Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2022 Jun 6;36(7):1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/fam0001004

Future Parenting Aspirations and Minority Stress in U.S. Sexual Minority Adults

Armin A Dorri 1, Stephen T Russell 1
PMCID: PMC9760407  NIHMSID: NIHMS1850985  PMID: 35666912

Abstract

Parenthood is an aspiration shared by a majority of U.S. adults. However, previous research has found that sexual minority adults (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual) are less likely than heterosexual counterparts to be parents or desire to become parents in the future. To date few studies have examined how minority stress (i.e., everyday discrimination, felt stigma, and internalized homophobia) influences parenting desire, parenting likelihood, and expectation gap between the two. Even fewer studies have examined the parenting aspirations of sexual minority individuals following nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. We analyzed data from 487 childfree lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer participants from two cohorts (‘Equality cohort’: ages 18–25; ‘Visibility’ cohort: ages 34–41) from the Generations study, a national probability sample of sexual minority adults in the U.S. As expected, we found that the Visibility cohort adults had significantly lower parenting desire and parenting likelihood, and a greater parenting expectation gap than the Equality cohort adults. Additionally, while everyday discrimination did not predict parenting aspirations, internalized homophobia and felt stigma predicted higher parenting desire and lower parenting likelihood, respectively. We found a cohort by felt stigma interaction such that felt stigma predicted even lower parenting likelihood in the Visibility cohort adults. Our findings contribute to a growing body of research on sexual minority parenthood and may inform community practice and clinical support for sexual minority adults who pursue parenthood.

Keywords: sexual identity, sexual minority, parenting desire, parenting likelihood, minority stress

Although same-sex marriage became legally recognized nationwide with the 2015 Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), same-sex couples’ legal access to parenthood is unevenly codified. Currently, just over half of the states in the U.S. protect same-sex couples against discrimination from child welfare agencies when looking to adopt or to foster children, whereas 11 states allow state-licensed child welfare agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples on religious grounds (Movement Advancement Project, n.d.). There is a gap in national data on LGBTQ+ (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) parents; however, data from the National Health Interview Survey estimated that approximately 37% of LGBTQ+ individuals were parents in 2015 (Gates, 2015). Notably, LGBTQ+ individuals who also identify as racial minorities are more likely to be parents than White LGBTQ+ individuals (Gates, 2013).

Parenthood is an aspiration shared by a majority of U.S. adults (Riskind et al., 2013). However, research has shown lesbian women and gay men in the United States who aspire to be parents are less likely than their heterosexual peers to achieve parenthood (Gates, 2013; Gates et al. 2007; LGBT Demographic Data Interactive, 2019; Walker & Taylor, 2021). In the United States, sexual minority adults (i.e., lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals) face legal and financial barriers to parenthood (Riskind et al., 2013). Beyond legal restrictions, sexual minority individuals experience minority stressors that may shape their aspirations for parenthood (Gates, 2015). Such stressors range from discriminatory experiences to internalized expectations for discrimination, which may shape parenthood goals (Scandurra et al., 2019). Few population-level studies have considered the desires or likelihood for parenting for sexual minority adults, or the role of minority stressors in shaping these parenting aspirations and expectations. Given substantial sociohistorical changes, these dynamics may differ across cohorts of contemporary sexual minority adults (Gato et al., 2017). Using the first national probability sample of sexual minority adults, we investigated parenting desires, likelihood (the perceived likelihood that they may become parents), and the gap between desires and likelihood, as well as the role of minority stress in these parenthood aspirations.

Cohort Differences in Experiences of Sexual Minority Individuals’ Parenting Aspirations

The last few decades have seen rapid changes in the experiences of sexual minority individuals in the United States (Hegarty & Rutherford, 2019). U.S. sexual minority populations have witnessed sociohistorical events such as the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) for Psychiatric Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1972) in the early 1970s, to the legalization of same-sex marriage at the national level just over 40 years later (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

Life course theory serves as a useful framework to conceptualize the intersection of age-graded, historical, and non-normative influences (i.e., unexpected events) in the lives of each subsequent cohort of sexual minority individuals (Elder & Shanahan, 2007). Regardless of sexual identity, individuals begin to formulate parenting aspirations early in the lifespan, and typically begin to form families in young adulthood (McGoldrick et al., 2015). The age at which the transition to parenthood typically occurs has steadily risen in the United States as opportunities for educational attainment and employment have increased, particularly for women (Williams et al.,1999; Mills et al., 2011). Additionally, when compared to individuals further in the life course, younger people are more likely to report that they intend to become parents (Williams et al.,1999). This may occur because as individuals age, opportunities for achieving parenthood become less likely (e.g., fertility declines with age) and parenthood may become less of a priority in individuals’ lives (Williams et al., 1999).

By the time sexual minority adults have reached their mid to late 30s, many who desire parenthood and are able to achieve it—will have done so (Gates, 2013). As sexual minority adults age, their desire for parenthood and belief in its likelihood will be lower. Thus, sexual minority individuals are subject to the same age-graded influences with regard to parenting aspirations as their heterosexual same-aged counterparts. But unique to the experiences of sexual minority individuals, age-graded influences have interacted with history-graded influences for older cohorts of sexual minority individuals (Gato et al., 2017). Older cohorts of sexual minority individuals were exposed to social and political discourse that equated sexual minority status with being childfree (Mallon, 2004). In the face of greater societal acceptance and advancement of legal protections, younger sexual minority individuals are more likely to desire and intend to have children in the future than their older counterparts (Costa & Bidell, 2017; D’Augelli et al., 2008; Gato et al., 2019; Riskind et al., 2013; Riskind & Patterson, 2010).

Parenting Aspirations of Sexual Minority Individuals

Sexual minority individuals are not only less likely to be parents, but also less likely to desire parenthood than heterosexual peers (Jeffries et al., 2019; Leal et al., 2019; Patterson & Riskind, 2010; Riskind & Patterson, 2010; Riskind & Tornello, 2017; Tate et al., 2019a; Tate et al., 2019b). The disparity in parenting aspirations between heterosexual and sexual minority individuals can partially be attributed to greater societal pressure on heterosexual couples to have children (Allen & Mendez, 2018). Motivations behind parenting aspirations among sexual minority individuals are comparable to heterosexual peers, however, the former’s aspirations are affected by their sexual minority status in the context of societal heterosexism (Goldberg et al., 2012). Heterosexism is defined as an “ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity, [or] relationship” (Herek, 1990, p. 316).

