arguments/debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Mexico

Since the SC ruling in Mexico, does marriage automatically entail adoption? I'm hesitant to add the recent SSM states to the map. — kwami (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2022

LGBT adoption → Adoption by same-sex couples – The article talks about people of the same sex adopting; it isn't about trans people adopting. It should follow the same logic behind the Same-sex marriage article and be named Adoption by same-sex couples. Both topics are about same-sex couples, not about transgender rights. It is not objective nor accurate to use the LGBT acronym in this article Heikocvijic (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would make sense, since it's in a similar situation where the article is almost exclusive about same-sex parenting and it makes more sense to treat it as its own distinct topic, but that would raise the question of what to do with the small section on transgender parenting tacked on at the end. Perhaps a Transgender parenting article is in order? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Heikocvijic (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the proposal: "same-sex adoption" sounds like you're adopting someone of the same sex. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the most common terminology for this topic, though. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've added notes to the SSM template that not all SSM jurisdictions allow SS couples to adopt, so SSM is not "equal marriage" in those states. Reverted as "not relevant", but it seems to me that having gender tests for whether you count as a married couple is very relevant to whether a state truly has SSM. (SS couples can get married, and married couples can jointly adopt, but SS married couples cannot jointly adopt, so they have a 2nd-class marriage.) — kwami (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Heikocvijic: just FYI, you don't need to start a whole new RM for the new proposed name. In a situation like this where an RM is opened proposing that an article at title A be moved to title B, then during the discussion someone else suggests title C, which attracts consensus, it's completely normal for the closer to move the page to title C, even though it wasn't the originally proposed title. Also, if this page is moved, the corresponding category can also be speedily moved, without requiring any further discussion, per WP:C2D. Though you may still want to open a new RM to discuss LGBT parenting. Colin M (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support the proposal. Make the move. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: wait, I'm confused. You said you supported the proposal because it's "more concise". I would think that meant you supported Same-sex adoption rather than Adoption by same-sex couples? Colin M (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I support “same-sex adoption” over “Adoption by same-sex couples”. I misread CX Zoom’s comment. I apologize. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories