Abstract
Same-sex families are exposed to a process of discrimination that is the result of the heteronormative construction of parenthood. These discriminatory situations originate both on the structural level (legislation and social campaigns) and in the family and surrounding social environment. Having access to social networks and support groups becomes an alternative for many of the families that have to confront these discriminatory processes. The objective of this work is to learn the meaning and functions that these networks and groups have for same-sex families. Qualitative research was undertaken through semistructured interviews of 21 Spanish same-sex families. The results show that the families interviewed have a positive evaluation of these networks and groups and that they turned to them in search of support, to build a collective identity, and to increase their levels of well-being and satisfaction. Considering these positive effects, social workers should promote the creation of, and participation in, these types of networks and groups.
Heterosexual normativity has had significant influence on the Western construction of parenthood in the definition of parental relationships (e.g., Butler, 2004; Warner, 2011). This view originates from poststructuralist feminism, which has seen the heterosexual family as a mechanism for reproducing the sex or gender system that perpetuates inequality. Hence, the existence of sexual and normative behavior is assumed, one that is based on the differentiation of bodies and desires (Fausto-Sterling, 2006) as well as in their complementarity (Delphy, 1993). For some authors, such as Butler (2004), marriage is responsible for regulating (heterosexual) sexuality toward reproduction. Other types of family that move away from or break with the “normative dyadic heterosexuality” and that imperil “the putative natural and cultural laws said to sustain human intelligibility” are marginalized or even prohibited (p. 152). In this regard, the “otherness” of same-sex families compared to the heterosexual norm produces a discriminatory situation that causes disparities on different levels. This is what authors such as Meyer (1995) have referred to as minority stress theory and it has a direct effect on the mental health and well-being of the members of the family unit (Goldberg & Smith, 2011; Power et al., 2015; Short, 2007). The origin or trigger of this stress lies in structural discrimination: legislation or social campaigns orchestrated by certain groups that try to prevent or limit the rights of same-sex families. Unsupportive responses from their immediate environment, particularly their families of origin, heighten the stress.
Faced with a hostile climate, many same-sex families build supportive social networks with other similar families, with the aim of ending or overcoming the discrimination they are exposed to, as well as to foster a sense of belonging and a consciousness of pride toward their family model (e.g., Bos & van Balen, 2008; Cadoret, 2013; Mallon, 2004; Wells, 2001). This study focuses on the discrimination that exists toward same-sex families and the role that social support networks have as a resource for resisting it. Previous research suggests that networks and meetings contribute to forging ties of support between same-sex families. These families have little visibility and scant social protection, which makes them more vulnerable to discrimination. Hence, the importance of having contact with other similar families to build a collective identity that can enable them to confront ignorance, fears, insecurities, and prejudice that abound.
Legislation and Social Campaigns
Several studies have shown that, on the structural level, legislation specific to same-sex families affects their level of health and well-being (Browne, 2011; Goldberg & Perry-Jenkins, 2007). Thus, when a same-sex couple plans to become parents, they have to negotiate the legal obstacles that some countries impose on them. This is, in effect, the restriction or denial of their parental aspirations by considering parenthood to be an exclusive right of heterosexual couples (Berkowitz, 2011). Mallon (2004) reveals that some couples decide to hide their sexual preference in order to avoid being excluded from processes such as adoption, and Hicks (2000) shows that discriminatory attitudes against same-sex couples prevail among the professionals who work in adoption processes. There is therefore a tendency to privilege heterosexual couples as the first option when it comes to granting a child through adoption. In these cases, the adoption committees assume that it is necessary for there to be two differentiated genders in order to guarantee the correct development and well-being of adopted minors. These prejudiced and discriminatory attitudes result in: first, the rejection or negative resolution of the adoption proceedings (Brooks & Goldberg, 2001); and second, the lack of information or emotional support during the process (Brown, Smalling, Groza, & Ryan, 2009).