Legal protections for same-sex couples vary by national context, yet similar patterns of lower parenting desires and likelihood among lesbian women and gay men (compared to heterosexual counterparts) have been observed in Italian, Portuguese, English, Chinese, Spanish, and Israeli samples (respectively: Baiocco & Laghi, 2013; Gato et al., 2020; Leat et al., 2019; Lo et al., 2016; Romeu et al., 2015; Shenkman, 2012). However, little research has examined explanations for differences in parenting desire and likelihood. Additionally, the experiences of sexual minority individuals are diverse; bisexual individuals have parenting desires on average closer to heterosexual peers than to lesbian women or gay men (Gates, 2015; Riskind & Tornello, 2017). Because different-sex couples may conceive through penile-vaginal intercourse, some bisexual individuals may have more opportunities to become parents (Riskind et al., 2013).

Prior studies also have found that among sexual minority individuals who desire parenthood, there is a parenting expectation gap, such that their desire for parenting is higher than their belief in the likelihood of achieving parenthood (Baiocco & Laghi, 2013; Riskind et al., 2013; Shenkman, 2012; Tate & Patterson, 2019b). This parenting expectation gap may be due to legal or financial barriers, yet also may be shaped by discriminatory experiences, or tied to other more proximal internal factors, such as felt stigma or internalized homophobia (Baiocco & Laghi, 2013; Shenkman, 2012). For example, in a Portuguese sample, Gato et al. (2020) found that sexual minority individuals who anticipated greater stigma following parenthood were less likely to intend to become parents than their heterosexual counterparts. In an Israeli sample of sexual minority individuals, Shenkman (2021) had similar findings: anticipation of stigma following parenthood was found to fully mediate the association between sexual minority identity and lower parenting intention, and to partially mediate the association between sexual minority identity and parenting likelihood. These findings suggest that exposure to heterosexism may lead sexual minority individuals to internalize negative perceptions of sexual minority parents, which in turn undermines their parenting aspirations (Amodeo et al., 2018; Herek, 2007)

Minority Stress and Parenting Aspirations

Minority stress is conceptualized as discrimination related to sexual minority status and as a unique psychosocial stressor that has adverse effects for the mental health and wellbeing of sexual minority individuals (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003). Even the expectation of these discriminatory events is a form of minority stress. The reinforcement of internalized heterosexism further exacerbates the impact of such stressors (Meyer, 2003). The notion of minority stress was first introduced in the groundbreaking work of scholar Dr. Winn Kelly Brooks and advanced more recently by the work of Dr. Ilan Meyer (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003; Rich et al., 2020). Meyer’s minority stress model distinguishes between two types of minority stressors (Meyer, 2003). Everyday discrimination and prejudice events are distal stressors. By contrast, internalized homophobia and felt stigma are proximal stressors, as they are internalization of stigma and heteronormativity. Heteronormative social climates promote the internalization of self-prejudice, wherein sexual minority individuals view themselves as inadequate parents and thus have undermined parenting aspirations (Herek, 2007).

To date, research examining the role of minority stress in influencing parenting aspirations of sexual minority individuals in the United States is scarce. Riskind et al. (2013) explored how different contextual and psychosocial factors including minority stress, affect sexual minority individuals’ expectations of achieving parenthood. Minority stress was not found to be associated with belief in self-efficacy about achieving parenthood. By contrast in an Italian sample, Scandurra et al. (2019) found that internalized homophobia and prejudice events moderated parenting aspirations for lesbian women and felt stigma moderated parenting aspirations for gay men. The findings from the two studies may seem contradictory. One explanation may be the difference in the national context (i.e., United States vs. Italy).

However, in comparison to Scandurra et al. (2019), Riskind et al. (2013) examined belief in self-efficacy of achieving parenthood, rather than parenting desire and parenting likelihood. When asked to directly report on their own sense of agency in achieving parenthood, sexual minority individuals may feel more confident. Additionally, while Scandurra et al. (2019) examined minority stressors individually (i.e., felt stigma, internalized homophobia, prejudice events), Riskind et al. (2013) examined minority stress as a composite of internalized homophobia, exposure to hate crimes, and concerns over social acceptance. The distinction between proximal and distal stressors may be meaningful when examining minority stress and parenting aspirations. Lastly, Riskind et al. (2013) found that social climate predicts beliefs in self-efficacy for parenthood. Previous research has linked social climate both to minority stress and parenting aspirations (Meyer, 2003; Tate et al., 2019b). Minority stress may be a mediator between social climate and parenting aspirations, therefore examining both constructs as direct predictors of parenting aspirations does not adequately account for this relationship. With structural barriers to parenthood, minority stress may compromise sexual minority individuals’ positive sexual identity and negatively affect their parenting aspirations (Gato et al., 2017).

The Current Study

To date, there have been a handful of studies examining parenting aspirations in national samples of childfree sexual minority adults in the United States (see Riskind & Patterson, 2010; Riskind & Tornello, 2017; Tate et al., 2019b). Even fewer have examined parenting aspirations in national samples of childfree sexual minority adults following the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples. Rising societal acceptance for sexual minority individuals has likely impacted their plans for parenthood (The Pew Research Center, 2020). Our study had three primary aims: to examine the role of minority stressors in parenting aspirations of sexual minority individuals, to examine cohort differences in parenting aspirations, and to explore possible minority stress by cohort interactions on parenting aspirations.

Our first aim was to examine the association between minority stressors and parenting desire, likelihood, and expectation gap. Do distal minority stressors (overt discrimination) and proximal minority stressors (internalized homophobia or felt stigma) predict levels of parenting desire, likelihood, and the expectation gap between desire and likelihood? Previous research on the association between minority stressors and parenting aspirations of sexual minority adults has demonstrated that felt stigma related to discrimination and internalization of heterosexism, are associated with lower parenting desire and parenting likelihood (Gato et al., 2017; Scandurra et al., 2019; Shenkman, 2012). Research examining distal minority stressors in particular is scarce, however hostility to or support in different domains of the lives of sexual minority adults is a significant consideration in the formation of parenting aspirations. For example, perceived support from the workplace environment is associated with lower depression and anxiety when lesbian women consider adoption (Goldberg & Smith, 2008). Based on previous findings of the associations between discriminatory experiences (Scandurra et al., 2019), felt stigma (Gato et al., 2020; Shenkman, 2021), and internalized homophobia (Scandurra, et al., 2019) with lower parenting desire and parenting likelihood, we expected distal and proximal minority stressors to be associated with lower parenting desire and likelihood, and a larger parenting expectation gap.

