Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 14:54:12 -0400
From: ae606@freenet.carleton.ca (Victoria Edwards)
Subject: submission-Childhood paper

                   CHANGING CONCEPTS OF CHILDHOOD
                          by Susan Haslip

There has been much debate of late concerning what constitutes a
'family' and whether same-sex couples qualify to be called a
'family'.  While the debate rages on, the reality is that gay and
lesbian couples, and single gays and lesbians,  are raising
children.  

In this paper, I will consider those arguments that have been
advanced in support of restricting the definition of 'family' to
the nuclear family.  I will argue that society's emphasis on the
nuclear family as the standard by which others are compared and
judged, is an arbitrary standard, which ignores the reality of gay
and lesbian families.  I will also consider the  effects such a
restrictive definition of 'family' has on children growing up in
gay and lesbian households.

What is the definition of a 'family'?  Those who hold to the
traditional definition argue that a family consists of "one man,
one woman raising children within the bounds of marriage".  

However, a large number of Canadians do not live within traditional
families.  In addition, between 1970 and 1987, the divorce rate in
Canada rose from 18.6 per cent to 43.1 per cent.  According to the
Statistics Canada survey completed in 1990 entitled "Family and
Friends", "half of divorcees aged 30 to 39 and more than one-third
of those aged 40 to 49 were living common-law".

     "Single-parent families, especially mother-led, are prevalent;
     and increasing number of parents never marry; divorce is     
     common, as is remarraige; significant numbers of families
     (comprise) a husband and wife with no children at home; 
     lesbians and homosexuals establish long-term and committed
     relationships, and many are involved in raising and nurturing
     children".

However, while some 'liberal' thinkers are prepared to consider
different variations of the traditional family, many are not
prepared to broaden any definition of family to include gays and
lesbians.  Many argue that the term "lesbian mother" is an
oxymoron, "as it joins a procreative identity (mother) to a sexual
identity (lesbian).  As a spokesperson for the group 'Gay Fathers'
points out, "in the past our roles as fathers and gay men have been
viewed as incompatible, both by society at large and, all too
often, by ourselves as well".

However, there are children being raised in gay and lesbian
households.  While Statistics Canada does not collect data on such
things, gay activists suggest that there are about 390,000 gay
parents in Canada.  The surge in lesbian parenting has prompted
some to refer to this time as the 'lesbian baby boom'.Gays and
lesbians without children at the time they 'come out' encounter "a
panapoly of options, including foster care, surrogate parenthood,
adoption, coparenting, alternative insemination, and heterosexual
sex".  There are also many gay and lesbian households raising
children from previous heterosexual relationships.

Proponets of a more inclusive definition of family argue that the
definition of family cannot be narrowly restricted, and that a
family "will define itself by its members and their actions - not
by a marriage certificate".

If, as has been demonstrated, the family is not the 'boring but
happy quartet of two parents and two well-adjusted children that
politicians are so comfortable espousing the virtues of', why not
expand the definition of 'family' to represent the diverse
configurations of families presently reflected in society?  
Those persons who argue for a more formal and/or restrictive
definition of family, argue that   

     "...there is a dominant conception of family that has been   
     traditionally enforced by laws and social custom...  It is   
     widely understood that the traditional family is one 
     composed of a married man and woman and their children".  


According to this line of thought, the traditional definition ought
to be maintained for the sake of tradition, despite the growing
number of familial units that do not fit this limited definition. 
Proponents of this line of thinking "...not only ignore reality,
they serve to exclude large numbers of people from having the
rights they deserve..."

Historically, there have been many traditions that have been held
to be 'sacred', however, for the sake of 'equality', these
traditions have had to be discarded.  Female public servants, until
as recently as 1956, were forced to quit their positions when they
were married.  The thinking behind this tradition was that once a
woman was married, she no longer needed a job.  This 'tradition'
has been discarded because of gender equality.

Traditionally, women have not been considered 'persons' Women have
been, and in some cases still are, considered 'property'.  It had
been 'tradition' that women were not allowed to vote.  Until 1960,
Native Canadians were not allowed to vote in federal elections. 
These 'traditions' were discarded because of human rights.

It is my contention that a definition of 'family' limited to the
traditional nuclear family is a tradition that must also be
discarded as it no longer reflects the reality of the families
found in society today.  

In addition, there are certain benefits and rights that come with
fitting society's traditional definition of the 'family'.  It is my
contention that to deny those same rights to families who do not
fit this restrictive definition of 'family' is unjust since the
distinction is an arbitrary distinction.

