's map. Ricdiogo (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Stepchild adoption now being legalised in Portugal, can someone update the map? Sigur (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I double-checked, and it appears that the bill still needs to go through a second reading[1]. I will thus take out Portugal. The reason I intervened in the first place was that the table gave a "yes" for all columns for Portugal which went too far even based on the bill approved in first reading. Once the law is adopted, though, it is important to not again suggest that full joint adoption is possible in Portugal. Sigur (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia

I've added Slovenia, having finally found a good on-line source for the relevant decision (see footnote in the article, page 199 of the linked document). As a matter of fact, I've also found a reference to it in a country report on Slovenia in a German family law publication (not on-line), so it's pretty safe.

However, someone still needs to adapt the maps; I don't know how to do that. Sigur (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

LGBT adoption

Please include New Zealand, US State of Minnesota, France, French Guyana and French territory islands to LGBT adption legal in this map: File:LGBT adoption in the world.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.99.45.236 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for Minnesota? I've removed it from the map. — kwami (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Minnesota Adoption Resource Network, How To Adopt: "Adoptive parents may be single, married, or same sex partners." (Obviously this has not yet been updated to reflect that same-sex partners can now be married in Minnesota.) - htonl (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! — kwami (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The Philippines

I found sources that LGBT adoption is legal in the Philippines at least for LGBT individuals. Please see: Adoption in the Philippines--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I almost added it to the map, then thought better of it. What should that color represent? Just that no-one has bothered to codify the fact that known gays are prevented from adopting? that gays may or may not be allowed to adopt, at the whim of the social worker or official that happens to oversee their case? or that there are laws or standards providing for LGBT adoption? If the light pink is to have any meaning, we need to be clear what that meaning is. The description in this article currently says "LGBT individuals explicitly allowed", which it seems would exclude the Philippines. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

North America map

What happened to the north america map ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.167.131 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Greenland is marked for step-child adoption on the world map (rightly so), but not on the North America map. Sigur (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam

I think Vietnam should be status as "LGBT individuals explicitly allowed"

According to Vietnam's adoption laws (part 8/3), single person (as Same-sex couple are not recognized as a married couple) is allowed to adopt child. The law do not have any sentences to deny LGBT person to adopt child. In fact, I know at least 2 transgender singers have adopted child (Cindy Thai Tai and Lam Chi Khanh)

Vietnam's adoption law: http://vanban.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=1&_page=1&mode=detail&document_id=96052 (u can translate by GG)

--138.25.202.95 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Images - single LGBT

In many countries single LGBT people can adopt, so images of continents should be updated accordingly: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:World_same-sex_adoption_laws.svg--86.3.200.81 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent US developments

I think we really need citations for the US states which have recently been added to the list of those allowing joint adoption - Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Same-sex marriage has been legalised by court order in those states, but I don't think we can assume that it automatically means married same-sex couples can adopt. - htonl (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think you can assume that, absolutely automatically, allowing perhaps for procedural delays. For example, in North Carolina, the case of Fisher-Borne v. Smith originated as an adoption case. Once the issue of same-sex marriage appeared settled, all parties agreed that the adoption issue was moot, that is, not longer disputed. And the couple in question then married and went ahead with the adoption here. In VA, there was a note from the Governor to the appropriate agency: here, which is really the Governor trumpeting the impact of the ruling in his state. In every state, all the decisions establish equal treatment across the board. You can find some stories that discuss exceptions, but those stories tend to discuss the need to alter forms and educate staff, not any serious legal question.
This is why discussions of the movement to allow religious institutions to gain some exemption from having to recognize same-sex marriages often mention adoption agencies. Like here.
Perhaps the general phenomenon is what needs to be documented, not state by state. See how its recognized as part of the impact of the SSM decisions here:[1]

One thing, however, I will not believe is that this Court will allow thousands of couples nationwide to celebrate marriages, change names, jointly adopt children, become legally one family—and then, in an opinion later in the term, baldly announce that their marriages are in jeopardy or even void.

  1. ^ Epps, Garrett (October 6, 2014). "The Same-Sex Marriage Fight Is Over". The Atlantic. Retrieved October 18, 2014.
And BTW, we could use an article on the religious exemptions movement. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Another piece re Arizona here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Recently deleted material should probably be added to debate section

In 2007, British Catholic adoption agencies, comprising around a third of the voluntary sector, have said they will shut if forced to comply with new government legislation requiring them to enlist same-sex couples as potential adoptive parents.[citation needed] The government announced they will have to obey the law, although MP Ruth Kelly allowed them some extra time to comply.[citation needed].

Here are some references to support the statements made: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6994646 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012500446.html http://au.christiantoday.com/article/half-of-uk-catholic-adoption-centers-forced-to-serve-gay-couples/5038.htm


Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

The American Academy of Pediatrics on 20 March 2013 issued the following report and policy statement. I think that this statement could be called a policy from a top-level children's health medical organization, as probably most pediatricians in the United States belong to this society.

  • "Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian". Pediatrics. 131 (4): 827. 2013. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0376.

Vietnam adoption laws

References

Hey everyone. I'm trying to add info to references that have urls and/or dead links, but I'm not able to. I'm looking specifically at references 40-61, the references for tables. When I went to edit the section, it's like the tables don't even exist. Could someone help with that? Thanks! Amethystloucks (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you go to the references section? The references aren't there. You need to go to the section of the text (in this case the table) where the footnotes have been inserted (i.e. not where the footnotes themselves are, but where the numbers in the text are, from where you can go to the footnotes). They are there, I've seen them. Sigur (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It's the one's with the polls. I went to that section, yet wasn't able to find the references in that sectionAmethystloucks (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

arguments/debate

why does the arguments section only list debate points FOR lgbt adoption, but there's not such section for the points AGAINST? should either remove the points, or make the article unbiased and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.228.253 (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Assuming considering no response that its a go-ahead to remove the obvious bias in the article. Any editors out there feel free to add both sides of the debate before re-adding. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.228.253 (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edit without adding the other side of the argument. This is an obvious violation of wiki editing policies. Do it again and you'll be taken to tribunal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.228.253 (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Clear violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. One of the core values of wikipedia. Unless I'm wrong and wikipedia is a propaganda page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.228.253 (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll repeat here what was said in the edit summaries: it is better to balance the article by adding arguments from the other perspective than by deleting sourced material. —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"same-sex couples can provide good conditions to raise a child[25,26,27]" references "Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting", which concludes that the current research does not give a definitive answer yes or no. It should not be referenced at all by this sentence. In fact, the article points to a lot of evidence which shows the contrary. —Lampuiho (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_adoption/Archive_1&oldid=1144309995"