Download Do Gays and Lesbians Want Children?

Childbearing Intentions and Attitudes
Towards Children among Childless
Sexual-Minority and Heterosexual Men
and Women.
Nola du Toit
Department of Sociology and the
Center for Family and Demographic Research
Bowling Green State University
The author would like to thank Dr. Wendy Manning and Dr. Kelly Balistreri for their help.
Introduction
Childbearing intentions and attitudes towards
children are predictive of actual fertility, but few
studies have focused on sexual-minorities.
This research examines intentions and attitudes
among sexual-minority men and women,
compared to heterosexuals.
Background: Intentions and Attitudes
Childbearing Intentions:
• Childbearing intentions are predictive of actual fertility (Schoen
et al. 1999).
• Depends on how certain people are about their intentions.
• Differs by union type. Married women with positive intentions
are more likely to have a child than unmarried women with
positive intentions.
Attitudes towards Children:
• Childbearing attitudes are predictive of actual fertility (Barber
2001).
• Depends on marital status. Positive attitudes towards children
increase the odds of fertility within marriage, but not for
unmarried. Positive attitudes towards alternatives (careers,
luxury goods) reduce the odds of unmarried fertility.
Background: Sexual Minorities
Sexual-minorities are also parents:
• 1 in 3 lesbians have given birth and 1 in 6 gay men have fathered
a child (Gates et al. 2007).
Sexual-minorities want to have children and have
positive attitudes towards children:
• 41% of lesbians and more than half of gay men want to have
children (Gates et al. 2007).
• Lesbian mothers are as likely as non-lesbian mother to have
positive attitudes towards children, but lesbian mothers are less
likely to agree that having children is one of life’s highest
purposes (Siegenthaler & Bigner 2000).
Current Study: Hypotheses
Sexual-minorities have similar childbearing
intentions and attitudes towards children as
heterosexuals.
Sexual-minorities in married or cohabiting unions
have more positive childbearing intentions and
more positive attitudes towards children than
sexual-minorities who are single.
Current Study: Contributions
• Uses nationally representative data.
• Examines childbearing intentions and attitudes
among a frequently neglected segment of society:
◦ Fertility among sexual minorities contributes to the rate of
unmarried fertility.
• Considers wanting a child, intentions, and
certainty of intentions.
• Policy implications:
◦ If sexual-minorities are as likely to intend having children
as heterosexuals, then public policies will have to consider
sexual -minorities.
Data
National Survey of Family Growth (2006) Cycle 6
◦ Total: 12,571
Ideal data on childbearing intentions and attitudes
towards children.
Includes large sample of sexual-minority men and
women.
◦ Sexual-minorities: 1,169
Analytic Sample
• Over 18 years of age and childless
• Fertile: if heterosexual cohabiting or married, partner
must also be fertile
• Valid responses on intentions, certainty of intentions,
and sexual orientation
• Final sample size:
◦ Total: 4,655
◦ Heterosexual: 4,171
◦ Sexual Minority: 484
Dependent Variable: Intentions
Certainty of Childbearing Intentions:
•
Survey questions: “Do you want a child,” “Do you intend having
a/another child?” and “ How certain are you that you do/do not
intend having a/another child?” - Combination of wanting,
intending, and certainty of intentions.
(0)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Do not want to have a child
Very or somewhat sure about negative childbearing intentions
Not very sure about negative childbearing intentions
Do not know childbearing intentions
Not sure about positive childbearing intentions
Very or somewhat sure about positive childbearing intentions
Dependent Variable: Attitudes
Attitudes towards children:
• Survey questions: “The rewards of having children
are greater than the cost” and “How much would it
bother you if it turned out that you did not have any
children?” ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree and not bothered at all to very bothered.
• Scale variable that ranges from very negative
towards children (0) to very positive towards
children (8).
Primary Predictor Variable
Sexual-Minority and Couple Status:
• Survey question: “What is your current
relationship?” and “What do you consider yourself
to be? Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or
something else?” *
◦ Heterosexual Coupled
◦ Heterosexual Single
◦ Sexual-minority Coupled
◦ Sexual-minority Single
*Due to the small number of cases, sexual minorities who respond that they are married or in a cohabiting union are put in the
same category. For consistency, the same is done for heterosexuals.
Control Variables
Attitude towards children
• In analysis on certainty of childbearing intentions
Socio-demographic variables
• Age, Sex, Race, Income, Education
Background variables
• Mother’s Education, Religiosity
Table 1. Weighted Means and Unweighted Frequencies by Sexual-Minority Type, NSFG 2002 .
Total
Heterosexual
Sexual Minority
Weighted
Means
Unweighted
N
Weighted
Means
Unweighted
N
Weighted
Means
Unweighted
N
Wanting a Child
No or do not know
Yes
0.15
0.85
767
3,888
0.13
0.87
592
3,579
0.34
0.66
175
309
Intentions
No
Yes
0.19
0.81
945
3,710
0.16
0.84
741
3,430
0.42
0.58
204
280
Certainty of Childbearing Intentions
Mean
Range
4.07
0-5
4.19
0-5
2.96
0-5
Attitude Towards Children
Mean
Range
7.93
0-8
8.03
0-8
7.05
0-8
Age
Mean
Range
26.49
18-44
26.03
18-44
28.55
18-44
Female (ref)
Male
0.43
0.57
2,325
2,330
0.43
0.57
2,103
2,068
Coupled Heterosexual
Single Heterosexuals
Coupled Sexual Minorities
Single Sexual Minorities (ref)
0.28
0.62
0.02
0.08
1,019
3,152
70
414
0.31
0.69
1,019
3,152
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White (ref)
Non-Hispanic Black
Hispanic
Other
0.71
0.11
0.12
0.07
2,871
727
762
295
0.71
0.11
0.12
0.06
Education
Mean
Range
1.92
(High school diploma)
1-5
Mother's education: less than high school
Mother's education: high school (ref)
Mother's education: some college
Mother's education: bachlor's degree
Income
Mean
Range
Religiosity
No religiosity
Low religiosity (ref)
Medium religiosity
High religiosity
Number of cases
0.14
0.32
0.27
0.27
749
1,507
1,219
1,180
9.22
($30,000-$34,999)
1-14
0.21
0.11
0.33
0.35
2,607
633
673
258
4,655
222
262
0.20
0.80
70
414
0.65
0.12
0.14
0.08
264
94
89
37
1.98
(High school diploma)
1-5
1.59
(High school diploma)
1-5
0.13
0.32
0.28
0.27
0.24
0.37
0.20
0.19
630
1,331
1,122
1,088
9.66
($30,000-$34,999)
1-14
968
428
1,532
1,727
0.40
0.60
0.19
0.11
0.34
0.36
119
176
97
92
8.68
($25,000-$29,999)
1-14
825
387
1,389
1,570
4,171
0.32
0.10
0.27
0.30
143
41
143
157
484
Analytic Strategy
OLS regression is used for the analysis of the certainty
of childbearing intentions.
OLS regression performed on attitudes towards
children.
All analyses are weighted according to dataset
prescribed weights.
Results: Wants and Intentions
Two thirds of sexual-minorities want to have children
(66%), but only slightly more than half intend having
children (58%). Sexual-minorities who intend having
children are significantly fewer than those who want to
have children.
The level of both wanting a child and childbearing
intentions for sexual-minorities is significantly lower
than that of heterosexuals.
Figure 1. Percentage that Wants and Intends Having a Child by Sexual-Minority Type
100%
90%
Heterosexual
87%
***
†††
Heterosexual
84%
***
80%
70%
Sexual-Minority
66%
60%
Sexual-Minority
58%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Wants a Child
Intends Having a Child
***Significant (p < .001) difference between heterosexuals and sexual-minorities. ††† Significant (p < .001) difference between sexual-minorities who want a child and who
intend having a child
Results: Intentions
Men: Sexual-minority men have significantly fewer
positive intentions than heterosexual men. There are no
differences by couple status.
Women: Couple status and age distinguishes
childbearing intentions among sexual-minority women.
• In multivariate models, there are no significant
difference between sexual-minority and heterosexual
women under the age of 30, regardless of couple status.
• Among women over age 30, sexual-minorities who are
single have significantly less positive intentions than
coupled sexual-minority and all heterosexual women.
Figure 2. Means for Certainty of Childbearing Intentions by Sexual-Minority and Couple Status for
Males and Females.
6
Males
Females
5
***
***
***
***
*
4
3
2
1
0
Hetersexual
Coupled
Heterosexual
Single
SexualMinority
Coupled
*p < .050, ***p < .001, compared to sexual-minority singles
SexualMinority
Single (ref)
Hetersexual
Coupled
Heterosexual
Single
SexualMinority
Coupled
SexualMinority
Single (ref)
Table 2. Coefficients for Certainty of Childbearing Intentions Regressed upon Sexual-Minority and Couple Status.
Males
Model 1a
Coupled Heterosexual
Single Heterosexuals
Coupled Sexual-Minorities
Single Sexual-Minorities (ref)
1.54 ***
1.43 ***
0.45 ns
~
Model 2
1.03 ***
1.01 ***
0.38 ns
~
Model 3
1.02 ***
0.73 ***
0.35 ns
~
Females Ages 18 to 29
Model 1b
Coupled Heterosexual
Single Heterosexuals
Coupled Sexual-Minorities
Single Sexual-Minorities (ref)
0.80 **
0.75 **
0.97 ***
~
Model 2
Model 3
0.19 ns
0.21 ns
0.39 ns
~
0.17 ns
0.18 ns
0.45 ns
~
Females Over Age 30
Model 1b
Coupled Heterosexual
Single Heterosexuals
Coupled Sexual-Minorities
Single Sexual-Minorities (ref)
a
2.13 ***
1.51 ***
1.28 *
~
Model 2
1.64 ***
1.36 ***
1.33 **
~
Model 3
1.48 ***
1.18 ***
1.25 **
~
Model 1 is the zero-order table, Model 2 includes only the attitude variable, Model 3 controls for attitude and age, Model 4 is the full model.
Model 1 is the zero-order table, Model 2 includes the attitude variable, Model 3 is the full model.
*p <.050, **p <.010, ***p <.001
b
Model 4
1.01 ***
0.74 ***
0.49 ns
~
Results: Attitudes
Men: Sexual-minority men have significantly lower
positive attitudes towards children than heterosexual
men, regardless of couple status.
Women: There are differences by couple status and age.
• In multivariate models, younger sexual-minorities in
couples are similar to heterosexuals in their attitudes
towards children, but significantly different to single
sexual-minorities.
• After controlling for other factors, all older women,
despite differences in sexual orientation and couple
status, have the same attitudes towards children.
Figure 3. Means of Attitudes Towards Children by Sexual-Minority and Couple Status
6.03
Heterosexual
5.06
Sexual-Minority
5.96
Heterosexual Single
4.96
Sexual-Minority Single
Heterosexual Coupled
6.17
Sexual-Minority Coupled
***
***
*
5.45
5.96
Heterosexual Single
6.17
Heterosexual Coupled
Sexual-Minority Single
*
4.96
Sexual-Minority Coupled
5.45
(0)
Negative Attitude Towards Children
*p < .050, **p < .010, ***p < .001
(8)
Positive Attitude Towards Children
Table 3. Coefficients for Attitudes towards Children Regressed upon Sexual Minority and Couple Status.
Males
Coupled Heterosexual
Single Heterosexuals
Coupled Sexual Minorities
Single Sexual Minorities (ref)
Model 1
1.141 ***
0.933 ***
0.158 ns
~
Model 2
1.098 ***
0.718 ***
0.138 ns
~
Model 3
0.873 ***
0.619 ***
0.251 ns
~
Females Ages 18 to 29
Coupled Heterosexual
Single Heterosexuals
Coupled Sexual Minorities
Single Sexual Minorities (ref)
Model 1
1.425 ***
1.245 ***
1.341 **
~
Model 2
1.220 ***
1.085 ***
1.374 **
~
Females Over Age 30
Coupled Heterosexual
Single Heterosexuals
Coupled Sexual Minorities
Single Sexual Minorities (ref)
a
Model 1 is the zero-order table, Model 2 includes only age, b Full model
*p <.050, **p <.010, ***p <.001
Model 1
0.904 **
0.280 ns
-0.100 ns
~
Model 2
0.638 ns
0.061 ns
0.084 ns
~
Conclusions
• More than half of sexual-minorities intend having
children. But these are less than heterosexuals.
• Sexual-minority men do not have the same attitudes or
intentions as heterosexual men, regardless of couple status.
• Younger sexual-minority women are not different in their
intentions than younger heterosexual women. Younger
sexual-minority women in a couple are more positive towards
children than singles.
• Older coupled sexual-minority women have higher
childbearing intentions than older single sexual-minority
women. There are no differences in attitudes among older
women.
Limitations
• Sample size prevents more refined comparisons.
• The question of current relationship type is flawed. The
cohabitation category mentions living with a member of the
opposite sex. It is not possible to determine how sexualminorities answered this question.
• There are some sexual-minorities who are married. It may be
that they consider themselves married, even if not legally. On
the other hand, some may be involved in heterosexual unions.
• The analytic sample only includes those who are childless. There
may be selection issues, especially among those who are childless
at older ages.
Future Studies
Examine more closely the differences among sexualminorities according to couple status and sexualminority subgroups (homosexual, bisexual, etc).
Study childbearing intentions and attitudes among
sexual-minorities at higher parity levels.