James Rachels, in the book The Elements of Moral Philosophy,
writes, 
 
     "any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to the
     interests of one group than to those of another is 
     unacceotably arbitrary unless there is some difference
     between the members of the groups that justifies treating
     them differently".

It is my contention that there is no relevant difference between
the nuclear family and other forms of family to:  (1) justify
society holding the nuclear family as superior to all other forms
of family nor to justify preferential treatment to those units that
fit the restrictive definition of 'family'.

Another argument against a more inclusive definition of family is
offered by The Salvation Army.  This group contends that if society
allows for a more inclusive definition of 'family', which includes
gay and lesbian families, then society "will begin a slide toward
legalized paedophilia and bestiality".

One questions how the recognition of diverse family groups is
tantamount to legalizing paedophilia and bestiality.  One of the
myths surrounding homosexuals is the equating of gay men with child
molesters.  However, as the evidence indicates, upwards of 98 per
cent of paedophiles are heterosexual men.  The supposed connection
The Salvation Army is attempting to make between homosexuality and
bestiality is "...nothing short of fea-mongering designed to ignite
the homophobia many people already feel".

A further argument against a more inclusive definition of family
comes from REAL Women.  This groups suggests 'that the cost of
extending family benefits to more people will put undue economic
pressure on the government and taxpayer".  

These same arguments were used as an attempt to deny benefits to
common-law couples and were proven false.  However, even if such an
argument were true, it is morally reprehensible to deny any group
rights or status based upon a price tag.

There are some persons who argue that the concept of the
traditional family should be discarded altogether since "...the
traditional family is dead or at least that it is quickly going out
of style".  While it may be true that the number of traditional
nuclear families is diminishing, there is no reason to doubt that
there will always exist some percentage of the population that fits
the current restrictive definition of 'family'.  It appears to me
that it would be rather hypocritical to argue for a more inclusive
definition of family that would disregard the traditional status of
some families.

It is my contention that the traditional definition of family no
longer reflects the realities of a considerable number of Canadian
households.  In fact, one questions whether such a definition of
'family' ever reflected the daily reality of a large number of
households.  Historically, there have been various forms of
'family', but the concept of the traditional family is relatively
new, dating to the 18th century.  However, even in the time since
the conception of the 'traditional family', this nucleus has been
ravaged by death, disease and war.

To deny these households the status of 'family' and the ensuing
benefits that go with this status is injust and based on an
arbitrary distinction. Despite the debate concerning what
constitutes a family, gay and lesbians couples, and single gays and
lesbians, are raising children.   What effect will such a
restrictive definition of 'family' have on the children of growing
up in gay and lesbian households?

Children want to talk about their families like their peers do, and
it is difficult for children to keep secrets about their family. 
However, due to the stigma attached to gay men and lesbians as
being child molesters, evil, immoral etc., many parents while they
are 'out' to their children, fear recrimination if anyone else
finds out about their lifestyle.  

     "The long history of state interventions into relationships
     between lesbians, gay men, and their children has supplied
     ample reasons for them to approach parenting with a healthy
     regard for tactical considerations.  Custody battles remain
     a major concern.  Former spouses, parents, and grandparents
     are the most frequent plaintiffs in custody cases that 
     involve lesbians and gay men; such suits typically cite the 
     parent's 'lifestyle' as detrimental to the chld or contest a
     lover's status as parent if the child's biological mother or
     father dies".

Gay and lesbian parents are forced by society to remain in the
closet, and in many instances, their children are also dragged into
that closet.

Many lesbians and gays know all too well the pressure to give the
appearance of 'normalcy' and the importance of being accepted by
the straight world.  In many cases, employment opportunities,
housing, child custody, etc. have forced gays and lesbians to live
double lives, and use gender 'neutral' names i.e. Chris, when
referring to a room-mate.

There is every reason to presuppose that children also need to be
accepted by their peers.  Many children hear words such as
'faggot', 'dyke' etc tossed about the playground know that their
father or mother's same-sex partner is the 'fag' or 'dyke' that
their peers are ridiculing.

A child who defends someone being verbally attacked with such names
runs the risk of being labelled by the same names.  At a time when
peer acceptance is perceived as important, this can be devastating. 
The result is that many children of gay and lesbian parents taunt
others with these names in order to throw suspicion from
themselves.  

While these so-called 'harmless' insults are often tossed about the
playground and are not directed at any one child, often such
comments are made in front of adults.  By the silence of adults in
the face of such comments, children are given the impression that
such terms as 'faggot' and 'dyke' are acceptable when used to
insult one another.

Consider the fictional classroom depicted in the book "How Would
You Feel If Your Dad Was Gay?"  In this book, there is a scene in
a classroom where the students are busy making Father's Day cards. 
One young girl named 'Jasmine', caught up in her excitement of
making a card for her three dads, says

     "My real dad's gay.  My brother and I live with him and 
     his lover, Andrew, half of the time.  The rest of the time
     we live with our mama and her new husband.  That makes
     three dads!"

The teacher said nothing to silence the comments that followed:
     "Jasmine's dad is a faggot"; "it; so gross, two men
     kissing each other" and "I'm glad my father isn't a
     sissy".

However, as Jasmine's father shares with the principle, "allowing
kids to be put down because their folks are gay is just as bad as
letting kids get put down 'cause they're black".  Another writer
notes, "the language and humor of homophobia, like any ethnic slur,
cease to be acceptable when one has felt their impact and pain."

Often, children raised in homes of gays and lesbians will
experience a conflict in values respect for each other.  However,
why is it acceptable, or permitted, to allow anyone to make such
hurtful comments about the children of lesiban and gay households?

Children are taught that society values truth-telling.  Children
are taught not to lie, yet what is a child to do when questioned
about the same-sex partner of his/her father/mother?  Children are
often questioned by grandparents, other relatives or family friends
regarding the nature of the parents' relationship.  

Children are also taught to respect their elders, yet this is
difficult to do when one parent is attempting to ascertain the
'truth' about a relationship in order to use this information to
fight for custody.  One child writes, 

     "I think he is trying to make us think being gay is bad
     and turn us against our mother.  But it's not working.
     ... I'm thirteen and I can accept it-and I could accept 
     it when I was six.  And he is thirty-six and he can't 
     accept it?  Well, it makes me wonder about his brains".

How does a child deal with anti-gay sentiment?  As one gay father
notes, "it's hard enough for an adult; it's quite a trip to lay on
a kid".  Children feel that they must keep a secret, but at times
this likely gets to be too much?  Where are children to turn?

One child writes, 
     "No one outside our family knows about my mom, just
     her friends.  I consider this a really big secret.
     I don't feel like anyone is trustworthy.  I don't think
     that if my best friend knew, she would ever come over 
     to spend the night".

Writes another,
     "I thought of going to the school counselor to talk about
     things, but I worried about him telling my teachers.  I 
     think if the teachers knew about my mom, they would 
     treat me different.  I think they would gossip about me.
     I wouldn't like that.  Maybe I'd like to talk to someone 
     not connected to my school, but it doesn't really hurt me
     not talking to anyone.  I've done it for all these years".


Societal institutions, for the most part, presippose
heterosexuality as the norm.  Children of gays and lesbian parents
have limited avenues to see their reality reflected.  The
presupposition of heterosexuality is evidenced in the forms
children have to fill out or that need to be taken home to have
'mom or dad' sign it.  Alternative families are ignored, for the
most part, and are rarely reflected in the media, in books read in
schools and in greeting cards (with the exception of alternative
greeting cards).

However, many gay and lesbian children find their reality in
interacting with children of other gays and lesbians; such
interacting is helpful as the children and parents know that they
are not alone.

Many critics of gay and lesbian families question "how can you
knowingly saddle a child with the stigma of gay and lesbian
parents?"  However, it should be noted that this same argument has
been used to 'attempt to deny children to the poor, the racially
oppressed and members of all other groups not assigned to the
mythical mainstream of society'.

There are many concerns that face the children of gay and lesbian
parents.  One of the more crucial concerns among psychologists is
"whether a child's self-esteem suffers from being different and 
secretive, and whether the child will experience gender confusion".

Dr. Martha Kirkpatrick, a Los Angeles psychiatrist, compared 
children of straight and lesbians mothers in the five to twelve
year old range.  Dr. Kirkpatrick found "no significant
psychological difference".

Dr. Susan Bradley, psychiatrist-in-chief at Toronto's Hospital for
Sick Children, notes that "most kids of gay parents do not have
gender disorders, and most kids with gender disorders don't have
gay parents".

There have been some positive observances made concerning children
raised in gay and lesbian households. While it is likely that
children of gays and lesbians would still experience difficulties
if a more inclusive definition of family was proposed tomorrow, it
is likely that a more inclusive definition of family would make it
easier for children of alternative households to share their
experiences.  
                            ENDNOTES


1.      Herrington, Doug, "Court needs to bring family up to date",
The Ottawa Citizen, (February 24th, 1993), p. A9.
2.      Viskupic, Gary, "What Exactly is a Canadian Family?",
The Globe and Mail, (March, 1993).
3.      Ibid.     4.        Ibid.
5.      Weston, Kath, Families We Choose:  Lesbians, Gays, Kinship,
(New York:  Columbia University Press, 1991), p. 169.
6.      Anonymous, Gay Fathers, 
(Toronto:  Gay Fathers of Toronto, 1981), p. 60.
7.      Ullyott, Kathy, "My folks are gay", 
Chatelaine, (November, 1990), p. 103.
8.      Weston, Kath, op. cit., p. 168.
9.      Ibid., p. 190. 10.    Ibid., p. 190. 11.     Ibid., p. 167.
12.     Herrington, Doug, op. cit., p. A9.
13.     Sornberger, Joe, "Family Ways:  We change, myths don't",
The Ottawa Citizen, (October 11th, 1992), p. B3.
14.     Herrington, Doug, op. cit., p. A9.
15.     Ibid., p. A9. 16.   Ibid., p. A9. 17.        Ibid., p. A9.
18.     Ibid., p. A9.
19.     Rachels, James, The Elements of Moral Philosophy
(United States:  McGraw-Hill Inc., 1986), pp.77,78.
20.     Herrington, Doug, op. cit., p. A9.
21.     Weston, Kath, op. cit., p. 167.
22.     Herrington, Doug, op. cit., p. A9.
23.     Herrington, Doug, "Court needs to bring family up to date",
The Ottawa Citizen, (February 24th, 1993), p. A9. 24. Ibid., p. A9.
25.     Weston, Kath, Families We Choose:  Lesbians, Gays, Kinship,
(New York:  Columbia University Press, 1991), pp. 211, 212.
26.     Ibid., pp. 211, 212. 27.      Ibid., pp. 209, 210.
28.     Ibid., pp. 209, 210. 29.      Ibid., pp. 209, 210.
30.     Ibid., p. 192.
31.     Heron, Ann and Maran, Meredith, How Would You Feel If Your
Dad Was Gay?, (Boston:  Alyson Publications Inc., 1991), p. 6.
32.     Ibid., p. 6. 33.     Ibid., p. 21.
34.     Rafkin, Louise, editor, Different Daughters:  A Book by
Mothers of Lesbians, (Pittsburgh and San Fransisco:  Cleis Press,
1987), p. 146.
35.     Rafkin, Louise, editor, Different Mothers:  Sons and
Daughters of Lesbians Talk about their Lives, (Pittsburgh and San
Fransisco:  Cleis Press, 1990), p. 42.
36.     Ibid., p. 38. 37.        Ibid., p. 39.
38.     Weston, Kath, op. cit., p. 195. 39.     Ibid., p. 195.
40.     Ullyott, Kathy, "My folks are gay",
Chatelaine, (November, 1990), 
p. 107. 41.       Ibid., p. 107. 42.       Ibid., p. 107
43.     Rafkin, Louise, editor, Different Mothers:  Sons and
Daughters of Lesbians Talk about their Lives, op. cit., p. 17.
                     
                          BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anonymous.  Gay Fathers.
     Toronto:  Gay Fathers of Toronto, 1981.
Heron, Ann and Maran, Meredith.  How Would You Feel If Your Dad Was 
     Gay?  Boston:  Alyson Publications Inc., 1991.
Herrington, Doug.  "Court needs to bring family up to date".
     The Ottawa Citizen.  Ottawa:  February, 1993.
Rachels, James.  The Elements of Moral Philosophy.
     United States:  McGraw-Hill Inc., 1986.
Rafkin, Louise.  Editor.  Different Daughters:  A Book by Mothers 
     of Lesbians.  Pittsburgh and San Fransisco:  Cleis Press,    
     1987.
Rafkin, Louise.  Editor.  Different Mothers:  Sons and Daughters of 
     Lesbians Talk about their Lives.  Pittsburgh and San
     Fransisco:  Cleis Press, 1990.
Sornberger, Joe.  "Family ways:  we change, myths don't".
     The Ottawa Citizen.  Ottawa:  October, 1992.
Ullyott, Kathy.  "My folks are gay".  Chatelaine.
     November, 1990.
Viskupic, Gary.  "What Exactly is a Canadian Family?"
     The Globe and Mail.  Toronto:  March, 1993.
Weston, Kath.  Families We Choose:  Lesbians, Gays, Kinship.
     New York:  Columbia University Press, 1991.


--
The Hebrew word for compassion, rachmin, literally means womb, a new
birth, a new start. "Let what was, be gone; what will be, come; what is
now, be"	Judith Ragir