Gay Parenting Essay Research Paper Lesbian and
Gay Parenting Essay, Research Paper
Lesbian and Gay Parenting
I. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
Charlotte J. Patterson
University of Virginia
Like households headed by heterosexual parents, sapphic and cheery parents and their kids are a diverse group ( Martin, 1993 ) .
Unlike heterosexual parents and their kids, nevertheless, sapphic and cheery parents and their kids are frequently capable to
bias because of sexual orientation that turns Judgess, legislators, professionals, and the populace against them, often
ensuing in negative results such as loss of physical detention, limitations on trial, and prohibitions against acceptance
( Falk, 1989 ; Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990 ) . As with all socially stigmatized groups, the beliefs held by and large in
society about tribades and cheery work forces are frequently non based in personal experience, but are alternatively culturally transmitted ( Herek,
1991 ) . The intent of this sum-up of research findings on sapphic and cheery parents and their kids is to help psychologists
and other professionals to measure widespread beliefs in the visible radiation of empirical informations and in this manner ameliorate the negative
effects of indefensible bias.
Only $13.90 / page
Because many beliefs about sapphic and cheery parents and their kids are unfastened to empirical trial, psychological research can
measure their truth. Systematic research comparing sapphic and cheery grownups to heterosexual grownups merely began in the late
1950s, and research comparing kids of homosexual and sapphic parents with those of heterosexual parents is of a more recent
vintage. Research on sapphic and cheery grownups began with Evelyn Hooker & # 8217 ; s landmark survey ( 1957 ) and culminated with the
declassification of homosexualism as a mental upset in 1973 ( Gonsiorek, 1991 ) . Case reports on kids of homosexual and sapphic
parents began to look in the psychiatric literature in the early 1970s ( e.g. , Osman, 1972 ; Weeks, Derdeyn, & A ; Langman,
1975 ) and have continued to look ( e.g. , Agbayewa, 1984 ) . Get downing with the pioneering work of Martin and Lyon ( 1972 ) ,
foremost individual and fictionalized descriptions of life in sapphic female parent households have besides become available ( e.g. , Alpert, 1988 ;
Clausen, 1985 ; Jullion, 1985 ; Mager, 1975 ; Perreault, 1975 ; Pollock & A ; Vaughn, 1987 ; Rafkin, 1990 ) . Systematic research on
the kids of sapphic and cheery parents did non, nevertheless, begin to look in major professional diaries until 1978, and most of
the available research has been published more late.
As this sum-up will demo, the consequences of bing research comparing homosexual and sapphic parents to heterosexual parents and
kids of homosexual or sapphic parents to kids of heterosexual parents are quite unvarying: common sterotypes are non supported
by the informations.
Without denying the lucidity of consequences to day of the month, it is of import besides for psychologists and other professionals to be cognizant that
research in this country has presented a assortment of methodological challenges, non all of which have been surmounted in every
survey. As is true in any country of research, inquiries have been raised with respect to trying issues, statistical power, and other
proficient affairs ( e.g. , Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, & A ; Wilson, 1993 ) ; no person survey is wholly unbeatable to such
One unfavorable judgment of this organic structure of research ( Belcastro et al. , 1993 ) has been that the research lacks external cogency because it may
non be representative of the larger population of sapphic and cheery parents. This unfavorable judgment is non justified, because cipher knows
the existent composing of the full population of sapphic female parents, homosexual male parents, or their kids ( many of whom choose to
stay concealed ) and hence research workers can non possible measure the grade to which peculiar samples do or make non stand for
the population. In the long tally, it is non the consequences obtained from any one specific sample, but the accretion of findings from
many different samples that will be most meaningful.
Research in this country has besides been criticized for utilizing ill matched or no control groups in designs that call for such
controls. Particularly noteworthy in this class has been the inclination in some surveies to compare development among kids of
a group of divorced sapphic female parents, many of whom are populating with sapphic spouses, to that among kids of a group of
divorced heterosexual female parents who are non presently populating with heterosexual spouses. It will be of import for future research to
disentangle maternal sexual orientation from maternal position as partnered or unpartnered.
Other unfavorable judgments have been that most surveies have involved comparatively little samples, that there have been insufficiencies in
appraisal processs employed in some surveies, and that the categorization of parents as sapphic, cheery, or straight person has
sometimes been debatable ( e.g. , some adult females classified by research workers as sapphic might be regarded as bisexual by other
perceivers ) . It is important, nevertheless, that even with all the inquiries and/or restrictions that may qualify research in the
country, none of the published research suggests decisions different from those that will be summarized below.