Other forms of discrimination exist in the process of attempting paternity and maternity through assisted reproductive technology. As with the adoption process, both legal (Tasker, 2013) and professional (Murphy, 2001; Zachia et al., 2011) discrimination toward same-sex couples has been identified in assisted reproduction. In Spain, the rights of same-sex families have been broadening, both in terms of adoption and assisted reproduction but some norms and attitudes prevail that produce discrimination. Thus, a ministerial order passed in 2014 establishes that, in the area of public health, heterosexual couples have priority of access to assisted reproductive treatments. 1 This priority is based on privileging biological infertility as the principal requisite for access to assisted reproductive treatments. Female couples and single women are disqualified. The passing of this regulation represents a step backward in the reproductive rights of female couples.
Social campaigns that attempt to hinder the parental aspirations of same-sex couples are also prevalent (Hicks, 2000). Some of the arguments put forward in these campaigns have advocated the need for there to be two figures of different genders as an essential requirement in the reproductive process and, in particular, in the raising, education, and development of children (Robinson, 2002). These discriminatory attitudes are present both in the initial process of attempting to become parents and in the subsequent stages of the family cycle. Seeking support proves crucial in certain stages of family life: their “coming out” (Lynch, 2004), fighting the denial and invisibility that they suffer in contexts such as education (Kosciw & Díaz, 2008), or the questioning of the welfare and psychological development of their children (Morgan, 2002; Wardle, 2004). Generally, there is a positive perception of same-sex families in Spain. Nonetheless, before and during the passing of the same-sex marriage law in 2005, different campaigns, both from the academic sphere and the social sphere, tried to delegitimize these types of family units. Some studies (e.g., De Lucas et al., 2004) focused on questioning the educational ability of these types of families, through considering that the absence of two differently gendered parents could negatively impact the development of children. However, these studies have been repeated by others, with results that have shown precisely the opposite (e.g., González, Morcillo, Sánchez, Chacón, & Gómez, 2004; López, 2014). On the social level, some public opinion polls have produced data that are not particularly favorable toward family diversity. Hence, the survey Familia y Género (Family and Gender, 2012) revealed that, in response to the statement, “a couple formed by two women can raise a child as well as a couple formed by a man and a woman,” around 33% of the people surveyed answered in the negative. This percentage increased to 39% when asked about a male couple. Facing this adverse social context, same-sex families have had to search for strategies to refute and overcome these types of attitudes that infringe upon their parental wishes and rights (e.g., González, Chacón, Gómez, Sánchez, & Morcillo, 2003).
Well-Being and Development in Same-Sex Families
Broadly speaking, the family of origin and the immediate social environment exercise a very important role in the process of family formation as well as in the later development and stability of same-sex families (Dewaele, Cox, Van den Berghe, & Vincke, 2011; Goldberg & Smith, 2011). For this reason, ignorance or disapproval of same-sex couples can become an obstacle that limits or impedes access to maternity or paternity (Chabot & Ames, 2004; Touroni & Coyle, 2002). For societies in the south of Europe, the family is one of the most important institutions, forming the bedrock of personal life. A functional family provides emotional well-being and sews solidarity among its members (Pichardo, 2008). As studies have shown, after an initial stage in which the family of origin disapproves of the maternity or paternity project, there comes gradual acceptance (Mallon, 2004). The appearance of grandchildren, in particular, contributes to overcoming the initial reticence that arises with regard to same-sex maternity or paternity. Sometimes, certain forms of discrimination exist that may end up causing discontent at the heart of the couple’s relationship. For example, in assisted reproduction, the relationship with the family of origin of the gestational mother tends to be different to that of the social mother. As Hequembourg and Farrell (2001) show, the family of the non-gestational mother often do not consider her children as their grandchildren. This is due to the absence of a biological connection, which leads to a weakening of ties. Occasionally, this lack of recognition results in weakened and fragmented relations (Fulcher, Chan, Raboy, & Patterson, 2002). Donoso (2006) found similar results in Spain, showing that the nongestational mother was in a more vulnerable situation than her partner. This resulted in the negation of her maternal role both in the close familial context and in the wider social environment.
Adverse family stress can, however, be counteracted if support and acknowledgment comes from the circle of friendships and the social environment in which same-sex families develop (Dewaele et al., 2011). Pioneering works such as Weston (2003) have shown the importance of friendships for nonheterosexual people. The discrimination they suffer in their families of origin is compensated for by those friendships that, through choice, come to be considered as true family. Likewise, same-sex couples turn to friends to gain the understanding that they need in order to undertake their family project when they do not receive enough support from their families of origin. Nevertheless, there are cases in which their friends do not share the same situation, either because they are not part of a sexual minority or they are part of a sexual minority but have neither entered into maternity or paternity nor plan to do so. Thus, either their ignorance or their unfamiliarity with the situation that these families are undergoing means that they are often unable to be of assistance (Kinkler & Goldberg, 2011).
Supporting Social Networks and Groups Among Same-Sex Families
Discriminatory attitudes, as well as lack of acknowledgment, toward same-sex families lead them to build supportive social networks and groups with families that have a similar structure to their own. Few studies have analyzed the impact of supporting social networks among same-sex families (e.g., Broad, 2011; Kinkler & Goldberg, 2011; Power et al., 2015). In Spain, these studies are even more limited, with that led by González and Sánchez (2003) being the most prominent. Their results show that more than half the families surveyed knew and/or were in contact with other families similar to their own. The participating families emphasized that this was a pleasurable and beneficial experience for their children, with the result that they did not feel different but rather shared their family condition with other children in the same situation.
In general, the studies that have analyzed the impact of supportive social networks and groups, both those specifically made up of sexual minorities and those related to the transition and practice of maternity or paternity, have highlighted a series of functions associated with these types of networks. These include the search for support in the different stages of the family cycle (e.g., Broad, 2011; Kinkler & Goldberg, 2011; Short, 2007), the creation of a collective identity that makes it possible to articulate their sociopolitical demands and needs (e.g., Faith, 2002; Passy, 2001; Polletta & Jasper, 2011), and the improvement of their emotional well-being through empowerment (e.g., Cohen, 2004; Goldberg & Smith, 2011; Romijnders et al., 2017).
The first of these functions, seeking support, has been specified in three ways: as a search for models that are inspiring (Chabot & Ames, 2004; Hayman, Wikes, Halcomb, & Jackson, 2015); to obtain information on how maternity or paternity can be achieved (Chabot & Ames, 2004; Sobocan, 2011; Wright, 2011); and on how to combat those messages and policies that invalidate this family model, causing harm and isolation (Jones & Voss, 2008). The second function, creating a collective identity, has become a strategy for making a set of shared demands to ensure that their rights are fulfilled (Short, 2007). Lastly, the promotion of a space for exchanging experiences related to their particular family model has been seen as an opportunity to channel worries and fears (Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013; Short, 2007). These exchanges exercise a positive effect on the levels of well-being and self-esteem of all of the members of the family unit (Jones & Voss, 2008; Short, 2007).
Our premise is, therefore, that the degree to which a society is marked by the heterosexual norm can condition the decision and undertaking of maternity and paternity for same-sex couples. The objectives of this study are thus: (a) to learn the motivations that favor or hinder involvement in these types of groups and networks, (b) to determine what the functions and effects are of these groups and networks on the different members of the family unit among the participating families, and (c) to examine the interrelations of the lowest and highest levels of participation with different variables, both individual and familial or social.
Method
The Sample
This study is based on a wider project that aims to analyze the situation of same-sex families in Spain. The sample was composed of a total of 21 same-sex families stemming from different processes of family formation, that is, adoption, blending, and assisted reproductive treatments. The criteria for inclusion in the sample were being a same-sex couple (independent of civil status or sexual preference) and having children. The only model not considered was that of male couples who attained paternity through surrogate pregnancy, due to the difficulty of finding couples prepared to participate in the study. The final sample size was determined through a process of theoretical saturation. Saturation means that no new informants provided relevant data or information with respect to that already obtained (Flick, 2007).
The participating families were recruited from among the contact network of the researcher. Then, the collaboration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) associations was requested, sending an e-mail informing groups of the research project, and asking for the collaboration of members and sympathizers of these groups. Finally, the families provided further new contacts from their networks of friends and acquaintances. This last procedure, known as snowballing, proves to be very useful in hidden populations or those that are difficult to reach due to their marginal nature or fear of discrimination (Atkinson & Flint, 2001).
Characteristics of the Sample
The sample was quite homogeneous in terms of the average age of the parents (M = 43.3; SD = 9.12), their activity (90% in paid employment), and income level (3,001–4,500 euros per month in the case of male couples and 1,800–2,400 euros a month for female couples). According to the data from the National Institute of Statistics, the mean income of Spanish families was 26,092 euros a year in 2014, or 2,174 euros per month. These figures show that the male couples interviewed had an income above the Spanish family mean, in contrast to the female couples, whose income reflected the mean. The most notable differences were found in the family model, since most of the families were derived from assisted reproductive treatments (52%; N = 11), followed by families of adoption and fostering (29%; N = 6) and, lastly, blended families (19%; N = 4). The fact that most couples used an assisted reproduction process has a bearing on the greater proportion of female couples (76%; N = 16) compared to male couples (24%; N = 5). Nevertheless, these figures reflect the general distribution in Spain for same-sex families. The 2011 population census estimated that there were 5,895 families formed by same-sex couples, of which 3,400 were composed by women and 2,495 by men. In terms of number of children, seven of the interviewed families had two children while the rest (67%; N = 14) had one child. Some of these couples were planning on having another child. Regarding their geographic distribution, all the families lived in large or medium-sized Spanish cities, although some of the informants came from rural environments where their families of origin still lived. Their ties with these areas therefore continued to be strong and frequent.
Data gathering
The data were obtained using semistructured interviews that were carried out jointly with both couple members. The interviews were conducted in Spanish, as all the people interviewed were Spanish-speaking. The interviews had an average duration of 90–120 min, and at their start, the couples’ oral consent was requested for the recording and subsequent scientific use of the data obtained. For this, the use of fictitious names was guaranteed as well as the omission of any information that could compromise their privacy or anonymity. In terms of the context in which the interviews were conducted, a comfortable atmosphere was ensured, in which everything relative to nonverbal communication was controlled, specifically silences, nodding, or smiles that would allow the informants to express themselves with complete freedom (Patton, 2002).
The interview questions were structured into three large sections of content. First, the informants were asked questions about their personal biographies (e.g., childhood and adolescence, development and communication of their sexual choice, network of friends). Next, questions were formulated regarding the process of family formation (e.g., partner relationship, the decision and procedure for accessing maternity/paternity, stance of the family of origin). The last section of questions was focused on getting to know the relation of the families interviewed with their immediate social environment (e.g., involvement in associations, school, neighborhood, friendships).
Data Analysis
We conducted a phenomenological analysis to make sense of the data. This method seeks to answer the following question: “What is the meaning, structure and essence of the lived experience of this phenomenon for these people or groups of people?” (Patton, 2002, p. 104). The phenomenon under study was the subjective experiences of the same-sex families. The analysis was sequenced following the stages proposed by Hycner (1985) and Finlay (2014). The first phase consisted of a literal transcription of the interviews. A phenomenological reduction of the data was then carried out, enabling the most relevant issues to be easily identified. The researchers also engaged in bracketing. A third stage was centered on the search for units of meaning, understood as a process in which the “data are transformed into meanings” (Finlay, 2004, p. 125). In this process, the NVivo (version 10) computer program was important, as it enabled the systematization of information by dividing the data into relevant units of meaning—in other words, the fusion of the above-described units into higher order categories. A quantitative reduction was produced. The last stage of the analysis process was to define the research topics. These have a more global character and represent the large thematic blocks upon which the research project is structured. One of these topics was defined as same-sex families and their environment, in which the grouping support network or social group was included, along with the units meaning, functions and participation and contact in the family networks or groups.
The other members of the research project checked the analysis by independently reproducing its different stages, and they were in agreement with the identification of the units, groupings and research themes. This contributed to guaranteeing reliability and rigor in the data analysis (Hycner, 1985).
The research project had the ethical approval of the Postgraduate School Academic Commission of the University of Granada (Spain). The relevant legal requirements (informed consent and the subsequent handling of data under a clause of anonymity and confidentiality) were also applied.
Results
Most of the families interviewed had, in general terms, regular and frequent contact with other same-sex families, whether through LGBT associations and groups that included a section for families, or through the search and creation of informal networks between families that knew each other or were geographically close. The reasons for getting involved in these associations or groups were varied and, in general, arose out of the need to find models and support in a society marked by heteronormativity. Therefore, this decision was not conditioned by their relations with their family environment, which, generally, were satisfactory. Aside from two informants, all the people interviewed commented that their families of origin currently supported their family project. One of these informants, Amelia, had found in the family of her wife Lucía the support her own parents had denied her: Because my wife, for example, they’ve given her loads of support, they really love her, they really look after her. So I know that, with the bad time she went through, that her story was totally different to mine, so, for me it’s very important that she feels loved and protected by my family. (Lucía, 34 years old) [With the pregnancy] it changed a lot, really. Since then, we respect each other much more, we speak well to each other and there haven’t even been any fights. It’s a totally different relationship. And, since then, it’s been a bit like step by step. Until she even came to visit us last year, to stay in our house, and that was that. And now the baby has arrived, she feels jealous and wants to come and meet her. She’s jealous of the [other] Spanish grandparents. It’s a complete change. It’s amazing. (Miriam, 37 years old)
“We Were Very Lost, We Didn’t Know How to Start on the Path to Our Maternity.” Seeking Support in Family Support Networks and Groups
Most of the families in the sample had contact with other same-sex families, and they generally did so through associations or groups belonging to the LGBT movement. Frequently, these organizations hold annual meetings or day events, in which they discuss aspects that, due to their topicality (e.g., legislative reform) or repercussion (e.g., prevalence of discrimination in education), directly affect same-sex families. The families also tend to organize informal groups that meet with some regularity in public spaces such as campsites, restaurants, cafés, children’s play centers, or parks. In these cases, the get-togethers are arranged outside institutional channels through phone calls or text messages between the families that live in the immediate geographical area.
Among the motivations for meeting families with a similar structure is the search for models and examples, both in the initial family-forming stage and in the later evolution of the family cycle. Many couples are beset by fears about their parental ability, which means that finding other couples who have gone through this process ends up being a decisive factor when starting the journey toward paternity or maternity. Lorena had always felt the need to be a mother, but in her immediate environment, she did not know any same-sex families, thus she had some qualms about starting the process toward maternity. Little by little, she started to look for same-sex couples with children to learn about their experience. Thus, her initial fears and qualms gradually faded: From then on [after getting to know another same-sex family], I began to get over the fear of having a child in a couple made up of two women, or of two guys (…) Then the woman came with, first with the boy and later with her two children, a boy and a girl and her partner, on holiday. And I saw them to be such happy children, so healthy, so cute. She told me that she didn’t have any problems. (Lorena, 59 years old.) We didn’t know we had to get married.
2
We, she, all her life she’s been in this world [referring to the fact that her partner has always identified as a lesbian] and did not know any association. I did not even know that associations existed. One day I was investigating the subject of insemination for two women and the like on the internet and then I found a blog, a blog by two women. I then started to talk with them, I opened my own blog, and so on. And they organized a meeting of same-sex families. And, then, I said to her: “let’s go” (….) They really took care of us. And of course it was there we found out that we had to get married before the baby was born. And we were like: “What?” (Blanca, 38 years old)
Providing strategies for dealing with situations that question or compromise their family model is another important part of the support work that family networks and groups offer. For example, the registering of children in the Civil Registry Office, managing maternity or paternity leaves, enrolling at school or the way of dealing with family diversity in schools, are some of the issues that can make these families feel disorientated. On this last issue, schools can become spaces of segregation where the children of same-sex families do not feel themselves identified within the hegemonic discourses. Some families said that the period of time their children started school was one of anguish for them, due to this general lack of a model or example in educational settings, as evidenced by Tania and Patricia: I am worried that my daughter won’t recognise herself in a family model when she begins her education, and I am worried that my daughter might be subject to attacks because her family is not yet like the model that, mostly, appears both in books and stories, and in films, and on the telly, and everywhere (….) Above all because of our sons and our daughters. Perhaps what affects our freedoms is largely behind us, but not theirs. And their first freedom is not being recognised when they start school, which is their first step in socialization. (Tania, 31 years old) And many of the doubts that we start having, parents who have older children are solving them: “Hey, how did you do this? How did you enrol your children? How did you participate in the schools?” (Darío, 42 years old)
“Getting to Know Other Families Makes Us Feel Proud.” Constructing a Collective Identity
Along with providing support, family networks or groups also make it possible to form a collective identity of same-sex families. Forming this identity is an empowerment strategy in a society that is conspicuous for its marked heteronormative character, in which preferences and family models that are different from the reproductive heterosexual couple are questioned. Many parents are conscious of this situation and consider that their children have an opportunity to live and be enriched by the diversity that arises from their families. As Juan explained: What happens is that it’s true that he, that we’re all educated, at least at our age, in this society, we are educated to be heterosexuals and society continues to educate us to be heterosexuals. The roles, everything. The films of Walt Disney educate us to be heterosexual. So, sure, when this child lives in an environment where homosexuality is normal, it is natural, logically, that they have much more freedom to decide to be what they want than any other child. (Juan, 48 years old) Yes it’s true that there could be differences between them [referring to children of heterosexual couples compared to children of homosexual couples] but because today nowadays it isn’t so normalized either. Well, it is more and more, but neither is it so normalized for two fathers or two mothers to have children. So, sure, maybe it is true that you could say: “everybody has a father and a mother and I’ve only got two fathers”. Or: “I’ve only got two mothers”. In that sense, yes. (Enrique, 28 years old) It seems to me really important because it gives him tools, obviously, nobody can tell him that his family is special, that there aren’t families like his and, moreover, he lives, he sees that they are normal families: the same as ours, the same as those of his mate who has a mum and a dad, or the same as his girlfriends who have mums and dads. That they are normal families, the same. (Nerea, 60 years old) So that he can grow up, the boy grows up saying: “I have two fathers”: So he can also say: “ah, so X also has two fathers, and X also has two fathers and…. Y has two mothers”. And, then, it would seem normal to him because he has friends or acquaintances who are in the same situation. Then it will seem normal to him, because there aren’t many of us and, then, he’s not going to find it in his school. Most likely he won’t be with anyone in his school or in his class, above all, in his same situation. So, so he doesn’t feel alone, so he doesn’t feel that he is the only one. So he doesn’t feel like he’s from another planet. (Darío, 42 years old)
“We Are Not Alone. The Gatherings Are an Energy Boost.” Strengthening Well-Being Through Family Networks and Groups
One last factor that determined participation and involvement in family networks and groups revolves around the well-being that meeting with people who are on similar paths brings. On certain occasions, the fear of being made visible that they may have is compensated for with the pride that emerges from these networks. Specifically, they benefit from the fact that their environment and milieu see and accept that they are just one more family model and that their children do not suffer any trauma. Verónica and Miriam lived in an essentially rural environment where subtle prejudice and discrimination against same-sex couples persist. They valued the meetings positively as they enabled the members of their immediate community to witness same-sex parenthood in a positive way. They felt satisfied to think that this coming together resulted in an improvement in perception and acceptance of this family model: We try to make an effort, and attend these types of events with families more and more because we think it’s very important (…. ). It seems to me important that we are seen, and that everybody sees, above all in Extremadura where the environment is mostly rural, that they see that there are same-sex families and that the children are equally happy, and that they do not turn out perverted. (Verónica, 32 years old) Look, on Sunday we were all so happy, right? There was an atmosphere there because there were so many children. We go to a park and we’re by ourselves. It’s a closed park. And we are alone. And there we all were: “blah, blah, blah”. And the children playing around. And it was joyful there because, of course, there were loads of children. I mean, everyone had people their own age, and the park there was really lively. We came back…. Later, sending messages to everyone’s phone saying how happy we were. (Diana, 54 years old)
“We Haven’t Needed It, But If It Were Necessary We Would Seek Help.” Reasons for Not Getting Involved in Family Networks and Groups
Seven of these families did not feel the need or desire to get involved in support groups or networks. Some families from the sample still either had not considered getting involved in such ventures or rejected it. Among the former were the couples with very young children, not yet in school and who saw no advantage in having contact with other families similar to their own. This is the case with Rocío and Victoria who judged that knowing the experience of other families firsthand would not help them face their journey toward and through maternity. Therefore, they preferred to undergo that process independently: We don’t have much contact. I was going to call the girl I was telling you about [referring to a same-sex family] who a mutual friend knows, and I was about to ask for her phone number. So that, before she was born, when Victoria was three months pregnant or around that, so she could me tell me a bit, because, sure, it is scary. Well, I said to myself: “What’s it going to be worth to me?” “She’ll tell me her experience, which doesn’t have to be mine.” Sure, she’ll tell me something that, maybe, or it will condition me when it comes to whatever. It’s good to know others’ experiences but I prefer to live my life as my own. (Rocío, 38 years old.) It hasn’t occurred to us, we haven’t even thought about it, it’s not that we’ve rejected it. We haven’t considered it but if it came up, it wouldn’t be something we would reject, especially when our boy gets older. (Gemma, 41 years old) We are slightly removed from all that [referring to contact with same-sex families]. It’s that, we’ve haven’t needed to either. If we had encountered some problem that we couldn’t solve, then, maybe, we would have looked for help, the experience of other people, but, as I’ve already told you, there hasn’t been a problem—except, of course, what goes on in any cohabitation. (Diego, 44 years old.) Yet let me also say to you, and I see it this way when they show, for example, Gay Pride Day on television, I don’t like it, truly. This means that if you don’t put a human face on a relationship of two women, of two men, then what you are going to see is that and you’re going to see things that aren’t real. (Cristina, 53 years old) The truth is that we don’t go out much in terms of the scene, we’re not much for going out. I’d like to for him [her son], for him to have contact with other children with same-sex parents. So that he can see that there are others. Sure there are meetings and gatherings, and I’d like to go to that type of thing for him to see that he’s not the only one. And, well, I’d like to go. But the thing is that it’s also true that I don’t completely identify, depending on what type of people. Of those in this group, I don’t completely identify but, well, I’d like to attend. (Amelia, 34 years old)
Discussion
This research has qualitatively analyzed the role that social support networks and groups play among same-sex families. In particular, we have analyzed what the effects and functions are that these types of associations exert on the members of the family unit. In general, family networks and groups compensate for the shortcomings that these families are exposed to as a consequence of the heteronormative environment in which they live. This has been discovered in other similar works (Bos & van Balen, 2008; Cadoret, 2013; González & Sánchez, 2003; Mallon, 2004; Wells, 2001). Unlike other studies (Dewaele et al., 2011; Kinkler & Goldberg, 2011; Pope, Murray, & Mobley, 2010), however, the families interviewed did not resort to these types of networks because of a lack of acknowledgment or support from their respective families of origin. Only one study was found in Spain (González & Sánchez, 2003) that has analyzed the relationship of same-sex families with their respective families of origin. This study notes that the tendency is to uphold an optimal family atmosphere, whereby the sexual preference of their children is not allowed to become a negative factor that could distort parent–child relations. This tendency is corroborated in the present study, in which most of the informants, male and female, stated that they had a good relationship with their respective families of origin. This good relationship was in turn translated into recognition and acceptance of their same-sex family model.
One of the main motivations for taking part in these types of networks concerned the uncertainty and lack of information that occurs in the early stages of the family formation process. The literature suggests (Chabot & Ames, 2004; Short, 2007; Sobocan, 2011; Wright, 2011) that the existence of families with a similar structure serves as a mirror in which other families can see themselves reflected, which tends to lessen fears and dispel doubts. In this regard, the work led by Touroni and Coyle (2002) with lesbian couples showed that for those who belonged to an older generation, the absence of models caused them many difficulties. They identified this as the cost of entering into “unexplored territory” (p. 199), since female couples that had succeeded in becoming parents were few and not very visible. Meanwhile, the difficulty of finding similar families in the immediate area was also an obstacle that the young couples circumvented through using the Internet. Thus, the existence of websites and blogs run by same-sex families enabled them to have contact with other similar families, mainly for seeking advice on questions related to assisted reproduction or adoption.
For the reasons explained, the blended families interviewed were those who showed lower levels of participation because they did not have to confront the doubts and fears associated with processes such as adoption or assisted reproduction. Similarly, the older age of their children (the majority were teenagers or adults) meant that they did not need to seek models or examples from which to take inspiration either. In contrast, this last issue was decisive for families with small children who turned to these groups in search of other children who they could relate to and identify with. Interaction and contact enabled the children not to feel alone and to acquire tools to combat possible cases of harassment or discrimination associated with their family structure. In this regard, some studies (Bos & van Balen, 2008; Crisp & McCave, 2007; González & Sánchez, 2003; Roughley & Alderson, 2012; Wright, 2011) have shown that those models make it possible to relativize the exceptional character of their family model and, consequently, to forge alliances that enable them to combat social homophobia.
These networks stand out because a space for reflection is created in which their members exchange experiences and information. Thus, the families stated that this exchange helped to strengthen their ties and, ultimately, to increase their feeling of well-being through feeling understood by their peers. Through this feeling of affinity, some families explained that a shared identity was forged through which they could combat the heteronormative policies that affected them in daily life. As the work by Short (2007) shows, integration into this type of network is a way of promoting and ensuring emotional well-being by joining forces that contribute to sociopolitical transformation. In short, this change makes it possible to advance the integration, recognition, and acceptance of their family model. Moreover, their visibility as same-sex families contributes to their internal and external normalization. As some studies have shown (Ben-Ari & Livni, 2006; Chabot & Ames, 2004), visibility contributes to strengthening all members of the family unit to live their family model in a natural way. However, other works (Mallon, 2004) have identified invisibility as a way of protecting children, above all so that they don’t feel rejected or excluded. Some of the families in this study considered that due to the young age of their children, it was unnecessary to contact these groups. They preferred to maintain their anonymity. Nevertheless, they did not reject the idea of getting involved in these networks as their children grew up, if doubts arose or in case they needed information on some aspect of their upbringing (Mezey, 2008). However, the blended families refused to keep in contact with families of a similar structure. These findings agree with those discovered in other studies (Berger, 2000; Current-Juretschko & Bigner, 2005), which assert that the processes of socialization of this particular family model are more complex.
This research has some limitations, such as the selected sample size, as well as the profile of the families interviewed, which had a lower representation of adoptive and blended families compared with the families formed using assisted reproductive technology. It would also be interesting to examine the value and meaning that these types of networks provide to other family models, such as single-parent families, both homosexual and heterosexual. Both of these cases are removed from the model of the traditional, heteronormative family.
Conclusions
The findings of this study indicate that belonging to family networks and groups has multiple benefits for most same-sex families, chief of which are the search for support, the creation of a collective identity, and the increase in well-being for their members. As part of their functions, social workers who carry out their work with families should promote the defense of these families’ rights (Power et al., 2015; Speziale & Gopalakrishna, 2004) and provide them with strategies to combat the threats that they are subject to (Speziale & Gopalakrishna, 2004). For this reason, the creation of these types of networks, as well as active involvement in them, should be advanced from within social work. Power et al. (2015) have shown that professionals who work with families should promote groups and networks in order to combat stigma and discrimination through the development of their internal strengths. For those cases in which distance or social context impedes or hinders contact with other same-sex families, the Internet can be an alternative. Thus, social workers should also promote these types of virtual spaces as a way of approaching and contacting people in a similar situation and with the same interests. Moreover, critical awareness is created in these groups, which enables the identification and condemnation of the homophobic behaviors that arise in a sociopolitical context conspicuous for its heteronormative character.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education’s Training of University Teachers Programme (FPU). Grant Identification: AP2010-1707.