Our second aim was to examine parenting aspirations between cohorts. In addition to the influences of minority stress, possibilities for parenthood for sexual minority adults have changed markedly over recent decades. The sample in this study was composed of two cohorts of sexual minority individuals who came of age at distinct historical timepoints. The ‘Visibility cohort’ adults (ages 34–41) came of age during the AIDS crisis, whereas the ‘Equality’ cohort adults (ages 18–25) came of age during the nationwide debate and subsequent legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States (Krueger et al., 2020). Each cohort had a unique coming of age experience contextualized by contrasting societal environments and legal barriers to parenthood (Hegarty & Rutherford, 2019). Given previous findings (Riskind et al., 2013; Riskind & Patterson, 2010; Riskind & Tornello, 2017) we expected Equality cohort adults to have higher parenting desire and likelihood, and a smaller expectation gap than Visibility cohort adults.

Our third aim was to explore if the influence of minority stressors on parenting aspirations differed between cohorts. Younger cohort adults such as those in the Equality cohort have fewer legal barriers to parenthood today than the Visibility cohort adults had at the same ages (Gato et al., 2017). However, the Equality cohort may also be less negatively impacted by minority stress because they came of age in a social environment more affirming of legal rights and recognition for sexual minority adults (Meyer, 2016). At the same time, the Visibility cohort may also report more protective factors associated with resilience against minority stress, such as a highly developed positive sexual identity, by the nature of being open about their sexual minority identity longer than the Equality Cohort (Meyer, 2003; Whitman & Nadal, 2015). Given the limited empirical findings to date and competing explanations for the role of minority stress in parenting aspirations across the life course, we did not propose any hypotheses.

Method

Procedure

Secondary data from the Generations study (N = 1,518) were used for our analyses. The Generations study was originally designed to examine identity, stress, health outcomes, and health services utilization in three generations of sexual minority adults (Meyer, et al., 2020a). The ‘Pride’ cohort were between the ages of 52–59, the Visibility cohort: ages of 34–41, and Equality cohort: ages of 18–25. Cohorts were chosen based on timing of historical events and the subsequent implications on their developmental trajectories. Individuals aged: 26–33, 42–51, and over 60, were not sampled. Detailed description of the study design and eligibility criteria are reported in Meyer (2020b). All study protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at University of California at Los Angeles. This study was not preregistered. Analysis code for this study is available by emailing the corresponding author. Data are available to the public through Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Data Sharing for Demographic Research (DSDR) program and be accessed at www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/DSDR/studies/37166 (Meyer, 2020a).

Generations data were collected over three waves collected annually (2016 – 2018). Because measures of parenting desire and likelihood were only collected at wave 2, analytic data were limited to waves 1 and 2. We focused on the Visibility and the Equality cohorts given the age and life stage of the Pride cohort (ages 52–59; only 7.39% reported parenting desire and 1.75% reported likelihood). Our analytic sample excluded individuals from the Visibility and the Equality cohorts who were already parents (n = 84).

Participants

The sample consisted of 487 childfree sexual minority adults. Among the Equality cohort (ages 18 – 25; n = 343), 28% identified as ‘Bisexual Woman’, 67% identified as ‘White’, and 59% reported a committed relationship. Among the Visibility cohort (ages 34 – 41; n = 144), 51% of participants identified as a ‘Gay Men’, 72% identified as ‘White’, and 62% reported a committed relationship. Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the analytic sample.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample of Childfree Adults in the Generations Study

Equality Cohort (n = 343) % / M (SD) Visibility Cohort (n = 144) % / M (SD)
Sexual Identity
  Lesbian Women 12.83 12.5
  Gay Men 23.32 51.39
  Bisexual Women 27.99 19.44
  Bisexual Men 15.45 7.64
  Queer Women 16.33 6.25
  Queer Men 4.08 2.78
Race/Ethnicity
  White 67.06 71.53
  Black 9.91 13.19
  Latino/Hispanic 23.03 15.28
Committed Relationship 58.6 61.81
Reported Parenting Desire 60.40 46.53
Reported Parenting Likelihood 61.92 33.33
Parenting Desire 0.98 (1.0) 0.76 (.97)
Parenting Likelihood 1.05 (.95) 0.47 (.81)
Parenting Expectation Gap −0.07 (.66) .028 (.81)
Everyday Discrimination (ED) 1.95 (.64) 1.84 (.64)
ED Difference Score −.040 (.55) −0.10 (.52)
Felt Stigma (FS) 2.56 (.95) 2.64 (.98)
FS Difference Score −0.15 (.81) −0.12 (.69)
Internalized Homophobia (IH) 1.66 (.76) 1.64 (.81)
IH Difference Score −0.14 (.66) −0.08 (.55)
Income 6.64 (2.6)* 7.84 (2.47)*
Open in a new tab
*

An income value of 6 represents an income of ‘$24,000 to $35,999’ and 7 represents an income of ‘$36,000 to $47,999’

Measures

Parenting Desire.

Parenting desire (D’Augelli, et al., 2008) was assessed at wave 2 only with one question “How important is it to you to have children one day?”. Responses ranged from “Not at all important” to “Extremely important” on a 5-point scale. Higher values indicated greater parenting desire.

Parenting Likelihood.

Parenting likelihood (D’Augelli et al, 2008) was assessed at wave 2 only with one question: “Thinking about the future, how likely do you think it is that you will have children?”. Responses ranged from “Not at all likely” to “Extremely likely” on a 5-point scale. Higher values indicated greater parenting likelihood.

Parenting Expectation Gap.

Parenting expectation gap was calculated by subtracting parenting desire from parenting likelihood. Positive scores indicated higher reported greater parenting likelihood than parenting desire and negative scores indicated higher parenting desire than parenting likelihood. This approach created a person-level indicator consistent with population level measures utilized by Riskind and Patterson (2010) and Shenkman et al. (2012), which examined ‘expectation gap’ as the difference in proportion of individuals who reported desire compared to likelihood.

Everyday Discrimination.

Everyday discrimination (Wave 1 Cronbach’s α = .89; Wave 2 Cronbach’s α = .90) was assessed at waves 1–2 with a nine-question measure modified from Williams et al. (1997). Participants responded to questions about their day-to-day experiences with discrimination (e.g., “You were treated with less respect than other people”). Scores ranged from 1– 4, with higher values indicating greater discrimination. Change in everyday discrimination was assessed with a difference score (wave 2 subtracted from wave 1). With two data timepoints we used difference scores as an index of change (Rogosa & Willett, 1983).

Felt Stigma.

