SAME
not diff ere nt?! SAME
Mapping the controversy over lgbt parenting
TEAM 1
› Simone bernardi pirini › federica colombo › manuel nurra › anne schirner
1
Index
intro › lgbt parenting › research methodology › research protocol
4 6 7
WHAT
HOW
From Statement to Debate
13
From Actors to Network
39
› many opinions, many synonyms › words mean by themselves › Building the corpus › what you must realize to know it? › quick glossary › Findings
18 20 22 24 26 28
› up to the debate › the form of the debate › a different overture to dialogue › a prime role in the debate › similar even in relations › other’s macro actor networks › Findings
40 42 44 46 48 50 52
WHo
WHERE
From Debate to Actors
29
› THE macro actors › THE LEVEL OF THE DEBATE › A MINORITY AGAINST THE MINORITIES › DIFFERENT PRIORITIES, DIFFERENT BEHAVIORS › Findings
30 32 34 36 38
From Network to Cosmos
53
› pro ask for right › neutral lie in between › contra conuts on research › from priorities to details › children growth & outcomes
54 56 58 60 62
› parents abilities & rights › family structures & impacts › legal recognition & social acceptance › scientific research references › Findings
68 74 76 78 80
WHEN From Cosmos to Cosmopolitics
81
› 30 years on an enduring controversy › Findings
82 89
TABLE OF CONTENTS
91
› TABLE a - MACRO ACTORS › TABLE b - CORPUS of urls › TABLE c - HOSTS added with triangulation
91 92 106
3
Lgbt parenting Parenting is the condition of supporting the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual development of a child from infancy to adulthood. It refers so, to the aspects of raising a child aside from the biological relationship. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If we normally convey as a parent to be a condition depending by the biological relationship between two heterosexual persons which give birth to a child, we might even say that in the nowaday global society, parenting can be seen as a voluntary role which is chosen and which can be avoided. In many cases, children can receive parental care from non-parent blood relations, they may be adopted or raised in foster care. Parenting can be considered so as a role, with skills and duties to be expected. But what about rights? Is it a right to be parents? If we try to give an answer, we might feel how culture and ethics make us hesitate. What if we focus on a community as lgbt people, well-known for being subject of stigma and discrimination worldwide? Lgbt parenting refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender or intersex people parenting one or more children. This includes (1) children raised by samesex couples, (2) children raised by single lgbt parents, and (3) children raised by an opposite-sex couple where at least one partner
is lgbt. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people can nowadays become parents through various means including current or former relationships, coparenting, adoption, donor insemination, and surrogacy. We can refers to some outcome, even considering the possibility for lgbt people to elude the evidence cause of the fear of the discrimination. It is so an already known phenomenon, even studied by the scientific community, which still debates over the impact of samesex parents upon children and the socio-cultural sense of family. On one hand some researchers show that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. On the other hand, some opponents argue that children needs the different role of a father and a mother to raise psychologically healthy. What we are interested to understand is: what about the online debate on the web? How do people deal with this scientific both cultural matter?
1 233 out of
CHILDREN
under the age of 18 in united states comes from a same sex couple
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey
183 states
worldwide opposing lgbt adoption
38 states
worldwide AUTHORIZING lgbt adoption
Source: wikipedia.org
Introduction
In one word?
HETERO
G ENEOUS
If we take in account the various possibilities that an heterosexual couple, married or not, may have to build a family - only considering this word as the cultural construct of two parent and one or more children - and all the parenting techniques, which already are controversial in many cases, in the case of lgbt parenting, we must multiply this variety to the miscellaneous possibility of combination of sexual orientation and gender identiy. Adding the problem of the large socio-cultural discrimination that reflects itself in a wide gap of legislation defending the lgbt people minority and their rights, this further complexity is for sure another question that prove the countries which are even evolving in acceptance to rule this confused world. And probably this could even be a reason that explain why is there even such a gap in content in the world wide web. On the other hand, it is also cause of the stereotypes over the issue that we might find material only over lgbt adoption, and not specifically on laws and discrimination in field of surrogacy, coparenting and artificial insemination. 5
Research methodology Five passages to build the structure of the research. To guide the narration through a step-by-step in deep protocol, with the aim of analyze every aspect related to the research question.
After a preliminary analysis on the topic and settled the research question, the project is based on five main passages aimed to answer five relative questions as being able and contextualize the topic itself. This research methodology, called cartographic chain, such have the aim to map as entirely as possible a controversy and it allows to represent the complexity of social debates through an original visualization device, developed as a multilayered toolkit to trace and aggregate information. While facing a research on the world wide web, we adopted a variety of digital tools and procedures for humanities, such as added an essential component of manual choices, fundamental for the gap which automatic procedures cannot deal with.
research question
Is it right for lgbt people to have children? FROM STATEMENTS TO DEBATES
FROM DEBATES TO ACTORS
FROM ACTORS TO NETWORKS
FROM NETWORKS TO COSMOS
FROM COSMOS TO COSMOPOLITICS
Introduction
From Statement to Debate input
procedures
tools
a
Initial exploration of the topic
b
b
QUERIES
Gathering urls
› lgbt parenting › children in
same sex family
output
a
› google.com › wikipedia.org › google trend b
› google scraper
a
Research question definition
b
200 URLS
settings: • google.com
• first 100 results
c
c
200 URLS
Manual cleaning unrelated urls
d
d
Wikipedia url lgbt parenting
Wikipedia link analysis
c
CORPUS 1 183 URLS
d Gathering links
› link ripper
Manageing data
› excel
Broad visualization
› raw
d
Conceptual Map d
Glossary
Refinition
› adobe illustrator
7
From debate to actors input
procedures
e
CORPUS 1 183 URLS
Tagging and categorizing after reading
FINAL CORPUS 1 183 URLS
Manual processing Managing data
› macro actor › position › role › entity › geo location › content
e
FINAL CORPUS 1 183 URLS
› excel
f
f
Visualizing categories
output
e
e
› macro actor › position › interest › entity › content › geolocation
f
tools
Broad visualization
› raw
Manual refining
› adobe illustrator
f
Visualizations
Introduction
From actors to networks input
procedures
g
g
FINAL CORPUS 1 183 URLS
Triangulation 2 list of urls per query
tools
output
g
› DMI triangulation
g
CORPUS 2 204 URLS
21 common host added to the corpus
h
h
CORPUS 2 204 URLS
Crawling
h Managing crawl
› HYPHE
h
CORPUS 2 (CRAWLED) Visualization 3126 Nodes
settings: • Depth 1
• distance 0 i
i
CORPUS 2 (CRAWLED) Visualization 3126 Nodes
Manual cleaning unrelated urls Manual tagging and host blending urls from same host
i Managing data
› GEPHI › excel
i
FINAL CORPUS 2 283 Nodes
› macro actor › position l
l
FINAL CORPUS 2 283 Nodes
Visualizing networks › macro actor › position
l Visualizing network
› GEPHI
l
Visualizations
filters: • Degree > 2
• indegree > 1
9
From NETWORK TO COSMOS input
procedures
m
m
TEXTUAL CONTENT 202 doc.txt
Semantic analysis docs grouped per position › pro › neutra › contra
n
TF graphic flows
tools
m Elaborating data
› SVEN
parameters: • tf
n Manual processing
› adobe illustrator
o
TERM CORPUS 1
Cleaning biased terms
Manual processing
Categoring related terms
› Excel
p
FINAL TERM CORPUS 1
Visualizing sub issues taxonomy
q
q
FINAL TERM CORPUS 1
Visualizing macro actors argumentations
TERM CORPUS 1
TF graphic flows
o
P
m
m
• corpus
n
Visualizing main issues
output
o
Data managing
p Broad visualization
› raw
n
Visualizations
o
FINAL TERM CORPUS 1
P
Visualizations
Manual refining
› adobe illustrator q Reading processing Data managing
› Excel
Manual refining
› adobe illustrator
q
Visualizations
Introduction
From COSMOS TO COSMOPOLITICS input
procedures
r
r
QUERY
Gathering urls
› lgbt parenting
each year available on google TREND (2004-2013)
tools
output
r
› google scraper settings: • google.com
r
HISTORY CORPUS 1 500 URLS 30 PDF
• first 50 results • first 3 pdf
s
s
HISTORY CORPUS 1 500 URLS
Manual tagging and categorizing
Manual processing
› geolocation
Manual processing
s
Managing data
s
HISTORY CORPUS 2 500 URLS
› excel
› adobe illustrator
s
Visualizations
t
t
TEXTUAL CONTENT 30 PDF
Semantic analysis 3 pdf grouped per year keeping the 2 most used terms BUT most common
u
u
TEXTUAL CONTENT 30 PDF
Semantic analysis 3 pdf grouped per year
Common term list 20 terms
keeping the 20 most used terms
t Elaboration data
› tag cloud cen. Managing data
t
Common term list 20 terms
› excel
u Elaboration data
› tag cloud gen. Managing data
› excel
u
Single year list 10 years 20 terms
Manual processing
› adobe illustrator
u
Visualizations
11
From Statement to Debate
What is the preliminary overview over lgbt parenting? The lgbt parenting controversy, as well as presenting a complex mix of culture and legislation, use a complex and specifical dictionary and it might be really hard for the not experts to fully understand the issue without first clarify some general outline and terms. Our first step in the research aimed to build a road map for the reader, so that he’d be able to better understand the issue itself, and better understand the relations between factors meaningful for the debate. We did what any unexpert with an internet connection would do to clarify its mind: type in on Google. We aimed to understand how the issue is perceived and talked internationally, from the most global point of view, so we went for Google.com using english language.
data collecting TOOLS › google search › dmi google scraper › dmi link ripper data managing TOOLS › google spreadsheet/excel data visualizing TOOLS › raw.densitydesign › adobe illustrator
13
Two dads Children of same-sex are better parents are healthier, than none. families closer than Familyscholar.Org, September 2012
I am against homosexuality and so were the Nazis. This is why I am wearing this uniform.
Nelson, student wearing a Nazi uni-
form during a demonstration against same-sex marriage in Taipei, December 2013
straight-parent families. tracy miller for dailynews.com, June 2013
I am against homosexuality
and so were the Nazis. This is why I am wearing this uniform.
Nelson, student wearing a Nazi uniform during a demonstration against same-sex marriage in Taipei, December 2013
Well, in New York State we’re a family, but federally we’re not. andrew solomon talking about legal issues concerning lgbt families in
the U.S., April 2012
Study: Children of Same-Sex Parents Much Less Likely to Graduate From High School. NAPP NAZWORTH for christianpost.com, April 2012
Children with gay parents have ‘significantly better’ general health and greater family cohesion. dailymail.co.uk, June 2013
From Statement to Debate
Junk Science
Targets Lesbian and Gay Couples. human rights campaign (hrc)
informing about a heavily-criticized study by sociologist Mark Regnerus, 2013
Gay parents may be the best parents. stephanie pappas, Senior Writer at livescience, March 2013
A weapon in the marriage wars, dressed up as academic discourse. paul cogan about Mark Regnerus’ controversial ‘New Family Structures Study’, November 2013
Christian School Boots Kids With Gay Parents For Failing ‘Biblical Moral Code’. Camille Beredjick for pahteos.com, November 2013
Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but draws fire from experts. RYAN JASLOW for cbsnews.com, June 2012
Parenting is not easy even if you are a superhero.
Children in same sex families less apt to graduate than in mom-dad intact families.
Claims by an educational video on LGBT parenting, July 2013
Lois M. Collins for DeseretNews.com, October 2013 15
Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones. rick barlow for bu.ed, November 2013
the demand to view same-sex parenting as ”normal” imposes a silence on children about the wound caused by the loss of one parent or the other. Robert Oscar Lopez for the publicdiscourse.com,
July 2013
World’s largest study on gay parents finds the kids are more than all right KATIE MCDONOUGH for salon.com, June 2013
Yet Another New Study: Children with Same-Sex Parents Fare Worse Maggie Gallagher for nationalreview.com, October 2013
The child can never be conceived by mistake. The amount we have to go through to make it happen - financially, legally and socially - for me, it feels like, that child is so wanted. the guardian, April 2012
I’m not the mum, but I am the mum. patricia moreno about carrying a
child conceived through IVF using her partner’s eggs and donor sperm, April 2012
Children with gay parents have ‘significantly better’ general health and greater family cohesion. dailymail.co.uk, June 2013
From Statement to Debate
Canada Study: Kids in Gay Families
Hampered in School. thenewamerican.com, October 2013
There is no such thing as a
traditional family
anymore.
Say 55 percent of americans, according to a poll study conducted by The Oxygen Network, April 2013
Let
Love
Where is the ‘B’ in LGBT parenting? Title of a scientific paper on LGBT parenting, 2013
Social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage. The family research council, October 2013
Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage: I should know, I’m one of them. ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ for lifesitenews.com, October 2013
Define Family.
Gay Parents Are Like ‘5-Year-Olds Who Think They Can Drive Cars’.
hrc on lgbt adoption and foster
apostole paul david rodgers, while participating in a protest against
care, November 2012-July 2013
same-sex marriage in Illinois, October 2013
17
Many opinions, many synonyms For building a corpus that would comprehend different position over the theme and the presence of different kind of actors we might work on synonyms meaning the same concept, but with different connotations.
