Adoption and surrogacy has always been an uphill battle for aspiring parents of the LGBTQ+ community. Their fitness as parents has been relentlessly called into question, simply because of their sexual orientation. For example, until 2008, Florida had a law banning same sex parents from adopting. The state-appointed case experts claimed that homosexual unions were more unstable than heterosexual unions, with higher incidence of alcohol and drug indulgence in case of the former. Several states in Southern and Western Australia do not extend any legal custody of the child to the male non-biological same sex parents while limited custody is granted to the female non biological same sex parents. The Indian surrogacy regulation bill 2019 excludes homosexual couples among other non-traditional forms of family including live-in couples and single parents from opting for surrogacy, restricting access to legally married heterosexual couples.
Since the late 20th century, as sperm banks opened their doors to lesbian parents and gay adoption was legalized in the US, the debate about whether children’s psychological adjustment is affected by varied family structures has lingered on the socio-political horizon. With the increase in the number of families with same sex parents, a number of studies have been carried out to put this question to rest. Patricia Morgan in her 2002 right-wing Christian discourse Children as trophies? Examining the evidence on same sex parenting exposes a fundamental potential source of prejudice against same sex families. Morgan believes that the ‘right’ to have a child is reserved be naturally ‘generative’ (heterosexual) forms of coupling, capable of “normal reproductive processes.” Homosexual parents wish to acquire children in order to derive the benefits of what she calls a “pseudo-heterosexual imitation of normality.” These ‘pretend’ families are perceived as impersonal, illicit and unnatural unions that pose a threat to familial conventions of blood ties and kinship. Moreover, they are regarded as a poor imitation of the ‘real’ families, characterized by biological parent-child bonds as well as legally recognized marital relations. The arguments about why same sex parenting is harmful for children generally revolve around the same few points; deprivation of the benefits of gender complementarity, atypical gender development (homosexuality begets homosexuality as far as they are concerned), emotional maladjustment, social vulnerability, even delinquency in children.
American psychologists Wainright and Patterson conducted the first comparative study between adolescents from same-sex and different sex families in 2008 using the data obtained from National Longitudinal Study of adolescent health. Their study found out that adolescents showed no difference in functioning regardless of the family types. The relationship of the children with their parents determined their school outcomes and not the gender of their parents. Another pair of American psychologists, Farr and Patterson, in 2013, found no correlation between co-parenting and social adjustment of children in homosexual and heterosexual couples in their cross-sectional study. Another cross-sectional study carried out in the UK revealed that same sex parents were rated better in the quality parent-child interactions, while behavioural and conduct related problems were found more frequently in children with heterosexual-parents. It would be safe to assert that an extensive body of research has conclusively proved that children from homosexual families are not at a developmental or adjustmental disadvantage. Moreover, difficulties in achieving parenthood for same-sex couples implies a strong selection effect. Same-sex couples become parents through prior heterosexual relationships, adoption, donor insemination or surrogacy. It certainly cannot be unplanned or accidental, as a result of failure of birth control. It has been suggested that, if same sex couples have to work harder than heterosexual couples to become parents, perhaps they are, on an average, more dedicated as parents compared to their heterosexual counterparts, which in turn, can only be beneficial for the children. Yet, the stigma persists.
The social stigma against same sex parenting is further altered by the gender of the same-sex couple. According to the social role theory, men and women are expected to adhere to certain roles based on norms determined by biological sex and power differentials between the sexes. Women, traditionally viewed as the nurturers, are expected to engage in behaviour viewed as typically feminine, such as cooking and cleaning. Men, traditionally viewed as the providers, are expected to complement the opposite sex and engage in behaviour viewed as typically masculine, including working outside of home and leadership. People who violate these social norms are subject to ridicule, ostracization and risk economic as well as social penalties. Studies have shown that lesbian adoption is supported more often than gay adoption. This is because lesbian mothers are still women, perceived to be naturally skilled at parenting and nurturing their children. Gay fathers are seen as violating the masculine norms to a greater extent as compared to lesbian mothers. Hence, they are seen as more detrimental to children’s understanding of gender roles.
Gender roles are assumed to have a direct impact on children’s gender performance and sexuality. The heteronormative society firmly believes that children need a mother and a father who adhere to the traditional gender roles prescribed by the society. Division of responsibility in heterosexual couples is traditionally determined by biological sex and gender roles. Same sex couples violate this gendered family structure with a more flexible division of responsibility and hence face prejudice. Thus, ‘deprivation of benefits of gender complementarity’ is just a clever way of saying that the society does not want its children deviating from traditional gender roles. God forbid they learn behaviour deemed unsuitable for their biological gender or fail to develop as heterosexuals themselves!
Truth is, this was never about the children. The prejudice against same sex parenting, like every other prejudice, comes from the ruthless tendency to eliminate deviation from convention. A child’s upbringing shapes his personality and future relationships. Slightest missteps in parenting can result in dire consequences. If all parents received the same level of scrutiny that same-sex parents do, perhaps we could prevent the emotional maladjustment, delinquency, and whatever else same sex parenting supposedly causes.
Isha Puntambekar