Felt stigma (Wave 1 Cronbach’s α = .74; Wave 2 Cronbach’s α = .73) was assessed at waves 1–2 with a four-question measure modified from Herek (2009); participants reported perceptions of sexual identity-based stigma (e.g., “Most people where I live think less of a person who is LGB”). Scores ranged from 1–4; higher values indicated greater felt stigma. Change in felt stigma was assessed with a difference score (wave 2 subtracted from wave 1).

Internalized Homophobia.

Internalized Homophobia (Wave 1–2 Cronbach’s α = .77) was assessed at waves 1–2 with a six-question measure (modified from Herek, 2009); participants responded to questions about negative self-perceptions about their sexual identity (e.g., “I wish I weren’t LGB”). Scores ranged from 1–5, with higher values indicating greater internalized homophobia. Change in internalized homophobia was assessed with a difference score (wave 2 subtracted from wave 1).

Demographic variables.

Demographic variables included sex and sexual identity, race/ethnicity, relationship status, and household income.

Sex and sexual identity were assessed as follows. First, participants were asked “which of the following best describes your current sexual orientation?” Response options were “straight/heterosexual,” “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “queer,” “same-gender loving,” and “other.” Second, participants were asked “on your original birth certificate, was your sex assigned as female or male?”. A combined variable was constructed for analyses to allow for clarity in potential subgroup differences based on sex and sexual identity. The final grouping included: “lesbian women” and “gay men” (participants who answered “same-gender loving” were included in these groups”); “bisexual women” and “bisexual men”; and “queer women” and “queer men” (including participants whose sexual identities were “queer” or “other”).

Race/ethnicity was assessed at the initial phone screening. Respondents were categorized into single-race categories as follows: Respondents who answered “yes” to the question, “Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin–such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Spanish origin?” were categorized as Latino/Hispanic, regardless of other races endorsed. Respondents who endorsed “Black or African American” were categorized as African American/Black, regardless of other races endorsed (except for Latino/Hispanic). Respondents were categorized as White if they endorsed White race including any additional race except for those endorsing African American/Black and Latino/Hispanic.

Relationship status was assessed with one question adopted from Meyer et al. (2007): “are you currently in a relationship or feel a special commitment to someone?”. If participants reported ‘yes’, it was coded as 1 and if participants reported ‘no’, it was coded as 0. Three participants in the sample did not respond; their responses were also coded as 0.

Household income was assessed with one question: “What is your total annual household income, before taxes? Please include income from wages and salaries, money you get from family members living elsewhere, farming, and all other sources”. Response options were ordinal ranging from “Under 720” to “$240,000 and over” on a 12-point scale.

Analysis Plan

One-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine mean differences between cohort in parenting desire, parenting likelihood, everyday discrimination (ED), ED difference score, felt stigma (FS), FS difference score, internalized homophobia (IH), and IH difference score. Paired sample t-tests examine mean differences between parenting desire and parenting likelihood within cohort.

For the main analyses, multiple regression was utilized to predict sexual minority adults’ parenting desire, parenting likelihood, and parenting expectation gap in three separate models. To address Aims 1 and 2, each model included everyday discrimination, felt stigma, internalized homophobia, differences scores for ED, FS, and IH, cohort, sexual identity, gender, race, relationship status, and household income. To address Aim 3, significant effects of the main models were then explored in interaction models to examine any moderating effects of cohort.

Missing data (3–5%) were handled with multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE), wherein individual regression models are used to impute each variable with missing data (Allison, 2009). Estimates from liner regression models with imputed values were compared to those estimated from models using listwise deletion and appeared to be nearly identical.

Results

Descriptive statistics of minority stressors and parenting aspirations for each cohort are reported in Table 1. MANOVA results indicated there were statistically significant differences between cohort: Wilks’s λ = .89, F(8, 453) = 7.10, p < .001. Post-estimations indicated that between-cohort differences of minority stressors were not significant. However, there were significant between-cohort differences in parenting desire and parenting likelihood. Equality cohort adults had higher parenting desire: F(2, 487) = 5.13, p = .024, and parenting likelihood: F(2, 487) = 41.31, p < .001, compared to Visibility cohort adults. There were within-cohort differences parenting desire, likelihood, and expectation gap. Equality cohort adults had significantly lower parenting desire than parenting likelihood, t(342) = −2.04, p = .021. Visibility cohort adults had significantly higher parenting desire than likelihood, t(143) = 4.23, p <.001.

Results of regression analyses are displayed in Table 2. Reported effect sizes, β’s, are standardized regression coefficients that can be interpreted similarly to correlation coefficients. The model for parenting desire was significant (Adjusted R2 = .05), F(16, 468) = 2.53, p = .001). With regard to aim 1, we found those with higher reported internalized homophobia (β = .14, p = .008), and an increase in internalized homophobia in the prior year (β = .11, p = .031), had stronger parenting desire. With regard to aim 2, Visibility cohort adults (β = −.12, p = .014) reported significantly less parenting desire than Equality cohort adults. Latino/Hispanic participants (β = .12, p = .011) reported higher parenting desire than White participants.

Table 2.

Multiple regression analyses for variables predicting parenting desire, parenting likelihood, and parenting expectation gap

Variables Parenting Desire
 Parenting Likelihood
 Parenting Expectation Gap
B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β
Cohort (Ref = Equality Cohort) −0.26 0.10 −0.12* −0.59 0.09 −0.28*** 0.33 0.08 0.21***
Everyday Discrimination (ED) 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.06 −0.04 0.06 −0.04
ED Difference Score 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.07 −0.08 0.07 −0.06
Felt Stigma (FS) −0.03 0.06 −0.03 −0.13 0.05 −0.13* 0.10 0.04 0.13*
FS Difference Score 0.01 0.07 0.01 −0.07 0.06 −0.05 0.08 0.05 0.09
Internalized Homophobia (IH) 0.18 0.07 0.14** 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.13*
IH Difference Score 0.18 0.08 0.11* 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06
Sexual Identity (Ref = Gay Men)
  Lesbian Women 0.16 0.15 0.05 0.23 0.14 0.08 −0.07 0.11 −0.03
  Bisexual Women 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.12 0.11 0.06 −0.06 0.09 −0.03
  Bisexual Men −0.05 0.15 −0.02 −0.11 0.14 −0.04 0.06 0.11 0.03
  Queer Women −0.13 0.15 −0.04 −0.11 0.14 −0.04 −0.02 0.11 −0.01
  Queer Men −0.19 0.25 −0.04 −0.21 0.22 −0.04 −0.02 0.18 −0.00
Race (Ref = White)
  Black 0.11 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.11 −0.02
  Latino/Hispanic 0.29 0.11 0.12* 0.29 0.10 0.12** −0.00 0.08 −0.00
Income 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00
Relationship Status (Ref = Not In Committed Relationship) 0.32 0.09 −0.16*** 0.36 0.08 −0.18*** −0.04 0.07 −0.03
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05

**

p <.01

***

p <.001

The model for parenting likelihood yielded significant results (Adjusted R2 = .13), F(16, 468) = 5.62, p < .001). With regard to aim 1, Felt stigma (β = −.13, p = .011) was associated with lower parenting likelihood. With regard to aim 2, Visibility cohort adults (β = −.28, p < .001) reported lower parenting likelihood than Equality cohort adults. Participants who were in committed relationships (β = .18, p < .001) or who were Latino/Hispanic (β = .12, p = .005) reported greater parenting likelihood, compared to those not in committed relationships and White participants, respectively.