Since the very first approach to the research method, it occurred us to think that we would have found an heterogeneous range of opinions and statements over the issue of lgbt parenting, also confirmed by the presence in Wikipedia of controversial paragraphs affirming that there are various debates over different aspects on the theme. Our first query was lgbt parenting itself, just intuitively exploring what could be the online reflection of the debate. By reading the first range of websites we didn’t find that variety in opinions that we expected to obtain: we collected just a little number of contrary opinions, and many of the websites just included logistics and technical informations for lgbt communities and services. An interesting thing that emerged instead, was the presence in the content online of different words seemed to referring to the same concept, but with different cultural connotations. We found out that for building a
corpus that would comprehend different position over the theme and the presence of different kind of actors we might work on synonyms meaning the same concept, but with different connotations. Another signal we perceived from the results by online journalism and members of the scientific community, also reflected in the page on Wikipedia itself, was an high interest for the field of childhood and the effects of the lgbt parenting over children outcomes. The second query then automatically became children in same sex family, so that completing the dark side of the debate would give us a wide perception of the controversy. By facing the results, we obtained the confirm of what we were looking for, so that we could start analysing and mapping the results.
Since it might be obvious to comment the statements as being almost surprised by the heterogeneous results, it is curious to consider how they are so different between them. It might seems that they come from really different cultures. As it might actually be, since we can see how the emphasis of tones suggest a range of opinions which in some cases have the form of beliefs and stereotypes. We found loads of URLs focused on children health and outcomes, such as many times we found titles referring to studies. This might give us a good overview on the debate we’re going to face.
From Statement to Debate
Gay parents have healthier and less argumentative children. emman inner for dailynews.co.uk, June 2013
Same-Sex Couples: Child Abuse? Robert Oscar Lopez for the publicdiscourse.com, July 2013
19
Words means by themselves Once we reflect on terms and try to understand how we name things, words tell us deeply what we actually means by using them.
The initialism lgbt, is an acronym intended to emphasize a diversity of sexuality and gender identitybased cultures and is sometimes used to refer to anyone who is non-heterosexual (Wikipedia). Until the sexual revolution of the sixties of the twentieth century there were no words to describe generally known members of these groups who do not have a derogatory meaning. With the organization of the people for their sexual rights has needed a term that expresses who they were intergally, without discriminatons. Lgbt mens respect for all. This doesn’t mean that who doesn’t use this word for facing all the sexual and gender-based differences
also doesn’t respect them, but for sure it means that they don’t pay the same sensible attention that those minorities are asking for. In fact, the lgbt term, also used in more intergral forms as lgbti (also considering intersexuals) or lgbtq (also considering queer people), has been taken in use from international organisations, both intergovernatives or not, and it is also used from research community referring to the minority group of nonheterosexuals. Usually we also face the term gay, with which most people doesn’t refer only to homosexual men, but all the group of homosexual people, so again referring to a sexual
orientation-based difference by the heterosexuals. When used in this case, we didn’t find out actually discriminating intentions, but only maybe the consciousness of bringing attention to something using a more controversial word. In fact, it seems it is equally used in titles, even when the content itself talk generally about lgbt people. Also the term same sex is usually used in the same way, not for gaining attention to some online content using the cultural taboo effect, but instead referring to the general minority group of the sexual orientation-based diverse. It apparently seems that who oppose lgbt parenting prefer to use this
From Statement to Debate
parenting
LGBT
couples
same sex
households
gay
word. In any case, it is so rare that trans and intersex people have the same attention in terms, seeming to be a minority inside a minority. Referring now to the object itself of the debate, we faced in the research different result, with again different connotations. The word parenting is most used as a technical term, or best, as expressing a condition, so is usually not culturally connotating anything particular and can be used both to talk about the role of the parents and the relation itself between them and the children. Family insted, is totally a cultural term, used both to refers to a common conventional idea, the
family
idea of “how things must go”, an idea to defend for any reason; and then it is used talking even about a group emotionally tied in life. The use of the term then, also change by country and country, as by culture and culture. Then we faced two other terms not directly related to the parenting itself, but normally used to refers to a state, or relationship. It came up many times that couples and households are words more used by opponents the lgbt parenting, in relation to the presence of children within the “house”, as they prefer to talk about cohabitation instead of family.
Although the not apparent complementarity of the two used queries, we menaged having in the corpus different opposed positions, which apparently use different words referring to the theme. The two emerged groups seems to have also different priorities: while who opposes lgbt parenting seems having as prior argumentation the health and the outcomes of children, who doesn’t, argue instead with a different range of interests, as legal rights and empowerment, parenting techniques and metodologies, marriage and relationship recognition, and aswell the children growth. 21
Building the corpus Once collected the URLs and the results of the research, we built an intergal corpus, for starting a deep analysis on the debate. The main effort went in defining the categories.
Once chosen 2 different queries for obtaining a wide range of results (lgbt parenting and children in same sex family), we faced up 200 URLs, that had been necessary to clean from the irrelevant results for the prior analysis, such as social networks. The URLs then became 183, within which there are only 2 URLs in common: one is the wikipedia.org page referring to lgbt parenting, which was for us the confirm that despite the synonyms, we were talking about the same theme. Then the other was a page from howstuffworks.com, arguing the myths and stereotypes over lgbt parenting. It might not be that meaningful, but by interpreting the fact, it is pretty curious to observe how the outcomes tell us that it’s necessary, while talking about lgbt parenting to face cultural beliefs which seems not to reflect the reality. The cleaned URLs which we discarded from the corpus can be found in a list besides. Once we cleaned the corpus, we addressed all our attention in what we can say is one of the most tricky work of the research: defining the categories. Once read every result, we defined 2 groups of categories inherent relevant datas: the voice expressed throug the url, considered as actors (but not intending it as a single entity or host) and the content, or what the voices talk about, then we have datas on the URLs itself. Once settled the qualities of the dataset, we were finally ready for the further analysis and investigation.
183 URLs
from both queries
2
URLs
IN COMMON
First, we browsed quickly all the 183 URLs and the relative “about� page and we assigned 2 different tags each: one referring the role of the voices, depending by the work the actors undertake; the other relatively their entity, their authority. By role we was meant to identify the interest the actors take in the debate depending by their aim itself. The entity instead, tell us the authority of the actors depending by their structure and it is referred to their position in relation to other actors themselves, determined by the extent of their communicative action. Then, we compared both tags and, as we expected, we realized that there were a congruency between them. So we then combined both tags as for obtain the main category of macroactors, which is definitely easy to use for name the groups themselves. If we faced any bias in combining tags in the main category, the interest always guided up further, clarifying our mind, as our priority was to understand the role of the macro actors. Then, by reading the entire content, we defined both the issue discussed in the content itself, and the position that the voice expressed referring to lgbt parentng.
From Statement to Debate
CATEGORIES url ranking
query
voice domain
actor
position
role
content entity
geo
interest
COMMON URLs › wikipedia.org/lgbt_parenting › howstuffworks.com/gay-parenting-myths
UNRELATED URLs › Google › Facebook › Twitter › Youtube › Vimeo › Pinterest › Tumblr › Amazon › Prezi › Meetup
23
LGBT
LGB
the
rod
T ad
marriage
tio
gy
tio
tio
sa
n
n
n
y
ily
opti
on
renti
Same-sex
ili
olo
ina
uc
gac
fam
rt
hn
em
rro
fe
ec
ins
rep Su
Copa
et
e
and
o
aw
al
rty
tr
tiv
ici
pa
vi
issu
age
uc
ily l
arri
In
od
tif
ird
ex m
pr
Ar
Th e-s
re
s by
d
Sp
te
right
itu
sis
Fam
t ns nI
LU AC il az Br in ies on rs pti n ve ro do tio nt xa o na se #C do te m er
oo
e-
sp er
As
Sam
se
ea
ng
lso
and the fa
mily
Same-sex marriage
marriage
legal issues
ights
t of Human R
option
k
ler
Wa
n
row
ogy dol tho me
ion
l ps y ych olo Soci gy al ps ycho logy
ge
Un ive
rsit
rna
nta me
elop Dev
Ps tal en ve lop m De
bri d
ych
sb nd
ya
l)
at
jou
nd
lA ica
ed M
ian
y(
ca gi lo
ho Ps yc n ica er
olo g
f
an
St
Un
Cam
d or
n iat ion
at
y
sit
r ive
lF ou
a
ic ist
St
r
we
o lp
ia tio
yo
it ers
iv Un
rd
lfo
a fS
oc
Per
ss
.B ry v
ss oc
V
lA
hn aug
Le
Gre
tion nta rese arch by p e r mis of rese nts of g one opp arentin p t b lg
Here
M. gory
Ga
Lgbt parenting comprehend many complex information that would prove the expertize of anyone which is not used to daily talk about it. First of all it is a theme so wide and heterogeneous that request a multidiplinary approach: laws, human studies, ethics and so on. Then, even if evolving, our society doesn’t put us in the position to deal with the issue with ease. Then again, such for the general inexperience over lgbt issues, we might face an amount of terms which we might not fully understand. For giving the reader the chance to have an overview on the needed knowledge, also considering that the lgbt parenting page of Wikipedia is a common link in both queries, and also the first one in both lists or URLs, we assumed that it might be meaningful to explore its structure. Then, to illustrate a glossary useful to quickly catch the sense of related words. A confirm of the measure of the multidisciplinary knowledge enclosed in the topic comes from the huge number of links coming from the four relared tables about other lgbt topics and family law and parenting (358), while we only have 80 links inside the content of the page itself.
adoption
LGBT ad
Am
European Cour
Gil
If knowledge lies in the relations between things, then knowledge lies in links. What does the links on Wikipedia means? They represent what you need to know, or at least someone suppose you need to know, for fully understand a theme.
m Sa
ith W
What you must realize to know it?
80
Bisexu al Tran sgen der LGB T Par ent Co pa ren LG tin BT g ad Do o pti no on ri Su ns rro e m ga ina te tio pr n eg na nc y
Gay
Lesbian
LGBT parenting ciety n and so rientatio Sexual o ting Paren
From Statement to Debate
g
tin
n re
a
p Co
LINKS
in content
n
tio
p do
Ta
B LG
Fo
re
ca
r ste
in
S
a
o
ms
for
f lg
o
ing
enta ut
ing o
Com
ge
arria
m tion
-ori
ed Mix
ent
ar bt p
ncy
gna
re te p
og urr
intr o
ory
categ
or
n Do
n
tio
na
i sem
s, 2000
Censu
tates nited S
U
Judith Stacey New York University
American Aca
demy of Pedia
America
Amer
co
children's outcomes
ns
External validity
American Sociological Review
ent
Gill v. Office
of Personn
el Managem
holog y sycholo gist)
Ch
Na
Ca
ild
tio
na
na
W
elf
dia
or
nP
yM
lA
are
sy
.H
er
ek
Psy
ch
ana
cia
Le
olo
gic
ue
al
no
of
As
for
lyti
tio
ag
l Ass
ion
cho
sso
eri
so
cia
rria
ge a
cia
al W
Am
ca
tion
Ma
sso
oci
chiatry
ocia
cA
fS
ent Psy
ation
gica
ciat
Adolesc
ssoci
holo
sso
an
atric A
Psyc
an A
eric
st gi lo ho yc Ps n is es ica th er l o l ia tre Am l hyp ar l orn G f i l Nu Ca tte of dam ne y t ter Na rsi ms fA ive yo Un rsit ive Un tion ina em
Ins
cey
h Sta
Judit
amb (p
Am
eg
sexism
Hetero
Psyc
s
eric
hild and
sychi
rican
Am
su
Gr
tation l orien sexua der role n n and ge ce of childre n adhere
Michae lL
en
my of C
ican P
Ame
trics
n Acade
tion
nd F
am
ily T
her
apy
ork
ers
tio
n
358 LINKS
for further research and related content
25
Quick glossary
c Co-parenting
Describes a parenting situation where the parents are not in a marriage, cohabitation or romantic relationship with one another. Concerning LGBT parenting there are usually between two and four adults who want to conceive and parent a child together. This could include: • a lesbian couple and a single man; • a single woman and a gay couple; • a lesbian and a gay couple. A co-parent is different from a known donor as he or she will play a more involved parental role in the child’s life.
D DONOR INSEMINATIONS (DI) Is a form of third-party conception that involves the use of cryobanked (frozen through cryopreservation) donor sperm to achieve pregnancy. The sperm is inserted directly into a woman’s uterus at the time of ovulation. DI is most commonly used by heterosexual couples where the
male partner has fertility issues, by single women and by lesbian couples. Donor sperm can be obtained through a self-recruited known donor or an anonymous donor from a sperm bank.
f FOSTER CARE
Is the term used for a system in which a minor who has been placed into a ward, group home, or private home of a state-certified caregiver referred to as a “foster parent”. The placement of the child is usually arranged through the government or a social-service agency. Foster care is one option for a same-sex couple to enjoy the parenting experience.
H HETEROSEXISM
Is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships.
From Statement to Debate
l It can include the presumption that other people are heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior. Heterosexism as discrimination ranks gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minorities as second-class citizens with regard to various legal and civil rights, economic opportunities, and social equality in many of the world’s jurisdictions and societies. Heterosexism is often related to homophobia. The LGBT rights movement works towards ending heterosexist discrimination.
I IN VITRO FERTILISATIO (IVF) Is a process by which an egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro. IVF has provided a means by which many couples across the world have managed to get pregnant when they would otherwise be unable to do so. IVF is a popular treatment for infertility, but is also used often by same sex couples to either get pregnant if female, or birth a child via surrogacy if male. Through IVF a lesbian couple has the option that one partner provides the eggs while the other one is carrying the pregnancy. The eggs are harvested from one partner, then fertilized in the laboratory with donor sperm, with the resulting embryos placed in the uterus of the other partner.
LGBT ADOPTION
Refers to the adoption of children by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. This may be in the form of a joint adoption by a same-sex couple, adoption by one partner of a same-sex couple of the other’s biological child (step-parent adoption) and adoption by a single LGBT person. LGBT adoption is currently legal in 14 countries and in some territories.
s SURROGACY
Or better said suggorate pregnancy, is an arrangement in which a woman carries and delivers a child for another couple or person and relinquish her parental status. This is an option for gay couples who wish to have a child together without sharing responsibility with the child’s mother. As of 2013, locations where a woman can legally be paid to carry another’s child include India, Georgia, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine and a few U.S. states. Surrogacy involves complicated legal issues. 27
Findings
Since a broad analysis of the topic of lgbt parenting, it confirmed to be so controversial and what is clear from this first step is that: • We have two contrary position of opposing and supporting the condition of parenting for lgbt people, which both seem to refer even to studies and researches and ethics; both positions apparently focus on effects of parenting, even with an heterogeneous distributions of topics; • Different positions seems to use different words as a subjects of their argumentations: the same concept might be expressed with different words, meaning broadly the same but with different cultural connotations; • The voices broadly emerged in the debate suggest a biased level of the debate; it is clear anyway, from people emotional reaction, that since we’re facing strong cultural belifs and ethics, we have so emphatic tones; • There’s a strong debate on the web about the topic, which take place in multiple forms of expression; in general, content on Wikipedia confirm us how this issue is controversial and in case of condition of parenting for lgbt people, still subject of studies; • The topic comprehend a variety of terms and aspects mostly neigher used nor object of attention from the society; people is generally not expert on this theme, for various reasons, so anyone might find hard to understand clearly the sense of some passages without clarify some assumption of the multiple aspects of the issue itself, which comprehend both tecnichal and multidiscplinary factors; The final construction of the corpus anyway let us settle the base for further investigations in the next steps of the protocol.
From Debate to Actors
Who are the macro actors and what is their role in the debate? Now we finally have both a broad idea of the different positions inside the debate and the complete dataset for starting the analysis, we can afford in investigating the controversy itself. First question to set, after been talking about the different broad positions? Who takes that position? What’s the nature of the macroactors? What are their role inside the debate? Is there any macroactor with a particular importance? What does they care by expressing their voice?
data managing TOOLS › excel data visualizing TOOLS › raw › adobe illustrator
29
The macro actors
7
MACRO ACTORS
At this point, let’s understand who take place in the debate by exploring the features of the categories and their relations from each others.
As explained in the previous step in the protocol, we’ve been browsing the 183 URLs and we read both the “about” part of the websites and content. This step was so significant for us, since it answered qualitatively multiple questions: who talk about lgbt parenting? What’s their role and interest? What’s their authority? Starting from the final corpus of URLs and the dataset we built, it came intuitive to try and understand who took place in the debate itself as a first step. To do it, as the last moment to care the two quesies as two different sources, we considered relevant to visualise both the provenance and the amount of the outcoming macroactor category. Since we adopted the sencond query as a way for having a wide range of positions, and so for having more opponents the lgbt parenting, we can realize how the group of conservatives (which we’ll analyse furthermore), such come only from the second query itself. Then we can realize how journalists (independent media) most come from the second query, which might suggest us that they are most interested in controversial issues, as their’re probably interested in being catalysts of the debate. Another difference in macroactors’s amount by query is in activists group: as numbers suggest, they’re probably more interested in having a role of promoters of empowerment, and care more the rights of lgbt people (probably theirself ) than taking part in the debate on children.
As we can see through numbers, even without much difference from others, the debate is mainly speech through newspapers and journalis media platforms, just followed by activistm websites and advicing communities. One thing that we might suppose actually, is that activists and advicing communities are two kind of macroactors so alike: both relate to lgbt parenting with the aim of promotion and visibility. The main difference between them is priorly in the way they face the communication of the matter: most activists aim to empower a gap, while advicing communities aim to tell the exstistence and advice who want to become parents. Let’s say that the former refers to the “others” as addressee of their message, while the latter to members of the community itself. A good importance in the debate also have the scientific community (14,5 %), which is a good news for us, since means that authoritative members intrested in sciences and education address their attention in the issue itself. Just less importance have legal actors and medical agencies, which is not a big deal, as we might suppose that they mainly appear in the results as offering a service for lgbt parenting, so probably their voice does not express a controversial position. This discourse is mainly valid for medical agencies than for legal actors.
From Debate to Actors
INDIPENDENT MEDIA Lgbt parenting
25%
ACTIVISTS
49%
21%
ADVICING ORG & communities
21% Children in same sex family
51%
14,5%
SCIentific community
7%
CONServatives
7%
LEGAl actors
4,5%
MEDIcal agencies 31
The level of the debate Considering the entity of the macro actors, their authority and the relative position, shall we realize what’s the level of the debate?
Talking about the “level” of a discourse, is pretty a tricky, qualitative consideration to be allowed, but it might be also a relevant information, which maybe we can realize considering the form of the actors, the authority they have. As we can see from the graph besides, the most actors are media, a form of popolar actor, which we might say it was pretty expected by the consistency of the matter. It appears clear how important this form of actor is, by realising that the opponents most use it by expressing their voice, such as the most frequent form for expressing the interest in ethics. The second most appeared type of actors are NGOs (non governative organisations), which as expected are the prior way for activism to express its voice, and we can even see how the position of advancement for lgbt parenting use this form, such as media platforms and then communities. Then,
another consideration is that interests for information for the minorities and logistics for local social groups are obviously expressed through communities, such again as activism. Science and education interests then are expressed through centres and institutes and publishers and finally the interest in law takes mostly form through governative organisations and companies. We can say through this information that the level of the debate is pretty biased, divided through the popolarity of media platforms and communities and the authority of NGOs, universities and governative organisations. We expected to see more authoritative positions such as governative organisations and centres and institutes for being able to say that the debate is speech at an high of consciusness, but we’re anyway happy considering how low is the number of companies.
From Debate to Actors
Macro actor per entities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 urls
INDIPENDENT MEDIA ACTIVISTS ADVICING communities SCIentific community CONServatives LEGAl actors MEDIcal agencies
media ngos comm uni gov comp pers pub
journalism
media
activism
PRO
35% ngos
inform & logistics
26% 65%
comm science education law medicine
ethics psychology
NEUTRA
17% uni
10%
gov
5% 4,5%
pers pub
4,5%
comp
3%
22,5% CONTRA
12,5%
33
A minority against the minorities Two are the clear role which comes by comparing the opinions, both meaning a coherent position. The activists, with the role of promotion and the conservatives, with their socio-political aim of admonishment.
By analysing the positions of the macro actors, the first evident consideration is that most voices express in favor the lgbt parenting (65%), though only a minor group of opponents use mostly the media platforms for expressing their thoughts (12,5%), even through the authority of NGOs and education institutes. Most of neutral voices instead, have a different meaning. In case of indipendent medias, the neutral voices means they just report an event or a story without expressing any opinion about. In case of activists and advicing communities the meaning is so different: since their aim is to a point of reference for the group of lgbt people, in most cases, the neutral voice means that their’re not expressing anything, but giving logistics and information for organizing local groups activities. So they’re not meant to be neutral, they simply give useless or untreatable information for the debate itself. Same meaning has the neutral position of medical agencies, since as the alike groups before, they care to give a service for them. The sense of neutral voices in case of scientific communities and legal actors is instead alike the indipendent journalists’ one: they report information without expressing an opinion. A consistent information comes instead from the position of conservatives, which - as politics and referents of ethics - can’t do anything else but being coherent with their political and social role.
From Debate to Actors
Position per entities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 urls
pro neutra contra
media ngos comm uni gov comp pers pub
INDIPENDENT MEDIA ACTIVISTS
ADVICING ORG & communities SCIentific community CONServatives
LEGAl actors MEDIcal agencies
35
Different priorities, different behaviors
INDIPENDENT MEDIA
ACTIVISTS
ADVICING ORG & communities
SCIentific community
CHILDREN GROWTH
38%
28,5% RIGHTS EMPOWERMENT
From Debate to Actors
Two are the main broad interests of macro actors: children outcomes and rights empowerment for lgbt parenting. Two different interest for two opposed needs and orientations. The two alike promoter macro actors face the empowerment of equal rights as an assumption of the discourse, while others are mainly interested in facing the effects of the parenting condition on children.
CONServatives
LEGAl actors
For sure, we can say and verify how the effects of lgbt parenting is the most controversial theme that matters for the voices emerged in the debate. Both indipendent media and conservatives, which we know comprehend the higher amount of position opposing the lgbt parenting, use the children growht and outcomes such as phychological health and adjustment as a argumentation for facing their activity. We’re not surprised in verifying how also scientific community is interested in the matter, since of course it is their own role to study it. It is then curious to verify how it apparently might not be an ideological adversion the problem at the base of the controversy, but a divergence of assumpions, so a certain form of egoism face the worry for a possible effects which is not that easy to know for the nature of the parenting itself.
MEDIcal agencies CHILDREN DISCRIMINATION MARRIAGE
PARENTING
16%
6,5% 5% 3% 3% LAW
FAMILY 37
Findings
Since in the second step of the protocol our aim was to clarify who are the categories of macro actors which took part in the debate and what’s the role, we can for sure make some considerations based on our outcomes: • We have 7 different main categories of macro actors coming from both queries: we can realize by comparing the provenience of the categories how the whole amount of conservatives and the majority of newspapers (independent media) most come from the second query, which might suggest us that they are most interested in controversial issues; • Even without much difference from others, the debate is mainly speech through independent media and media platforms in general, just followed by activistm websites mostly in form of organisations and advicing communities; • It broadly emerged an analogy in behavior between activists and advising communities. Both with mostly the same position, their main difference might be in the direction of the communication. • Comparing the interests, it emerged an analogy between them and the structure of entities (which also suggest as a biased level of the debate, both with more social actors and authorities); a relevant consideration is that most opponents express mainly through media and NGOs, avoiding instead a personal position at all; • By reading the content of the URLs and analysing the positions of macro actors, it emerged that the opponents are the minority (12,5%), mostly having voice through conservatives websites and medias; • There are two clear contrary positions in roles between activists and conservatives, which might further be verified as two polarity of the debate. It seems that their nature and interest just mantain them coherent; • Most voices mainly talk about children growth, which seems to be the most controversial and argumented theme inherent lgbt parenting. Most controversial positions (within independent media and conservatives) such talk about it, while activists and advicing communities show instead a main interest for rights empowerment, which is the second most discussed topic. All those results and conclusion are for sure our assumptions for better understand and deeper investigate in the further step in the protocol.
From Actors to Network
What’s the relation between actors? How the actors talk to each other? After relizing who are the macro actors and seeing their broad interests, we can now try and understand something about their relations. Since every voice correspond to a specific entity and every entity is related to a contextual field, we’re aimed to visualize the relations between the actors inside their context and between them. Since the entities may contain links to other entities, we might visualize those links, as they mean relations with other actors in the network of the debate. Is there then any actors linked many times from others? So is there any hub? What’s the nature of the network? How the actors talk to each other? What’s the role of actors depending by the discussion they afford?
data collecting TOOLS › dmi triangulation › dmi issue crawler › dmi link ripper data managing TOOLS › excel › hyphe data visualizing TOOLS › gephi › adobe illustrator
39
Up to the network
183 STARTING URLS
21
It is here explained the procedures afforded for being able and visualize the network of the debate.
NEW URLs IN COMMON added
Unrelated HOSTS Before of being able and visualizing the network of actors, we faced a process for having a more meaningful representation, emphasizing the “relevance” of common host linked by the starting entities. Before of making a crawl through the Hyphe tool by Media Lab (Sciences-Po), we made a triangulation between the two lists of URLs from the different queries, and we added so 21 common entities to our corpus. The list of added entities added is visible besides. Then we checked their content and tagged them for giving them a category as type of macro actor and position. Once done that point, we proceeded to the crawl (depth 1, distance 0) and tagged again the crawled actors, only by type of actors. We then had to clean the results from urrelevant and unrelated hosts such as social networks and finally we could visualize the network through Gephi. Once on Gephi we had to make some adjustement for having a readable network. First, we merged URLs from the same host into a single entity, summing both inlinks and outlinks, so that in the network one node correspond to one single website. Then we applied a filter, so that now what we can see are entities with at least two degree connections (at least two links, both inlinks and outlinks) and at least one inlink, so that we are sure that those entities actually are part of a debate.
› Google › Twitter › Facebook › Myspace › Linkedin › Slideshare › Autostrabble › Feedsburner › Stumbleupon › Tumblr › Blogger › Youtube › Vimeo › Pinterest › Addthis › Flickr › Yahoo › App › Apple › Amazon › Aol › 123greetings › Theme
› Androezrs › Reddit › Tinyurl › Imdb › W3 › Meetup › Omniture › Microsoft › Adobe › T.co › Creativecommon › Digg › Examiner › Statcounter › Cafepress › Wordpress › Instagram › Delicious › Glaad › Disqus › Addoublequick › Mozo › Domain
From Actors to Network
1
2
3
4
5
triangulation
tagging
crawl
tagging & cleaning
visualized network in gephi
COMMON HOSTS ADDED › Colage.org › Familyequality.org › Hrc.org › Proudparenting.com › Pflag.org › Ohchr.org › Equalityhumanrights.com › Affirmation.org › Apadivision44.org › Glma.org › Growinggenerations.com › Children-matter.org › Glad.org › Lambdalegal.org › House.gov › Kids.nsw.gov.au › Baaf.org.uk › Familystructurestudies.com › Thepublicdiscourse.com › Mercatornet.com › Englishmanif.blogspot.com
ACTIVIST ACTIVIST ACTIVIST ACTIVIST ACTIVIST ACTIVIST ACTIVIST ACTIVIST
MEDIcal agency MEDIcal agency MEDIcal agency LEGAl actor LEGAl actor LEGAl actor LEGAl actor LEGAl actor ADVICING ORG CONServative CONServative CONServative CONServative
pro pro pro pro pro pro pro pro pro pro pro pro pro pro neutra neutra neutra contra contra contra contra
41
The form of the debate
By the relative position of the connected actors and the form of the network itself, could we understand something of the debate?
Qpocshoutouts.Com Thespermbankofca.Org Ourfamily.Org Lgbtqparentingconnection.Ca Proudparenting.Com Nclrights.Org Therainbowbabies.Com
Pink-Parenting.Com
Familyequality.Org
Equalfamily.Org
Colage.Org
Thestar.Com
Growinggenerations.Com Apa.Org
Hrc.Org Pflag.Org
Bbc.Co.Uk
Itsconceivablenow.Com
Stonewall.Org.Uk
Wikipedia.Org
Affirmation.Org
Lambdalegal.Org Childwelfare.Gov
Theguardian.Com Jerry-Mahoney.Com Aap.Org
Thinkprogress.Com Newsroom.Melbourne.Edu
Abcnews.Go.Com Dailymail.Co.Uk
Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov Hhs.Gov Huffingtonpost.Com Mainstreetplaza.Com
Examiner.Com Nytimes.Com
Advocate.Com
Achess.Org.Au
Patheos.Com Pinknews.Co.Uk Mercatornet.Com
Familyscholars.Org Familystructurestudies.Com
Thepublicdiscourse.Com Cnn.Com Slate.Com Sciencedirect.Com Utexas.Edu Cbsnews.Com
Freerepublic.Com
Lifesitenews.Com
Thenewamerican.Com Catholicnewsagency.Com
Foxnews.Com
Catholicexchange.Com Powerlineblog.Com
Austlii.Edu.Au Humanrights.Gov.Au Kids.Nsw.Gov.Au
From Actors to Network The disposition of the entities in the final visualized network shows that there are two separeted clusters which tends to have not many relations to each other but that mainly communicate thanks to the independend media actors and the scientific community. This seems to confirm the separation between the two main roles or aims in the debate: the promotion and defence of lgbt rights for parenting and the relative admonishment and opposition. We even can see how the majority of the nodes concentrate between most pro actors are, confirming again the analogy of activists and advicing communities.
The same clustering phenomena is visible by visualizing the position of the entities, an we can again considering how they tend to mostly talk to each other instead of having relations with actors with opposed positions. The division in different groups of neutral actors is different in any case: in the higher part of the network we have a group of medical agencies, while in the center are concentrated neutral members of the scientific community and legal actors related with activists and in bottom of the network we can see some legal actors and again one member from the scientific community mostly related with conservatives and independent media. In any case, a sure thing that we can realize is the huge important of independent media and newspapers for the closure of the network and the needed relation between activists and pro actors with conservatives and opponents.
pro neutra contra unknown (crawled) INDIPENDENT MEDIA ACTIVISTS ADVICING communities SCIentific community CONServatives LEGAl actors MEDIcal agencies 2 degree
45 degree
43
A different overture to dialogue
By comparing networks visualizing separeted outlinks and inlinks, we can realize both a different approach to the dialogue between the type of actors and when there’s some important actor which others relate with. A
1
2
3 4
5 7
B D
6
8
G
15
I
L
13 16
H
10 11
12
E
F
9
C
M 14
First visible thing by combining the two network is that actors that link most other actors, so that have more relations in the debate, come from the higher part of the network, so are mainly pro or in some case neutral, as wikipedia (8). While in the lower part of the graph we can see how the most talkative entities are primarly three: mercatornet (11), a form of journal interested in ethics, which anyway mantain a neutral position, Familystructurestudies (12), which is one of the main official studies about children’s outcomes taking part in the debate, led by Dr. Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas; and then we have an important media platform, Thepublicdiscourse (13) present both in the outlink and the inlink network.
R
Q
N P
O
The way the former talkative actors are instead not linked at all by other actors, tell us that they’re not that authoritative in the debate, or that at least other actors are avoiding to link them. Another relevant actor present in both network is huffingtonpost (9H), an important newspaper which give voice to lgbt people both through specific sections and journalists themselves. Another consideration is that various contra actors emerge by referring their inlinks, such as Achess.Org.Au (I), a website of an australian research on children outcomes again, and APA.Org (E), the American Psychological Association, in our case expressing a contra opinion on lgbt parenting.
From Actors to Network IND. MEDIA ACTIVISTS ADV. communities SC. community CONServatives LEGAl actors MED. agencies
pro neutra contra unknown
2 degree
44 degree
A 1
2
3 4
5 7
B D
6
8
G
H
10 11
12
E
F
9
C
13 16
15
I
L M
14 R
Q
Outlinks
Inlinks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A B C D E F G H I L M N O P Q R
Fenwayhealth.Org Therainbowbabies.Com Pink-Parenting.Com Baaf.Org.Uk Equalfamily.Org Itsconceivablenow.Com Affirmation.Org wikipedia.Org huffingtonpost.com examiner.Com mercatornet.com Familystructurestudies.Com Thepublicdiscourse.Com Catholicexchange.Com Powerlineblog.Com Psychologytoday.Com
N P
O
Gayparentmag.Com Nclrights.Org Familyequality.Org Colage.Org APA.Org HRC.org Abcnews.Go.Com huffingtonpost.com Achess.Org.Au Nytimes.Com Thepublicdiscourse.Com Cnn.Com Smh.Com.Au Foxnews.Com Sciencedirect.Com Utexas.Edu 45
A prime role in the debate Since in the previous step we found two opposite roles depending by the contrary position of activists and conservatives, now we found what let them somehow express and talk to each other: undependent media are the binding agent of the debate.
Independent media The matter is not that without them the network wouldn’t have its closure; the matter is that journalists and newspapers have in this debate the essential role of permitting two opponent positions with nothing in common to express. Although this is for sure not the main aim of the independent media, they cover a role without which we would have two clusters with very little links in common. Now we can realize much more why they’re so various in content and positions aswell. Independent media have many connection with many different other actors. They’re connected with more relevant entities of activists such as with most important conservatives and scientific community
Thestar.Com
Bbc.Co.Uk Washingtonblade.Com Theguardian.Com Thinkprogress.Com Abcnews.Go.Com
Dailymail.Co.Uk
Huffingtonpost.Com
Examiner.Com
Nytimes.Com Mercatornet.Com
Deseretnews.Com Healthland.Time.Com Slate.Com
Cbsnews.Com
Thenewamerican.Com Cnn.Com
Foxnews.Com
From Actors to Network
Familycare.Utoronto.Ca
Apa.Org Wikipedia.Org Aap.Org
Hhs.Gov
Newsroom.Melbourne.Edu
Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov Achess.Org.Au
Familyscholars.Org
Sciencedirect.Com Psychologytoday.Com Utexas.Edu
IND. MEDIA ACTIVISTS ADV. communities SC. community CONServatives LEGAl actors MED. agencies
Scientific community A similar role as the one covered by the independent media, is held by the scientific community: with their work of researchers, they give both the activists and the conservatives material on wich base their position. The same material is also precious for independent media for facing their role of catalysts of information and of the debate. In the besides graph we can realize different related groups: in the center of the graph, the biggest node is wikipedia, as important reference for broad knowledge. Then two important studies on children’s outcomes are both from the University of toronto and achess.org.au. And then again in the bottom of the network, next to the conservatives, there are again studies as their sources. 47
Similar even in relations Again we can confirm how the properties and behavior of activists and advising media are so alike. They cover much the same part of the network, and relate with most similar actors.
Qpocshoutouts.Com
Nclrights.Org
Ourfamily.Org Lgbtqparentingconnection.Ca Proudparenting.Com
Familyequality.Org Colage.Org
Pink-Parenting.Com
Equalfamily.Org
Nashvillegayparents.Com Hrc.Org Pflag.Org
Activists Activists are placed tight with the majority of the actors in the highest part of the network. They have lot of connections between them, first of all, and with advicing communities, such as with part of the scientific community and part of the independent media. Then they also have, suprisingly, connections with conservatives. It’s the case of three actors, weak ties without which the activists wouldn’t have relations with the opponents, then so important. A consideration is that the relations with and between advicing communities, are in most cases stories: blogs and local communities that tell something about the existence; specific contexts with specific needs and background.
Itsconceivablenow.Com
Stonewall.Org.Uk
Affirmation.Org Jerry-Mahoney.Com
Advocate.Com
Pinknews.Co.Uk
From Actors to Network
Thefeministbreeder.Com Education.com
Therainbowbabies.Com Gayfamiliesinthemaking.Wordpress.Com
Advicing communities
IND. MEDIA ACTIVISTS ADV. communities SC. community CONServatives LEGAl actors MED. agencies
While activists seems to have a certain relation with the actors with a defined role inside the controversy, the advising community members neighter link nor are linked by most of them: neighter conservatives not independent media. They seem to avoid the opponents, as not having much to tell them, and also are not linked by them, as they’re not that important in the debate. In fact, they mostly are communities, so without a good authority. In their corner on the top of the network, advising communities, without much many important members, only have relations with actors which give a service, aside from their brothers activists.
49
Mainstreetplaza.Com Patheos.Com Lifesitenews.Com Freerepublic.Com Familystructurestudies.Com Thepublicdiscourse.Com Worldmag.Com Catholicnewsagency.Com Catholicexchange.Com Couragerc.Net
Conservatives As we can se from the graph above, conservatives are not many in numbers but are tight in relations. They tend to relate to each other, as gathering strenght. By observing their relations, we might see how they only have relations with a certain kind of actors, such as members of endependend journalism and scientific community, from which they take references, in many cases. Then we have, as saw before, some relation with activists, which are an important talkative community and a politician, meaning maybe that they want to relate with a certain level of authority, which we might read as a certain tendency to closure.
Glad.Org
Baaf.Org.Uk
Lambdalegal.Org Childwelfare.Gov Thenewcivilrightsmovement.Com Splcenter.Org
Powerlineblog.Com
Austlii.Edu.Au Humanrights.Gov.Au Kids.Nsw.Gov.Au
k
From Actors to Network
Thespermbankofca.Org Fenwayhealth.Org
Prideangel.Com
Circlesurrogacy.Com
Theafa.Com
Growinggenerations.Com
Biomedcentral.Com
Legal actors
Medical agencies
While legal actors are not many in the network, by their position and relation with other actors, they are so meaningful in term of authority. It is clear how they are independent actors, which don’t need to have relations to each other, but are instead considered a relevant source for the rest of the network. It is curious to realize how they totally don’t have relations with conservatives, which might mean that there’s no real relation between law and ethics in this debate, but also that conservatives don’t need relation with legal actors for advancing their opinions.
An opposite sense in term of needs for the communication within the debate have the mecidal agencies: they only give a service, so as we can’t expect from them any meaningful expression in the debate itself, we only can verify how they in fact mainly are linked with actors instead relevant for lgbt people.
IND. MEDIA ACTIVISTS ADV. communities SC. community CONServatives LEGAl actors MED. agencies
51
Findings
The third step of the protocol, aimed to visualize how actors are interconnected, give us a clear and meaningful vision of the debate and the relations which take form: • The visualisation of the network confirm the separation between the two main roles or aims in the debate - which see activists facing the conservatives - by the division of the relatives groups in two clusters; • These clusters tends to have very few relations, but face to each other thanks to the independend media and the scientific community, which have a essential role for the closure and the communication within the debate itself; • The majority of the nodes concentrate between most supporter actors, confirming again the analogy of activists and advicing communities, and seeing both their tight relation and how they give importance to the function of storytelling; • By the difference between networks visualizing inlinks and outlinks, we can both suppose a difference in overture to dialogue, so that we can see how activists are so more talkative then conservatives, which instead only tend to have relations only with few kind of actors (independent media and scientific community); • The same point gave us a list of important actors - the most linked considered important as a source to refer to; • Finally, by visualizing the single networks of actor categories, we can suppose our role in the debate itself. We already talked about the independent media as binding agent of the debate. Scientific community is placed besides groups for which they are a source where to gain informations for the actors’ argumentations. Legal actors might be considered independent authorities (such because they even comprehend governmental organizations) when needed to relate with. Advising communities appear as support to the action of promotion of activists. Finally, medical agencies only relate with groups which they’re aimed to offer their service to. The analysis of the networks gave us essential information for realize the mechanisms of the debate and for understand the behavior of the actors.
From Network to Cosmos
What are actors priorities while discussing lgbt parenting? Here it’s time to go deep in the debate, to show what actors really say about LGBT parenting, starting from their prior points of discussion and getting to details that build their opinion. The content analysis began with the collection of all the texts of our corpus, and their elaboration through Sven software. After having divided the corpus into three groups by actor position (pro, neutral, contra), Sven gave us back, for each group and for each actor inside it, the rank of the most used words, which have been considered by us as main topics inside the discussion. Starting from those big topics we formulated ten hypotetic questions, and actors answers have been extracted through a meticolous reading of all the texts. Moreover, for every question we established some sub-issues which represent a more detailed look into actors priorities. These issues came out while analysing the complete dataset that Sven gave us in the step before, but also while reading and realizing all the important points inside the discussion.
data managing TOOLS › SVEN › EXCEL data visualizing TOOLS › SVEN › raw › adobe illustrator
53
Pro ask for rights 100% OF THE MOST USED WORDS
Six radar graphs to show how pro actors are building their opinion, choosing rights and acknowledgment as priorities for their discourse. We have six actors taking part of pro group, having excluded conservatives because of their opposing position to LGBT parenting. At a first look it is interesting to notice that pro actors give importance mainly to parents rights and law, concerning adoption. The concept of family is defined and shown up in the discussion, where it is also given a big importance to research references.
