Gay Parenting Essay Research Paper Lesbian and free essay sample

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. 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 unfavorable judgment. 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. Sexual Identity 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 ; Golomb 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. Social Relationships 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 research literature. Drumhead 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 neer 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. D. Conclusion 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. Recognitions 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 Sanchez. 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