Finally, the model for parenting expectation gap also yielded significant results (Adjusted R2 = .06), F(15, 471) = 2.82, p < .001). With regard to aim 1, only internalized homophobia (β = −.12, p = .032) was associated with a lower parenting expectation gap; those with higher internalized homophobia reported more desire than likelihood for parenting. And with regard to aim 2, Visibility cohort adults (β = −.21, p < .001) had a greater parenting expectation gap compared to Equality cohort adults, suggesting higher parenting desire than likelihood. Both felt stigma (β = .13, p = .016) and internalized homophobia (β = .13, p = .016) were associated with a greater parenting expectation gap.

Following the results of the main effects models, the linear regression analysis examining the moderating effect of cohort on felt stigma as an independent variable predicting parenting likelihood, yielded significant results (Adjusted R2 = .14), F(12, 472) = 7.43, p < .001. With regard to aim 3, the interaction between cohort and felt stigma was statistically significant (β = −.25, p = .048); the pattern is illustrated in Figure 1. Equality cohort adults had a stronger association between felt stigma and parenting likelihood, than Visibility cohort adults.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Interaction of Felt Stigma by Cohort as Predictor of Parenting Likelihood

Discussion

This study provides insight into the parenting aspirations of a national probability sample of two cohorts of sexual minority adults in the United States, building on the previous findings of Riskind and Tornello (2017) and Riskind and Patterson (2010). Our first aim was to document the role of minority stress in parenting aspirations of sexual minority adults. The study replicated previous findings of a parenting expectation gap and confirmed cohort differences in parenting aspirations, addressing our second aim. As expected, sexual minority participants in the ‘Visibility’ cohort (ages 34–41) reported lower parenting desire and likelihood, and a greater parenting expectation gap compared to participants in the ‘Equality’ cohort (ages 18–25). With regard to biological parenthood, fertility decreases with age, and Visibility cohort adults were near the end of expected childbearing years. This may be a particularly important consideration for individuals who can become pregnant (Pal et al., 2003). Visibility cohort adults also reached adulthood when same-sex marriage had not been legalized in any state in the United States and joint adoption for same-sex couples was allowed in few states (Georgetown University Law Library, 2021). With the progress in civil rights related to marriage and parenthood for U.S. sexual minority adults and a declining age of coming out, younger cohorts increasingly report parenthood as a life aspiration (D’Augelli et al., 2008; Gato et al., 2017; Riskind et al., 2013; Riskind & Patterson, 2010).

Compared to White participants, Latinx sexual minority participants reported significantly higher parenting desire and parenting likelihood. This finding seems to be consistent with previous research. Recent cross-cultural studies may provide some indication as to the underlying cultural factors in prospective parenthood processes. Leal et al. (2019) found that compared to individuals from the United Kingdom (U.K.), Portuguese individuals (irrespective of sexual identity) anticipated greater social support and less stigma in becoming parents. Further, parenting aspirations and concern over the inability to become parents was higher in both Israel and Portugal than in the U.K (Shenkman, 2021). Researchers posited that greater familism and pro-natalist cultural views in the Israel and Portugal compared to individualistic views in United Kingdom explained some of these cross-cultural differences in parenting aspirations (Hofstede, 2011). In the United States, familism has been found to be higher among Latinx populations compared to the White populations, which may explain why we found higher parenting aspirations for Latinx sexual minority individuals (Mindel, 1980).

With regard to minority stress, other studies have shown that the intersection of racial discrimination and minority stress uniquely affects parenting aspirations in dual minority individuals (Gato et al., 2017). For example, Williams et al. (2004) found that for Black and Latinx sexual minority men, concern over the ability of continuing the family name with children in light of their sexual identity can be particularly distressing. Disclosure of sexual identity, social support, and access to reproductive care may be particularly important considerations for dual minority individuals in their parental aspirations and could be explored in future studies.

We did not find differences in parenting desire, likelihood, or expectation gap across sexual identity. This is inconsistent with some previous studies that have found that gay men reported lower parenting desire and likelihood compared to lesbian women, and that bisexual men reported parenting desires closer to heterosexual counterparts, whereas bisexual women’s reports were mixed (Riskind et al., 2013; Riskind & Tornello, 2017). These previous findings are linked to biological and social factors such as the ability to become pregnant and the social pressure to confirm to gender norms (Gato et al., 2017; Tate et al., 2019b). It may be that our small cell sizes between groups limited our ability to detect group differences. However, our findings do somewhat align with the findings of Simon et al. (2018), which found no differences concerning parenting desires and intentions among lesbian women, bisexual women, and heterosexual women. National legalization of same-sex marriage may have increased some sexual minority individuals’ perceptions of their ability to achieve parenthood. Alternatively, minority stressors may account for differences previously found in parenting aspirations across sexual identity, and by including minority stressors in our models, these differences were no longer significant (note: we examined the models excluding minority stressors and found no differences by sexual identity). Basing our measure on sex assigned at birth, we may have missed differences in parenting aspirations across nonbinary gender identity groups.

Individuals who identify as nonbinary or gender diverse may make decisions about reproduction based on gender saliency, determining whether certain physical actions (e.g., becoming pregnant, preserving gametes before hormone therapy) are compatible with their gender identity (Tasker & Gato, 2020). Nonbinary and gender diverse individuals may also estimate that their identity will be a barrier to other methods of becoming parents (e.g., being denied approval for adoption; Carpenter & Niesen, 2021). Future studies could expand on our findings measuring attitudes towards pregnancy among individuals assigned female at birth.

Relationship status was a significant predictor of both parenting desire and parenting likelihood, such that those in committed relationships reported greater parenting desire and parenting likelihood. The presence of a romantic partner is a normative influence on the formulation of parenting aspirations in both heterosexual and sexual minority individuals (Gato et al., 2017; Langdridge et al., 2005). Relationships also are contextualized by partner gender and willingness to become a parent (Tate et al., 2019), which could be explored in future studies.

Regarding minority stressors, distal minority stress (i.e., everyday discrimination) was not a significant predictor of parenting desire, likelihood, or an expectation gap. This somewhat contradicts previous findings of Amodeo et al. (2018) and Scandurra et al. (2019), which found that for lesbian women discriminatory events were significantly associated with parenting desire. However, it is important to note both studies utilized samples of sexual minority individuals in Italy; though both Italy and the United States are western industrialized nations, there are important contextual differences. While civil unions of same-sex couples have been recognized in Italy since 2016, adoption laws continue to be more restrictive for same-sex couples than in the United States. Similar to the United States, traditional views of gender roles, religiosity, and political conservatism are predictors of negative attitudes towards same-sex parents (Ioverno et al., 2019). Though these views appear to be more centralized in Italy, which is less diverse ethnically and religiously than the United States. Further, both Amodeo et al. (2018) and Scandurra et al. (2019) measured discriminatory events over the lifetime, whereas this study measured everyday discrimination over the past year. Our findings suggest that everyday experiences of distal stressors may not be as salient in the formulation of parenting aspirations.

In contrast, proximal stressors were predictive of parenting aspirations. For both cohorts, higher internalized homophobia predicted higher parenting desire. This is contrary to previous findings in Italy that higher internalized homophobia is associated with lower parenting desire in lesbian women and with no effect on parenting desire for gay men (Amodeo et al., 2018; Scandurra et al., 2019). It is possible within the context of the United States, internalized homophobia may motivate sexual minority individuals to desire parenthood. Internalized homophobia is a conflict of same-sex attraction and the pressure to conform to heterosexuality (Frost & Meyer, 2009), and such heteronormative expectations may include achieving parenthood (Gillespie, 2003). Segments of both Italian and U.S. cultures negatively view sexual minority identity as a deviation from heteronormativity. However, achieving parenthood may be viewed as a positive conformation to heteronormativity in the United States, and therefore may be more desirable to individuals with higher internalized homophobia.

Similarly, felt stigma—another form of proximal stress—predicted lower parenting likelihood for both cohorts. This finding is somewhat in line with Scandurra et al. (2019), which found that for gay men felt stigma was a predictor of lower parenting desire and parenting likelihood. While this study did not find that felt stigma was a significant predictor of parenting desire, it did find that felt stigma predicted parenting likelihood after controlling for sexual identity. To cope with felt stigma sexual minority people may engage in mental strategies or behaviors to reduce possible exposure to sexual prejudice from others (Herek et al., 2007). Becoming a parent may increase social visibility and increase exposure to sexual prejudice. Those with high levels of felt stigma may not desire or intend to become parents because becoming parents leads to greater social visibility. Sexual minority individuals who experience high levels of felt stigma may deny their parenting desire or believe they will be unable to achieve them (Scandurra et al., 2019).

Our third aim was to examine the effect of minority stress on parenting aspirations differ by cohort. We found that felt stigma had a greater negative effect on parenting likelihood for Visibility cohort adults. This suggests that for Visibility cohort adults, perceived experiences of stigma are more consequential in their perceived likelihood of becoming parents. Both cohorts reported similar levels of felt stigma, though the effect of felt stigma on parenting likelihood was greater for Visibility cohort adults. This may be due to generational differences as Visibility cohort adults came of age with uneven legal protections for same-sex couples in the United States (Meyer, et al., 2020a). As such, Visibility cohort adults may be more affected by felt stigma with regard to parenting aspirations.

Finally, internalized homophobia predicted a negative parenting expectation gap (i.e., more parenting desire than likelihood). While parenting desire in some sexual minority individuals is lower than heterosexual individuals, the greater disparity exists in parenting likelihood (Riskind & Patterson, 2010; Shenkman, 2012; Tate & Patterson, 2019a). This finding has implications beyond parenting aspirations. Previous research examining parenting expectation gaps among sexual minority individuals, particularly gay men, suggest that the inability to fulfill parenting desires is associated with higher rates of depression (Riskind & Patterson, 2010; Shenkman, 2012).

This study has several limitations. Small cell sizes between sexual identity groups may have limited our ability to detect group differences. Parenting desire and likelihood were assessed with single-item measures, consistent with several prior studies (Riskind & Tornello, 2017; Shenkman, 2012). Though some studies of parenting aspirations elaborated on the single-item measure by asking the number of children participants intended to have (Tate et al., 2019), how distressed participants would be if they could not have children (Riskind & Patterson, 2010), or the likelihood of achieving parenthood through different methods (e.g., surrogacy, adoption; Riskind et al., 2013). Despite the significant findings, minority stressors explained a small proportion of the variance in parenting desire, likelihood, and expectation gap. This suggests that there are likely many other factors that influence parenting aspirations for sexual minority individuals. For example, this study did not examine costs associated with surrogacy or adoption, or other barriers (e.g., inability to become pregnant), which may influence parenting aspirations. Future studies could explore how these barriers interact with minority stress.

Despite its limitations, strengths include that data were drawn from a national probability sample of sexual minority adults that was diverse across sexual identity, race/ethnicity, and other characteristics. This study is among the few that examined parenting aspirations with data collected after the legalization of same-sex marriage at the federal level, and that examined the influence of minority stress on the formulation of parenting aspirations.

Findings of this study have implications for future research on parenting aspirations of sexual minority individuals. Minority stressors and demographic characteristics predicted parenting desire, parenting likelihood, and parenting expectation gap. Disparities in parenting aspirations of sexual minority individuals compared to heterosexual individuals may in part stem from minority stress. Findings held across cohort, suggesting the importance of minority stress experiences despite generational differences. After accounting for demographic characteristics, proximal minority stressors still predicted parenting aspirations. Future studies should examine how minority stress may intersect with other demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status) to influence parenting aspirations. For example, sexual minority individuals who are also racial minority individuals may experience minority stress as it intersects with experiences of racial discrimination.

Sexual minority individuals continue to face structural barriers to parenthood, and thus our findings have several clinical implications. Discriminatory laws and policies not only serve as structural barriers to parenthood, but also expose sexual minority individuals to proximal minority stress as they internalize negative attitudes/feelings toward sexual minority identity, undermining parenting likelihood. Healthcare providers, social workers, and other professionals who assist individuals seeking parenthood should be aware of the persisting disparities in parenting aspirations of sexual minority individuals and some of the underlying factors. The findings of this study also underscore the importance of culturally sensitive interventions, as well as training for professionals to understand sexual minority individuals’ psychosocial development, and self-reflection on implicit biases (American Psychological Association, 2012).

Parenthood is not an aspiration for every individual, and many voluntary childfree individuals report personal fulfillment and life satisfaction (Jeffries & Konnert, 2002). However, sexual minority individuals who desire parenthood yet are unable to achieve it may be at risk for adverse wellbeing (Patterson & Riskind, 2010; Riskind & Patterson, 2010; Shenkman, 2012). Parenting aspirations are important aspects of adulthood and wellbeing for individuals regardless of sexual identity. The Generations dataset presented a rare opportunity to study a nationally representative sample of childfree sexual minority adults. Overall, our findings suggested that parenting aspirations of sexual minority individuals are influenced by minority stressors as well as demographic or personal characteristics. By examining the role of minority stress in future parenthood for sexual minority individuals, the findings contribute to greater understanding of human development and family life.

Acknowledgments

The Generations Study is funded by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD; Grant 1R01HD078526) and through supplemental grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research and Office of Research on Women’s Health. Generations study investigators are I. H. Meyer (principal investigator), D. M. Frost, P. L. Hammack, M. Lightfoot, S.T. Russell, and B. D. M. Wilson. Study was made possible with funding from a grant (P2CHD042849) awarded to the Population Research Center at UT Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHHD. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the NIH. The authors acknowledge Dr. Elizabeth Muñoz for her analytic suggestions, and the Priscilla Pond Flawn Endowment at UT Austin for their generous support of Stephen T. Russell. This study was not preregistered; preliminary results were presented at the annual National Council on Family Relations conference in November 2021. Data is available through ICPSR Data Sharing for Demographic Research program at www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/DSDR/studies/37166. Analysis code for this study is available by emailing the corresponding author.