34%
PARENTS CHILDREN
19%
FAMILY
18% 12%
RESEARCH ADOPTION LAW
9% 6%
FAMILY
RESEARCH
SCI
SCI 35
50
3O 40
ACT
30
25
IND
ACT
20
20 15
IND
10 10
MED
5
LEG
ADV
MED
LEG
ADV
From Network to Cosmos
ACT
PARENTS
CHILDREN
SCI
SCI
35
35
3O
3O
25
25
20 15
IND
ACT
15
10
10
5
5
MED
LEG
MED
ADV
ADOPTION
LAW
SCI
SCI
45
35 3O
35
25
3O 25 20
IND
ACT
15
15
IND
5
5
LEG
ADV
20
10
10
MED
IND
LEG
ADV
40
ACT
20
MED
LEG
ADV
55
Neutral lie in between 100% OF THE MOST USED WORDS
Neutral actors choose the same topics as pro actors for building their opinion, but giving less proportional contrast between the topics.
29%
PARENTS
23%
RESEARCH
17%
CHILDREN
Neutral actors stand without medical agencies and activists, which have a little voice in comparison to their pro position. They give an adding spot of importance to parents, followed by a notable reference to research, but in general they show their neutral nature by considering at almost equal levels children, law, family and adoption.
LAW FAMILY ADOPTION
12% 10% 9%
CHILDREN
LAW
SCI
SCI
35
50
3O 40
25
30
20 15
ADV
IND
10
ADV
10
5
CON
IND
20
LEG
CON
LEG
From Network to Cosmos
ADV
PARENTS
RESEARCH
SCI
SCI
50
100
40
80
30
60
IND
20
ADV
10
CON
IND
40 20
CON
LEG
FAMILY
LEG
ADOPTION
FAMILY
SCI
ADV
SCI
50
100
40
80
30
60
IND
20
ADV
10
CON
IND
40 20
LEG
CON
LEG
57
Contra count on research 100% OF THE MOST USED WORDS
Contra actors choose and refer a lot on children and research as priorities for validating their opinion.
Considering a contrary position to LGBT parenting, the group of actors is build without medical agencies and activists which mainly have a pro position. Here we can see the incoming of new main issues which turn out to be very significant. Children and research are the main topics involved, in relation to two specific studies: the one conducted by Dr. Allen Douglas, which attributes worse graduation rates to children from LGBT families, who are also supposed to have worse outcomes according to Mark Regnerus study.
26%
CHILDREN RESEARCH
23%
ALLEN STUDY
23% 15%
PARENTS
10%
GRADUATION RATES REGNERUS STUDY
3%
ALLEN STUDY
PARENTS
CON
CON
60
50
50
40
40 30 30
SCI
IND
20
SCI
10
10
ADV
In Cosmos to cosmopolitics ››› Deepening about Dr. Allen Douglas and Regnerus studies.
IND
20
LEG
ADV
LEG
From Network to Cosmos
CHILDREN
RESEARCH
CON
CON 35
50
3O 40
25
30
SCI
20
IND
20
15
SCI
10
ADV
IND
10 5
ADV
LEG
LEG
GRADUATION RATES
REGNERUS STUDY
CON
CON
80
80
7O
7O
60
60
50
50
40
40
DY
SCI
IND
30
ADV
SCI
20
20
10
10
LEG
IND
30
ADV
LEG
59
na
le
ni
ng
ren pa ple am ip sh es d tiv ion ol ta lat eh en re us ho
s re
pr lD os efe pe tw c o ns fam e F iltive un y d
an
ab
p re
pa c re an oup nts d g le ay m ot ch he ild r ren of m skil ma oder ls rria n rea l lif hea ge eA lt me rica fami hy ly n fa mil y activ ism eq LGB T pa uality rent in Tran sgen g der con Huma n Righ stitutiona l ts Cam p reprod aign uctiv adoptio e n american family at schoo l private outcomes friendly elementary straight gay parents
renting LGBTQ pa nting LGBT paTrefamily LGB nt justme Kids AdAustralian ies Families il m a F Sex lth rea Same Bay A Add Henating are GBT P L l ia vers Contro
matter
study
ip larsh scho stion que tive lita qua gical lo cho ample y s p s rnal jou
her
arc
e res
lar
ho
sc
lar ho fic sc nti e ts i ul sc ad
ge
Eq u
ali
Pri me
ty
na tio
na
ld
ire
s re cto se so ena ar cie te so r Ro ch ty cia dn l tr ey Bur ers en Cr ea Mi ds oo u nis m r
s
e nc
cie
ls
ia oc
ria
h arc ese y ce R n Claras n e i l usaDoug uch l Sc S a i c o n Cr len So Allemon R. Albergs Si K. Gold eru . r D E. gn A. rk Re rch ea ic Ma es em e e Racad ebative c n d ect law cie lS rsp al cia pe rn ry So jou ma acy m su gitim ily m le fa le t t li
M ar
Starting from the main issues that came out in Sven graph, we built this circular dendogram adding and linking two levels of sub issues, trying to come up with a detailed and complete map. The sub issues came out in two ways: by searching for main issues into Sven dataset and picking related terms, and by reading the texts of our corpus and adding by sense and need the missing words.
tio
Rais Ken eACh yon ild.U Farr S ow
pl
st
al aci y nsr enc tra ag
Here all the possibile subissues have been taken out into a circular dendogram, to be then resumed building questions.
Na
ns tio k op boook nd boting s ha e ren nc pa rie co pe ex ts an ed bit itt ce ha m n co com allia
From priorities to details
inta ct opp osit
strong family bonds
affects childre n total oppo again sition st
ing
par ent
lia
st ra
law
Au
environment
ion way of g becomin parents
rria
ge ma rch
ic r ob te ph at ns m tra n tio ic/ ec hob ot pr mop le ho nsib ment se title en e u y val alit equ ical log bio
tion adop
l orien tation
co u
e
61
ing
straight foster coparent
same sex LGBT LGBTQ pink L G T Q
L l G sracia tran seas rent over nd pa secpolicants hts ap BT ive rig LG roduct enting n & rep ter par minatio & fos or inse & don l sexua hetero
t sta der l un dera fe
g in nt s re ily on pa am opti hip nt f T ns n ad GB tio nitioury icy ede L ela og inj ol rec r ec al p l p & a r leg al eg legad l nse b efe Td
ip tionsh us rela previo ation insemin ion at egg don foster coparenting IVF
sexual orientation
scientific evide nce status
ste m r rK c ep e ev oup ort in Ru les rs o s dd f chi tudy & c paren ldr hild ting en wor devel stres k of opm s ent par en app inten ting ropr t iate ions plan
re n
ild
ch rica
Ame
LGBT relationship
nt ry
A N men Auew Yodmen st rk t chi ralian s MaAct ldr Ma rria en rria ge ch be ild ge Equ ne ren Eq ali TR fits ual ty A UE ity nat ct de ion bo ba al d nd te ire s eq cto sa ua rR m lit od am e s y b ney e i l xb l Cro No end om ill NY rt m e Ok S h en Ca t la ho ro lin m a a
quality aspira ti policy on respo cont nsibilitie s rove rsial stud y
cto
or
d
pe rio
igi
n hea lth dev e lo pm ent ed uca tio ou n tco me cu s sto dy
safe ty
ations
ab se use p sa curity reventio n mafl e spac trea e tme psy n t ps chi we ycholatry llbe ogy ing gro adj wth ust me be nt d ha re em vio gralatioocratur du nsh ic c ati ip om be o s ne pe fits n rat ten w es ce ch elfa re ild re af spo car fe n e cti sib f on ili b os ty a io te sp doplogi r er tiv ca ea m e l gr rl an y c ban k dc hil hi dh ld o re od n
pa adole rents scen ts organiz
publis foster pare her nting adoption controversial parentin g study activists
adult children
n bia les
sexua
good safe ideal
family
school
ts en sc
ad
status
g in nt
s ent par
& human de velopment & family liv & gender es id en tity & fertil it of pare y nts equa lity gend e r sam righ e sex trad t & f itiona am ily l l law ife he be teros bo nefit exua nd s l of ma rri law ag ac e t
a rese
e ol
rt suppo y p otera psych rights force task aby b ily fam or cat edu mily pfa s ste cate o n adv ptio y o ad stud
pre di
Ameri c a n Am Psycho Ameri erican Psycanalytic A can Ps s ych hiatric A sociatio Americological Assssociationn America n Acadaen Bar Assoociation ciation my o f P e d ia trics Alyson P ublicatio ns
LGBT blogger John Becker National LGBT Bar Association Richmond Area LGBT Parenting Group
couple ants cohabitle gal parental abusiveip sh c partnaer ge m rriaio domesti n civil un
ct proje
m boo y stuudes iss
life
ra) y nt ga (co T k ) c z B o pr pe LG ellarsen s ( Lo B e A. . H igginscar M O k H rt ts Za obe adul R ng r age u yo nde u n n bia sex io t r lesame e ta h s n BT c LGG ar rie s se nt lo L e e a r r a T al y xu y B BTQ sexu Tp se mil olog LG tero GB fa ych yL l he a b s c i p d log ting ise bio paren e ra co optiv t e n d a g o i er aren a t fosctond p rents nta rie se andpa o l r g gle ua sin sex tive adopp family ily ste her fam nt t a f gle pare us sin arried stat unm l sexua hetero ex same s s u t T a B t s LG L LG G on ti ta en ri T sexual o alternative diverse traditional straight structures modern righ ts
From Network to Cosmos
Children growth & outcomes
IND ACT ADV SCI CON LEG MED YES/NO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
YES NO SAFETY PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH SELF ESTEEM HEALTH EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS EDUCATION ADJUSTMENT DISCRIMINATION VULNERABLE TO DRUG ABUSE VULNERABLE TO SEXUAL ABUSE ECONOMICAL FAMILY COHESION
1.
From Network to Cosmos
Children is the most controversial and hottest point of the discussion around LGBT parenting. First concern is about children growing into LGBT families compared with traditional ones. Than it appears important to go deep into the factor of stigmatization, to end with presumed missing for children in LGBT families.
IS GROWING UP IN A LGBT FAMILY THE SAME AS GROWING UP IN A HETEROSEXUAL FAMILY? Main part of LGBT parenting debate turns around the matter of children, which comes out to be even the hottest point of discussion in terms of controversy. The primary concern is about how children can grow up differently living in LGBT families, in comparison with standard heterosexual families. Is growing up in a LGBT family the same as growing up in a heterosexual family? The answer tends to be no, but let’s see in the detail why. The sub-issues involved in the discussion for this question are resumable into thirteen values, which are almost always taken
into account by actors. Despite the first common negative answer, we can see that the motivation values are sometimes more negative and other times more positive for children in LGBT families. Discrimination and economic resources are considered the main obstacles to be overcome, and they both come from a difficult situation that even nowaday concerns LGBT community and homosexuality acceptance. LGBT people are still discriminated in workplace, healthcare and everyday life, so they often can’t build a solid family and lead a stable life. The negative answers,
YES NO SAFETY PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH SELF ESTEEM HEALTH EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS EDUCATION ADJUSTMENT DISCRIMINATION VULNERABLE TO DRUG ABUSE VULNERABLE TO SEXUAL ABUSE ECONOMICAL FAMILY COHESION
given here by pro and neutral actors, related to those three factors originate from the existent situation and don’t mean necessarely an opposition to LGBT parenting. On the positive side we have instead openmindedness and social relationships, which represent the so-called ability of children in LGBT families of being more democratic, flexible and moderate. This would come for sure from the fact that LGBT people are more likely to comprehend and accept what’s “different” from the common and they consequently teach it to their children.
1.Circular graph It allows to have a full and detailed vision of aspects concerning the question, by knowing how every single web entity is answering. 2.Summary graph It’s a rapid way to see the position of all the actors about each aspect of the question they are answering.
2. 63
Children growth & outcomes
IND ACT ADV SCI CON LEG MED
YES NO BULLYING AT SCHOOL TEACHERS DISCRIMINATION IN THEIR COMMUNITY SOCIETY
YES/NO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
IS CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT AFFECTED BY STIGMATIZATION IN LGBT FAMILIES?
1.
From Network to Cosmos
IS CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT AFFECTED BY STIGMATIZATION IN LGBT FAMILIES? We already saw in the question before a map of the possible consequences of LGBT parenting on children. Going through the discussion we know that discrimination requires an adding deepening. Every actor, except for legal one, but even conservatives, says that children are somehow stigmatized. This matter is in fact not so important in terms of controversy, but it is to better understand what actors are talking about and for a better comprehension of the theme. The main environments where stigmatization takes place seem to be the community where children live
their everyday life, including as biggest part the school. Here both children mates and teachers use to have a bad behaviour against children of LGBT families, which can be sometimes a cause of worse development for them, in terms of education or psychological health. It is interesting to see how this phenomenon is recognized by everyone as existing, and can be used as a different weapon to say stop to discrimination or to LGBT parenting depending on actor’s beliefs.
YES NO BULLYING AT SCHOOL TEACHERS DISCRIMINATION IN THEIR COMMUNITY INTO SOCIETY
1.Circular graph It allows to have a full and detailed vision of aspects concerning the question, by knowing how every single web entity is answering. 2.Summary graph It’s a rapid way to see the position of all the actors about each aspect of the question they are answering.
2. 65
Children growth & outcomes
YES NO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS FEMALE/MALE ROLE MODELS IND ACT ADV SCI CON LEG MED YES/NO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
ARE CHILDREN OF LGBT FAMILIES LIKELY TO MISS OUT ON SOMETHING?
1.
From Network to Cosmos
ARE CHILDREN OF LGBT FAMILIES LIKELY TO MISS OUT ON SOMETHING? Another deepening which concerns children outcomes depending on the type of family is about what those children can miss out, compared to “straight” ones. The opinion here is divided into two main sides, one adfirming that they’re not missing anything, and one on the contrary position.The discussion is principally around two factors: biological parents, which means the psycological missing of biological figures of “origin” parents, and female and male role models, which represents the missing of society models attributed to men and women.
