Exploring kinship and the desire to be parents in Spanish same-sex couples

Abstract

Empirical evidence has settled controversy over the effect on children of being raised by same-sex parents. However, other issues have emerged that are related to this family model. The aim of this study was to identify discourses linked to the desire to be parents and to the construction of kinship in lesbian women and gay men parents. We analysed a documentary project (‘Familiarízate’) produced in Spain by the Spanish national Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals, and Bisexuals. We found that the narrative on the desire to be parents was mainly shaped by previously established definitions of marriage and family. We also identified a set of interesting paradoxes and tensions in some of the discourses that challenged traditional models of family and kinship.

Keywords

Lesbian women and gay men parenting qualitative methodology same-sex marriage desire kinship

Introduction

The idea that kinship is merely based on biology and the process of human reproduction was questioned by Schneider (1984), whose critique had a significant impact on the anthropological approach. Although his view still placed kinship in a privileged position within social relationships, he criticised the ethnocentric view of Euro-American anthropologists, who placed too much emphasis on the dichotomy between the natural and social orders. From this perspective, the clear references to ‘biology’ in debates on the current state and future of the family and kinship in contemporary Western society can be easily deconstructed, revealing a set of argumentative frameworks with marked symbolic characteristics.

Therefore, it is not surprising that in the late 20th century, there was a decrease in anthropological studies of kinship, particularly those using transcultural comparisons (Levine and New, 2008). However, during the interim years that bridged the 20th and 21st centuries, interest in the study of kinship underwent a revival due to globalisation and social changes that emphasised the fluid and contingent nature of the family (Lynch, 2008; Peletz, 1995). Above all, the concept of kinship has been transformed by interest in gender studies, advances in reproductive techniques, the configuration of new family models and the effects of procreation on symbolism (Carsten, 2011).

Homoparental families are key players in this process of transforming the concept of kinship. There is an increasing number of countries changing their laws to adapt to a more democratic and egalitarian conception of the family and sexual relationships. In fact, same-sex families are based on a certain reinvention of kinship and the relationship of procreation to sexuality. In families of same-sex parents, children do not arise directly from the procreative sexuality of their parents. Thus, studies interested in learning more about the parenting desire and attitudes about getting married among gay men and lesbian women have been growing progressively (Costa and Bidell, 2017; Gates et al., 2007; Riskind and Patterson, 2010).

Kinship and parenting desire

In general, the empirical corpus shows that lesbians and gays have less motivation to become parents than the heterosexual population (Patterson and Riskind, 2010; Riskind and Tornello, 2017). Tate and Patterson (2009) offer revealing results that confirm this lower desire, but that assimilate, between homosexual and heterosexual people, desires and aspirations related to forming a couple, establishing networks in the community or having professional success. However, expectations that this will occur in a viable way drop considerably compared to their heterosexual peers.

For this lesser desire for paternity, various explanations have been considered which include legal and social obstacles in many countries still, such as restrictions on adoption, limitations on access to alternative reproductive formulas and financial and legal difficulties arising from subrogation (Gurmankin et al., 2005; Patterson, 2009; Shenkman and Shmotkin, 2016). To explain these differences, psychological processes have also been used, such as the internalisation of negative social stigma linked to family models that are far removed from the framework of heterosexual couples, and even feelings of guilt about the future discrimination to which offspring are subjected (Alday-Mondaca and Lay-Lisboa, 2021; Baiocco and Laghi, 2013; Costa and Salinas-Quiroz, 2019). Shenkman, Bos and Kogan (2019) explore the association between attachment avoidance and the desire to be a parent among gay and lesbian people versus heterosexual men and women. The results show that gay men and lesbian women reported less desire to be parents than heterosexual people and higher attachment avoidance. Authors value it in terms of vulnerability, since attachment avoidance has been linked to negative mental health outcomes (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2018).

The distinction between the biological and the social in the definition of reproduction and kinship is another relevant axis that has focused the interest in the study of the desire to be parents in the gay and lesbian community. Gross (2009) wonders if gay and lesbian couples understand their children as an outgrowth of their relationship, a ‘couple project’, or if they understand parenting as an individual project. The findings reveal that lesbian motherhood and gay fatherhood do not articulate their parenting project in the same way. Women often consider motherhood more as a partnership project. It also notes an asymmetry that gives more autonomy to women and a greater dependence of men on biological motherhood, mainly if adoption or subrogation is not chosen. These considerations are conditioned by the legal and social changes taking place in each country, as egalitarian policies are taken with regard to marriage and parenthood.

For example, during the period 1998–2003 in Spain, several regional governments issued their own autonomous laws to legalise civil unions between same-sex individuals, and in 2005, the reform of the Spanish Civil Code was definitively approved. This made Spain the third country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage, while also recognising other rights linked to kinship (Pichardo, 2011). We cannot forget that there are also family models that do not follow a single pattern; for example, single parents, various forms of procreation, adoption, and reconstituted families. In particular, previous studies in Spain showed that most lesbian and gay parents have had children in previous heterosexual relationships (González and López, 2009). However, a more recent Spanish study has found that the majority of future same-sex parents planned through adoption and donor insemination (Pichardo et al., 2015).

