Academic discourse about gay couples and their adaptability to parenthood began to change in 2001. After American sociologist Judith Stacey, “Is sexual orientation of parents important?” Published in the American Sociological Review. The article is a meta-analysis of the 21 comparative study of gay and heterosexual couples/parents, each of whom has more or less successfully tried to answer the question: Whether and to what extent are the children raised by gay parents different about children who grow up with their biological, heterosexual parents? In summary, the result is as follows:
Although there are differences between heterosexual children and homosexual parents, they are far less than common-sense expectations. Some of them – for example, the greater tendency of children with gay parents to experiment – cannot even be counted as deficits. We are experiencing them as such, only because they deviate from the dominant culture of the shaped standard. They finding that the sexual orientation of parents does not significantly affect the survival of children is repeated in later studies. Meta-analyses involving recent research, carried out on better-defined samples. At the same time, a considerable number of researchers concluded that the possibly lower performance of gay parent. Children results from an unfavorable social climate compared to homosexuality.
Ten years after the pioneering work of Judith Stacy. Researchers began to realize that there is no difference between heterosexual and gay parenting. Moreover, having in mind that lesbian families do not have sexual violence. Gender/sex appears in recent research as a key determinant of the quality of parenting and the well-being of children. From that angle, a child who grows up with a single mother or a lesbian couple has a greater chance of a non-intrusive, non-violent childhood than a child raised by a heterosexual couple of biological or adoptive parents.
In 2010, the AAP supported the adoption of children by homosexual people, by claiming that gay parents, as well as heterosexuals, can provide their children with the conditions for unimpeded growth and development. Before the decision of the US Supreme Court to lift legal barriers to legalizing gay marriage at the federal level. AAP supported the gay marriage and gay couples to adopt children. So, to what extent is true the initial position that children of gay parents. Must necessarily be psychosocially deprived in comparison with children raised by biological parents? A brief answer to this question would be: “None”.
Although modern heterosexual marriage is set so that both man and woman potentially can provide far more satisfaction than ever, it is not unchanged by old ideas about marriage and marriage habits. As a result, an enormous number of people of both sexes are entering marriage burdened by prejudices and stereotypes. For them, marriage relatively quickly becomes a synonym for stressful life. Others deter themselves from entering it at all, because of the expectations which are contrary to economic and political reality.
The mere fact that same-sex partners cannot share their daily duties by their foreseen gender roles indicates that the daily organization of family life has to be treated differently from heterosexuals. To the horror of the traditionalists, in gay and lesbian marriage there is no one on which, by definition. All the burdens of home affairs falls – the monitoring of school achievements of children and the organization. Of children free time (n the case of a traditional marriage it is a wife’s’/mothers’ job). And that realization is quite beneficial. Moreover, it can serve as an example to a heterosexual majority.
Researchers are already beginning to realize that gay marriage can serve as a kind of controlled experiment. His outcome could bring us closer to the question of what it means to be a man, that is, to be a woman. But also what are the most common problems in marital and family relations based on gender and gender stereotypes. And what causes should be sought somewhere else. For example, scientists have a problem to explain the long-known fact that in heterosexual marriage, women initiate divorce rather than a man. Is it a consequence of sexual revolutions? Economic independence of a modern woman; the failure of a modern man to make the partner happy?
The one thing remains – in same-sex marriages, there is nothing that you need to do just because of your gender. Nothing is decided beforehand, and no one from extended family. Or anyone on the outside can judge how you deal with your home affairs. You can be a stay-at-home dad or woman highly driven by career, you can be a sensitive man or a cold calculated woman, but no one can say that you are endangering and stepping onto toes of your opposite-sex partner. And that is what heterosexual marriage needs to learn from a homosexual one.
When American mainstream television realized that gay people inevitably penetrated. The public sphere and did not intend to go anywhere, they decided to assimilate them into the world with their logic. But also neutralize enough that the average audience would not be repelled by their appearance. That’s how a “gay friend” was created, the fetishization of a gay man by heterosexual women, which quickly spread into our everyday life.
At first glance, it seemed that the stereotype affirmed the flourishing gay. And queer culture, it was accepted by both gay men and heterosexual women. We are looking at Will and Grace (Karen and Jack), Sex and the City (Carrie and Stanford). Thinking that such friendships are politically powerful weapons in the struggle against both patriarchy and homophobia. It was not clear until the LGBTQ movement was strengthened, and feminism arrived in a larger number of households, that this is precisely the result of the patriarchy and homophobia.
The concept of a gay friend in TV shows neutralized the gay man and turned him into his useful tool, at the same time he did not have to deal with the real subversion of his being because a gay friend is often not an activist at all. But one of the main reasons why the trend of “having a gay friend” was malignant is misogyny. Women accepted gay men as the ideal of perfect friends – all that meant they were just like best women friends. Only they were men, and therefore more valid and more valuable.
But European, especially British television, had a different and much more positive trend – it portrayed various sexual identities. Not as isolated elements of society. But as persons with all their other identities – both gay and bisexual. Suffice it to say that the whole spin-off of the most popular British SF series. “Doctor Who” is built around the immortal Jack Harkness who is, among other things, bisexual.
With the rise of feminism and inclusion of LGBTQ people. The concept of gay friends is obsolete, and in many circles, it is considered offensive. Many projects are focused on spreading multiple stories and the identity of a gay person. You can be gay and geek, have a hetero best friend, do not know anything about fashion and listen to Alanis Morissette, etc.
Of course, you can be both the fashion reader and the Gaga fan, and that’s the same, but you’re not someone’s fetish because of that.