Issuu on Google+

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


Same same but different