Footnotes

The authors have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Allen SH, & Mendez SN (2018). Hegemonic Heteronormativity: Toward a New Era of Queer Family Theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 70–86. 10.1111/JFTR.12241 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allison PD (2009). Missing Data. In Quantitative Methods in Psychology (pp. 79–89). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  3. American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 67(1), 10–42. 10.1037/a0024659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Amodeo AL, Esposito C, Bochicchio V, Valerio P, Vitelli R, Bacchini D, & Scandurra C (2018). Parenting desire and minority stress in lesbians and gay men: A mediation framework. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 10.3390/ijerph15102318 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baams L, Grossman AH, & Russell ST (2015). Minority stress and mechanisms of risk for depression and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Developmental Psychology. 10.1037/a0038994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Baiocco R, & Laghi F (2013). Sexual orientation and the desires and intentions to become parents. Journal of Family Studies, 19(1), 90–98. 10.5172/jfs.2013.19.1.90 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brooks VR (1981). Minority Stress and Lesbian Women. Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  8. Carpenter E, & Niesen R (2021). “It’s Just Constantly Having to Make a Ton of Decisions That Other People Take for Granted”: Pregnancy and Parenting Desires for Queer Cisgender Women and Non-binary Individuals Assigned Female at Birth. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 17(2), 87–101. 10.1080/1550428X.2020.1773367 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Costa PA, & Bidell M (2017). Modern Families: Parenting Desire, Intention, and Experience Among Portuguese Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals. Journal of Family Issues, 38(4), 500–521. 10.1177/0192513X16683985 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Augelli AR, Grossman AH, & Starks MT (2008). Gender Atypicality and Sexual Orientation Development Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 12, 121–143. 10.1300/J529v12n01_08 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. D’Augelli AR, Rendina HJ, Sinclair KO, & Grossman AH (2008). Lesbian and gay youth’s aspirations for marriage and raising children. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling. 10.1300/J462v01n04_06 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Elder GH, & Shanahan MJ (2007). The Life Course and Human Development. In Handbook of Child Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0112 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Frost DM, & Meyer IH (2009). Internalized Homophobia and Relationship Quality Among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 97–109. 10.1037/a0012844 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gates GJ (2013). LGBT parenting in the United States. The Williams Institute. UCLA School of Law, February 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gates GJ (2015). Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples, 25(2). [Google Scholar]
  16. Gates GJ, Badgett ML, Macomber JE, & Chambers K (2007). Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States. UCLA: The Williams Institute. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2v4528cx [Google Scholar]
  17. Gato J, Leal D, Coimbra S, & Tasker F (2020). Anticipating Parenthood Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Young Adults Without Children in Portugal: Predictors and Profiles. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1058. 10.3389/FPSYG.2020.01058/BIBTEX [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gato J, Leal D, & Tasker F (2019). Parenting desires, parenting intentions, and anticipation of stigma upon parenthood among lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women in Portugal. 10.1080/10894160.2019.1621733 [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Gato J, Santos S, & Fontaine AM (2017). To Have or Not to Have Children? That Is the Question. Factors Influencing Parental Decisions Among Lesbians and Gay Men. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(3), 310–323. 10.1007/s13178-016-0268-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Georgetown University Law Library. (2021). A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States. https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/civilrights
  21. Gillespie R (2003). Childfree and feminine: Understanding the gender identity of voluntarily childless women. Gender and Society, 17(1), 122–136. 10.1177/0891243202238982 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldberg AE, Downing JB, & Moyer AM (2012). Why parenthood, and why now? Gay men’s motivations for pursuing parenthood. Family Relations, 61(1), 157–174. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00687.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg AE, & Smith JZ (2008). Social support and psychological well-being in lesbian and heterosexual preadoptive couples. Family Relations, 57(3), 281–294. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00500.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hegarty P, & Rutherford A (2019). Histories of psychology after stonewall: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 74(8), 857–867. 10.1037/amp0000571 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Herek GM (1990). The Context of Anti-Gay Violence: Notes on Cultural and Psychological Heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 316–333. 10.1177/088626090005003006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Herek GM, Chopp R, & Strohl D (2007). Sexual Stigma: Putting Sexual Minority Health Issues in Context. In The Health of Sexual Minorities. 10.1007/978-0-387-31334-4_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hofstede G (2011). Unit 2 Theoretical and Methodological Issues Subunit 1 Conceptual Issues in Psychology and Culture Article 8. 10.9707/2307-0919.1014 [DOI]
  28. Ioverno S, Baiocco R, Lingiardi V, Verrastro V, D’Amore S, & Green RJ (2019). Attitudes towards same-sex parenting in Italy: the influence of traditional gender ideology. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 21(2), 188–204. 10.1080/13691058.2018.1459846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jeffries S, & Konnert C (2002). Regret and psychological well-being among voluntarily and involuntarily childless women and mothers. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 54(2), 89–106. 10.2190/J08N-VBVG-6PXM-0TTN [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jeffries WL, Marsiglio W, Tunalilar O, & Berkowitz D (2019). Fatherhood Desires and Being Bothered by Future Childlessness among U.S. Gay, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Men—United States, 2002–2015. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 10.1080/1550428X.2019.1652876 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Krueger EA, Fish JN, Hammack PL, Lightfoot M, Bishop MD, & Russell ST (2020). Comparing National Probability and Community-Based Samples of Sexual Minority Adults: Implications and Recommendations for Sampling and Measurement. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 10.1007/s10508-020-01724-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Langdridge D, Sheeran P, & Connolly K (2005). Understanding the reasons for parenthood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 23(2), 121–133. 10.1080/02646830500129438 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Leal D, Gato J, & Tasker F (2019). Prospective parenting: sexual identity and intercultural trajectories. Culture, Health and Sexuality. 10.1080/13691058.2018.1515987 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. LGBT Demographic Data Interactive. (January 2019). Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=LGBT#density [Google Scholar]
  35. Lo IPY, Chan CHY, & Chan THY (2016). Perceived importance of childbearing and attitudes toward assisted reproductive technology among Chinese lesbians in Hong Kong: implications for psychological well-being. Fertility and Sterility. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mallon G (2004). Gay men choosing parenthood. Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. McGoldrick M, Preto NAG, and Carter BA (2015). The Expanding Family life cycle: Individual, Family, and Social Perspectives. Harlow: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  38. Meyer Ilan H. (2003). Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence. In Psychological Bulletin. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Meyer Ilan H. (2016). The elusive promise of LGBT equality. In American Journal of Public Health. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Meyer Ilan H. Generations: A Study of the Life and Health of LGB People in a Changing Society, United States, 2016–2019. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research; [distributor], 2020a-August-25. 10.3886/ICPSR37166.v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Meyer Ilan H., Marken S, Russell ST, Frost DM, & Wilson BDM (2020b). An Innovative Approach to the Design of a National Probability Sample of Sexual Minority Adults. LGBT Health. 10.1089/lgbt.2019.0145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Mills M, Rindfuss RR, Mcdonald P, & Te Velde E (2011). Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update, 17(6), 848–860. 10.1093/humupd/dmr026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Mindel CH (1980). Extended familism among urban Mexican Americans, Anglos, and Blacks. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2(1), 21–34. [Google Scholar]
  44. Movement Advancement Project. (n.d.). Equality Maps: Foster and Adoption Laws. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/foster_and_adoption_laws
  45. Obergefell v. Hodges, (2015). 10.1093/ojlr/rwv048 [DOI]
  46. Pal L, & Santoro N (2003). Age-related decline in fertility. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, 32(3), 669–688. 10.1016/S0889-8529(03)00046-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Patterson CJ, & Riskind RG (2010). To be a parent: Issues in family formation among gay and lesbian adults. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 10.1080/1550428X.2010.490902 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rich AJ, Salway T, Scheim A, & Poteat T (2020). Sexual Minority Stress Theory: Remembering and Honoring the Work of Virginia Brooks. 10.1089/lgbt.2019.0223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Riskind RG, & Patterson CJ (2010). Parenting Intentions and Desires Among Childless Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Individuals. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(1), 78–81. 10.1037/a0017941 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Riskind RG, Patterson CJ, & Nosek BA (2013). Childless lesbian and gay adults’ self-efficacy about achieving parenthood. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2(3), 222–235. 10.1037/a0032011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Riskind RG, & Tornello SL (2017). Sexual orientation and future parenthood in a 2011–2013 nationally representative United States sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(6), 792–798. 10.1037/fam0000316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Rogosa DR, & Willett JB (1983). Demonstrating the Reliability of the Difference Score in the Measurement of Change. 20(4), 335–343. [Google Scholar]
  53. Romeu A, Monzó A, López Villaverde V, Duque CC, Lucas V, Gilabert Estellés J, Nadal J, Saucedo E, Torres M, Álvarez J, Hernández J, & Arnott I (2015). Orientación sexual y deseo reproductivo. Revista Iberoamericana de Fertilidad y Reproducción Humana, 32, 27–41. [Google Scholar]
  54. Scandurra C, Bacchini D, Esposito C, Bochicchio V, Valerio P, & Amodeo AL (2019). The Influence of Minority Stress, Gender, and Legalization of Civil Unions on Parenting Desire and Intention in Lesbian Women and Gay Men: Implications for Social Policy and Clinical Practice. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 10.1080/1550428X.2017.1410460 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Shenkman G (2012). The gap between fatherhood and couplehood desires among Israeli gay men and estimations of their likelihood. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 828–832. 10.1037/a0029471 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Shenkman G (2021). Anticipation of Stigma upon Parenthood Impacts Parenting Aspirations in the LGB Community in Israel. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18(3), 753–764. 10.1007/S13178-020-00498-Y/FIGURES/1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Simon KA, Tornello SL, Farr RH, & Bos HMW (2018). Envisioning future parenthood among bisexual, lesbian, and heterosexual women. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. 10.1037/sgd0000267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Tasker F, & Gato J (2020). Gender Identity and Future Thinking About Parenthood: A Qualitative Analysis of Focus Group Data with Transgender and Non-binary People in the United Kingdom. Front. Psychol, 11, 865. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00865 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Tate DP, & Patterson CJ (2019a). Desire for Parenthood in Context of Other Life Aspirations Among Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Young Adults. Frontiers in Psychology. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02679 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Tate DP, Patterson CJ, & Levy AJ (2019b). Predictors of parenting intentions among childless lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adults. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(2), 194–202. 10.1037/fam0000499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. The Pew Research Center. (2020). The Global Divide on Homosexuality Persists.
  62. Whitman CN, & Nadal KL (2015). Sexual Minority Identities: Outness and Well-Being Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 19(4), 370–396. 10.1080/19359705.2015.1038974 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Williams L, Abma J, & Piccinino LJ (1999). The Correspondence Between Intention to Avoid Childbearing and Subsequent Fertility: A Prospective Analysis. Family Planning Perspectives, 31(5), 220–227. https://about.jstor.org/terms [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Williams JK, Wyatt GE, Resell J, Peterson J, & Asuan-O’Brien A (2004). Psychosocial issues among gay- and non-gay-identifying HIV-seropositive African American and Latino MSM. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(3), 268–286. 10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES