Same-Sex Adoption in Asian Countries
Introduction
An estimated two million LGBT people in the United States are interested in adoption, according to Gates (2007), who investigated the LGBT parenting situation in the United States. Here is another intriguing result Gates found through his inquiry that homosexual couples are four times more likely to adopt a child than heterosexual couples. The reason might be that same-sex couples may attempt to make their own child unless their physical conditions do not allow them to do so. Gates’ research triggers my interest in same-sex adoption because it somehow reflects that homosexual couples are the main strength of adoption. This research paper will mainly focus on the young generation’s perspectives on LGBT adoption in Asian countries rather than which in the United States. To investigate whether young generations tolerate about LGBT families adopting children and in what degree their tolerance is, this essay will support the thesis with an evaluation of various academic literatures and a locally conducted survey.
Literature Review
The literature review will closely examine the article “Religious Affiliation, Religiosity, and Attitudes toward Same-Sex Parenting” written by Gross, Vecho, Gratton, D'Amore, and Green is the primary source for the analysis, which demonstrates the French public’s attitudes toward same-sex parenting and participants’ religious affiliation is related to their tolerance of adoption.
Gross et al.’s study involve 1,861 heterosexual French students in total. The survey was sent to students' email accounts and uploaded on the university's Facebook page. All the participants are categorized into two major groups: ones who have Catholic beliefs and ones who are without religious affiliation. The participants’ age is between 18 and 66, but the average age is around 22. Among them, 69% were non-religious affiliation and the rest 31% have religious beliefs. It shows participants with non-religious affiliation are more tolerant to same-sex parenting than those with religious affiliation. Moreover, the study also takes participants’ gender into consideration that 67% of them were women. Gross et al. conclude that even though women are more favor of same-sex adoption than men, religious affiliation still plays a more essential role to show their attitudes toward same-sex adoption.
Although Gross el al. intentionally exclude other religions than Catholicism to make the research clear to the audience, Catholicism cannot represent other religions in general. Gross el al. cites 15 sources which are all related to religious affiliation, to demonstrate the problem that other researchers do not specify the religions’ names. In this research, participants with different religious affiliations, such as Catholics and Christianity, are being jointly categorized as ones with religious affiliations. Gross el al. attempts to show their accuracy by eliminating other religions at the beginning of the survey. They previously had 2,263 students in total who were participated, and reduce to 1,861 participants. The reduced amount was for the ones who have a religious affiliation but are not Catholic. However, the article would have been more precise if the authors had spent more time illustrating the name of religions that the reduced participants belonged to. Moreover, Gross el at.’s study has another weakness on its target participants. Since the survey was sent to students' emails in the researchers’ universities or was uploaded on their university Facebook Page, their participants are mainly university students. From the date that the average age of participants is 22, their knowledge of child adoption may be insufficient to answer the survey questions correctly. Gross el at. mentioned that the survey also asks the participants about their favor of adoption, insemination, and surrogacy but legislations for them are all different. For example, insemination is banned for lesbian couples while surrogacy is banned for all people. Their participants are heterosexual, who may not specifically know the complicated process of adoption that only homosexual individuals will pay attention to.
As supportive evidence to Gross el at.’s research, Gato and Fontaine’s article “Attitudes Toward Adoption by Same-Sex Couples: Effects of Gender of the Participant, Sexual Orientation of the Couple, and Gender of the Child” also examine the majority’s attitudes towards same-sex adoption. Gato and Fontaine took students of Portuguese universities as sampling to ask them to do a rating after reading a vignette. Since the vignette depicts same-sex adoption and parental manipulation, the rating can reflect students’ views of same-sex adoption. Their result reinforces the subordinate idea from Gross el at.’s research that women are more positive toward same-sex parenting. Another outstanding result Gato and Fontaine presents is that both female and male participants consider a boy adopted by gay couples are more likely to be homosexual than a girl in the same situation. From Gato and Fonaine’s research, the general public’s point of view can be well understood.
Shifting from the majority’s perspective, the article “Adoption by Lesbians and Gay Men in Europe: Challenges and Barriers on the Journey to Adoption” written by Messina and D’Amore on the other hand interviewed gay and lesbian couples as their participants. Messina and D’Amore video recorded 62 lesbian and gay couples from different countries, such as Spain, France, and Belgium, who talk about their challenges and experiences as parents. All the LG couples were being asked the question about their adoption process and the discrimination they suffered due to their sexual orientation. From a minority’s perspective, their experience renders the audience a more comprehensive image that LGBT communities suffer from, not only from religious affiliation but also from their own psychological well-being.
Like Messina and D’Amore’s, the study “Why Parenthood, and Why Now? Gay Men's Motivations for Pursuing Parenthood” written by Goldberg, Downing, and Moyer also stand on adoptive parents’ side to view the issue. Goldberg el at. asked 35 gay couples, as well as 70 men, what are the motives, trigger them to be parents. The largest motive being mentioned was that they would like to teach the child tolerance. Another reason was to provide a safe home for children. Their reasons of pursuing parenthood follow a standard decision-making process similar to those of heterosexual families as Goldberg el at. concluded but still demonstrates their concerns correlated to their minority identity. The result slightly demonstrates the challenges the LGBT community faced during the adoption process but in other way renders the majority a new image about LGBT people’s way of thinking.
Another piece of study as additional background information to the topic. The study “Causes and Consequences of sex-role attitudes and attitude change” written by Thornton, Alwin, and Camburn defines the female characters in a family situation. The research investigates the public’s opinions towards female sex-role. Participants seem to deem female sex-role in different opinions on whether women should go to work or doing house chores, regarding to different educational and social backgrounds. However, their integrated agreement attains on that female’s sex-role attitudes and experiences are essential to shaping the next generation’s perspective. The emphasis on female sex-role seems to oppose LGBT issues but the published year somehow indirectly displays that would be the past views. Therefore, their perspective cannot be overly valued, but still can be taken into consideration.
With all the academic literature, Gross et al. stand on the majority’s side to evaluate whether religious affiliation as a factor can relate to their attitudes towards same-sex adoption. By standing on the same side, Gato and Fontaine focused more on adopted children’s gender and their sexual orientation issues. From the minority’s perspective, same-sex couples' challenges of adoption and their reasons to adopt are well examined correspondingly by Messina and D’Amore, and Goldberg el at. Their researches provide a general background to the LGBT adoption issue and is related to this paper, which is about to examine the research question “How do young people in Asian countries view same-sex adoption?”
Method
The online survey aims to understand Asian young generations' perspectives towards same-sex adoption. Since the legalization of same-sex marriage and adoption are still not permitted in most Asian countries, their citizen's tolerance to LGBT adoption is valued to investigate. The results of the survey might contribute to plausible future adoption laws in Asia.
The survey questionnaire was created by Google Docs and was sent to the students through multiple social media such as Line, Wechat, and Instagram. Data were collected in ten days from December 7th, 2018 to December 16th, 2018. Throughout ten days, 112 respondents in total participated in the survey but only 108 subjects can be used for the research. A large portion of respondents is from the Faculty of Liberal Arts in Sophia University. The rest are graduates of Shanghai High School International Division and other university students. Based on the result, respondents’ age range is between 18 to 29 (M=21) which is compatible for examining young generations' attitudes. Among all, female respondents occupy 69% of the total participants, while males are 31%.
The questionnaire can be divided into three sections. The first section asks for respondents’ basic information about their age, gender, and religious beliefs, which are helpful to categorize their answers. The second section needs a perspective-taking action that requires respondents to stand on the viewpoints of adopted children and parents. The third section evaluates participants’ opinions on different statements about the topic. The strength of the survey is that it takes into consideration of different governing systems in Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. To avoid misunderstanding, the question choices were set Taiwan and Hong Kong as either nations or districts. However, the limitation also exists due to limited respondents. A total number of 108 respondents are inadequate for analyzing such a global issue. If sufficient time was allowable, more responses would be likely to be collected.
Findings
Section 1: Personal background
Questions one to four ask participants for personal background information in the order of their gender, age, religious belief, and nationality. Since the four factors can form a basic image of oneself, each of the factor can influence their choices for the survey. The first question clearly demonstrates that 69% of the respondents are female and the rest 31% are males. Since the targeted group has already been decided as young generations, the survey was not sent to elder generations above 29. For the religious beliefs, only 2% of the participants have a religious affiliation as Christianity. The nationality question is meant to delete unqualified respondents who do not possess any Asian countries’ passports. The result reflects that four respondents are ineligible for the research which results in total of 108 subjects being used.
Although participants who possess a religious belief occupy only two percent, their responses to question 5 belong to 33% who refuse to accept legalization of LGBT adoption in their country. It reflects Gross et al.’s study in some cases that religious belief may influence young generations’ view on the topic. Of those who belong to 67% said yes to legalization of LGBT adoption, approximately 87% of female respondents pertain to this category. The statistics show women are more tolerant to same-sex adoption than male respondents.
Section 2: Perspective-Taking
For questions six and seven, the participants are required to put their own views aside and thus can stand on the perspectives of adopted children and same-sex adoptive couples, to answer what do they think are the largest challenge to the children and homosexual couples.
When the situation goes to adoptive parents, the largest challenge would be from public discrimination which 42% of the respondents chose and criticisms from families would be the second-largest challenge. The data shows that young generations realize their opinions as the public themselves are important to the LGBT community. Criticisms from families are the second largest portion. Among 24% of those who chose the option, there are 71% of respondents are Mainland Chinese. The data shows a Chinese tradition which takes the continuation of the family line in a higher position. Respondents who chose this option may take opposition from homosexual individuals’ parents into consideration.
When standing on the adopted children’s side, 36% of respondents consider the most difficult factor is that they would be bullied or teased by peers just because their adoptive parents are homosexual. Related this question to the last question, no matter being bullied by peers or receiving public discrimination represents opinions from the majority, which also reflects that the heterosexual opinions play a significantly important role in the topic.
Section 3: Attitude Evaluation
Question 8 to 10 are designed to evaluate respondents’ opinions in higher accuracy and intended to dig deeper into participants’ real feelings towards same sex adoption. The question like ‘Do you think only the homosexual (who are sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex) might support LGBT adoption?’ (See Appendix 1 Question 8) for are being asked. Around 66% of participants disagree and strongly disagree with the statement, which infers that they think the heterosexual are also willing to advocate LGBT communities’ rights to adopt children.
The previous questions reflect that young generations are tolerant with LGBT adoption. However, from Question 9, their attitudes tend to be obscure. The percentage who answer agree, disagree, and neutral tend to be close to one another. However, the total percentage for agreement was slightly greater than disagreement. The result shows the importance of both sex roles in one family as the public perceives it and the possible contradiction in human nature.
The last question enlarges the contradiction in humans’ minds. The percentage who tend to agree that children would be raised in heterosexual families is significantly greater than those who disagree. The young generations perceive heterosexual families are better than homosexual families in their subconsciousness, even though most of them previously agree to legitimize same-sex adoption.
Discussion
The survey results echo some articles in the literature review section in some extent. Those who have no religious belief are more tolerant than those who have a religious affiliation, which is mentioned by Gross el at.. Even though my respondents are inadequate compared to Gross el at.’s study, respondents who are religious refuse to legitimize same-sex adoption in their country. When the question asks about the influence of both sex roles to children’s growth, supporters and opponents are almost equally matched. Respondents’ traditional thinking of requiring both sex role models seems to weigh moreover than their new ideas. The responses can be explained by Thornton el at. if respondents realize the case that female sex-role correlates to shape children’s ideas. The case is not only limited to female role models, the lack of male role models may also affect them. When the situation comes to the adoptive family, some respondents consider homosexual family is less qualified than heterosexual families because they might consider the case of children’s sexual orientation. They might consider the situation, for example, in a gay family, the lack of female role models might influence a boy’s sexual orientation.
The survey is designed to save time for respondents, so there is no question asking respondents to write answers. All questions are created as multiple-choice questions, Yes/No Questions, and Statement evaluation questions, which are easy to respond to. However, in this case, the survey format instead becomes a limitation since respondents’ ideas cannot be fully examined. For those who agree and strongly agree that children can be better raised in a heterosexual family than a homosexual family, their reasons for agreement could have been asked. The reasons why they agree the statement could have been a great contribution to understanding young generations’ opinions into a more extensive dimension.
Conclusion
Even though legitimization of same-sex adoption is not pervasive in Asia as those in European countries, young generations still maintain a positive attitude towards the issue. The results show that most young people in Asia, especially female respondents seem to tolerate LGBT adoption more than male respondents. Religion does not play an important role in Asia but still somehow shows religious people’s relatively intolerant attitudes towards same-sex adoption. The most essential discovery is that even young generations who receive new ideas and are supposed to be more open-minded still deem a traditional family pattern (heterosexual family) are better for children’s growth.
Therefore, the results are somehow contradictory, because most respondents are willing to accept LGBT adoption in the law but when it comes to a real situations they still think same-sex couples are still less qualified than different-sex couples. It reflects human’s complexity that sometimes their action and their deeper minds are contradicting to each other. I hope this research can help the LGBT community to know more about the public’s opinions when facing criticisms. There are still many heterosexual tolerant young people who are here for supporting their rights to adopt children. Every caring and prepared family which has nothing to do with sexuality deserves rights to have a child and every child deserves a home.
Reference
- Gary J. Gates. LGBT Parenting in the United States. The Williams Institute, Los Angeles, CA. 2013. Retrieved from
- https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/lgbt-parenting-in-the-united-states/
- Gato, J. & Fontaine, A. (2016) Attitudes Toward Adoption by Same-Sex Couples: Effects of Gender of the Participant, Sexual Orientation of the Couple, and Gender of the Child, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 12:1, 46-67, DOI: 10.1080/1550428X.2015.1049771
- Goldberg, A., Downing, J., & Moyer, A. (2012). Why Parenthood, and Why Now? Gay Men's Motivations for Pursuing Parenthood. Family Relations, 61(1), 157-174. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41403646
- Gross, M., Vecho, O., Gratton, E., D'Amore, S &
- Green, RJ., (2018) Religious Affiliation, Religiosity, and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex
- Parenting, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14:3, 238-259, DOI: 10.1080/1550428X.2017.1326016
- Messina, R. & D'Amore, S. (2018) Adoption by Lesbians and Gay
- Men in Europe: Challenges and Barriers on the Journey to Adoption, Adoption Quarterly, 21:2, 59-81, DOI: 10.1080/10926755.2018.1427641
- Thornton, A., Alwin, D., & Camburn, D. (1983). Causes and Consequences of Sex-Role Attitudes and Attitude Change. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 211-227. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095106