This drumhead consists of four subdivisions. In the first, consequences of research on sapphic and cheery grownups ( and parents ) are summarized.
In the 2nd subdivision, a sum-up of consequences from research comparing kids of sapphic and cheery parents with those of
heterosexual parents or with established norms is presented. The 3rd subdivision summarizes research on heterogeneousness among
sapphic and cheery households with kids. The 4th subdivision provides a brief decision.
A. Lesbian and Gay Parents
One belief that frequently underlies both judicial decision-making in detention judicial proceeding and public policies regulating Foster attention and
acceptance has been the belief that tribades and cheery work forces are non fit to be parents. In peculiar, tribunals have sometimes assumed
that gay work forces and tribades are mentally sick, that tribades are less maternal than heterosexual adult females, and that lesbians & # 8217 ; and gay
work forces & # 8217 ; s relationships with sexual spouses leave small clip for ongoing parent-child interactions ( Editors of the Harvard Law
Review, 1990 ) . Results of research to day of the month hold failed to corroborate any of these beliefs ( Falk, 1989, 1994 ; Patterson, 1994b,
1995b, 1996 ) .
Mental Health of Lesbians and Gay Men
The psychiatric, psychological, and social-work professions do non see homosexual orientation to be a mental upset.
More than 20 old ages ago, the American Psychiatric Association removed “ homosexualism ” from its list of mental upsets,
saying that “ homosexualism per Se implies no damage in judgement, stableness, dependability, or general societal or vocational
capablenesss ” ( American Psychiatric Association, 1980 ) . In 1975, the American Psychological Association took the same
place and urged all mental wellness professionals to assist chase away the stigma of mental unwellness that had long been associated with
homosexual orientation ( American Psychological Association, 1975 ) . The National Association of Social Workers has a similar
policy ( National Association of Social Workers, 1994 ) .
The determination to take homosexual orientation from the list of mental upsets reflects the consequences of extended research,
conducted over three decennaries, demoing that homosexual orientation is non a psychological maladjustment ( Gonsiorek, 1991 ;
Reiss, 1980 ; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston, & A ; McKee, 1978 ) . The societal and other fortunes in which tribades
and gay work forces live, including exposure to widespread bias and favoritism, frequently cause acute hurt ; but there is no
dependable grounds that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological operation ( Freedman, 1971 ; Gonsiorek, 1991 ;
Hart et al. , 1978 ; Hooker, 1957 ; Reiss, 1980 ) .
Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents
Beliefs that gay and sapphic grownups are non fit parents similarly have no empirical foundation ( Cramer, 1986 ; Falk, 1989 ; Gibbs,
1988 ; Patterson, 1996 ) . Lesbian and heterosexual adult females have non been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental
wellness or in their attacks to child raising ( Kweskin & A ; Cook, 1982 ; Lyons, 1983 ; Miller, Jacobsen, & A ; Bigner, 1981 ;
Mucklow & A ; Phelan, 1979 ; Pagelow, 1980 ; Rand, Graham, & A ; Rawlings, 1982 ; Thompson, McCandless, & A ; Strickland, 1971 ) ,
nor have lesbians & # 8217 ; romantic and sexual relationships with other adult females been found to take away from their ability to care for their
kids ( Pagelow, 1980 ) . Recent grounds suggests that sapphic twosomes who are rearing together tend to split family
and household labour comparatively equally ( Hand, 1991 ; Patterson, 1995a ) and to describe
satisfaction with their couple relationships ( Koepke, Hare, & A ; Moran, 1992 ; Patterson, 1995a ) . Research on homosexual male parents has
likewise found no ground to believe them unfit as parents ( Barret & A ; Robinson, 1990 ; Bigner and Bozett, 1990 ; Bozett, 1980,
1989 ) .
B. Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
In add-on to judicial concerns about homosexual and sapphic parents themselves, tribunals have voiced three major sorts of frights about
effects of sapphic or cheery parents on kids.
The first general concern is that development of sexual individuality will be impaired among kids of sapphic or cheery parents-for
case, that kids brought up by homosexual male parents or sapphic female parents will demo perturbations in gender individuality and/or in gender
function behaviour ( Falk, 1989 ; Hitchens & A ; Kirkpatrick, 1985 ; Kleber, Howell, & A ; Tibbits-Kleber, 1986 ) . It has besides been
suggested that kids brought up by sapphic female parents or homosexual male parents will themselves go cheery or sapphic ( Falk, 1989 ;
Kleber et al. , 1986 ) .
A 2nd class of concerns involves facets of kids & # 8217 ; s personal development other than sexual individuality ( Falk, 1989 ;
Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990 ; Kleber et al. , 1986 ) . For illustration, tribunals have expressed frights that kids in the
detention of homosexual or sapphic parents will be more vulnerable to mental dislocation, will exhibit more adjustment troubles and
behaviour jobs, and will be less psychologically healthy than kids turning up in places with heterosexual parents.
A 3rd class of specific frights expressed by the tribunals is that kids of sapphic and cheery parents may see troubles
in societal relationships ( Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990 ; Falk, 1989 ; Hitchens & A ; Kirkpatrick, 1985 ) . For illustration,
Judgess have repeatedly expressed concern that kids populating with sapphic female parents may be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise
traumatized by equals. Another common fright is that kids populating with homosexual or sapphic parents may be more likely to be sexually
abused by the parent or by the parent & # 8217 ; s friends or familiarities.
Three facets of sexual individuality are considered in the research: gender individuality concerns a individual & # 8217 ; s self-identification as male or
female ; gender-role behaviour concerns the extent to which a individual & # 8217 ; s activities, businesss, and the similar are regarded by the
civilization as masculine, feminine, or both ; sexual orientation refers to a individual & # 8217 ; s pick of sexual spouses & # 8211 ; i.e. , heterosexual,
homosexual, or bisexual ( Money & A ; Earhardt, 1972 ; Stein, 1993 ) . To analyze the possibility that kids in the detention of
sapphic female parents or cheery male parents experience breaks of sexual individuality, research relevant to each of these three major countries of
concern is summarized below.
Gender individuality. In surveies of kids runing in age from 5 to 14, consequences of projective testing and related interview
processs have revealed normal development of gender individuality among kids of sapphic female parents ( Green, 1978 ; Green,
Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray, & A ; Smith, 1986 ; Kirkpatrick, Smith, & A ; Roy, 1981 ) . More direct appraisal techniques to measure
gender individuality have been used by Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter ( 1983 ) with the same consequence ; all kids in this survey
reported that they were happy with their gender, and that they had no wish to be a member of the opposite sex. There was no
grounds in any of the surveies of gender individuality troubles among kids of sapphic female parents. No informations have been reported in
this country for kids of homosexual male parents.
Gender-Role Behavior. A figure of surveies have examined gender-role behaviour among the progeny of sapphic female parents
( Golombok et al. , 1983 ; Gottman, 1990 ; Green, 1978 ; Hoeffer, 1981 ; Kirkpatrick et al. , 1981 ; Patterson, 1994a ) . These
surveies reported that such behaviour among kids of sapphic female parents fell within typical bounds for conventional sex functions. For
case, Kirkpatrick and her co-workers ( 1981 ) found no differences between kids of sapphic versus heterosexual female parents
in plaything penchants, activities, involvements, or occupational picks.
Rees ( 1979 ) administered the Bem Sex Role Inventory ( BSRI ) to 24 striplings, half of whom had divorced sapphic and half
of whom had divorced heterosexual female parents. The BSRI outputs tonss on maleness and muliebrity as independent factors and
an hermaphroditism mark from the ratio of maleness to muliebrity. Children of sapphic and heterosexual female parents did non differ on
maleness or on hermaphroditism, but kids of sapphic female parents reported greater psychological muliebrity than did those of
heterosexual female parents. This consequence would look to run counter to outlooks based on stereotypes of tribades as lacking in
muliebrity, both in their ain demeanour and in their likely influences on kids.
Sexual activity function behaviour of kids was besides assessed by Green and his co-workers ( 1986 ) . In interviews with the kids, no
differences between 56 kids of sapphic and 48 kids of heterosexual female parents were found with regard to favorite
telecasting plans, favourite telecasting characters, or favourite games or playthings. There was some indicant in interviews with
kids themselves that the progeny of sapphic female parents had less sex-typed penchants for activities at school and in their
vicinities than did kids of heterosexual female parents. Consistent with this consequence, sapphic female parents were besides more likely than
heterosexual female parents to describe that their girls frequently participated in bare-knuckle drama or on occasion played with
“ masculine ” playthings such as trucks or guns ; nevertheless, they reported no differences in these countries for boies. Lesbian female parents were
no more or less likely than heterosexual female parents to describe that their kids frequently played with “ feminine ” playthings such as dolls. In
both household types, nevertheless, kids & # 8217 ; s sex-role behaviour was seen as falling within normal bounds.