These kinds of family realities clearly illustrate how kinship is defined by complex and changing social dynamics, rather than by biology and the natural order (Deborah, 2014). However, more conservative discourses in the debate on same-sex parenting have revitalised a biological understanding of kinship in an attempt to maintain it as one of the ideological, normative and legal pillars in the establishment of traditional social structures. These discourses force the new family models to confront so-called ‘natural’ reproduction models. Thus, the defence of ‘same-sex parenting’ tends to rest on an idealisation of the traditional nuclear family as a way to normalise and assimilate LGBT parenting and facilitate access to the legal order and legislative processes. Indeed, within the milieu of international gay and lesbian/LGBT activism, the debate on normalisation has revealed the crossroads at which progressive discourse finds itself in its attempts to develop resistance and change practices in order to challenge domination structures (Arditi and Hequembourg, 1999).

Thus, the reading of normalisation as being linked to the demand for equality has caused controversy among proponents of queer theory, who consider that egalitarian solutions may end in becoming the mere reflection of submission to the heteronormative hegemony. Critical voices have pointed out that the issue of marriage and the consequent affective-filial development capitalise on types of activism that have greater visibility. As pointed out by Duggan (2002), this approach is interpreted as a seed of a new homonormativity that is in debt to heterosexuality. In a preliminary text on this debate, Butler (2004) suggested that rather than promoting a progressive sexual policy allowing gay men and lesbian women to marry or establish a family, these possibilities should be rejected from the outset of the debate.

These debates are not new and they have returned with renewed force in the arena of assimilationism versus the diversity of desire. On the one hand, the discourse used by many recent campaigns based on solidarity and the display of marital love and filiation can be effective in mobilising citizen support. However, this type of strategy can lead to a moralistic situation that imposes a vision of controlled sexuality dominated by romanticism, consumerism and a double-standard sexual morality. Thus, it is a way to keep homosexuals on a tight rein. On the other hand, using the assertion that the choices of gay men or lesbian women are per se subversive can weaponise homophobic discourse because the right to marry or have or adopt children is framed within historically institutionalised fixed models. The most critical perspectives reject similarities between heterocentric and same-sex models, and even assume that at the root of their discordance lie conflicting conceptions of homosexual identity (Arditi and Hequembourg, 1999).

Previous research conducted over the last two decades has shown how the implementation of alternatives to normalisation should also take into account political, economic and social contexts. Otherwise, the lack of doing so might lead to an increase in traditional or new forms of violence and inequality (Clarke and Kitzinger, 2004; Clarke and Saffron, 2006; Goldberg and Allen, 2013; Lasio and Francesco, 2017).

Following the lines of research by Clarke and Kitzinger (2005), the overall aim of the present study was to analyse the strategies by which the discourse on homoparenthood was socially constructed in a Spanish video documentary project that aimed to bring the reality of same-sex parenthood closer to public opinion by using participatory-style documentary videos.

Thus, we attempted to understand how this documentary project used discursive normalisation practices to address the construction of kinship and the desire for offspring. Specifically, we investigated the effects of a set of lines of discourse on homoparental couples, focusing on the way parenting desire is linked to loving relationships, the presence or absence of a sentimental partner, or the role of an extended family.

Materials and method

Materials

We analysed videos from a documentary project developed by the Spanish national Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals, and Bisexuals (FLGTB). This project, called ‘Familiarízate’, was launched in 2010. In 2005, same-sex marriage was legalised in Spain by reforming the Spanish Civil Code (Law 13/2005). This reform was proposed by the Spanish socialist party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español, PSOE). Thus, the documentaries created by the FLGTB took place in a context of legality, in which homosexual couples enjoyed the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. Nevertheless, soon after the reform, the Spanish conservative party (Partido Popular, PP) filed an appeal to abolish this law. However, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling in favour of same-sex marriage in 2012, which was the same year that the FLGTB documentaries were released.

Thus, these materials were produced to give visibility to the social and political debate on the affective and sexual relationships of people of the same sex. According to Loscertales and Nuñez (2008), videos are a good educational tool to help society understand the plurality of family relationships. In effect, they mirror social reality. The materials were produced by an advocacy association committed from its inception to the defence of the social integration and equal rights of sexual diversity groups. The documentaries released in 2012 continue to be expanded. These documentaries have been viewed between 17,886 to 74,673 times (February, 2019). The campaign created a currently active website (www.familiarizate.es). We had access to 16 videos in which LGBT families and their friends express their daily reality and concerns.

The selection criteria applied to the materials were as follows: the homogeneity of the overall topic and the heterogeneity of the content of each documentary. The homogeneity criterion was fulfilled by the fact that the vast majority of the documentaries focused on same-sex parenting in relation to family construction and that the sexual and social identity of the people involved were recurrent issues. These documentaries also included topics related with family dynamics, and the establishment and development of parental roles. In addition, they illustrated the evolution and influence of the legal and social framework in the making of this type of family. The heterogeneity criterion revealed the range of diversity within these types of families. Thus, the unique ways in which different challenges are met are reflected in family dynamics. The inclusion criteria were that the documentaries had a pro-lesbian/gay family perspective and were part of the ‘Familiarízate’ project. The exclusion criteria were the opposite of the inclusion criteria and the existence of documentary films that did not show testimonies of those families.