Activists, scientific community and medical agencies agree on saying that there’s not a consistent missing for the children involved, except for scientists who recognize a difference in having clear gender role models. On the negative answer side it is rather relevant to see how, despite a recognition of a missing, it is considered even better for children not to have still gender role models, but better being openminded and not forced into a straight way of thinking.
YES NO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS FEMALE MALE ROLE MODELS
1.Circular graph It allows to have a full and detailed vision of aspects concerning the question, by knowing how every single web entity is answering. 2.Summary graph It’s a rapid way to see the position of all the actors about each aspect of the question they are answering.
2. 67
Parents abilities & rights
IND ACT ADV SCI CON LEG MED YES/NO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
YES NO SEXUAL ORIENTATION GENDER IDENTITY RELATIONSHIP STATUS ECONOMIC RESOURCES DISCRIMINATION
CAN LGBT PEOPLE BE GOOD PARENTS? TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THEIR...
1.
From Network to Cosmos
Parents rights and empowerment are another big issue inside LGBT parenting discussion. It is most carried out by pro actors, while contra and neutral tend more to talk about LGBT ability and consequent right to grow children.
CAN LGBT PEOPLE BE GOOD PARENTS? TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THEIR... The general idea expressed by all actors except for conservatives is that LGBT people can be good parents as their heterosexual fellows. Sexual orientation and gender identity don’t really influence their ability to parent and to be stable figures for children, while relationship status is sometimes attributed to a common belief that LGBT relationships are often less stable than heterosexual ones. Economic resources and discrimination keep on being negative values for all the actors while considering an LGBT family environment. So can LGBT people be good parents? At
a general look this matter appears to be less controversial than the one about the children, with only conservatives being totally opposing the positive answers.
YES NO SEXUAL ORIENTATION GENDER IDENTITY RELATIONSHIP STATUS ECONOMIC RESOURCES DISCRIMINATION
1.Circular graph It allows to have a full and detailed vision of aspects concerning the question, by knowing how every single web entity is answering. 2.Summary graph It’s a rapid way to see the position of all the actors about each aspect of the question they are answering.
2. 69
Parents abilities & rights
YES NO MARRIAGE PARENTING IND ACT ADV SCI CON LEG MED YES/NO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
SHOULD LGBT INDIVIDUALS ENJOY EQUAL FAMILY RIGHTS AS THEIR HETEROSEXUAL FELLOWS?
1.
From Network to Cosmos
SHOULD LGBT INDIVIDUALS ENJOY EQUAL FAMILY RIGHTS AS THEIR HETEROSEXUAL FELLOWS? Here almost all the actors agree that LGBT people should have the same family rights of heterosexual people. Only conservatives express a different opinion, denying totally the possibility for LGBT people to marry and consequently obviously to adopt. This about LGBT family rights is a more general theme that includes parenting, and it is worldwide controversially debated. It generally starts from a law acknowledgment need, carried out by supporting people, then it changes and ends sometimes with a social evolution towards homosexuality acceptance, sometimes with a total
YES NO MARRIAGE PARENTING
closure against it. Nowaday the worlwide situation of LGBT acceptance is still diveded in a polar way, considering that in 76 countries same-sex relationships are currently illegal and in five of them even punishable by death. But we also know that in most part of western countries homosexuality is recognized and it’s getting more and more legal and social accepted. Here the discussion turns mainly about family rights, starting from marriage and going to parenting as maximum level of recognition.
1.Circular graph It allows to have a full and detailed vision of aspects concerning the question, by knowing how every single web entity is answering. 2.Summary graph It’s a rapid way to see the position of all the actors about each aspect of the question they are answering.
2. 71
Parents abilities & rights
IND ACT ADV SCI CON LEG MED
YES NO ADOPTION SECOND PARENT ADOPTION COPARENTING CUSTODY FOSTER CARE IN VITRO FERTILIZATION DONOR INSEMINATION SURROGACY
YES/NO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
SHOULD LGBT PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO BECOME PARENTS? THROUGH...
1.
From Network to Cosmos
SHOULD LGBT PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO BECOME PARENTS? THROUGH... This question is thought to show actor position over LGBT possibility to be parents, but also to analyse if and how every way of becoming parents is mentioned into the discussion. The general agreement is on a positive answer, except for conservatives, which talk and oppose on adoption and artificial techniques. Almost all the ways are recognized and mentioned, while the main agreement is on adoption, which is even the most debated now, together with foster care and artificial techniques.
YES NO ADOPTION SECOND PARENT ADOPTION COPARENTING CUSTODY FOSTER CARE IN VITRO FERTILIZATION DONOR INSEMINATION SURROGACY
1.Circular graph It allows to have a full and detailed vision of aspects concerning the question, by knowing how every single web entity is answering. 2.Summary graph It’s a rapid way to see the position of all the actors about each aspect of the question they are answering.
2. 73
Family structures & impacts
IND ACT ADV SCI CON LEG MED YES/NO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
YES NO MARRIED HETERO STABLE RELATIOSHIP HETERO SINGLE PARENT HETERO DIVORCED HETERO MARRIED HOMO STABLE RELATIOSHIP HOMO SINGLE PARENT HOMO DIVORCED HOMO
DOES THE TYPE OF FAMILY STRUCTURE HAVE AN IMPACTON CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT?
1.
From Network to Cosmos
We can find a main consideration around family discussion into LGBT parenting debate: there’s a big opposition between the traditional idea of family, stable and made by a man and a woman, and the new family structures, which comprehend unstable and missing relationships and different sexual orientation or gender identity of parents.
DOES THE TYPE OF FAMILY STRUCTURE HAVE AN IMPACT ON CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT? The discussion around the influence of family structures on children mainly originates from recent Mark Regnerus study, which goes precisely deep in the direction of understanding how new family structures differ from straight ones, concerning children outcomes. This study ended with a general negative consideration for instable parents relationships and lgbt families, in comparison to traditional families, whom children appear to outcome healthier and more adjusted. Mark Regnerus research generated a lot of discussion, divided into pro and
contra opinions about it. Here we can see that activists agree with thinking that instable relationships are more harmful than stable ones, with even a positive spot for married lgbt, because of a higher family cohesion. While conservatives are almost still in considering positively only heterosexual factor into relationships, all the other actors, except for legal and medical which don’t discuss significantly on this matter, resume that it is only the traditional model of heterosexual married family to be the best one for children growth.
YES NO MARRIED HETERO STABLE RELATIOSHIP HETERO SINGLE PARENT HETERO DIVORCED HETERO MARRIED HOMO STABLE RELATIOSHIP HOMO SINGLE PARENT HOMO DIVORCED HOMO
1.Circular graph It allows to have a full and detailed vision of aspects concerning the question, by knowing how every single web entity is answering. 2.Summary graph It’s a rapid way to see the position of all the actors about each aspect of the question they are answering.
2. 75
Legal recognition & society acceptance YES NO MARRIAGE EQUALITY BOTH SAME-SEX PARENTS LEGAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PARENTING IND LGBT DISCRIMINATION PUNISHMENT ACT CHILDREN LEGAL PROTECTION ADV SCI CON LEG MED YES/NO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
DO SOCIETIES NEED LAWS TO REGULATE LGBT RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATION?
1.
From Network to Cosmos
Law often represents the first step for social acceptance evolution. Legally talking LGBT parenting is a worldwide hot topic, with still a lot of countries not recognizing even homosexuality, and western countries debating on family rights.
DO SOCIETIES NEED LAW TO REGULATE LGBT RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATION? Everyone in the discussion recognizes that societies need law to regulate lgbt rights. The difference lies in the supportive or opposing intentions, and in the specific matter every actor is talking about. Marriage equality, both parents acknowledgment and parenting rights are the main needs of pro actors, comprehending activists, scientific community and legal actors, that are even the ones who consider more the legal issue. It is interesting to see how even discrimination punishment is needed and originates from an existing situation of stigmatization. Allowing LGBT
rights there would also be a possibility of legal protection for all the kids living with LGBT parents, by reaching equal recognition given to children in traditional families.
YES NO MARRIAGE EQUALITY BOTH same sex PARENTS LEGAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PARENTING LGBT DISCRIMINATION PUNISHMENT CHILDREN LEGAL PROTECTION
1.Circular graph It allows to have a full and detailed vision of aspects concerning the question, by knowing how every single web entity is answering. 2.Summary graph It’s a rapid way to see the position of all the actors about each aspect of the question they are answering.
2. 77
Scientific research references
IND ACT ADV SCI CON LEG MED YES/NO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
YES NO EDUCATION ECONOMICS MEDICINE PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHIATRY LEGISLATION SOCIAL SCIENCE COMMUNICATION STATISTICS
IS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH A RELEVANT SOURCE WHEN DISCUSSING LGBT PARENTING? IN THE FIELDS OF…
1.
From Network to Cosmos
Scientific research appears to be so important into LGBT parenting debate. In fact there are some big studies conducted in Canada, USA and Australia which generated a lot of controversial discussion on the web, mainly on children outcomes by living in different families.
IS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH A RELEVANT RESOURCE WHEN DISCUSSING LGBT PARENTING? IN THE FIELDS OF... All the actors somehow refer to scientific research while discussing LGBT parenting. The tendence is mainly from activists and conservatives to rely on studies for supporting their positions and opinions. Inside the debate we can find some big studies which occupy different extremes towards LGBT parenting, passing from positive ones (“Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex towards Families” by Dr. Simon Crouch) to opposing ones (“New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus, “High School Graduation Rates Among Children of
YES NO EDUCATION ECONOMICS MEDICINE PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHIATRY LEGISLATION SOCIAL SCIENCE COMMUNICATIOn STATISTICS
Same-Sex Households” by Dr. Allen Douglas). The most cited field of research in this debate is social science, within statistics, legislation and education. The curious fact is that research has sometimes been used as an official recognition for legal decisions. For example a case that originated a lot of polemics was in June, when the study of Mark Regnerus was used by Russian lawmaker Andrei Zhuravlyov to advance a bill that would allow the removal of children from same-sex households.
1.Circular graph It allows to have a full and detailed vision of aspects concerning the question, by knowing how every single web entity is answering. 2.Summary graph It’s a rapid way to see the position of all the actors about each aspect of the question they are answering.
2. 79
Findings
This section is all dedicated to understanding the real content of the debate around LGBT parenting. The first main question that needed to be answered here is about which most relevant topics actors are talking about. The radar graphs can show easily the prior points of discussion for each group with different position to the topic (pro, neutral and contra). Pro tend to express their need of empowerment giving priority to parents, then adfirming the concept of family and the importance of legal acknowledgment. Neutral have almost the same general topics but with a less proportional contrast between the topics, while contra revolutionize the order by giving highest importance to children and research reference. To understand then what is inside those main topics we established ten big questions and related sub-issues, to be answered by reading all the texts. What emerged is that the matter of children represents the hottest part of the debate, the one which is more discussed, even in terms of controversy. The main worry, also treated in researches we met into our corpus, is about children growing and development living into LGBT families, in comparison to traditional ones. Activists and conservatives tend almost always to have opposite extreme opinions, and are the ones that talks the most. Activists are more concentrated on parents need for equal family rights and on demonstrating LGBT abilities of being parents, while conservatives use children as a weapon to go against LGBT parenting, being supported by recent scientific studies. While indipendent media and scientific community are generally split into different beliefs but still have a good quantity of answering, medical agencies and legal actors talk less than the others.
From Cosmos to Cosmopolitics
How did the debate evolve over time? This exploration was driven by two questions: In which regions was the debate over same sex parenting most heated over time? Which were the most controversial issues studied by social science researchers during this period of time? In order to be able to answer these questions we had a look at the developments during the past ten years – starting from 2013, going back to the year 2004.
data collecting TOOLS › google trend › dmi google scraper
data managing TOOLS › excel data visualizing TOOLS › tag cloud generator › adobe illustrator
81
30 years on. An enduring controversy study: douglas allen – high school graduation rates among children of same-sex households (aug 2013)
There has been ongoing debate and extensive discussion over homosexual parenting for more than thirty years. In this chapter we explore whether and possibly how the patterns of this controversy changed over time. seattle (5)
This exploration was driven by two questions: In which regions was the debate over same sex parenting most heated over time? Which were the most controversial issues studied by social science researchers during this period of time?
san francisco (5)
In order to be able to answer these questions we had a look at the developments during the past ten years – starting from 2013, going back to the year 2004. In 2013 the controversy took place predominantly in the United States, less intensely but still notably in Canada, Australia and the UK. Interestingly the debate in the United States in late 2013 was most vivid along the coast lines. The exploration showed that the debate was sparked by three very controversial studies: Mark Regnerus’ “New Family Structure Study” (UT, Austin, Texas) as well as a Canadian study on graduation rates of children raised in same-sex households, which are both opposing same sex parenting. The third study focuses on child health in same-sex families, published by an Australian researcher and is of supportive nature. These publications had an high impact on the debate on the web and beyond. Regnerus’ study for instance is continually being cited in new and pending bills, both domestically and abroad. Opponents are continuing
los angeles (7)
toronto (6) boston (10) new york (28) washington, dc (18)
study: mark regnerus – new family structure study (nfss) (july 2012)
From Cosmos to Cosmopolitics
to use his study to fight against LGBT equality, for example in Hawaii, Illinois, Nebraska, the US Congress, Colorado, Croatia, France, Poland and most recently and with severe consequences in Russia. Both sides, supporters of and opponents to lgbt parenting are blaming the respective other side of poor quality of research. One important argument brought up often in the debate is the insufficient
sample size being used as a basis of reserach. Regnerus for example compares children growing up with their biological, married parents mainly to children that were conceived during a previous heterosexual relationship in which one parent came out homosexual, which then resulted in the parents splitting up. This practise raises the question of the legitimacy of the research findings, which this study is repeatedly being critizised for.
geolocation of urls of initial corpus lgbt parenting study 0
100
london (12)
sydney (5) melbourne (6)
study: simon crouch – the australian study of child health in same-sex families (achess) (sep 2012)
83
In 2004 the level of debate had its peak as indicated by GoogleTrends. While back then the matter of LGBT people raising children has been debated almost exclusively in the United States, the controversy spread
more and more in the course of the following years. During the period from 2004 to 2007 there were indications for a shift in focus of research from therapeutic issues towards legal matters – starting
therapy
therapy biological parents gender identity differences patterson school
psychology
psychology
development
development health care discrimination legal issues sexual orientation adoption
marriage
marriage golombok child outcomes adolescent foster care transracial divorce
2004
2005
From Cosmos to Cosmopolitics off with same-sex marriage in 2005, followed by adoption in 2006. This development corresponds with the introduction of the legal right of same-sex couples getting married in the US.