In drumhead, the research suggests that kids of sapphic female parents develop forms of gender-role behaviour that are much like
those of other kids.
No information are available as yet in this country for kids of homosexual male parents.
Sexual Orientation. A figure of research workers have besides studied a 3rd constituent of sexual individuality: sexual orientation
( Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & A ; Mikach, 1995 ; Bozett, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989 ; Gottman, 1990 ; Golombok et al. , 1983 ; Green,
1978 ; Huggins, 1989 ; Miller, 1979 ; Paul, 1986 ; Rees, 1979 ) . In all surveies, the great bulk of progeny of both cheery male parents
and sapphic female parents described themselves as heterosexual. Take together, the informations do non propose elevated rates of
homosexualism among the progeny of sapphic or cheery parents. For case, Huggins ( 1989 ) interviewed 36 adolescents, half of
whom were offspring of sapphic female parents and half of heterosexual female parents. No kids of sapphic female parents identified themselves
as sapphic or cheery, but one kid of a heterosexual female parent did ; this difference was non statistically important. In a recent survey,
Bailey and his co-workers ( 1995 ) studied big boies of homosexual male parents and found more than 90 % of the boies to be heterosexual.
Because the heterosexual and nonheterosexual boies did non differ in
the length of clip they had resided with their male parents, the effects of the exposure to the male parents & # 8217 ; sexual orientation on the boies & # 8217 ;
sexual orientation must hold been either really little or nonexistent.
Other Aspects of Personal Development
Surveies of other facets of personal development among kids of homosexual and sapphic parents have assessed a wide array of
features. Among these have been separation-individuation ( Steckel, 1985, 1987 ) , psychiatric ratings ( Golombok et
al. , 1983 ; Kirkpatrick et al. , 1981 ) , appraisals of behaviour jobs ( Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua and Joseph, 1995 ;
all right et al. , 1983 ; Patterson, 1994a ) , personality ( Gottman, 1990 ) , self-concept ( Gottman, 1990 ; Huggins, 1989 ;
Patterson, 1994a ; Puryear, 1983 ) , locus of control ( Puryear, 1983 ; Rees, 1979 ) , moral judgement ( Rees, 1979 ) , and
intelligence ( Green et al. , 1986 ) . Research has shown that concerns about troubles in personal development in these countries
among kids of sapphic female parents are indefensible. As was the instance for sexual individuality, surveies of these other facets of
personal development have revealed no major differences between kids of sapphic versus heterosexual female parents. One
statistically important difference in self-concept emerged in Patterson & # 8217 ; s ( 1994a ) survey: kids of sapphic female parents reported
greater symptoms of emphasis but besides a greater overall sense of wellbeing than did kids in a comparing group of
heterosexual households. The responses of both groups were, nevertheless, within a normal scope ( Patterson, 1994a ) . Overall, the
belief that kids of homosexual and sapphic parents suffer shortages in personal development has no empirical foundation.
Surveies measuring possible differences between kids of homosexual and sapphic versus heterosexual parents have sometimes
included appraisals of kids & # 8217 ; s societal relationships. The most common focal point of attending has been on equal dealingss, but
some information on kids & # 8217 ; s relationships with grownups has besides been collected. Research findings that reference the likeliness of
sexual maltreatment are besides summarized in this subdivision.
Research on equal dealingss among kids of sapphic female parents has been reported by Golombok and her co-workers ( 1983 ) ,
Green ( 1978 ) , and by Green and his co-workers ( 1986 ) . Reports by both parents and kids suggest normal development of
equal relationships. For illustration, as would be expected, most school-aged kids reported same-sex best friends and
preponderantly same-sex equal groups ( Golombok et al. , 1983 ; Green, 1978 ) . The quality of kids & # 8217 ; s peer dealingss was
described, on norm, in positive footings by research workers ( Golombok et al. , 1983 ) every bit good as by sapphic female parents and their
kids ( Green et al. , 1986 ) .
No information on the kids of homosexual male parents have been reported in this country.
Surveies of relationships with grownups among the progeny of sapphic and cheery parents have besides yielded a by and large positive image
( Golombok et al. , 1983 ; Harris & A ; Turner, 1985/86 ; Kirkpatrick et al. , 1981 ) . For illustration, Golombok and her co-workers
( 1983 ) found that kids of divorced sapphic female parents were more likely to hold had recent contact with their male parents than were
kids of divorced heterosexual female parents. Another survey, nevertheless, found no differences in this respect ( Kirkpatrick et al. ,
1981 ) . Harris and Turner ( 1985/86 ) studied the progeny of homosexual male parents every bit good as those of sapphic female parents ; parent-child
relationships were described in positive footings by parents in their sample. One important difference between sapphic and homosexual
parents, on the one manus, and heterosexual parents, on the other, was that heterosexual parents were more likely to state that
their kids & # 8217 ; s visits with the other parent presented jobs for them ( Harris & A ; Turner, 1985/86 ) .
In the Golombok et Al. ( 1983 ) survey, kids & # 8217 ; s contacts with big friends of their sapphic female parents were besides assessed. All of
the kids were reported to hold contact with big friends of their female parents, and the bulk of sapphic female parents reported that
their grownup friends were a mixture of homosexual and heterosexual grownups.
Concerns that kids of homosexual or sapphic parents are more likely than kids of heterosexual parents to be sexually abused
hold besides been addressed. Consequences of work in this country reveal that the great bulk of grownups who perpetrate sexual maltreatment are
male ; sexual maltreatment of kids by grownup adult females is highly rare ( Finkelhor & A ; Russell, 1984 ; Jones & A ; MacFarlane, 1980 ;
Sarafino, 1979 ) . Furthermore, the overpowering bulk of child sexual maltreatment instances involve an grownup male mistreating a immature
female ( Jenny, Roesler, & A ; Poyer, 1994 ; Jones & A ; MacFarlane, 1980 ) . Available grounds reveals that gay work forces are no more
probably than heterosexual work forces to commit child sexual maltreatment ( Groth & A ; Birnbaum, 1978 ; Jenny et al. , 1994 ; Sarafino, 1979 ) .
Fears that kids in detention of homosexual or sapphic parents might be at heightened hazard for sexual maltreatment are therefore without footing in the
Overall, so, consequences of research to day of the month suggest that kids of sapphic and cheery parents have normal relationships with equals
and that their relationships with grownups of both sexes are besides satisfactory. The image of sapphic female parents & # 8217 ; kids that emerges
from consequences of bing research is therefore one of general battle in societal life with equals, with male parents, and with female parents & # 8217 ; grownup
friends & # 8211 ; both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Studies in this country to day of the month are few, and the informations emerging
from them are unelaborated. On the footing of bing research findings, nevertheless, frights about kids of tribades and homosexuals work forces being
sexually abused by grownups, ostracized by equals, or isolated in single-sex sapphic or cheery communities are baseless.
C. Diversity Among Gay and Lesbian Families
Despite the enormous diverseness evident within homosexual and sapphic communities, research on differences among sapphic and homosexual
households with kids is every bit yet rather thin. One peculiarly of import sort of heterogeneousness involves the fortunes of
kids & # 8217 ; s birth or acceptance. Some work forces and adult females have had kids in the context of heterosexual relationships that split up
after one or both parents assumed sapphic or cheery individualities. Much of the bing research on sapphic female parents, homosexual male parents, and
their kids was initiated to turn to concerns that arose for such households in the context of kid detention differences, and it was
frequently designed at least in portion to analyze the veracity of common stereotypes that have been voiced in legal proceedings. A
turning figure of work forces and adult females have besides had kids after presuming sapphic or cheery individualities. Recently, a little organic structure of
research ( e.g. , Flaks, et al. , 1995 ; McCandlish, 1987 ; Patterson, 1994a, 1995a ; Steckel, 1987 ) has begun to turn to issues
relevant to households of this type. Parents and kids in these two sorts of households are likely to hold experiences that differ from
one another in many respects.
Many issues ( for illustration, residential versus nonresidential parenting ) have yet to be addressed straight by research. In this
subdivision, research findings on the impact of parental psychological and relationship position and on the influence of other emphasiss
and supports are described. One dimension of difference among cheery and sapphic households concerns whether or non the custodial
parent is involved in a twosome relationship, and if so what deductions this may hold for kids. Pagelow ( 1980 ) , Kirkpatrick
et Al. ( 1981 ) , and Golombok et Al. ( 1983 ) all reported that, in their samples, divorced sapphic female parents were more likely than
divorced heterosexual female parents to be populating with a romantic spouse ; nevertheless, none of these research workers examined connexions
between this variable and kids & # 8217 ; s accommodation or development in sapphic female parent households.
Huggins ( 1989 ) reported that self-pride among girls of sapphic female parents whose sapphic spouses lived with them was
higher than that among girls of sapphic female parents who did non populate with a spouse. Because of the little sample size and
absence of statistical trials, this determination should be seen as implicative instead than conclusive. On the footing of feelings from her
ain work, Kirkpatrick has besides stated her position that “ contrary to the frights expressed in tribunal, kids in families that
included the female parent & # 8217 ; s sapphic lover had a richer, more unfastened and stable household life ” than did those in individual parent sapphic female parent
families ( Kirkpatrick, 1987, p. 204 ) .
Issues related to division of household and family labour have besides been studied. In households headed by sapphic twosomes, Patterson
( 1995a ) found that, although female parents did non differ in their reported engagement in family and household decision-making undertakings,
biological female parents reported more clip spent in kid attention and nonbiological female parents reported more clip spent in paid
employment. In households where female parents reported sharing kid attention responsibilities comparatively equally between themselves, parents were
more satisfied and kids were better adjusted. Therefore, equal sharing of kid attention responsibilities was associated with more
advantageous results both for parents and for kids in this survey.
Another facet of diverseness among cheery and sapphic households relates to the psychological position and wellbeing of the parent.
Research on parent-child dealingss in heterosexual households has systematically revealed that kids & # 8217 ; s accommodation is frequently related to
indices of maternal mental wellness. One might therefore expect factors that enhance mental wellness among sapphic female parents or homosexual
male parents besides to profit their kids. Lott-Whitehead and Tully ( 1993 ) reported considerable variableness in the sums of emphasis
described by sapphic female parents, but did non depict beginnings of emphasis nor their dealingss to child accommodation. Rand, Graham, and
Rawlings ( 1982 ) found that sapphic female parents & # 8217 ; sense of psychological wellbeing was associated with their grade of openness
about their sapphic individuality with employers, ex-husbands, and kids ; female parents who felt more able to unwrap their tribade
individuality were more likely to show a positive sense of wellbeing. Unfortunately, no information about the dealingss of these
findings to adjustment or development among kids of these adult females has been reported to day of the month.
Another country of great diverseness among households with a homosexual or sapphic parent concerns the grade to which a parent & # 8217 ; s homosexual or
sapphic individuality is accepted by other important people in a kid & # 8217 ; s life. Huggins ( 1989 ) found a inclination for kids whose
male parents were rejecting of maternal sapphic individualities to describe lower self-pride than those whose male parents were impersonal or
positive. Due to little sample size and absence of significance trials, this determination should be regarded as preliminary and
suggestive instead than unequivocal. Huggins & # 8217 ; ( 1989 ) determination does, nevertheless, raise inquiries about the extent to which reactions of
of import grownups in a kid & # 8217 ; s environment can act upon responses to find of a parent & # 8217 ; s homosexual or sapphic individuality.
Effectss of the age at which kids learn of parental homosexualism have besides been a subject of survey. Paul ( 1986 ) found that
offspring who were told of parental homosexual, sapphic, or bisexual individuality either in childhood or in late adolescence found the intelligence
easier to get by with than those who foremost learned of it during early to middle adolescence. Huggins ( 1989 ) besides reported that
those who learned of maternal sapphism in childhood had higher self-esteem than did those who were non informed of it until
they were striplings. From a clinical position, it is widely agreed that early adolescence is a peculiarly hard clip for
kids to larn that a male parent is cheery or that a female parent is sapphic ( Bozett, 1980 ; Pennington, 1987 ; Schulenberg, 1985 ) .
Some research workers have besides raised inquiries about the possible function of peer support in assisting kids to cover with issues
raised by holding a homosexual or sapphic parent. Lewis ( 1980 ) was the first to propose that kids & # 8217 ; s silence on the subject of parental
sexual orientation with equals and siblings might add to their feelings of isolation from other kids. All of the 11 striplings
studied by O & # 8217 ; Connell ( 1993 ) reported exercising selectivity about when they disclosed information about their female parents & # 8217 ; sapphic
individualities. Paul ( 1986 ) found that 29 % of his immature grownup respondents had ne’er known anyone else with a homosexual, sapphic, or
bisexual parent, proposing that the possibility of isolation is really existent for some immature people. Potentially
negative effects of any such isolation have non, nevertheless, been uncovered in research to day of the month. Lewis ( 1980 ) suggested that
kids would profit from support groups dwelling of other kids of homosexual or sapphic parents, and immature people interviewed
by O & # 8217 ; Connell ( 1993 ) agreed, but systematic ratings of such groups have non been reported.
In drumhead, research on diverseness among households with homosexual and sapphic parents and on the possible effects of such diverseness on
kids is merely get downing ( Martin 1989 ; Patterson, 1992, 1995b ) Existing informations on kids of sapphic female parents suggest that
kids may do better when female parents are in good psychological wellness and life with a sapphic spouse with whom they portion
kid attention. Children may happen it easier to cover with issues raised by holding sapphic or cheery parents if they learn of parental sexual
orientation during childhood instead than during adolescence. Existing informations besides suggest the value of a supportive surroundings, in which
parental sexual orientation is accepted by other important grownups and in which kids have contact with equals in similar
fortunes. The bing informations are, nevertheless, still really thin, and any decisions must be seen as probationary.
It is clear, nevertheless, that bing research provides no footing for believing that kids & # 8217 ; s best involvements are served by household
struggle or secretiveness about a parent & # 8217 ; s homosexual or sapphic individuality, or by demands that a sapphic or cheery parent maintain a family
separate from that of a same-sex spouse.
In drumhead, there is no grounds to propose that tribades and cheery work forces are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development
among kids of cheery work forces or tribades is compromised in any respect relation to that among offspring of heterosexual parents.
Not a individual survey has found kids of homosexual or sapphic parents to be disadvantaged in any important regard relation to kids
of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the grounds to day of the month suggests that place environments provided by homosexual and sapphic parents are
every bit likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to back up and enable kids & # 8217 ; s psychosocial growing.
It should be acknowledged that research on sapphic and cheery parents and their kids is still really new and
comparatively scarce. Less is known about kids of homosexual male parents than about kids of sapphic female parents. Little is known about
development of the progeny of homosexual or sapphic parents during adolescence or maturity. Beginnings of heterogeneousness have yet to
be consistently investigated. Longitudinal surveies that follow sapphic and cheery households over clip are severely needed.
I wish to thank Clinton Anderson, Natalie Eldridge, Patricia Falk, Mary Henning-Stout, Larry Kurdek, April Martin, Bianca
Buffalo bill Murphy, Vera Paster, and Roy Scrivner for their helpful remarks on an earlier bill of exchange of this manuscript.
II. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
The commendations in this annotated bibliography come from a figure of beginnings: from the original APA publication Lesbian
Parents and Their Children, from a PsycLit hunt on homosexual and sapphic parenting from the old ages 1987-1993, and from
recommendations made by our expert referees. We recognize that this bibliography is non all inclusive. The literature on
sapphic and cheery parenting is quickly spread outing, and we may hold missed some resources. Furthermore, there are a figure of
doctorial thesiss on homosexual and sapphic parenting. We have non included thesiss or some of the stuff that is written
straight for sapphic and cheery parents themselves. While chiefly pulling upon psychological science, we did include some commendations from
jurisprudence, psychopathology, and societal work publications.
The annotated bibliography is divided into four subdivisions. The first subdivision focuses on empirical psychological surveies. The
2nd subdivision contains book chapters and articles from the periodical literature. The 3rd subdivision contains books. And the
bibliography concludes with a subdivision that lists extra resources and organisations.
This bibliography was compiled by Bianca Cody Murphy and Lourdes Rodr & # 237 ; guez-Nogu & # 233 ; s with the aid of Mary Ballou,
Edward J. Dunne, Susan Iasenza, Steven James, Linda Jones, Ena Vazquez Nuttall, Gary Ross Reynolds, and William
Welcome Page | The Index
Narratives | Should I come out? | Personal Ads | Questions, Questions, Questions | Get downing a Family
The professional points of position | Religious Positions | Legal Help | Sign the Guestbook
The Gay Dad
electronic mail: TheGayDad @ milepost1.com
Last Updated January 12, 1997