Method

This study used qualitative methods based on a phenomenological perspective. Phenomenological studies focus on the commonality of life experiences within a particular group. The fundamental goal of this approach is to describe the nature of a particular phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). In the first stage, we used thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2012). In the second stage, we sought to gain a deeper understanding of the initial results by conducting discourse analysis as described Potter and Wetherell (1987).

Data analysis: Process

Thematic analysis was used to structure the information collected and produced during the development of the research project. This approach involved a careful reading of the documentary transcripts in order to identify and establish units of meaning. In this initial analysis, we identified a set of similar patterns of meaning that we labelled ‘themes’. Themes are the shared lines of argument found in the literal transcription of the documents. Their role is to help answer the question, “What defines and describes the phenomenon under study?” (Braun and Clarke, 2012). Thus, the strategies by which the discourse on homoparenthood was socially constructed in this documentary video project were described, and the topics and practices of discursive normalisation derived to address the construction of kinship and the desire to have children. In the second stage, discourse analysis was used to identify the representative aspects of speech used during social interactions (Van Dijk, 2001). The analytic tool used for this task was interpretative repertoires (IRs). Interpretative repertoires are a means of understanding both the content of discourse production (i.e. what is described by specific themes) and the form of discourse production. The latter aspect addresses how the discourse is organised and linked with other linguistic resources to generate a matrix of meanings that sustain different versions of reality (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). Thus, we investigated the effects of a set of lines of discourse on homoparental couples, focusing on the way parenting desire is linked to loving relationships, the presence or absence of a sentimental partner, or the role of an extended family.

We analysed the verbatim transcripts of the documentaries, taking into account their time frame, ideological objectives and framework. We also took into account the prevailing social climate at the time and any other factors that drove the documentary project.

Previous studies have already addressed the discourse analysis of same-sex marriage (Domínguez and Montalbán, 2017). In the present study, IR analysis mainly addresses issues explicitly related to the creation of a family framework and the desire to be parents.

All analyses were conducted using Atlas.ti. software version 7.0. The procedure was divided into two distinct stages: thematic analysis and discourse analysis. In the first stage, the software was used to facilitate the identification of text segments (i.e. quotations) with a similar meaning. The quotations were clustered to produce codes that served to label the themes. Subsequently, during the discourse analysis, the software was used to help establish relationships between codes with shared meanings in order to identify the IRs.

Results

In the first stage, we took a descriptive perspective to analyse the material. We identified three main themes that were used to organise information about the featured families' life experience, daily activity and family dynamics.

We entitled the first theme ‘Marriage as a source of social rights’; the second, ‘Family as a life project’; and the third, ‘Becoming parents’.

The themes ‘Marriage as a source of social rights’ and ‘Family as a life project’ are two key topics that feed into each other. In fact, the possibility offered by legal marriage to create a life project gave rise to the theme ‘Becoming parents’. This theme included some paradoxical discursive elements that echo the tension found by authors such as Lynch and Morison (2016) and Baker (2019) in discourses advocating traditional and non-traditional family structures. These elements include normalisation, love and family ties. Therefore, we decided to explore these issues in greater depth by using discourse analysis to better understand the complex equilibrium in the ‘dialogue’ between the different discursive elements. We identified three IRs in Theme 3: ‘My family, between genetics and love’, ‘Ideal-real family’ and ‘Pride in being different’. Next, we explore the themes in greater detail.

THEME 1: Marriage as a source of rights

In this theme, participants explain that same-sex marriage is presented as a victory for LGBT community rights. This victory was fragile because of the years of uncertainty that passed while waiting for the verdict of the Constitutional Court on same-sex marriage. The debate had major coverage in the media with the presence of experts, academics, associations and influencers with different ideologies, which had the effect of creating a highly polarised social climate. The FAMILIARÍZATE documentaries series includes numerous testimonies on the capacity of the ratification of same-sex marriage to legitimise these types of families and parental desire. The following extract is just an example:

Excerpt 1: The changes in a law that allow the marriage of men and women in this country, without any distinction, has brought dignity to our society wounded by centuries of discrimination… Now we are all equal before the law. (Same-sex families)

Thus, marriage is the result of a long struggle and is considered as an illustrative expression of equality. Marriage represents a choice: that is, the opportunity for same-sex couples to exercise free will. References were made to the equal rights of citizens as a direct measure of equality and access to marriage as a right, regardless of sex.

This aspect is shown in the following excerpt:

Excerpt 2: …and, well, the possibility that a same-sex marriage law would be passed was a radical change for us, in our, in our frame of mind, … it was about time, it was enough, we’ve got the same rights. (Isabel, lesbian mother)

Excerpt 3: …a social change that means that we’ve got the same rights as the rest of the people in this country, that we can marry, make a family with legal rights that protect us, laws that make it possible for us to have a child. (Pura-María José, lesbian women parents)

Gaining the battle for equal rights contributes to the assimilation of homoparental families by heterocentric norms. Families with gay fathers and lesbian mothers describe themselves as families like any other family (i.e. referring to hetereoparental families) with the same problems, challenges and dynamics as heterocentric families. The following excerpt contextualises this aspect:

Excerpt 4: Uh … and … I just want to stress that our families are the same as others, we do the same things any other family does…. We’ve got the same problems, the same worries, our kids put us all in the same situations, there’s tears, the kids fight, we’ve got to figure out life, get a job we like, in short, I just don’t see differences in … (Jesús-David, gay men parents)

Although same-sex marriage is here to stay in the various countries in which it has been legalised, many participants fear that political changes could jeopardise their marriage (i.e. legislative changes). This argument is recurrent, as shown in the following extract:

Excerpt 5: Right now, we are afraid that at some point they may break up this stability by taking away our rights, and I think they have no right to do this. In our milieu, we are a family with all that this socially entails, and we must continue to be a family from the legal point of view. (Isabel, lesbian mother)

Overall, many of the participants' statements were taken up by the debate on whether the reform of the Civil Code on same-sex marriage complied with the Spanish Constitution. The ratification of same-sex marriage offered the legal right to same-sex couples to raise a family. This raised the issue of ‘Family as life project’.

THEME 2: Family as a life project

In this theme, marriage legally validates the choice of a life project. It endorses a choice, a commitment to commitment, which in some cases has been a long time coming, but in others, has brought forward the decision to start living together. When this life project becomes identified with and references traditional models, and is linked to kinship, it is perceived as reflecting more stability, planning and commitment to the future, and thus becomes more robust. These terms were used in the context of describing their experiences as parents:

Excerpt 6: … well, to those who are trying to take marriage away from us, take away our right to marriage, well, I don’t know, I’d tell them that what a family is and what your life project is, is your own choice, and in this case we decided that this is our family. (Nuria-Luisa, lesbian women parents)

These documentaries reinforce the idea that marriage is conceived as a way to secure the family as an institution because it provides it with recognised legal status:

Excerpt 7: … We met and fell in love 3 years ago and that’s when we decided to have kids. We had to marry so we could both have the same rights over our kids and, thus, we had to use assisted reproduction, in our case AI (i.e. Artificial Insemination), and well, since they were born we’ve enjoyed them as a family. (Lucía-Gema, lesbian women parents)

The previous extract shows how the legality of marriage gives the confidence needed to take the step to assisted reproduction and have children together. They are ‘benefits’ that are in some way shared with heterosexual families.

Same-sex marriage contributes to the normalisation and social acceptance of their family reality by granting official status to same-sex unions via marriage. As shown in the following excerpts, many of the participants are committed to greater visibility of the phenomenon by sharing their own experiences and justifying their family structure:

Excerpt 8: Hello, we’re Gemma and Nicola, this is our daughter Ariam, we’re a completely ordinary family, we love each other, we respect each other, we’re raising our girl, and thanks to the current marriage law, we got married and our daughter is recognized as ours by both of us. It’s that simple. (Gemma-Nicola, lesbian women parents)

These results confirm previous findings that the promotion of a family model that ‘looks normal’ or highlights the desire to have children in some way normalises the fact of homosexual people becoming parents (Lewin, 2009; Pralat, 2018; Ravelingien et al., 2015). The normalisation of these kinds of relationships is also sought regarding kinship: grandparents, cousins, and aunts and uncles. Having the support of kinship is seen as another normalising resource (also see Theme 3). For example:

Excerpt 9: My parents would never accept that as grandparents they are less to Gabriel than to the rest of their grandchildren. (David-Jesús, gay men parents)

This second theme acts as a connecting layer since it acts as a bridge to the more specific theme of ‘Becoming parents’.

THEME 3: Becoming parents

This theme clearly focuses on the implications of marriage for kinship and filiation. For many participants, the possibility of choosing to become parents derives from arguments presented in the previous themes. The legal implications of same-sex marriage have enabled these families to consider other life options (such as parenting, adoption, marital property and pensions) that have an effect on the decisions they made about their shared life. Some participants explained that the legal framework facilitates the creation of a ‘conjugal nest’ that is conducive to having children:

Excerpt 10: The truth is that if it had been otherwise, if we hadn’t had the right to marriage we probably wouldn’t have decided to have a daughter because we wouldn’t have been able to make sure she’d get the rights she deserves… (Gema, lesbian mother)

The theme strongly emphasises that for the participants, marriage is only a legal and social formality that facilitates and encourages same-sex couples to initiate processes that tend to be viewed as normal for heterosexual couples. The tendency to normalisation is presented in this theme as a link between marriage, family and having children:

Excerpt 11: This is our family. We’ve been together for 27 years, 15 years ago I started to feel the desire to be a parent … I’ll never forget Marcos’ face when we were walking our dog and I told him about this yearning I had and I wanted to, well, to see what he thought … and well, at the time I thought, well, and how do we do this in the year 1996, taking into account how the laws and the political and social situation were regarding paternity…(Manuel, gay father)

When the desire to become parents explicitly arises, same-sex couples need to engage in conscious planning. Couples usually make their decisions after much reflection and thinking, weighing the pros and cons, and including the social implications of their paternity or maternity. This reflective approach also extends to decisions on the best way to become parents. The participants reported experiencing more difficulties than heterosexual couples on the issues involved and a certain lack of spontaneity. In some cases, they compared themselves to heterosexual couples with fertility issues:

Excerpt 12: I’m Marcos, I’m Manuel, I’m Julia, I’m Lucia, and he’s Manuel. This is our family. We’ve been together for 27 years. The desire to be parents began 15 years ago… So, we got our courage up and applied for adoption…We spent 8 years immersed in the adoption processes, with four difficult adoption processes… Suitability issues…. They’d say no… then they’d say yes … And, finally, we had to park the issue of adoption … And we resorted to surrogacy. (Manuel-Marcos, gay men parents)

This theme identifies a set of interesting paradoxes and tensions between certain topics or concepts related to the desire to be parents. We wanted to deepen the analysis and explore the role played by recurrent discursive elements, such as normalisation, love, family bonds and the ways to manage the similarities and differences with traditional models. To this end, we conducted discourse analysis (Potter and Whethell, 1987), and using the IR as the analytical tool, we explored the ways in which divergent ideas about the desire to be parents are negotiated and maintained. The families participating in the documentaries used three repertoires to construct their discourse on social realities.

IR 1. My family, between genetics and love

In the materials analysed, a recurring discursive strategy referred to the attempts to give a definition of family based on their own affective experiences. Many of the participants share the expression ‘a family, people who love each other’ and ‘a family is an expression of love’. In most cases, this particular definition of family points to feelings for the children, ‘to love, to engage in the development of the little kids’.

Love is also the fundamental factor that reconciled the difference between the biological mother and her partner regarding motherhood. ‘The tummy’s not important, we’re both mothers of love’, ‘day-to-day loving is worth more than a blood relationship’, and so on. This is how lesbian women couples resolve the pressure of the biological mandate in most of the situations we observed.

Possible inequalities manifest in the desire to be parents. In many cases, this desire initially presents itself unilaterally (i.e. as coming from one of the partners). Themes 2 and 3 show that the more hesitant partner often moves towards the desire to have children via marriage: For example, ‘Marriage makes it easier’, ‘I don’t think we would’ve considered it if marriage hadn´t been an option’. The act of ‘giving love’ with expressions, such as ‘sharing our love’, also facilitates the change. Co-responsibility, which is frequently presented as essential, compensates for having ‘arrived a little late’ to this desire to be a parent. In this context, references to the donor are practically non-existent among lesbian mothers.

The experiences of the gay fathers we had access to involved surrogacy or adoption and, to a lesser extent, previous heterosexual experiences. In these circumstances, the reference to surrogacy or adoption focuses on the difficulties encountered when starting these procedures. There are references to legal gaps and obstacles to gain recognition of the surrogacy process between countries. In some cases, there was appreciation for the role and sensitivity of the surrogate mothers, who may be framed within the family universe as a ‘godmother’, for example, despite any physical distance. Gay parents present adoption as a set of decisions and actions that have to overcome bureaucratic resistance and open minds in the relevant institutional cultures. Marriage as a real option is strongly contributing to overcoming such obstacles.

Parenthood by same-sex people in itself offers an alternative to traditional families. Indeed, deciding how to build a family involves making moral judgements on how parenthood fits other values that shape their lives (Smietana et al., 2018). It also shows how the act of making reproductive decisions is intertwined with the responsibility to gain social and legal justice for their children.

IR 2. Ideal-real family

Another closely related element, which was present in most of the experiences recorded, points to the necessary dynamics of everyday experience. The story of love gave way to the sharing of daily tasks related to family dynamics and parenting. There was an overall distinction of basic tasks, but it was not possible to distinguish a more complex arrangement of roles. The biology of affiliation was sometimes used as a reference to justify the distribution of roles (see previous repertoire).

Thus, ‘love’ replaces ‘natural’ in their daily lives and becomes the way to preserve the legal and social recognition of their relationships (Lynch, 2008). Love becomes the essence that sustains and defines bonds in these families, and the main pillar of the parental relationship. This means that the biological aspect, which is the main traditional pillar of kinship- loses its prominence, and is replaced by daily life and affective-emotional bonds, and this is helped by the endorsement of legislation. In fact, the more recurrent arguments appealed to care, coexistence and shared daily life as elements in building their kinship relationships. Love becomes the main protagonist of the family bond, while blood kinship begins to lose relevance.

We did observe some affective implications and attempts to solve the biological condition of maternity in particular. The tag ‘mum’ might be assigned to the biological mother, whereas ‘mummy’ or ‘my other mum’, would be reserved for the biological mother’s partner, who in most cases is also the adoptive mother. We found some situations in which ‘mummy’ usually takes charge of domestic organisation. For example, ‘mum’ is in charge of breastfeeding and medical, academic, social issues and so on, depending on the ages of the children. We also confirmed differential denominations in gay partnerships, such as ‘dad’ and ‘daddy’ or ‘dad’ followed by the respective first names. In these cases, the use of one name or another by the children seems to point more to their own affective states than to marked functional differences.

The narrative regarding daily demands arising from the arrival of children is also linked to family dynamics. These demands also have a normalising interpretation because it is recognised that they are shared in any type of family: For example, ‘Like any other family, we also have our daily challenges’ and ‘We have more things in common than things that separate us’. In this regard, we encountered two issues of interest. Some participants speak of the extra demands on them to prove that they can be both lesbian women and gay men and good parents. Another reference, made by a small number of mainly gay couples, is the challenge of making sure the child has its place within the family without this negatively impacting the couple’s libidinal dynamics. In general, the discursive framework of love in same-sex families leaves little symbolic space for elaborating on the readjustments that same-sex couples’ sex lives undergo after children arrive. This is a trend that can combine the desexualisation of life in common and the symbolic de-gendering of the construction of marriage between people of the same sex (Morison and Macleod, 2015).

Many participants explicitly or implicitly express that the recognition of filiation strengthens bonds with their families of origin, and helped to integrate the couple into the network of parents/grandparents, siblings, uncles, cousins and so on. Kinship is thus tied to the daily life of the family unit.

IR 3. Pride in being different

Another line of argument worth noting is what could be called ‘pride in being different’. This was not a majority repertoire, its presence was usually subtle and it was not something to be too open about.

Linked at times to activism and commitment to LGBT causes, this line sets being different as a driver of social change within the widely recognised normalisation process that comes with same-sex marriage. In this regard, an interesting strategy found within the discourses was to reduce the focus on specific discrimination because ‘anyone who is different can be subject to prejudice and discrimination’, without it being a justification to ‘abandon, to reject the responsibility we have to make a better world’. It was striking that ‘worry’ over the children’s sexual orientation was not in general relevant to their discursive production, despite this aspect being discussed in many earlier studies (Lick et al., 2013). In either case, a subversive reading of the right to be different is diluted, and there is a preference to prioritise positive elements that preserve the social contract.

A much more important place is occupied by elements such as respect, love, values regarding the ability to choose and ‘let them be who they want to be’. Authors such as Evans and Barker (2007) suggested that some of these families define love by using a strategy that has been called the ‘double the love’ discourse. These authors also compared ‘good’ same-sex parents with ‘bad’ heterosexual parents (those who are abusive or in violent relationships). Thus, the fact that these families prioritise being good parents and demonstrate respect for diversity are strengths that counteract the critics of same-sex marriage.

Conclusion

In general, we found that the legal recognition of marriage was the axis around which lesbian women and gay men couples are linked to the desire for offspring. As Imaz (2017) points out, the legal corpus also gathers and allows to develop imaginaries with respect to the world and how to order and operate it. The laws that outline the field of what is possible with respect to reproduction and filiation contain ideas about parental functions and the relationship between conjugality and parenthood.

A priori, same-sex marriage offers the legal guarantees needed to consider starting a family and having children. Legality facilitates equality in relation to the same rights as heterocentric coexistence projects, but also requires the use of normalising argumentative strategies (Chin, 2020; Goldberg and Garcia, 2016). From a political point of view, this approach is included within the tactics of assimilation demanded by a large part of the LGTB movement since its inception.

The theme of marriage monopolised the discursive production of the documentaries analysed, which is understandable given that they took place in a period in which this newly obtained right was in danger. The social controversy on this issue in Spain was at its height; attacks from the anti-LGBT movements had become more aggressive; and counter-scientific, religious and moral references were used during the final assault. The demand for equality also entails discursive foundations that approach the different forms of family.

The family plays a clear mediating role between marriage and parenting desire. The commitment, fidelity and decision to build a family project aims to be a vaccine against criticism from a conservative political orientation and a traditionalist religious vision. Marriage is the legal frame of reference that ensures equal rights, and the family is the normalised space of coexistence that welcomes parents and children. Miscioscia, Blavier, Pagone and Simonelli (2017) show how the availability of legal marriage influences the ways in which lesbian and gay couples manage their transitions to parenting desire and their co-parental alliances. These dynamics are not without consequences.

Parenthood in same-sex couples is usually discussed in the framework of comparing homosexual parents to heterosexual parents, thus concealing the innovative differences between homoparental families and heteroparental families. Thus, the predominance and obligatory nature of the heterocentric norm continues to be considered the pillar on which society is based. We observed that the traditional family model was present in the discourses as a key piece in the construction of social practices that shape lesbian women and gay men parenting. However, some relevant paradoxes emerged that were discursively solved by including repertoires with small but very interesting nuances (i.e. claiming the pride of difference).

Being parents then becomes an issue affected by the entire development of the construction of the themes of marriage and family. The desire to be parents, when it appeared explicitly, was often connected to a decision that was thought through and discussed. The legal framework offered by marriage often serves as a safety net for the difficulties inherent in this type of process. Although this topic was present in the documentaries, albeit little developed, we wanted to analyse in detail the discursive strategies that were quoted in relation to it.

Lesbian women and gay men parenting clearly illustrates a definition of kinship linked to a complex and changing social dynamic, rather than to biology and the natural order (Meillassoux, 2001). In the debate on lesbian women and gay men parenting, more conservative discourses still use the biological reference of kinship to maintain within the same-sex family model the ideological, normative and legal pillars of traditional social structures. Our analysis shows that this aspect forces these new family models to confront a tendency to imitate a supposedly natural reproduction model. We also identified a number of elements that resort to biology as the supposedly natural model. These themes are discursive structures that support a new structure and construction of kinship. The most prominent discursive structures were those that linked lesbian women and gay men to parenthood through love (i.e. the ‘double love’ discourse strategy). For example, they appealed to love, affection, respect, mutual care and commitment to explain the relationship between biological filiation and sexual difference. We suggest that the recourse to love as a strategy also minimises any attempt to genderise families formed by same-sex couples and restricts the practice of sex to conditions of maximum secrecy.

But love, despite being strongly referenced in the discourses, is not the only ingredient needed in the day-to-day life of a family. In most of these cases, the family emphasised education on values and roles, with an interesting tension between flexibility and traditionalism in the definition of these roles. Other relevant elements were references to their second-degree relationships as evidence of kinship conditions. This always goes hand in hand with love as an affective bond and is supported by the sameness sought with any other family modality.

Education on values was also closely related to the repertoire of owning the difference, as shown by this type of personal commitment. It involves going beyond the classic principle of tolerance as that which enables the acceptance of differences and emphasises the values of recognition, respect and equality. The question that arises at this point is whether the fight for equality that comes from defending same-sex marriage can advance the democratisation of sexual diversity. In line with authors such as Butler (2004) or Galvin (2006), we believe that a comprehensive understanding of these types of strategies would make it possible to venture into less conventional formulas for standardisation in which specific social and legal aspects are promoted through the management of differences.

Further research along these lines is needed to explore new alternative social options regarding kinship and the desire for offspring. In this sense, the following aspects could be addressed:

1. The role of same-sex marriage in the demand to match and adapt legal regulations to current assisted-reproduction techniques. This could involve a more detailed study of cases of surrogate parenting.

2. The criticism by some feminist anthropologists of Schneider’s symbolic pair ‘blood-love’ as a way to establish the social component of kinship. Authors such as Collier and Yanagisako (1987) highlighted that sexual reproduction had been taken as the core element to define gender. This suggestion affects the very definition of partnership, and so it would be useful to analyse how the blood-love pair is addressed by different same-sex couples.

3. The lack of a demonstrated deterministic association between gender and the desire for parenthood. Thus, in-depth interviews with gay men and lesbian women couples could prove useful in learning more about possible types of role distribution, their dependence on biological facts and the place that daughters and sons have in the dynamics of their relationship.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Laura Domínguez de la Rosa

References

Alday-Mondaca

Lay-Lisboa

(2021) The impact of internalised stigma on lgbt parenting and the importance of health care structures: a qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(10): 5373.

Arditi

Hequembourg

(1999) Modificaciones parciales: discursos de resistencia de gays y lesbianas en Estados Unidos. Política Y Sociedad 30: 61–72.

Baiocco

Laghi

(2013) Sexual orientation and the desires and intentions to become parents. Journal of Family Studies 19: 90–98.

Baker

BMA

(2019) “We’re Just Family, You Know?” Exploring the Discourses of Family in Gay Parents’ Relational Talk. Journal of Family Communication 19(3): 213–227.

Braun

Clarke

(2012) Thematic analysis. Research methods in psychology 2: 57–71.

Butler

(2004) Is kinship always already heterosexual? In: Butler Judith. Undoing Gender. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 102–130.

Carsten

(2011) Substance and relationality: blood in contexts. Annual Review of Anthropology 40: 19–35.

Chin

(2020) Addressing heteronormativity: gendered familial appellations as an issue in the same-sex marriage debate in Taiwan. Sexualities 23(7): 1080–1096.

Clarke

Kitzinger

(2004) Lesbian and gay parents on talk shows: resistance or collusion in heterosexism? Qualitative Research in Psychology 1: 195–217.

10.

Clarke

Kitzinger

(2005) We’re not living on planet lesbian’: constructions of male role models in debates about lesbian families. Sexualities 8(2): 137–152.

11.

Clarke

Saffron

(2006) Challenging preconceptions of lesbian parenting. Lesbian and Gay PsychologyReview 7: 77–83.

12.

Collier

Yanagisako

(1987) Gender and Kinship. Essays toward a Unified Analysis. CA: Stanford University Press.

13.

Costa

Bidell

(2017) Modern families: parenting desire, intention, and experience among Portuguese lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Family Issues 38(4): 500–521.

14.

Costa

Salinas-Quiroz

(2019) A comparative study of attitudes toward same-gender parenting and gay and lesbian rights in Portugal and in Mexico. Journal of Homosexuality 66(13): 1909–1926.

15.

Creswell

(2013) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

16.

Deborah

(2014) Gay male couples’s paternal involvement in lesbian-parented families. Journal of Family Studies 18(2–3): 155–164.

17.

Domínguez

Montalbán

(2017) The social construction of homoparentality: academia, media, and expert discourse. Anales de Psicología 33(1): 89–92.

18.

Duggan

(2002) The new homonormativity: the sexual politics of neoliberalism. In: Castronovo

Dana

(eds), Materialising Democracy: Towards a Revitalized Cultural Politics. Durham, UK: Duke University Press, pp. 175–194.

19.

Evans

Barker

(2007) ’Risking the kids’ vs. ’double the love’: couple-counsellors in conversation on LGB parenting. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review 3(1): 34–43.

20.

Galvin

(2006) Diversity’s impact on defining the family. In: Turner

West

(eds), The Family Communication Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 3–19.

21.

Gates

Badgett

MVL

Macomber

, et al. (2007) Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

22.

Goldberg

Allen

(2013) Donor, Dad, or…? Young Adults with Lesbian Parents’ Experiences with Known Donors…? Journal Family Process 52(2): 338–350.

23.

Goldberg

Garcia

(2016) Gender-typed behaviour over time in children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Journal of Family Psychology 30(7): 854–865.

24.

González

López

(2009) Relaciones familiares y vida cotidiana de niños y niñas que viven con madres lesbianas o padres gays. Cultura y Educación: Revista de teoría, investigación y práctica 21(4): 417–428.

25.

Gross

(2009) The Desire for Parenthood Among Lesbians and Gay Men. New York, NY: University Press.

26.

Gurmankin

Caplan

Braverman

(2005) Screening practises and beliefs of assisted reproductive technology programs. Fertility and Sterility 83: 61–67.

27.

Imaz

(2017) Same-sex parenting, assisted reproduction and gender asymmetry: reflecting on the differential effects of legislation on gay and lesbian family formation in Spain. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online 4: 5–12.

28.

Lasio

Serri

(2017) The Italian public debate on same-sex civil unions and gay and lesbian parenting. Sexualities 22(4): 691–709.

29.

Levine

New

(2008) Anthropology and Child Development. A CrossCultural Reader. London: Blackwell.

30.

Lewin

(2009) Gay Fatherhood: Narratives of Family and Citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Lick

Patterson

Schmidt

(2013) Recalled social experiences and current psychological adjustment among adults reared by gay and lesbian parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 9(3): 230–253.

32.

Lynch

(2008) Considerations of family structure and gender composition: the lesbian and gay stepfamily. Journal of Homosexuality 40: 81–95.

33.

Lynch

Morison

(2016) Gay men as parents: analysing resistant talk in South African mainstream media accounts of queer families. Feminism & Psychology 26(2): 188–206.

34.

Loscertales

Nuñez

(2008) Ver cine en TV: una ventana a la socialización familiar. Comunicar 16: 137–143.

35.

Meillassoux

(2001) Mythes et limites de l’anthropologie. Le Sang et les Mots. Lausana, Switzerland: Editions Page deux.

36.

Mikulincer

Shaver

(2018) Attachment theory as a framework for studying relationship dynamics and functioning. In: Vangelisti

Perlman

(eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–185.

37.

Miscioscia

Blavier

Pagone

, et al. (2017) The desire of parenthood: intuitive co-parental behaviours and the quality of couple relationship among Italian and Belgian same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 110.

38.

Morison

Macleod

(2015) Men’s Pathways to Parenthood: Silence and Heterosexual Norms. Cape Town, South Africa: HSRC Press.

39.

Patterson

(2009) Lesbian and gay parents and their children: A social science perspective. In: Hope

(ed), Contemporary Perspectives On Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 141–182.

40.

Patterson

Riskind

(2010) To be a parent: issues in family formation among gay and lesbian adults. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 6: 326–340.

41.

Peletz

(1995) Kinship studies in late twentieth-century anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 343–372.

42.

Pichardo

(2011) We are family (or not): social and legal recognition of same-sex relationships and lesbian and gay families in Spain. Sexualities 14(5): 544–561.

43.

Pichardo

de Stéfano

Martín-Chiappe

(2015) (Des)naturalización y elección: emergencias en la parentalidad y el parentesco de lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y transexuales. Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares 70(1): 187–203.

44.

Potter

Wetherell

(1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behavior. London, UK: Sage.

45.

Pralat

(2018) More natural does not equal more normal: lesbian, gay, and bisexual people’s views about different pathways to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues 39(18): 4179–4203.

46.

Ravelingien

Provoost

Wyverkens

, et al. (2015) Lesbian couples’ views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor. Culture, Health & Sexuality 17: 592–606.

47.

Riskind

Patterson

(2010) Parenting intentions and desires among childless lesbian, gay, and heterosexual individuals. Journal of Family Psychology 24: 78–81.

48.

Riskind

Tornello

(2017) Sexual orientation and future parenthood in a 2011-2013 nationally representative United States sample. Journal of Family Psychology 31: 792–798.

49.

Schneider

(1984) A Critique of the Study of Kinship. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

50.

Shenkman

Bos

Kogan

(2019) Attachment avoidance and parenthood desires in gay men and lesbians and their heterosexual counterparts. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 37(4): 344–357.

51.

Shenkman

Shmotkin

(2016) The association between self-perceived parental role and meaning in life among gay and heterosexual fathers. Journal of Family Psychology 30(5): 552–561.

52.

Smietana

Thompson

Twine

(2018) Introduction: making and breaking families: reading queer reproductions, stratified reproduction and reproductive justice together. Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online 7: 12–130.

53.

Tate

Patterson

(2019) Sexual minority women's attitudes toward infants, children, and parenthood. J. Lesbian Stud. 23: 464–475.

54.

Van Dijk

(2001) Discourse, ideology and context. Folia Lingüística 35(1–2): 11–40.