1-10% relevance level
>10% relevance level 100
0
school
adoption
adolescent
85
2006
2007
Massachusatts was the first state in the US to introduce laws concerning same-sex marriage in 2004, followed by California and Connecticut in 2008. There remains a big number of states with limited
or no legal acceptance of lgbt partnerships, where activists and organizations are continuing the fight for equality. This fact results in legal protecting of children of lgbt parents being insufficant in states in which
therapy
biological parents
biological parents
gender identity
gender identity differences patterson school psychology development
health care
health care discrimination legal issues sexual orientation
adoption
adoption marriage golombok child outcomes adolescent foster care
transracial
transracial divorce
2004 2008
2005 2009
From Cosmos to Cosmopolitics only one parent is entitled to adopt or stepparentadoption of children stemming from previous heterosexual relationships is not legal. These issues are consequently surfacing in scientific research.
1-10% relevance level
>10% relevance level 100
0
gender identity
development
adoption
adoption
87
2006 2010
2007 2011
Since lesbian and gay couples are comparatively new to the field of parenting, the group of children being born to same-sex parents is still relatively small. Therefore the impact of the parents’ sexual orientation
on child development and outcomes remains to be of interest to research throughout the entire period from 2004 to 2013.
therapy biological parents gender identity differences patterson school
psychology
psychology
development
development
health care
health care discrimination
legal issues
legal issues sexual orientation
adoption
adoption
marriage
marriage golombok child outcomes adolescent foster care transracial divorce
1-10% relevance level
>10% relevance level 100
0
2012
2013
From Cosmos to Cosmopolitics
Findings
Due to the complexity and interconnection of multiple issues related to same-sex parenting the topics covered by research are diverse and comprehensive. It can be noticed though, that legal issues are playing an increasing role in the field of social science research. That might be due to the fact that it became evident during recent years, that it actually makes a difference for a child to grow up in a setup which is acknowledged and accepted by society and legislation for what it basically is: a family. Research predominantly indicates that children growing up in families headed by same-sex parents turn out not significantly different than children being raised in a traditional set-up. The only difference that remains to play an important role is the stigmatization in school and society these children are facing. Given that for lesbians the hurdles to become a parent are much lower by virtue of their biological sex, these children exist. Children, that might have only one parent listed on their birth certificate, which results in the same-sex partner of the biological mother legally not being a parent. This can be crucial in case the biological parent dies. This is only one example of the impact that legal inequality may result in. Looking at the world map it can be said that the biggest part of the debate is taking place in the United States while actors from Canada, Australia and the UK are having a say once in a while. In other (English speaking) regions the topic of lgbt parenting seems to be not yet/ not anymore a matter of pressing importance.
89
Table of contents
Table of contents
INDEX › TABLE a - MACRO ACTORS › TABLE b - CORPUS of urls › TABLE c - HOSTS added with triangulation
table a - MACRO ACTORS CATEGORY
COLOR
TAGGED ACTORS
INDIPENDEnT MEDIA
45
ACTIVISTS
39
ADVISING communities
37
SCIENTIFIC community
27
CONServatives
14
LEGAl actors
13
MEDICAL agencies
8 91
table b - corpus OF URLS #
URL
QUERY
01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lgbt_parenting
LGBT PARENTING
02
https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
03
http://www.lgbtqparentingconnection.ca/
LGBT PARENTING
04
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/lgbt-parenting-in-the-united-states/
LGBT PARENTING
05
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf
LGBT PARENTING
06
http://forums.thebump.com/categories/lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
07
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/professional-organizations-on-lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
08
http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting
LGBT PARENTING
09
http://www.fenwayhealth.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FCHC_srv_services_LGBT
LGBT PARENTING
10
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html
LGBT PARENTING
11
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/apr/20/gay-parenting-emma-brockes
LGBT PARENTING
12
http://cbsn.ws/1cPROVP
LGBT PARENTING
13
http://www.howstuffworks.com/5-gay-parenting-myths.htm
LGBT PARENTING
14
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
LGBT PARENTING
15
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carlos-a-ball/lgbt-parenting-rights-and-the-courts_b_1626880.html
LGBT PARENTING
16
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
17
http://www.examiner.com/topic/lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
18
http://www.examiner.com/article/lgbt-parenting-fights-junk-science
LGBT PARENTING
19
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/beyond_barriers/information/lgbt_issues/parenting/819.asp
LGBT PARENTING
20
http://gayfamiliesinthemaking.wordpress.com/our-next-meeting/about/making-lgbt-families/lgbt-parenting-links/
LGBT PARENTING
21
http://www.ourtruecolors.org/books/parenting-gay.htm
LGBT PARENTING
22
http://www.kidsinthehouse.com/press/lgbt-parenting-two-minutes
LGBT PARENTING
23
http://raiseachild.us/news/three-decades-of-research-on-lgbt-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
24
http://www.downtownbrooklyn.com/events/family-community/modern-families-learn-about-lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
25
http://services.nycbar.org/EventDetail?EventKey=LGBT082013&WebsiteKey=f71e12f3-524e-4f8c-a5f7-0d16ce7b3314
LGBT PARENTING
26
http://kalw.org/term/lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
27
http://www.pink-parenting.com/
LGBT PARENTING
28
http://southfloridagaynews.com/articles/ucf-successfully-delays-release-of-documents-on-controversial-lgbt-parenting-study/135390
LGBT PARENTING
29
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201207/scientists-rebuke-publication-study-lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
Table of contents
1/ 7 CATEGORY
POSITION
INTEREST
ENTITY
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
community
legal actors
neutral
legal
governative org
activists
pro
activism
community
scientific community
contra
scientific
university
scientific community
contra
scientific
university
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
community
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
medical agencies
pro
medical
company
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
information
media
scientific community
neutral
psychology
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
ORGANIZATION
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
media
activists
pro
activism
media
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
activism
ORGANIZATION
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
education
community
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
education
ORGANIZATION
activists
pro
education
community
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
activism
ORGANIZATION
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
scientific community
neutral
scientific
ORGANIZATION
93
#
URL
QUERY
30
http://myhouseyr.com/programs/lgbt-parenting-group/
LGBT PARENTING
31
http://www.meetup.com/OKC-LGBT-Parenting-Group/
LGBT PARENTING
32
http://www.baywindows.com/Two-memoirs-of-LGBT-parenting-past-and-present
LGBT PARENTING
33
http://qpocshoutouts.com/qpoc-resources/lgbt-parenting-resources/
LGBT PARENTING
34
http://www.prideangel.com/p118/Links/LGBT-Parenting.aspx
LGBT PARENTING
35
http://gayparentstobe.com/category/lgbt-parenting-news/
LGBT PARENTING
36
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-4556-2_6
LGBT PARENTING
37
http://womensissues.about.com/od/LGBTParenting/
LGBT PARENTING
38
https://www.psychology.org.au/publications/statements/lgbt_families/
LGBT PARENTING
39
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/10/11/milestones-in-lgbt-parenting-history/
LGBT PARENTING
40
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/download/LGBTAdoptiveandFosterParenting.pdf
LGBT PARENTING
41
http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/gsc/downloads/LGBTParentedChildrenBib.pdf
LGBT PARENTING
42
http://www.gayrva.com/place/richmond-area-lgbt-parenting-group/
LGBT PARENTING
43
http://www.rainbowrumpus.org/grown-ups/lgbt-parenting-bisexual-experience
LGBT PARENTING
44
http://www.fertilethoughts.com/forums/lgbt-parenting/720111-hello-lgbt-parenting.html
LGBT PARENTING
45
https://www.glad.org/event/2011-gay-parenting-film
LGBT PARENTING
46
http://dawnmorais.com/tag/lgbt-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
47
http://jerry-mahoney.com/tag/lgbt-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
48
http://nashvillegayparents.com/
LGBT PARENTING
49
http://www.lifebeyondtherapy.com/index.php?/blog/4/entry-375-l-g-b-t-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
50
http://www.ctfertility.com/gay-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
51
http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_LGBT_Parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
52
http://ils.unc.edu/dpr/port/lgbtparents/
LGBT PARENTING
53
http://www.blogher.com/thinking-ahead-within-lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
54
http://news.rapgenius.com/Examiner-lgbt-parenting-a-death-sentence-with-salvation-army-lyrics
LGBT PARENTING
55
http://www.justanswer.com/topics-lgbt-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
56
http://www.circlesurrogacy.com/parents/gay-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
57
http://bit.ly/K7k27o
LGBT PARENTING
58
http://www.outvisions.com/Lifestyle/Parents.aspx
LGBT PARENTING
Table of contents
2/ 7 CATEGORY
POSITION
INTEREST
ENTITY
activists
pro
activism
community
activists
pro
activism
community
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
publisher
activists
pro
activism
person
activists
pro
activism
company
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
community
scientific community
neutral
scientific
publisher
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
community
scientific community
neutral
psychology
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
ORGANIZATION
scientific community
pro
scientific
media
scientific community
pro
education
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
activism
university
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
journalism
community
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
media
legal actors
pro
activism
community
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
activism
person
activists
pro
activism
person
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
medical agencies
pro
medical
person
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
education
company
activists
pro
education
community
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
person
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
community
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
media
medical agencies
pro
medical
community
scientific community
neutral
scientific
company
activists
pro
activism
university
95
#
URL
QUERY
59
http://www.dazdivorce.com/LGBT-Parenting.html
LGBT PARENTING
60
http://www.secureteen.com/parenting-style/is-lgbt-parenting-different-from-heterosexual-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
61
http://www.oepi.com/projects/project-e-m-p-o-w-e-r-2/the-effects-of-lgbt-parenting-families/
LGBT PARENTING
62
http://seattlecounselor.org/facts-and-myths-about-lgbt-parenting-a-literature-review/
LGBT PARENTING
63
http://www.childwelfare.gov/adoption/adoptive/glbt_families.cfm
LGBT PARENTING
64
http://www.rainbowaccess.org/TopicIndex/lgbtparenting.html
LGBT PARENTING
65
http://michiganradio.org/post/stateside-lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
66
http://laglc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=YW_Parents_Families
LGBT PARENTING
67
http://resources.thefeministbreeder.com/category/parenting/lgbt-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
68
http://humboldt.edu/cdblog/CD479-Hansen/2013/02/18/feb-20th-article-presentation-lgbt-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
69
http://29br.co.uk/our-expertise/lgbt-parenting
LGBT PARENTING
70
http://www.buzzfeed.com/steventhrasher/how-unjust-family-laws-are-keeping-lgbt-parents-away-from-th
LGBT PARENTING
71
http://www.womensweb.ca/lgbt/parenting.php
LGBT PARENTING
72
http://www.equalfamily.org/blog/?p=1211
LGBT PARENTING
73
http://safaridad.com/category/parenting-news/lgbt-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
74
http://www.e-qualitymark.net/LGBT%20Parenting%20Final%20Report%202007.pdf
LGBT PARENTING
75
http://arewemarried.com/category/lgbt-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
76
http://www.pridefoundation.org/lgbt-parenting-legal-issues-washington/2011/09/
LGBT PARENTING
77
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/irish-gay-parenting-study-reveals-major-challenges140213
LGBT PARENTING
78
http://www.familycare.utoronto.ca/resources/parenting_lgbtq.html
LGBT PARENTING
79
http://familyscholars.org/tag/lgbt-parenting/
LGBT PARENTING
80
http://itsconceivablenow.com/2013/05/24/untold-stories-motherhood/
LGBT PARENTING
81
http://www.therainbowbabies.com/Links.html
LGBT PARENTING
82
http://www.gaysheffield.co.uk/news/lgbt-parenting-seminar-wednesday-14th-july-2010/
LGBT PARENTING
83
http://www.lgbt.cusu.cam.ac.uk/?event=lgbt-parenting-scheme-event-details-tbc
LGBT PARENTING
84
http://bit.ly/1iiALkC
LGBT PARENTING
85
http://itsconceivablenow.com/2011/12/05/it-lgbt-parenting-stories/
LGBT PARENTING
86
http://southerntier.wgrz.com/news/families/71930-lgbt-parenting-2012-controversial-studies-statements-and-celebrities
LGBT PARENTING
87
http://www.jacksonvillelawyer.pro/lawyer-attorney-1662355.html
LGBT PARENTING
Table of contents
3/ 7 CATEGORY
POSITION
INTEREST
ENTITY
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
community
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
community
activists
neutral
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
community
legal actors
neutral
legal
governative org
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
education
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
media
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
activism
community
legal actors
neutral
scientific
university
legal actors
neutral
legal
company
activists
pro
activism
media
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
community
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
activism
person
scientific community
pro
scientific
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
person
legal actors
pro
legal
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
neutral
journalism
media
scientific community
neutral
education
university
scientific community
pro
activism
community
activists
pro
journalism
media
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
activism
community
activists
pro
information
community
activists
neutral
information
community
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
community
activists
pro
information
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
media
97
#
URL
QUERY
88
http://www.jacksonvillelawyer.pro/lawyer-attorney-1662355.html
LGBT PARENTING
89
http://www.gayparentmag.com/support-groups
LGBT PARENTING
90
http://www.aamft.org/imis15/content/consumer_updates/Same-sex_Parents_and_Their_Children.aspx
children in s.s.f.
91
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360424/yet-another-new-study-children-same-sex-parents-fare-worse-maggie-gallagher
children in s.s.f.
92
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/16815-canada-study-kids-in-gay-families-hampered-in-school
children in s.s.f.
93
http://www.achess.org.au/
children in s.s.f.
94
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/children-same-sex-parents-healthier-study-article-1.1365963
children in s.s.f.
95
http://bit.ly/1d0njRx
children in s.s.f.
96
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/12/01/2003578041
children in s.s.f.
97
http://rt.com/news/croatia-anti-gay-referendum-536/
children in s.s.f.
98
http://mccaugheycentre.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/786806/simon_report_.pdf
children in s.s.f.
99
http://bit.ly/1felPpW
children in s.s.f.
100
http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-children-of-same-sex-parents-much-less-likely-to-graduate-from-high-school-106213/
children in s.s.f.
101
http://www.advocate.com/society/modern-families/2013/06/06/study-children-same-sex-parents-are-healthier-peers
children in s.s.f.
102
http://bit.ly/1iVN49f
children in s.s.f.
103
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2336889/Gay-parents-healthier-children-better-self-esteem.html
children in s.s.f.
104
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
children in s.s.f.
105
https://www.kidsmatter.edu.au/health-and-community/enewsletter/better-health-kids-same-sex-parents
children in s.s.f.
106
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/research_and_policy/health_and_healthcare/3471.asp
children in s.s.f.
107
http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/11/do-children-of-same-sex-parents-really-fare-worse/
children in s.s.f.
108
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/05/worlds_largest_study_on_gay_parents_finds_the_kids_are_more_than_all_right/
children in s.s.f.
109
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
children in s.s.f.
110
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/not-all-children-raised-by-gay-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i
children in s.s.f.
111
http://www.ibtimes.com/children-same-sex-parents-healthier-less-argumentative-australian-study-says-1297205
children in s.s.f.
112
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/the-kids-are-alright-gay_b_1539166.html
children in s.s.f.
113
http://newsroom.unl.edu/releases/2013/08/08/What+is+family%3F+Study+explores+how+children+of+gay+parents+overcome+stig
children in s.s.f.
114
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/12/2292061/conservatives-new-smear-campaign-same-sex-parenting-is-child-abuse/
children in s.s.f.
115
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/15/christian-school-boots-kids-with-gay-parents-for-failing-biblical-moral-code/
children in s.s.f.
116
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
children in s.s.f.
Table of contents
4/ 7 CATEGORY
POSITION
INTEREST
ENTITY
legal actors
pro
legal
community
activists
pro
information
community
medical agencies
pro
medical
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
conservatives
contra
journalism
ORGANIZATION
INDIPENDET MEDIA
contra
journalism
media
scientific community
neutral
scientific
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
university
medical agencies
pro
medical
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
ORGANIZATION
scientific community
pro
scientific
media
scientific community
neutral
scientific
media
conservatives
contra
religious
university
activists
pro
activism
university
conservatives
contra
religious
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
media
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
education
media
activists
pro
activism
university
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
governative org
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
conservatives
contra
religious
ORGANIZATION
conservatives
contra
journalism
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
media
INDIPENDET MEDIA
pro
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
ORGANIZATION
INDIPENDET MEDIA
neutral
journalism
media
conservatives
neutral
religious
media
medical agencies
pro
medical
media
99
URL
QUERY
117
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/06/06/major-study-debunks-claim-that-kids-of-same-sex-parents-do-less-well/
children in s.s.f.
118
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/
children in s.s.f.
119
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/are-children-with-same-sex-parents-at-a-disadvantage/
children in s.s.f.
120
http://familylives.org.uk/advice/your-family/parenting/parenting-in-same-sex-relationships/
children in s.s.f.
121
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/number-of-children-with-samesex-parents-soars-20130725-2qm8r.html
children in s.s.f.
122
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/anti-gay-laws-russia
children in s.s.f.
123
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/05/gay-couples-children-happier_n_3388498.html
children in s.s.f.
124
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/protecting-families-standards-for-lgbt-families.pdf
children in s.s.f.
125
http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2013/10/another-downside-for-children-of-same-sex-couples/
children in s.s.f.
126
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/research-shows-children-same-sex-parents-better/1908967/
children in s.s.f.
127
http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/08/16/growing_up_with_samesex_parents.html
children in s.s.f.
128
http://www.vanierinstitute.ca/include/get.php?nodeid=2817
children in s.s.f.
129
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=108&sectionid=702
children in s.s.f.
130
http://www.worldmag.com/2013/10/study_growing_up_in_gay_families_hamstrings_kids_in_school
children in s.s.f.
131
http://bit.ly/1dh0F8W
children in s.s.f.
132
http://www.ctfamily.org/editorial10.html
children in s.s.f.
133
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-same-entitlements-chapter-5
children in s.s.f.
134
http://www.marriageequalityri.org/learn/children/
children in s.s.f.
135
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/publications.html
children in s.s.f.
136
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/10/study-graduation-rates-lag-among-children-from-same-sex-households.php
children in s.s.f.
137
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/269718/0080303.pdf
children in s.s.f.
138
http://www.aifs.gov.au/cfca/bibliographies/samesexparents.php
children in s.s.f.
139
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/07/09/2576576/same-sex-same-challenges.html
children in s.s.f.
140
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/children-gay-parents-happier-study-5515718
children in s.s.f.
141
http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/australian-study-reveals-same-sex-families-make-happier-children-11504.html
children in s.s.f.
142
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3805051.htm
children in s.s.f.
143
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/gay_parenting.pdf
children in s.s.f.
144
http://guides.sl.nsw.gov.au/content.php?pid=316240&sid=2590821
children in s.s.f.
145
http://www.couragerc.net/EnCourage.html
children in s.s.f.
#
Table of contents
5/ 7 CATEGORY
POSITION
INTEREST
ENTITY
indipendent media
pro
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
contra
journalism
media
scientific community
contra
medical
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
education
ORGANIZATION
indipendent media
pro
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
neutral
journalism
ORGANIZATION
indipendent media
pro
journalism
media
legal actors
pro
activism
media
indipendent media
contra
journalism
media
indipendent media
pro
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
pro
journalism
ORGANIZATION
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
media
scientific community
pro
scientific
media
conservatives
contra
religious
media
scientific community
pro
scientific
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
contra
education
ORGANIZATION
legal actors
neutral
legal
university
activists
pro
activism
media
scientific community
pro
scientific
university
legal actors
contra
legal
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
ORGANIZATION
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
governative org
indipendent media
neutral
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
pro
journalism
ORGANIZATION
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
university
indipendent media
pro
information
media
scientific community
pro
scientific
governative org
legal actors
neutral
legal
governative org
conservatives
contra
religious
media
101
URL
QUERY
146
http://aifs.govspace.gov.au/2013/06/11/news-australian-children-with-same-sex-parents-are-doing-well/
children in s.s.f.
147
http://faculty.spokanefalls.edu/inetshare/autowebs/kimt/aw%20articles/children%20of%20lesbian%20and%20gay%20parents.pdf
children in s.s.f.
148
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/20/study-finds-that-children-of-gay-parents-are-generally-happier/
children in s.s.f.
149
http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/types-of-families/pages/Gay-and-Lesbian-Parents.aspx
children in s.s.f.
150
http://bit.ly/1femMP9
children in s.s.f.
151
http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/children-same-sex-attracted-parents-score-high-health-and-wellbeing
children in s.s.f.
152
http://paa2013.princeton.edu/papers/132066
children in s.s.f.
153
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/hrc-issue-brief-families
children in s.s.f.
154
http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/?/category/family-parenting/2/topic/same-sex-parents/189/
children in s.s.f.
155
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html
children in s.s.f.
156
http://bit.ly/1iiEjTU
children in s.s.f.
157
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/07/10474/
children in s.s.f.
158
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sex-adoptions-frontier-lgbt-advocates/story?id=20780309
children in s.s.f.
159
http://www.goldencradle.org/how-do-children-same-sex-adoption-fare
children in s.s.f.
160
http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~pnc/GLMH2013.pdf
children in s.s.f.
161
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.html
children in s.s.f.
162
http://www.njfpc.org/adult-children-speak-out-about-same-sex-parents
children in s.s.f.
163
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/how-to-talk-to-your-children-about-gay-parents-by-a-gay-parent/
children in s.s.f.
164
http://www.sccoe.org/depts/csh/CSH%20SB48%20Doc%20Library/BT%20Parents%20and%20Their%20Children.pdf
children in s.s.f.
165
http://www.autostraddle.com/australia-conducts-largest-ever-study-on-gay-parents-finds-kids-are-in-fact-alright-179614/
children in s.s.f.
166
http://www.finaid.org/fafsa/lgbtfafsa.phtml
children in s.s.f.
167
http://yas.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/09/0044118X13502366.abstract
children in s.s.f.
168
http://www.humanumreview.com/articles/view/children-of-gay-parents
children in s.s.f.
169
http://www.nelfa.org/index.php/utilities-for-lgbt-families
children in s.s.f.
170
http://www.emilypost.com/home-and-family-life/todays-families/300-families-with-same-sex-parents
children in s.s.f.
171
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/children-of-gay-families-do-well-study-finds/104831
children in s.s.f.
172
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/lifestyle/archives/2013/06/20130605-144632.html
children in s.s.f.
173
http://www.parentbooks.ca/Gay_&_Lesbian_Parenting.html
children in s.s.f.
174
http://workingitout.org.au/homophobia_families.html
children in s.s.f.
#
Table of contents
6/ 7 CATEGORY
POSITION
INTEREST
ENTITY
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
governative org
scientific community
pro
information
person
activists
pro
journalism
media
medical agencies
pro
medical
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
neutral
journalism
ORGANIZATION
scientific community
pro
scientific
media
scientific community
neutral
scientific
university
activists
pro
activism
university
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
pro
journalism
community
conservatives
contra
religious
media
conservatives
contra
information
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
neutral
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
activism
media
scientific community
pro
information
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
contra
journalism
university
conservatives
contra
activism
media
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
scientific community
pro
scientific
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
legal actors
pro
legal
community
scientific community
neutral
scientific
company
conservatives
contra
journalism
publisher
activists
pro
activism
media
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
pro
journalism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
indipendent media
neutral
journalism
media
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
media
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
company
103
URL
QUERY
175
http://catholicexchange.com/what-do-the-children-say
children in s.s.f.
176
http://www.essentialkids.com.au/health/latest-health-news/tick-for-samesex-families-20130606-2nrqj.html
children in s.s.f.
177
http://www.parenting.com/article/same-sex-parenting
children in s.s.f.
178
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2326/20130607/children-same-sex-parents-better-health-greater-wellbeing.htm
children in s.s.f.
179
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23101497
children in s.s.f.
180
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/09/russian-parliament-will-debate-taking-children-from-same-sex-parents/
children in s.s.f.
181
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130713095246.htm
children in s.s.f.
182
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3026913/posts
children in s.s.f.
183
http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/site/zenith_news/newsdetail/known_biological_fathers
children in s.s.f.
#
Table of contents
7/ 7 CATEGORY
POSITION
INTEREST
ENTITY
conservatives
contra
journalism
media
indipendent media
pro
journalism
media
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
pro
information
community
indipendent media
pro
journalism
media
medical agencies
neutral
medical
governative org
indipendent media
neutral
journalism
media
scientific community
pro
scientific
media
conservatives
contra
journalism
community
legal actors
neutral
legal
company
105
table c - host added with triangulation #
HOST
QUERY
01
colage.org
CRAWL
02
familyequality.org
CRAWL
03
hrc.org
CRAWL
04
growinggenerations.com/
CRAWL
05
proudparenting.com
CRAWL
06
glad.org
CRAWL
07
pflag.org
CRAWL
08
thepublicdiscourse.com
CRAWL
09
baaf.org.uk
CRAWL
10
house.gov
CRAWL
11
glma.org
CRAWL
12
familystructurestudies.com
CRAWL
13
kids.nsw.gov.au
CRAWL
14
equalityhumanrights.com
CRAWL
15
affirmation.org
CRAWL
16
children-matter.org
CRAWL
17
mercatornet.com
CRAWL
18
englishmanif.blogspot.com
CRAWL
19
www2.ohchr.org
CRAWL
20
apadivision44.org
CRAWL
21
lambdalegal.org
CRAWL
Table of contents
CATEGORY
POSITION
INTEREST
ENTITY
activists
pro
activism
COMMUNITY
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
medical agencies
pro
medical
ORGANIZATION
activists
pro
activism
MEDIA
legal actors
pro
legal
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
activists
pro
activism
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
conservatives
contra
scientific
publisher (book)
ADVISING COMMUNITIES
neutral
information
ORGANIZATION
legal actors
neutral
legal
governative org
medical agencies
pro
medical
ORGANIZATION
conservatives
contra
activism
MEDIA
legal actors
neutral
legal
governative org
activists
pro
activism
ORGANIZATION
activists
pro
activism
COMMUNITY
legal actors
pro
legal
MEDIA
conservatives
contra
journalism
media
conservatives
contra
activism
PERSON
activists
pro
activism
governative org
medical agencies
pro
medical
ORGANIZATION
legal actors
pro
legal
NGO (ORGANIZATION)
107