gay couple essay

The path to my fiance hurt like hell. Now, I feel hope for our future as a married gay couple

On the morning marriage equality became the law of the land, I felt a familiar adrenaline surge, knowing we had a big story to cover.

As a journalist, I couldn’t wait to take my front-row seat to what would soon unfold in Austin: impromptu weddings on a most historic day.

But as a gay man, this wasn’t just another story. It undoubtedly would have lifelong ramifications for our nation — and for me.

The Travis County Clerk’s Office on Airport Boulevard was my first stop. Under a bright summer sun, a line had begun streaming down a blistering sidewalk with dozens of couples awaiting a marriage license. I smile remembering how fellow Austin residents bought what seemed like every supermarket sheet cake in town and dropped them off, certain no wedding day is complete without that tradition.

From there, I went to the Travis County Courthouse. Judges I’ve known and covered for years suspended mundane pretrial hearings and perfunctory court settings to perform nuptials. I saw old friends and casual acquaintances getting hitched as I simultaneously delivered congratulatory hugs and gathered comments for stories.

Surrounded by excitement, I can now openly admit I had to push down other emotions: a looming fear, trepidation and even self-hatred. I knew in my heart I wanted to, but would I ever have the guts to marry someone of the same sex? Could I really cast away years of upbringing in a deeply socially conservative place, embrace a sense of equality and believe for myself that love truly is love? Did I really deserve to get married, or was it a right only for gays and lesbians I interviewed that day, June 26, 2015?

» RELATED: Where to celebrate Austin Pride 2019

As a child of the ‘80s and teen of the ‘90s in Mississippi, the message was clear. Yes, there were some gay people in my town, but being gay was certainly not something openly discussed. While I’m sure there were some pockets of acceptance, to say, or even hint, that someone was gay was tantamount to an insult, at least to most of the people around me. At best, everyone quietly coexisted with no direct conversation about same-sex love or relationships. At worst, people snickered, gossiped or even openly ridiculed the flamboyant gay man or the tomboy lesbian.

I certainly inferred that “gay” was a brand no one should ever want. Instead of being out loud and proud, there was safety in silence. Gays, I learned, should live quietly off the radar.

I had plenty of reason to never challenge that norm. I was a particularly expressive child who watched episodes of — and sometimes pretended to be — "Wonder Woman" in a world where only a love of hunting and fishing defined “real boys.” There was a constant, almost daily brutal barrage of taunts. At times, I felt like I was called “sissy” or “fag” more often than my real name.

On the rare occasion I tried to assert myself, the world I was in summarily slapped me down. In the fifth grade, I proudly wore a new matching shorts and shirt outfit — one of the first things I can ever remember picking out on my own from a trendy-esque store in a neighboring town. One pant leg had pink-on-white strips. The other had a funky lime-green printed design. I boldly walked into class, but after a long day of harassment, and a teacher who did nothing to intervene, I never wore that outfit again. If I weren’t afraid of fire, I may have burned it. Years on the therapy couch haven’t erased that injection of shame.

As a teen, things begin to ease somewhat, and I got a hint of an “it gets better” moment. I got a job working simultaneously at the local weekly newspaper and country music radio station, places that may have very well been life-saving shelters and allowed any attention on me to be shifted away from my obvious gayness to my burgeoning career.

A quarter-century later, I’m sharing my experience — my own pain — on Austin Pride weekend. I know, unfortunately, I’m not the only gay person ever teased, and plenty of heterosexual friends have horrific stories of being bullied.

But over the years, like many of us, I’ve gradually become more open about who I am — and everything that happened. Not only do I believe it is important we rid our society of a mindset that traumatizes gay youths and young adults, but I also think this is an important step in my healing. And I believe that as gay people, raising our hands and fully disclosing who we are could potentially help shift the mindsets of those who still need introduction to the notion that gay lives don’t threaten straight lives.

I’ve also decided to share my experience a couple of months before my own wedding.

A year or so after the Supreme Court decision legalizing marriage equality, I met my fiance, Wroe Jackson. Within a few months, it became clear that we wanted to get married, but it took me another couple of years to finally convince myself that marriage is not only a legal right, but one I could actually exercise.

» RELATED:   Westlake church embraces gay founding member

After we made the decision and got a photographer to take engagement photos, we did what everyone does now: We announced our good news on social media with a family picture that included our rescue dog, Cal.

My fingers trembled as I pressed “post” to Facebook and Instagram. In many ways, I felt like I was finally standing up to years of destructive messaging about what it means to be gay and, for me, what it means to love. It still makes me sad that in 2019, I worried about being made fun of, losing friends or getting shunned.

The response has been stunning. My friends and loved ones in considerably more progressive Austin poured out their support — but so did hundreds of people from my hometown, whose simple like of a social media photo helped heal old wounds. It gives me renewed hope that our culture and society is shifting on the topic of marriage equality, reaching as far as the Bible Belt.

But even now, it’s hard for me to not feel hurt about the people I haven’t heard from — and still would like to — or the four people who unfriended me on Facebook. I’ve gradually come to accept that they were probably never really my friends to begin with. But the idea that someone would take that step after our joyous wedding announcement can still churn up a sense that I went too far — that I should retreat to the nearest available closet.

But I won’t, not now, and hopefully never again.

As we close in on wedding preparations, my mind often wanders back to June 2015, to those couples who had waited years, decades, their whole lives to finally legalize their love.

I know that when I finally say “I do,” I’ll have and feel their support, and hopefully, that same sense of freedom they did on their special day.

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

5 facts about same-sex marriage.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court  issued a landmark ruling  that granted same-sex couples a constitutional right to marry. The 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage nationwide, including in the 14 states that did not previously allow gays and lesbians to wed. The decision rested in part on the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment; the justices ruled that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

As we approach the fourth anniversary of the ruling, here are five key facts about same-sex marriage:

2 Although support in the U.S. for same-sex marriage has increased among nearly all demographic groups, there are still sizable demographic and partisan divides.  For example, today, 79% of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated favor same-sex marriage, as do 66% of white mainline Protestants and 61% of Catholics. Among white evangelical Protestants, however, only 29% favor same-sex marriage. Still, this is roughly double the level (15%) in 2009.

While support for same-sex marriage has grown steadily across generational cohorts in the last 15 years, there are still sizable age gaps. For instance, 45% of adults in the Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945) favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed, compared with 74% of Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996). There also is a sizable political divide: Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much less likely to favor same sex marriage than Democrats and Democratic leaners (44% vs. 75%).

3 Same-sex marriages are on the rise . Surveys conducted by  Gallup in 2017 find that about one-in-ten LGBT Americans (10.2%) are married to a same-sex partner, up from the months before the high court decision (7.9%). As a result, a majority (61%) of same-sex cohabiting couples were married as of 2017, up from 38% before the ruling.

5 The U.S. is among 29 countries and jurisdictions that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. The first nation to legalize gay marriage was the Netherlands, which did so in 2000. Since then, several other European countries – including England and Wales, France, Ireland, all of Scandinavia, Spain and, most recently, Austria, Germany and Malta – have legalized gay marriage. Outside of Europe, same-sex marriage is now legal in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, New Zealand, South Africa and Uruguay, as well as in parts of Mexico. And in May 2019, Taiwan became the first country in Asia to allow gays and lesbians to legally wed.

Note: This is an update to a post originally published April 27, 2015. It was originally co-authored by Seth Motel, a former research analyst at Pew Research Center.

Related posts:

A global snapshot of same-sex marriage

5 key findings about LGBT Americans

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Same-Sex Marriage Around the World

On some demographic measures, people in same-sex marriages differ from those in opposite-sex marriages, where europe stands on gay marriage and civil unions, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

• Relationships

Two Decades of LGBTQ Relationships Research

To what extent is relationship science reflective of lgbtq+ experiences.

Posted September 29, 2022 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

• Why Relationships Matter
• Find a therapist to strengthen relationships
• While same-sex marriage has been legal in some jurisdictions for two decades, relationships research continues to focus on mixed-sex couples.
• A review of 2,181 relationship science articles published since 2001 found that 85.8% excluded LGBTQ+ relationships.
• Without LGBTQ+ relationships research, it is hard to provide empirically-supported advice to same-sex and gender-diverse relationships.

In 2014, I attended the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology—one of the largest annual social psychology conferences. The conference covers a wide range of topics and one of the sub-areas is Close Relationships, which hosts a wonderful pre-conference each year leading up to the larger event. As I found myself strolling through the poster presentations for this section of the conference, I began to notice that most of them were reporting the results of research conducted with mixed-sex and presumably heterosexual couples. The pattern became so apparent that I decided to review each poster a bit more systematically and to ask the presenters some standard questions about the demographics of their samples. I was able to visit 58 of the 71 posters listed on the program for the Close Relationships section—there were quite a few posters missing due to a horrendous winter storm that made the annual trip to SPSP impossible for many. Of the posters reviewed, only 15.5% included LGBTQ participants and only one study specifically focused on LGBTQ relationships. Following the conference, I wrote an article for the Relationships Research Newsletter published by the International Association for Relationships Research discussing the "state of LGBTQ-inclusive research methods" in the field of relationship science.

The following year, a somewhat more systematic approach to evaluating the inclusion of sexual minority couples in research was undertaken by Judith Andersen and Christopher Zou, who published their findings in the Health Science Journal . Their analysis focused on the inclusion of sexual minority couples in research relevant to relationships and health and they focused on publications indexed by Medline and PsychINFO between 2002-2012. Their results indicated that a striking 88.7% of the studies reviewed had excluded sexual minority couples from participating—meaning that even fewer of the papers in their sample were inclusive than my snapshot of the posters presented during the 2014 Close Relationships Poster Session.

Fast forward nearly another decade and the International Association for Relationship Research decided to launch two special issues of their flagship journals, Personal Relationships and the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , dedicated to reviewing the last two decades of relationship science. Along with two other leading researchers in the area of LGBTQ+ relationships, I was invited to write a review focused on LGBTQ+ relationship science. The burning question in my mind was whether or not we would see a stark increase in inclusion as time progressed. After all, the two decades spanning 2002-2022 represent a time of significant advancements for LGBTQ+ civil rights, particularly those related to the legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

What Is the State of LGBTQ Inclusion in Relationships Research Today?

To answer this question, we gathered every single article published in Personal Relationships (PR) and the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (JSPR) starting in 2002 until April 2021. This resulted in 2,181 articles; 1,392 articles from JPSR and 789 from PR. We used a variety of coding techniques, including automatic keyword coding and manual screening of articles, to identify which articles contained any information relevant to LGBTQ+ identities and relationships. Roughly 85.8% of these articles were excluded from further analysis as they did not contain any words relevant to sexual or gender minority identities or relationships. The remaining 329 articles were manually coded to identify how they handled issues related to sexual and gender identity . Some articles mentioned LGBTQ+ issues in their limitations section (n = 58), for example to state that future research should consider testing similar questions with a more inclusive and diverse sample. Another 42 articles explicitly stated that they excluded LGBTQ+ participants from their recruitment or analysis process, and while this may seem harsh, it still reflects a methodological improvement over the 1,852 articles that did not even provide adequate information to understand how the exclusion process took place. Some studies did include LGBTQ+ participants in their recruitment process and analyses, but often the sample sizes were small, meaning that no further efforts were taken to understand whether LGBTQ+ participants had unique experiences.

Ultimately, of the 2,181 articles published in these two journals between 2002 and April 2021, 92 articles, or 4.2%, presented LGBTQ-relevant information that we considered capable of providing empirical evidence concerning the lives and experiences of sexual and gender minorities within the context of close relationships. Thus, with only 4.2% of the articles being LGBTQ-relevant, our review of two decades of relationship science research did not seem to suggest that great improvement was occurring over time.

Has LGBTQ Inclusion Increased Over Time?

However, when we broke our data down into smaller periods, we did see a slight indication of improvement over time for the general inclusion of LGBTQ+ participants in relationship science published in these two journals. For example, research published in Personal Relationships climbed from roughly 2% of articles being LGBTQ-relevant between 2002 and 2006 to a peak of just over 4% in 2012-2015, a rate that either slightly decreased or remained constant for the final five-year period, 2016-2021. The Journal of Social and Personal Relationships had a somewhat higher inclusion rate over time, with roughly 3.5% of articles in 2002-2006 being LGBTQ-relevant, peaking at nearly 6% between 2007-2011, and then settling back between 4% and 5% for the periods ranging from 2012-2015 and 2016-2021. Despite these slight differences, overall, there was no significant difference between the proportion of articles considered LGBTQ-relevant in each of the two journals reviewed.

Additional Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion

Most of the research in the review that was deemed "LGBTQ-relevant" tended to explore the LGBTQ+ community as a whole, rather than presenting studies that specifically explored the experiences of one identity group or another (e.g., lesbian women vs. gay men). Only one of the 92 articles exclusively focused on the experiences of bisexual individuals and 54.3% of the LGBTQ-relevant articles did not include bisexuals in their sample at all. The overall body of research also had an androcentric slant, such that 17.4% of the articles focused exclusively on sexual minority men while only 9.8% focused exclusively on sexual minority women.

Finally, although our interest was in exploring relationship science that was considered relevant to LGBTQ+ populations, a better descriptor would be LGBQ, as very few of the studies included transgender , non-binary, or gender-diverse relationship experiences. In total, 15 articles included transgender participants while only four included non-binary participants.

LGBTQ+ Specific Journals

Of course, this review focused on two of the leading relationship science journals and thus did not cover research published in other journals. Anecdotally, many researchers working in LGBTQ psychology and related areas note that when they try to publish in mainstream journals, reviewers often recommend that they send their LGBTQ-relevant research to more specialized, niche journals. Thus, there is likely more research on LGBTQ+ relationship experiences in journals such as Psychology & Sexuality , LGBT Health, Journal of Lesbian Studies, Journal of Homosexuality, and the APA Journal of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. However, none of these journals specifically focus on relationship science and may not be widely read by other scholars studying relationships specifically. While one of the benefits of LGBTQ-inclusive research is that it helps us to better understand the experiences within this specific population, such research also benefits the wider population, as often LGBTQ-inclusive research suggests new and novel questions that help to shed light on relationship experiences that are relevant to all individuals, regardless of sexual or gender identity.

Despite the indication that there is still a long way to go in terms of encouraging broad inclusion of LGBTQ+ experiences in mainstream relationship research, there were still many positive signs. The overall trajectory of inclusion appears to be increasing over time, conferences are beginning to include specific programming on how to increase the inclusivity of relationship research, and the editors of the special issues celebrating the past two decades of relationship science saw fit to include a review that was specific to LGBTQ+ relationship experiences. The review concluded by noting that we, the authors, were "looking forward to the next 20 years" of LGBTQ-inclusive relationship research, with a specific "focus on deciphering the minutiae of all the colourful intersection of identity that make up the true richness of human relationships."

Pollitt, A. M., Blair, K. L., & Lannutti, P. J. (2022). A review of two decades of LGBTQ‐inclusive research in JSPR and PR . Personal Relationships . https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12432

Andersen, J. P., & Zou, C. (2015). Exclusion of sexual minority couples from research. Health Science Journal, 9(6), 1.

Blair, K. L., McKenna, O., & Holmberg, D. (2022). On guard: Public versus private affection-sharing experiences in same-sex, gender-diverse, and mixed-sex relationships . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 02654075221090678.

Karen Blair, Ph.D. , is an assistant professor of psychology at Trent University. She researches the social determinants of health throughout the lifespan within the context of relationships.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Gay Marriage Is Good for America

Subscribe to governance weekly, jonathan rauch jonathan rauch senior fellow - governance studies @jon_rauch.

June 21, 2008

By order of its state Supreme Court, California began legally marrying same-sex couples this week. The first to be wed in San Francisco were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, pioneering gay-rights activists who have been a couple for more than 50 years.

More ceremonies will follow, at least until November, when gay marriage will go before California’s voters. They should choose to keep it. To understand why, imagine your life without marriage. Meaning, not merely your life if you didn’t happen to get married. What I am asking you to imagine is life without even the possibility of marriage.

Re-enter your childhood, but imagine your first crush, first kiss, first date and first sexual encounter, all bereft of any hope of marriage as a destination for your feelings. Re-enter your first serious relationship, but think about it knowing that marrying the person is out of the question.

Imagine that in the law’s eyes you and your soul mate will never be more than acquaintances. And now add even more strangeness. Imagine coming of age into a whole community, a whole culture, without marriage and the bonds of mutuality and kinship that go with it.

What is this weird world like? It has more sex and less commitment than a world with marriage. It is a world of fragile families living on the shadowy outskirts of the law; a world marked by heightened fear of loneliness or abandonment in crisis or old age; a world in some respects not even civilized, because marriage is the foundation of civilization.

This was the world I grew up in. The AIDS quilt is its monument.

Few heterosexuals can imagine living in such an upside-down world, where love separates you from marriage instead of connecting you with it. Many don’t bother to try. Instead, they say same-sex couples can get the equivalent of a marriage by going to a lawyer and drawing up paperwork – as if heterosexual couples would settle for anything of the sort.

Even a moment’s reflection shows the fatuousness of “Let them eat contracts.” No private transaction excuses you from testifying in court against your partner, or entitles you to Social Security survivor benefits, or authorizes joint tax filing, or secures U.S. residency for your partner if he or she is a foreigner. I could go on and on.

Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community – which is why there is always a witness. Two people can’t go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn’t have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties.

This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too. Marriage is our first and best line of defense against financial, medical and emotional meltdown. It provides domesticity and a safe harbor for sex. It stabilizes communities by formalizing responsibilities and creating kin networks. And its absence can be calamitous, whether in inner cities or gay ghettos.

In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples – including gay parents – live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever.

Because parents want happy children, communities want responsible neighbors, employers want productive workers, and governments want smaller welfare caseloads, society has a powerful interest in recognizing and supporting same-sex couples. It will either fold them into marriage or create alternatives to marriage, such as publicly recognized and subsidized cohabitation. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.

Nowadays, even opponents of same-sex marriage generally concede it would be good for gay people. What they worry about are the possible secondary effects it could have as it ramifies through law and society. What if gay marriage becomes a vehicle for polygamists who want to marry multiple partners, egalitarians who want to radically rewrite family law, or secularists who want to suppress religious objections to homosexuality?

Space doesn’t permit me to treat those and other objections in detail, beyond noting that same-sex marriage no more leads logically to polygamy than giving women one vote leads to giving men two; that gay marriage requires only few and modest changes to existing family law; and that the Constitution provides robust protections for religious freedom.

I’ll also note, in passing, that these arguments conscript homosexuals into marriagelessness in order to stop heterosexuals from making bad decisions, a deal to which we gay folks say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” We wonder how many heterosexuals would give up their own marriage, or for that matter their own divorce, to discourage other people from making poor policy choices. Any volunteers?

Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free. I believe the risks are modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits. Still, it’s wise to guard against unintended consequences by trying gay marriage in one or two states and seeing what happens, which is exactly what the country is doing.

By the same token, however, honest opposition requires acknowledging that there are risks and unforeseen consequences on both sides of the equation. Some of the unforeseen consequences of allowing same-sex marriage will be good, not bad. And barring gay marriage is risky in its own right.

America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation.

There are two ways to see the legal marriage of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. One is as the start of something radical: an experiment that jeopardizes millennia of accumulated social patrimony. The other is as the end of something radical: an experiment in which gay people were told that they could have all the sex and love they could find, but they could not even think about marriage. If I take the second view, it is on conservative – in fact, traditional – grounds that gay souls and straight society are healthiest when sex, love and marriage all walk in step.

Children & Families

Governance Studies

Michael R. Glass, Taylor B. Seybolt, Phil Williams Enrique Desmond Arias, Roberto Briceño-Leon, Jon Coaffee, Savannah Cox, Daniel E. Esser, Vanda Felbab-Brown, Michael R. Glass, Kim Gounder, Brij Maharaj, Eduardo Moncada, Daniel Núñez, Taylor B. Seybolt, Phil Williams

January 21, 2022

John Hudak, William G. Gale, Darrell M. West, Vanda Felbab-Brown, Rashawn Ray, Molly E. Reynolds, Elaine Kamarck, William A. Galston, Gabriel R. Sanchez

January 5, 2022

Caitlin Talmadge

June 2, 2020

Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness Research Paper

Introduction.

All people have biases; self-awareness is the key to understanding how these biases affect the delivery of health care to individuals, families, and populations. Several jurisdictions in the United States have legalized same-sex marriages. On the 13th of August, 2013, 13 states had legalized same-sex marriages. However, gay couples in society attempting to adopt children have experienced a lot of barriers. Resistance to adoption originates from the cultural, religious, political, and economic inclinations of various people (Pew Research Center, 2013). This essay discusses barriers experienced by gay couples while seeking adoption.

Demographics

According to the 2012 census, same-sex marriages are more than 71,165. The state of Massachusetts, which legalized it earlier than other states, had 22,406 by 2012, whereas New York had 12,285 in the same year. Connecticut had 5759 same-sex marriages by 2011 while Washington had 2,500 marriages. In the same year, 428 cases were recorded in Maine State. The state of California recorded 18,000 cases of same-sex marriages (Pew Research Center, 2013).

Personal awareness of the population before studying the demographics

Before this study, little was known about gay couples. The idea of same-sex marriages has developed in America to a legal platform. America is a society that is founded on personal liberty and freedom. However, the community’s perception of this issue was suppressed by cultural and religious beliefs. During the adoption process, gay couples encounter a lot of barriers. Though most states have legalized gay marriages, some states are opposed to it. This explains the negative perception bestowed on same-sex marriages. Cultural beliefs that undermine the role of same-sex parenting have an impact on the efficacy of gay couples as parents. This has affected the laws that influence adoption. Therefore, most parents end up ignoring the legal procedure of adoption. Barriers to adoption among gay couples lead to behavioral, cognitive, and emotional stressors to sexual minorities. This has an adverse impact on their well-being. Stigma results from social beliefs that same-sex parents cannot meet all the needs of a child. Therefore, gay couples anticipate such attitudes against them, which affect their roles in adoption (Goldberg and Smith, 2009).

Effect of research on personal attitudes

This information is meant to create self-awareness amongst professionals in the health care domain. Initially, I believed that gay couples could not adopt a child because they lacked legal grounds to support their cause. However, this study has made me aware that gay couples have legal rights if they want to adopt. Despite the stigma directed towards them, same-sex couples are able to parent children just like heterosexual couples. Furthermore, cultural limits that affect the legalization of adoption are weakening (Oswald and Masciadrelli, 2008). Therefore, they are opening up avenues for gay couple adoptions. In health care delivery, professional biases and stereotypes linked to the gay couple adoptions are shifting focus and embracing the practice.

Rather than basing on cultural, social, and ideological perspectives to determine the ability of a gay couple to adopt, concerned professionals should reflect on the legal requirements while handling adoptions by gay couples. Therefore, professionals should act within the confines of the law, but not their subjective judgments in executing their obligations (Leedy and Connolly, 2007).

Perceptions before and after

Just like the rest of the population, I had a negative attitude towards gay couple adoptions. My attitude was based on cultural beliefs that devalued the role of gay couples in parenting. However, this study has made me aware that parenting is not affected by gender. Furthermore, gender roles are concepts of social processes that suppress the abilities of each gender. Therefore, just like women, men are also able to nurture children (Oswald and Masciadrelli, 2008).

Gay couples encounter a lot of barriers while seeking adoption. This information is useful in formal and informal contexts to counteract these limitations. Social, cultural and ideological limits are superseded by the law. Therefore, the attitude of the society should shift from the cultural model of determining adoption, to legal procedures.

Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2009). Perceived parenting skill across the transition to adoptive parenthood among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology , 23 (1), 861 – 870.

Leedy, G., & Connolly, C. (2007). Out in the cowboy state: A look at lesbian and gay lives in Wyoming. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services , 19 (1), 17 – 34.

Oswald, R. F., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2008). Generative ritual among nonmetropolitan lesbians and gay men: Promoting social inclusion. Journal of Marriage and Family , 70 (1), 1060 – 1073.

Pew Research Center. (2013). How many same-sex marriages in the U.S.? At least 71,165, probably more .

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 21). Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/

"Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness." IvyPanda , 21 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness'. 21 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness." April 21, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/.

1. IvyPanda . "Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness." April 21, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Gay Couples as Vulnerable Population and Self-Awareness." April 21, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gay-couples-as-vulnerable-population-and-self-awareness/.

• Why Gay Marriages Should Not Be Legalized?
• Gay Marriage and Parenting
• Same-Sex Marriage: Sociopolitical
• Civil Union: Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples' Marriages
• Constitutional Amendment that Allows Same-sex Marriage
• Same-Sex Marriage as a Positive Tendency Nowadays
• Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in San Francisco
• Gay Marriage Legalization
• California’s Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriages
• Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, And America’s Children
• Cook County, Illinois: Palatine Community Planning and Intervention
• Challenges Associated with Reentry: Social Acceptance and the Related Issues
• Impact of Group Responses on Sick, Bereaved, or Imprisoned Individuals
• Human Sexuality and Sex Education Studies in China
• Teenage Suicide in South Africa: A Survey Tool Design

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Gay Marriage — The Case for Legalizing Gay Marriages

The Case for Legalizing Gay Marriages

• Categories: Gay Marriage

About this sample

Words: 630 |

Published: Jan 29, 2024

Words: 630 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Individual rights, societal benefits, counterarguments and refutation.

• Rands, Morgan L., and Justin J. Lehmiller. "Gay marriages: A systematic review of the research evidence." Health Psychology Review 13.1 (2019): 1-24.
• Baumeister, Roy F., and Kathleen D. Vohs. "Sexual orientation and economic behavior." BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 8.1 (2007).
• Sullivan, Edmund. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Time 6 (2013): 2013.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 484 words

5 pages / 2332 words

3 pages / 1222 words

6 pages / 2615 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gay Marriage

The issue of gay marriage has been a controversial topic for decades. While some argue that it is a basic human right that needs to be recognized, others believe that it undermines the sanctity of traditional marriage and poses [...]

The issue of gay marriage has been a topic of extensive debate, sparking discussions on both sides of the spectrum. This essay aims to delve into the arguments for and against gay marriage, exploring how they are wielded in the [...]

Over the past few decades, the debate surrounding the legalization of gay marriage has been at the forefront of political and social discussions. While many countries and states have made significant progress in legalizing [...]

The debate over same-sex marriage has been a outstanding case, specifically in the Tunisian society where LGBTQ rights are to this day hinder. Thus, many humans still disagree with same-sex marriage whilst others are for [...]

Close your eyes and imagine that you are seeing a beautiful couple who are obviously in love. You also notice a baby stroller and an adorable baby boy in it. You see their hands and notice that they both are wearing a wedding [...]

The European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) is an international treaty which was drafted in 1950 in order to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms within Europe. Many countries signed up to this convention including [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Anthony Friedkin: The Gay Essay

By Jackson Krule

The photographer Anthony Friedkin began work on “The Gay Essay,” a four-year-long series documenting gay communities in Los Angeles and San Francisco, in 1969, at the age of nineteen. Friedkin, the son of a Broadway dancer and a Hollywood screenwriter, had already worked as a freelancer for the Magnum Agency when he began spending time at the Los Angeles Gay Community Services Center. There he met Morris Kight and Don Kilhefner, the founders of the Gay Liberation Front of Los Angeles, who introduced him to L.A.’s gay and lesbian scene; later, Friedkin travelled to San Francisco to photograph an experimental-theatre company. ”The Gay Essay,” a selection of which was first exhibited in 1973, will be published as a book next month. A new and comprehensive exhibition of Friedkin’s photographs opens at the de Young Museum, in San Francisco, on Saturday.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Margaret Talbot

By Emily Witt

By Sarah Larson

By Alex Ross

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Paragraph 1:

Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.

• It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
• It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Paragraph 2:

Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.

• Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
• The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.

Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .

Paragraph 3:

Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.

• Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
• A family should ideally have parents and children.
• It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.  

Paragraph 4:

Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.

• Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not  negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
• Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.

• They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
• They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.

• To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
• Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
• They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
• Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
• It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
• It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
• It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.

Read on the best motivational speech ideas .

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.

First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.

Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.

Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.

Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.

Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.

Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011).  Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .

Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities.  Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages

Thesis:  Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

Pros of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex couples are better at parenting.

• Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
• Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.

Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.

• The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
• Divorce is not good for family cohesion.

Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.

• Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
• After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.

• It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
• They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.

For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.

• Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
• A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.

Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.

• People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
• They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.

Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Marriage is a fundamental human right.

• All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
• Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

Paragraph 8:

Marriage is a concept based on love.

• It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
• Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.

Paragraph 9:

opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

• However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
• It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.

Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.

Same Sex Marriage Essay Example

The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal  Pediatrics  published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.

Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.

In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.

Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.

Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.

Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.

As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.

Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.

Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage.  Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.

Gerstmann, E. (2017).  Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016).  Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Nagle, J. (2010).  Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017).  Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Example 3: Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage Essay- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline

Introduction 

Thesis:  Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.

In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.

• They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
• Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.

Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
• Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
• The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
• The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.

The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

• In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
• There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.

• The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.

Paragraph 7: 

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.

• Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
• An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Sample Essay

In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.

According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.

The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.

The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.

Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.

Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”.  CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Decoo, E. (2014).  Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics.  Gen ,  10 , 1965-1980.

Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In  Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .

Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”.  National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/

Our article explores the intricacies of same-sex marriage discourse, offering a debated essay with a structured outline. Explore our speech writer generator free tool and create a good speech.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics  to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas That Go Past Getting Down on One Knee

• Shelby is a contributing writer for The Knot covering all things weddings.
• Shelby is a freelance writer for publications including Vogue, Over the Moon and Allure. She previously served as Senior Editor at Brides and Editor at Lonny Magazine.
• Shelby graduated with a bachelor’s degree in English from Scripps College.

Are you on the search for LGBTQIA+ proposal ideas so you can pop the question to your partner in a romantic, creative way? If you have decided to propose , you should look to curate a special moment that feels unique to your relationship and full of excitement.

"Before proposing, you will want to make sure first and foremost that you are both on the same page," advises professional proposal planner Michele Velazquez of The Hearts Bandits . "This is the only way to ensure you get a 'yes' on the proposal day. Once you know that a proposal would be expected, you want to create a budget for the engagement ring if you will be having one and for the proposal itself," says the pro, who boasts more than 13 years of proposal expertise. "Then, you want to think about how you will propose and start creating the plans for bringing the proposal idea to life."

Whether you hope to ask your partner to be your spouse, want to plan a double proposal, or would like to propose back to your fiancé, read ahead to get gay proposal ideas for your special someone.

LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas to Inspire You: The Best Proposal Ideas | Creative Proposal Ideas | Romantic Proposal Ideas

The Best LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas

While every proposal should be unique to you and your partner, read ahead for a few great proposal ideas to inspire your own special moment.

Make It a Big Surprise

While it's important to get an idea if your partner is open to getting married to you ahead of time, you should keep the actual proposal plans a secret. "Never tell a soul! People often think they should tell the people closest to the proposee but it often gets back to them," says Velazquez. "So keep it all locked up. Also, don't leave a trail. Clear your internet history or lock your computer and don't start liking a bunch of jewelers' profiles on social media."

Hire a Professional Photographer

While you will always hold the memory of your proposal, it's never a bad idea to have photos to look back on. "We always recommend hiring a professional photographer for the proposal," shares Velazquez. "Most people want to share the photos on social media and you can also use the professional photos for your engagement announcement."

If you want to save money and not hire a pro, she adds, "We never recommend having a family member in charge of your proposal photos. For one, they may mess it up and then that can cause a riff. Even if they do not miss the moment, they do not typically have the skill to work with lighting, shadows, angles, and more. Also, they want to enjoy watching their loved one get engaged and not have the pressure of capturing a once-in-a-lifetime moment." Pro tip: You can find great proposal and engagement photographers on The Knot Vendor Marketplace .

Do a Double Proposal

To create a more equal balance in their relationship, many LGBTQIA+ couples like to do a double proposal. This occurs when each member of the couple proposes to each other either at the same time or at different dates. "It really isn't too different," Velasquez shares of the planning of this proposal idea. "We treat it just like any other proposal where the other person doesn't know it is happening." Your partner can know that you are planning to propose at some point—or not. Be prepared with a plan, a ring, and maybe expect a proposal back if you go first! If you have a feeling your partner may propose first, consider carrying the ring with you on dates or trips if you want to spontaneously propose at the same time.

Plan a Special Trip

A classic choice for many LGBTQIA+ proposals is to ask your partner to marry you on a vacation. While you are at a beautiful landmark, relaxing retreat, or romantic dinner, take advantage of the excitement around you and get down on one knee. Do some research before your travels to pinpoint the perfect spot. Just be careful while packing for your trip to hide the ring properly (and keep it safe) in your luggage. You can also look locally to hire a photographer to capture the moment.

Hire a Proposal Planner

Need a little extra help formulating your proposal idea? Consider hiring a proposal planner to orchestrate the big moment. "A proposal planner can save a proposer a lot of money, time, and stress," says Velazquez. "An experienced proposal planner can think through things that are not always obvious to the proposer. We think about everything that could go wrong with a proposal and then we build the mitigation strategy into the proposal." She adds, "Proposal planners also have a huge network of vendors. Need a pug for your proposal? No problem. Want a helicopter to land on a cliff? We got you!"

Creative LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas

Want to get a little bit creative with how you pop the question? Read ahead for great LGBTQIA+ proposal ideas that go the extra mile.

Make It Spark

Want to put on a show when you ask your significant other to marry you? "Decorate a space with your partner's favorite flowers," recommends Velazquez. "Pop the question and have cold sparklers set up right after they say yes!" To prepare, reach out to a rental company to get the sparklers arranged. Purchasing a kit yourself can run around $700. You should also reach out to a florist or visit your local flower mart to prepare arrangements for the space. Have a friend on hand or someone from the rental company there to help cue the sparklers after they say "yes."

Spell It Out

Want to put all your love into words? "Rent out the letters 'Marry Me' or a special phrase that the two of you share," suggests Velazquez. "Set up the letters at a private venue and bring your partner there to propose." Reach out to an events company to find large marquee letters for the big moment. You can also purchase a sign on Amazon or Etsy for a more affordable option. Make sure everything is in place and will be set for when you return to the area later with your partner.

Organize a Performance

Surprise your partner with a live performance of their favorite song by a local band (or the actual musician). During or after the song, get down on one knee and ask them to marry you. To prepare, do some outreach to book your performers then coordinate a location for you to naturally swing by with your S.O. for the big reveal.

Make a TikTok

If you and your partner love sharing TikToks with each other, make a creative video asking them to marry you in a unique and visual way. This can include a slideshow of moments in your relationship or a clip of you asking them. Send the TikTok link to them and be ready to get down on one knee once they watch it.

Romantic LGBTQIA+ Proposal Ideas

If you are looking to bring on the romance with your proposal, read ahead for ideas to create an intimate and heartfelt experience for your fiancé-to-be.

Propose at Home

Why not start the next chapter of your lives together in the home you share? In a calm, peaceful moment together, get down on one knee and share why you want your special someone to be a part of your family. Keep this proposal intimate and truly unique to your relationship.

Give Your Heart

Want a grand romantic moment? "Rent a huge heart filled with flowers," advises Velazquez. "Set the heart up on the beach, in a park, or even in your backyard. Propose in front of it and don't forget to add a photographer." Make sure that along with the heart rental, you look into getting fresh flowers for the day in advance so there isn't a last-minute scramble.

Recreate Your First Date

One sweet proposal idea is to retrace the steps of your first date together. Come at it from a sentimental approach to go back to that restaurant where you first met and follow up with the same locations you may have visited on that special day. Find a meaningful spot at the end to surprise your partner with that big question.

Create a Memory Lane

Set up a pathway of photo memories of your relationship for your partner to follow to a beautiful spot where you are waiting with a ring. Call or text them to meet you at the location and make sure they follow the route where they will see the photos. Go to your local photo store or find access to a good printer to create the images along the way.

Include Your Pet

If you and your partner share a furry friend, make them a part of your proposal, too. You can put a sign on your pet that says will you marry me, tie the ring around their collar, or come up with another unique idea to have your little family all together when you get down on one knee.

Involve Your Family

It also can be incredibly meaningful to have your family (whether they're your biological family or the family you created) there for your proposal. After asking your partner to tie the knot, have everyone there hiding to congratulate you and celebrate once they say "yes." Arrange for a small engagement party to take place since you already have your important people there.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief

Recent legal cases before the Supreme Court of the United States were challenging federal definitions of marriage created by the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s voter approved Proposition 8 which limited marriage to different-sex couples only. Social science literature regarding child well-being was being used within these cases, and the American Sociological Association sought to provide a concise evaluation of the literature through an amicus curiae brief. The authors were tasked in the assistance of this legal brief by reviewing literature regarding the well-being of children raised within same-sex parent families. This article includes our assessment of the literature, focusing on those studies, reviews and books published within the past decade. We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability. We discuss challenges and opportunities for new research on the well-being of children in same-sex parent families.

The American Sociological Association (ASA) filed an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court outlining social science research findings on the well-being of children in same-sex parent families on February 28, 2013 ( Brief for the American Sociological Association 2013 ). Sociological research was used in a number of cases reaching the Supreme Court, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 in California (Prop 8). A talented legal team led by Carmine Boccuzzi at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton LLP prepared arguments, wrote the final brief, and submitted the brief to the Supreme Court. The ASA has a tradition of contributing the consensus on social science research findings to the legal system.

Below we provide our assessment of the literature that was used to assist in the preparation of the amicus brief. The ASA Council requested a balanced review of the current social science literature on the effects of same-sex parenting on child well-being. The aim of this review was to note that the strengths and weaknesses of prior research and offer a scientific assessment of what can and cannot be concluded from the evidence. The review we present here developed through work with the legal team and has been reorganized and modified for journal publication. Since the filing of the amicus curiae brief, there have been a few new studies which are discussed in the “update” section at the end of the document. The ASA continues to submit amicus briefs in state and circuit court cases.

To date, the consensus in the social science literature is clear: in the United States, children living with two same-sex parents fare, as well as children residing with two different-sex parents. Numerous credible and methodologically sound social science studies, including many drawing on nationally representative data, form the basis of this consensus. These studies reveal that children raised in same-sex parent families fare just, as well as children raised in different-sex parent families across a wide spectrum of child well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse.

This assessment of the literature is based on the social science research on child well-being in same-sex parent families over the last decade (published work since 2002). This time restriction focuses on children’s most recent family experiences. The review is limited to studies based on U.S. respondents and includes over 40 published original studies in reports, book chapters, and journal articles. There have been many recent reviews of the literature (e.g., Biblarz and Stacey 2010a , b ; Biblarz and Savci 2010 ; Bos et al. 2005 ; Marks 2012 ; Meezan and Rauch 2005 ), but few have been recent enough to include all of the latest literature. Taken together, the studies included in this review represent a collection of extensive research and indicate that children under the age of 18 raised by same-sex parents fare, as well as their counterparts in different-sex families. The gold standard for much research on American families is the use of nationally representative data ( Russell and Muraco 2013 ). Yet, as discussed below there are many valid reasons why nationally representative data may not be available to study same-sex parent families. We discuss the handful of recent studies reporting that children fare worse on any measure of child well-being ( Allen et al. 2013 ; Goldberg et al. 2011 ; Gartrell et al. 2011; Regnerus 2012a , b ), and each has shortcomings making broad generalizations impossible.

Data Sources

Table 1 provides a list of the studies used in the review of the literature (as well as the update), and are organized alphabetically. We denote whether the studies are based on nationally representative data or convenience samples; the number of children in same-sex parent families; the age range of children; and type of same-sex parent family. The four nationally representative data sets include the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), New Family Structures Study (NFSS), and U.S. Census data. Each data source reflects family experiences across a unique time period. For example, the ECLS-K is a cohort designed to represent the experiences of children who were in kindergarten and first grade in 1999 and 2000 and mid-adolescents in 2010. The Add Health references the experiences of teenagers (12–18) during the mid-1990s. The Census presents the living circumstances of school-age children in 2000. The NFSS is not specific to an age group or time frame, and it is challenging to assess a broad spectrum of ages and time periods. New data collections that reflect the current social, legal, and political environments are merited.

Description of studies on child well-being in same-sex parent families and data used

Convenience or snowball samples are more common in the literature, and the most widely used data source is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS). The NLLFS is based on interviews with donor-inseminated lesbian mothers five times from insemination or pregnancy to the child’s 17th birthday (e.g., Gartell and Bos 2010; Goldberg et al. 2011 ; van Gelderen et al. 2012a ) and since 2002, 15 studies used these data. This recruitment strategy is considered acceptable given that few national surveys are large enough to include many children raised by same-sex parents. Relying on convenience samples means that the same-sex parents within these studies are not representative of all same-sex parents and represent only those who were targeted and agreed to participate, perhaps selective of the most highly functioning families. Yet, this approach does provide key insights into a group that is challenging to capture in large-scale surveys. At times, the findings from this sample are contrasted to results from a national sample of adolescents in the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) (Gartrell et al. 2012).

As shown in Table 1 , the studies focusing on child well-being are based on a wide range of sample sizes. The sample sizes of same-sex parent families range from 14 ( Welsh 2011 ) to 3,502 ( Rosenfeld 2010 ) with studies including a median of 78 respondents and seven consisting of more than 100 children from same-sex parent families. The range of sample sizes often rests on the methodological approach. Small sample sizes in quantitative surveys can be problematic because they may prevent distinguishing between key sources of variation that differentiate same-sex parent families, such as gender of parent, biological relationship of children to parents, and the time a child has spent in a particular family. Another issue with small sample sizes is statistical inferences may be challenging or harder to detect and may be biased. These issues are recognized by authors, and they at times speak to the range of effect sizes that are detectable with their approach. At the same time, smaller sample sizes in qualitative or observational data, as well as targeted surveys provide an in-depth assessment of specific family experiences that are unavailable in large-scale surveys.

The majority of these studies are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Longitudinal data collections permit temporal alignment of family experiences and child outcome indicators. An advantage of longitudinal data is that causal inferences regarding how family circumstances shape child well-being can be established. However, longitudinal studies may suffer from issues of attrition and typically reference a specific cohort of respondents. A cross-sectional approach provides a snapshot lens on families and may include retrospective reports of children’s living arrangements provided by parents or child respondents. Most cross-sectional work relies on measurement of current family structure and current indicators of well-being (e.g., Averett, Nalavany and Ryan 2009 ; Erich et al. 2005 ; Farr et al. 2010 ; Rosenfeld 2010 ), and a few studies retrospectively determine family structure and well-being based on recall of childhood experiences (e.g., Goldberg 2007a ; Joos and Broad 2007 ; Regnerus 2012b ). Two key exceptions are analyses using the ECLS-K and the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Survey (NLLFS) which are both longitudinal panel surveys. As shown in Table 1 a wide variety of data collection strategies has been employed to study child well-being in same-sex parent families.

Academic Performance and Cognitive Development

The academic performance of children raised by same-sex parents is similar to that of children raised by different-sex parents. Most of the nationally representative studies have examined educational outcomes, such as grade retention, math and reading scores, academic achievement, grade point average, trouble in school, educational attainment, and school connectedness. Rosenfeld (2010) relies on Census data to focus on grade retention among children living in stable same-sex and different-sex families. He finds that overall grade retention of children is highest in different-sex married parent families and lower among same-sex couples, separated or divorced parents, cohabiting parents, or never-married parents. Yet, the differences are due to parental socioeconomic status and not due to relationship type. 1 Allen et al. (2013) report similar findings when comparing children of residentially stable same-sex parents with children of stable different-sex married parents. Research regarding grade retention utilizing Census data must limit their analyses to residentially stable families because retrospective family histories are not collected, making it impossible to assess family composition when the child was held back in school. Thus, the Allen et al. (2013) findings which show family type distinctions in grade retention among children in residentially unstable families are not conclusive.

Fedewa and Clark (2009) use the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) and report no significant differences in terms of academic achievement for first grade children based on family living arrangements in kindergarten. Additionally, assessments of math and reading achievement scores in the ECLS-K data are similar among children (through 8th grade) in same-sex parent families and divorced, stepparent, single parent, cohabiting, and widowed families ( Potter 2012 ). Children who experienced same-sex parent families initially score lower in reading and math scores than children from two biological married families. However, accounting for sociodemographic indicators explains the reading gap in same-sex and different-sex married parent families, and the association between family structure and math achievement is no longer statistically significant with the inclusion of number of family transitions ( Potter 2012 ).

A similar set of results is observed among older children. Among adolescents in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), Wainright et al. (2004) find similar patterns of GPA scores and troubles in school among those living in female, same-sex couple and different-sex couple families. The scores of school connectedness or social integration are initially significantly greater in female same-sex couple families, but again this difference is explained by the parental socioeconomic status.

Additionally, research based on small scale samples indicates similar cognitive development ( Lavner, Waterman and Peplau 2012 ) among children raised in same-sex and different-sex families. Evidence from the series of Gartrell and colleagues papers using the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) indicates similar educational outcomes among children who lived with same-sex lesbian parents compared with an age-matched representative sample of children ( Gartrell and Bos 2010 ; Gartrell et al. 2005 , 2011, 2012, 2012). A larger scale purposive sample of parents and children from same-sex parents ( Kosciw and Diaz 2008 ) indicates that gay and lesbian parents and children score at least as well on numerous indicators of educational achievement and involvement as parents and children reported in national studies.

Social Development

The social development of children raised by same-sex parents is similar to that of children raised by different-sex parents. Fedewa and Clark (2012) rely on the ECLS-K data and report no significant differences in first grade social adjustment based on whether they were living with different-sex or same-sex parents in kindergarten. Evidence about adolescent social well-being rests on the Wainright and colleagues studies using Add Health data and Gartrell and colleagues work using the NLLFS. Wainwright and Patterson (2008) find that the number, support, and quality of peer relationships are similar for teens living in female, same-sex couple families, and those living with different-sex parents. The one family type distinction found in female friend support was no longer statistically significant with the inclusion of sociodemographic indicators. Research based on the NLLFS indicates that adolescents of same-sex parents experienced fewer social problems than a nationally representative age-matched sample of American youths ( Gartrell and Bos 2010 ).

Psychological Well-Being

In terms of psychological well-being, findings from nationally representative data indicate that adolescents in female, same-sex and different-sex couple families report similar scores on depressive symptoms and self-esteem ( Wainright et al. 2004 ). The presence of higher levels of anxiety found among children in female, same-sex couples no longer exist once parental sociodemographic indicators were accounted for ( Wainright et al. 2004 ). The NLLFS shows that child scores on ADD/ADHD, anxiety, and depression were similar to the levels reported among similar aged teenagers ( Gartrell and Bos 2010 ; Gartrell et al. 2012). Further contrasts between the NLLFS respondents and a matched sample with heterosexual parents indicate similar scores on positive aspects of psychological adjustment ( van Gelderen et al. 2012b ). Other research utilizing smaller convenience samples replicated the above findings using the different versions of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Behavioral Emotional Rating Scale (BERS). Across these studies, children’s scores on measures of internalizing behavioral adjustments did not differ by family type ( Erich et al. 2005 ; Farr et al. 2010 ; Farr and Patterson 2009 ; Fulcher et al. 2006 ; Lavner et al. 2012 ; Leung et al. 2005 ; Ryan 2007 ; Tan and Baggerly 2009 ).

Sexual Activity

Based on evidence from nationally representative data, similar proportions of teenagers from female, same-sex couple and different-sex couple families have had a romantic relationship and sexual intercourse ( Patterson and Wainright 2012 ). In fact, sexual behaviors reported by 17 year olds in the NLLFS indicate that their age at first sex was older than those in a gender and age-matched national sample (National Sample of Family Growth or NSFG) (Gartrell et al. 2012). The odds of having a STI or getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant were statistically similar among adolescents in the NLLFS and national samples (Gartrell et al. 2012). Yet, at the bivariate level (no controls for socioeconomic status) contraceptive use is lower in same-sex parent families than reported by adolescents in the NSFG (Gartrell et al. 2011). In addition, none of the respondents in the NLLFS experienced physical or sexual abuse by a parent or caregiver (Gartrell et al. 2011). While the Regnerus ( 2012a , b ) studies include a measure of any childhood sexual victimization, there is no way to link this experience to the time spent in any particular family structure. In fact, Regnerus (2012b) , states “As noted in the original study text, the NFSS data is insufficiently capable of discerning much information about the context surrounding respondents’ sexual victimization. No simplistic conclusions about it ought to be discerned from the analyses.” (p. 1376).

Problem Behaviors

Wainright and Patterson (2006) find that in a nationally representative sample, adolescents living with female, same-sex parents fare similarly to their counterparts raised in different-sex parent families in terms of frequency of substance use (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana), problems with substance use, and delinquent behavior. Drawing on the NLLFS, Goldberg et al. (2011) reports that at the bivariate level, adolescents from same-sex parent families have higher levels of occasional substance use, but similar levels of heavy substance use compared with children in the Monitoring the Future Data set. Furthermore, the NLLFS respondents report similar levels of problem behaviors, rule-breaking behavior, and aggressive behavior as age-matched respondents from the National Study of Family Growth (NSFG) ( Gartrell and Bos 2010 ). Additional convenience samples indicate related findings; children in same-sex and different-sex parent families performed similarly on various externalizing behavioral indicators of child development contained in the CBCL ( Erich et al. 2005 ; Farr et al. 2010 ; Farr and Patterson 2009 ; Fulcher et al. 2006 ; Lavner et al. 2012 ; Leung et al. 2005 ; Tan and Baggerly 2009 ) and Behavioral Emotional Rating Scale ( Ryan 2007 ).

Differentials in Child Well-Being in Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Families

Even though a handful of studies does indicate that children fare worse on a few measures of child well-being ( Allen et al. 2013 ; Goldberg et al. 2011 ; Gartrell et al. 2011; Regnerus 2012a , b ), the majority of literature finds no differences between those raised in same-sex and different-sex parent families. Research conducted by Regnerus ( 2012a , b ) stands apart because it has been widely brought forth as evidence that children in same-sex parent families do not fare, as well as children in different-sex families. This is surprising because Regnerus (2012a) himself states thatthe New Family Structures Study (NFSS)—“is poised to address [questions] about the lives of young adults between the ages of 18 and 39, but not about children or adolescents.” (p. 755).

Rosenfeld (2010) and Allen et al. (2013) both report that children in residentially stable families with same-sex and different-sex parents have similar grade progression in school. By introducing residentially unstable households into analyses, Allen et al. (2013) find differentials in school retention for children in same-sex and different-sex parent families. This approach generates substantial bias because the living arrangements of when the child was held back in school cannot be established. As noted by Rosenfeld (2013) , children come into same-sex parent families from a variety of situations, including orphanages, foster families, and divorced or separated heterosexual families. Thus, children living with same-sex couple parents may start out with educational disadvantages that accrued before they came to be raised by same-sex couples.

Goldberg et al. (2011) report that children from same-sex parent families have higher levels of occasional substance use, but similar levels of heavy substance use than children in the Monitoring the Future data. The Gartrell et al. (2011) study finds lower levels of having ever used contraception among children in same-sex parent families than the results based on nationally representative data (NSFG). However, both of these studies do not account for socioeconomic circumstances, which may explain the family type differences.

Although the data used for the research performed by Regnerus ( 2012a , b ) are based on nationally representative data, the results from these studies are suspect. The data possess critical flaws in the basic measurement of family structure and assessments of child outcomes. As quoted above Regnerus (2012a) himself claims these data are not to be used to assess the well-being of children or adolescents.

The most fundamental shortcoming of this study is that it does not examine children of parents raised in same-sex parent families. The measurement of family structure in the Regnerus studies does not follow traditional conventions used in the literature on family structure and child well-being. Unlike any other study, the same-sex family indicator is based on adult children’s recollection of their parents’ sexual experiences and orientation with questions regarding the gender composition of parental romantic relationships ( Regnerus 2012a ). 2 This strategy presumes that adult children have accurate recall and knowledge of their parent’s sexual partnerships and to our knowledge has not been used in prior work on family structure and child well-being.

Second, even though most research on family structure is typically based on the child’s residence, the initial study ( Regnerus 2012a ) did not measure whether the respondent had lived with the parent who at some point had a same-sex sexual partner. Thus, adults were categorized as being raised by a same-sex parent regardless of whether they had ever even lived with this parent and his or her romantic partner. Responding to this shortcoming, Regnerus, in the follow-up paper ( Regnerus 2012b ), included a family category based on whether the respondent had spent time living with a mother who had a same-sex sexual partner. There were 85 respondents in this category of adults who had spent some of their childhood with their mother and her same-sex partner.

However, the core contrast group was children raised by completely stable (intact at time of interview for 18–39 year olds) different-sex parent familes. In other words, he removed all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the different-sex groups, leaving only stable, different-sex parent families as the comparison group. This is an unusual strategy because it requires family stability even beyond childhood. While the data are available, this work does not account for the duration of time spent in same-sex mother families or any other type of family. Typically, stability would be a factor in the analytic models which most likely would explain much of the observed differences between these conceptualized family types. Indeed, only 2 of the 85 children who Regnerus categorized as living within a same-sex parent family spent their entire childhood in a same-sex parent family, and none of the parents were legally permitted to marry when the child was born. Thus, the analyses are comparing quite different experiences: adult children who reported living their entire childhood and adulthood while living at home in stable, married, different-sex, two parent families to adult children who spent some portion of their childhood living in unstable, unmarried, same-sex, and two parent families.

Third, the Regnerus studies include retrospective indicators of childhood experiences that do not account for when these experiences occurred or if they lived with their parent’s same-sex partner at the time. The recorded experiences included one behavioral retrospective indicator of well-being during childhood, sexual contact by an adult, and two indicators of perceptions (family safety or security and negative impact of the family). This use of retrospective measures reporting perceptions is not typically used in social science research on child well-being. In this case, asking about prior behavioral outcomes or childhood perceptions makes it impossible to determine whether these outcomes occurred during the time they lived with their mother’s same-sex partner or during another childhood family experience. Given that Regnerus (2012b) reports that very few of the respondents lived in with their mother and her same-sex partner from birth to age 18, most of the respondents who lived with their mother and her same-sex partner are referencing experiences that occurred outside of the same-sex parent family experience. Thus, these data cannot be used to determine whether these occurred, while living in a same-sex parent family. Further, the range of recall is potentially long with a 20 year time window for 35 year olds reflecting on his or her mid-adolescent family experiences and a 10 year time window for 25 year olds.

While this study has been put forth to weigh in on the well-being of children today in the United States, it does not reflect the contemporary experiences of children. The wide age range of the NFSS makes it challenging to generalize to any age group or time period. For example, the NFSS reflects the experiences of five year olds from roughly 1976 to 1998 or the experiences of 16 year olds from 1998 to 2009. As a result, this study does not reflect the current social, legal, or political environment.

Taken together, the studies conducted by Regnerus do not provide empirical evidence regarding the effects of being raised in a same-sex parent family and their influences on child well-being. Assessments of child well-being in same-sex parent families cannot be made using these data because of the flawed measurement of core family measures as well as outcome indicators. Regnerus (2012a) himself confirms this statement and clearly states that “I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent.” (p. 766).

Next Steps in the Study of Same-Sex Parent Families

The field of research on child well-being in same-sex and different-sex parent families is expanding with significant advances. There are exciting avenues to be addressed in future research that we have identified and have been discussed in other reviews of the field. Even though there are new directions of research to pursue, there remains a clear consensus in the literature on child well-being.

Identifying same-sex parent families presents several challenges ( Gates Gates and Newport 2012 ; National Center for Family & Marriage Research 2011 ). Most large-scale, nationally representative surveys often do not include questions regarding a parent’s sexual orientation identity, attraction, and behavior, but rely on the gender composition of household members ( IOM 2011 ). For example, assessments of trends in same-sex parent families often rest on analyses of Census data that permit identification of same-sex parents who are living in couple households. In other words, the child is living with two parents who are of the same sex and report living with an “unmarried partner” or spouse. While the strategy of relying on household rosters moves forward our understanding of patterns and trends on a large scale in Census data, it leaves out children currently being raised by single lesbian or gay parents. In other words, current counts of same-sex parent families which rely on couple-based indicators exclude parents who identify themselves as gay or lesbian who are single. Further, the gender composition of the household focuses on children under age, the age of 18 who are living with their parents at the time of interview and exclude parents of older children or those who are nonresidential. In addition, there is variability in awareness of their parents’ sexual orientation which may be consequential in assessments of same-sex parent family life and child well-being ( Goldberg 2007b ).

Our understanding of same-sex parent families rests largely on the experiences in lesbian mother families. Much of the research on child outcomes in same-sex parent families focuses on lesbian mother families compared to gay father families (exceptions, Patterson and Tornello 2010 ; Tornello et al. 2011 ). Specific assessments about the family life of bisexual parents are typically ignored in the literature (exceptions, Kosciw and Diaz 2008 ; Goldberg 2007a , b ; Joos and Broad 2007 ).

An issue plaguing all research on family structure and child well-being is the selection of the comparison group. Much prior work compares child well-being in intact, two biological, married parent families versus other family experiences. Yet, fewer than half of the children in the United States will experience a stable, two biological, married parent family ( Kreider and Ellis 2011 ). This contrast is particularly problematic among same-sex parents who until recently did not have the option to legally marry. As same-sex parents have new opportunities to enter marital unions, it will be important to consider parental marital status. In fact, two same-sex parents may be more akin to two different-sex parents cohabiting than married families. Indeed, perhaps the appropriate contrast family type should be two parent different-sex biological parent families or two parent different-sex stepparent families. Because same-sex parent families can at the most have one biological parent, comparisons to step families may be most prudent. Further, contrasts between adopted children of same-sex and different-sex parent families may provide insights by accounting for the adoption status of the child.

Typically research on family structure accounts for family resources and stability; and prior literature regarding children in different-sex parent families indicates that parental union status and stability are associated with child well-being ( Brown 2010 ). Stable same-sex parent families may confer more benefits for child well-being than unstable same-sex parent families. It is important for research on child well-being to account for the duration or stability of family life. Developmental perspectives suggest that a child’s age when family change is experienced is associated with child well-being. New studies of same-sex parent families should acknowledge the timing of same-sex family formation or dissolution. Further, differences in child well-being according to family type that may be initially observed are typically explained with the inclusion of sociodemographic indicators. Parental resources are critical to child development and are important to include in studies of child well-being. Thus, careful attention to socioeconomic characteristics is important in future research.

Finally, there are a variety of pathways to parenthood for same-sex parent families including the following: traditional biological parenthood, reproductive technologies, adoption, and foster care, as well as parenting partner’s children ( Biblarz and Savci 2010 ; Gates 2011 ). Appearing to have implications for a child’s socioeconomic advantage, the pathways to parenthood may influence child well-being ( Chan et al. 1998 ; Gates 2011 ). Those children with experience in the foster care system and who are adopted may come to same-sex parent families with more disadvantaged backgrounds than children living in other types of families. Acknowledging these diverse pathways to parenthood is a key avenue for future work on child well-being.

Since the preparation of the amicus curiae brief for the ASA, there have been several newly published U.S. based child well-being studies ( Farr and Patterson 2013 ; Goldberg and Smith 2013 ) and reviews ( Baumle 2013 ; Biblarz et al. 2014 ; Moore and Stambolis-Ruhstorfer 2013 ; Perrin et al. 2013 ) as well a new article showcasing the characteristics of lesbian mothers (Brewster et al. forthcoming). Moore and Stambolis-Ruhstorfer (2013) provide a thoughtful and comprehensive review of the sociological literature on LBGT sexuality, families and its intersection with race and ethnicity. Their review of the evidence accords with our assessment of the field. Further, Perrin et al. (2013) provide a detailed critique to the Regnerus studies. The Biblarz et al. (2014) review provides an insightful perspective and accords well with our assessment of the literature. They point out that comparisons of different-sex and same-sex parent families are challenging because same-sex parent families do not uniformly benefit from the same legal and societal protections as different-sex parent families. In addition, Biblarz et al. (2014) articulate issues of selection based in part on which same-sex couples can become parents. A new empirical paper by Brewster and colleagues document the many dimensions and pathways to motherhood that lesbian mothers take using national representative data (NSFG). These pathways to motherhood may have implications for the well-being of children in same-sex parent families. Compton (2013) reports on the successes and challenges in the application of demographic data to measure and study same-sex parent families. Additional chapters in the Buamle (2013) edited volume, International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality, provide excellent analysis of a range of topics including measurement of same-sex couples, same-sex identity, as well as stability of same-sex couples. In terms of new research on child well-being, Goldberg and Smith (2013) examine 120 families who have adopted children younger than 18 months old. Utilizing longitudinal data they report that adopted children fare as well in terms of externalizing and internalizing behaviors across male same-sex, female same-sex, and different-sex families. The Farr and Patterson (2013) study focuses on parenting processes and the relationship with child well-being in adopted male same-sex, female same-sex, and different-sex families. The authors conclude that parenting processes may differ across family types, but key factors, such as co-parenting, operate in a similar fashion according to family type.

This review outlines the findings and critiques of the literature on child well-being in same-sex parent families. The literature includes many studies, over forty in the last ten years, employing a wide spectrum of approaches. No singular research strategy represents a perfect assessment of child outcomes of same-sex parent families, with each study possessing several strengths and weaknesses. To date the consensus in the recent social science literature is clear: children living with two same-sex parents fare just as well as children residing with two different-sex parents. All researches on American families are recognizing an evolving range of childhood family experiences. The authors of studies and reviews on same-sex parent families agree that this is an important family context within the American landscape and further research on the well-being of children who live with same-sex parents is warranted. We need to continue to pursue multiple methodological strategies to best understand child well-being. One promising strategy is for new data collections to include over samples of LBGT respondents to ensure large samples of children raised in same-sex parent families. It is important that data collections keep pace with the full range of experiences of children in American families.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050959). Additional support was provided by the American Sociological Assosication.

1 Rosenfeld (2010) further reports similar findings are observed when drawing similar sized samples of different-sex couples as well as employing propensity score matching.

2 Regnerus (2012a) : “From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?” Response choices were “Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman,” “Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man,” or “no.” (Respondents were also able to select both of the first two choices.) If they selected either of the first two, they were asked about whether they had ever lived with that parent while they were in a same-sex romantic relationship.”

• Allen DW, Pakaluk C, Price J. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school: A comment on Rosenfeld. Demography. 2013; 50 :1–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Averett P, Nalavany B, Ryan S. An evaluation of gay/lesbian and heterosexual adoption. Adoption Quarterly. 2009; 12 (3-4):129–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumle AK, editor. International handbook on the demography of sexuality. Vol. 5. Springer; Dordrecht: 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz TJ, Carroll M, Burke N. Same-sex families. In: Treas J, J Scott, Richards M, editors. The wiley-blackwell companion to the sociology of families. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken: 2014. pp. 109–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz TJ, Savci E. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 (3):480–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz TJ, Stacey J. How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010a; 72 (1):3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz TJ, Stacey J. Ideal families and social science ideals. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010b; 72 (1):41–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bos H, Gartrell N. Adolescents of the USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Can family characteristics counteract the negative effects of stigmatization? Family Process. 2010; 49 (4):559–572. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bos HW, Gartrell NK. Adolescents of the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: The impact of having a known or an unknown donor on the stability of psychological adjustment. Human Reproduction. 2011; 26 (3):630–637. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bos HW, Gartrell NK, Peyser H, van Balen F. The USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS): Homophobia, psychological adjustment, and protective factors. Journal of Lesbian Studies. 2008a; 12 (4):455–471. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bos HW, Gartrell NK, van Balen F, Peyser HH, Sandfort TM. Children in planned lesbian families: A cross-cultural comparison between the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2008b; 78 (2):211–219. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bos H, Goldberg N, Van Gelderen L, Gartrell N. Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Male role models, gender role traits, and psychological adjustment. Gender & Society. 2012; 26 (4):603–638. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bos HM, van Balen F, van den Boom D. Lesbian families and family functioning: An overview. Patient Education and Counseling. 2005; 59 (3):263–275. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewster KL, Tillman KH, Jokinen-Gordon H. Demographic Characteristics of Lesbian Parents in the United States. Population Research and Policy Review. forthcoming. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brief for the American Sociological Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents. Perry Kristin M., Windsor Respondent Edith Schlain, Hollingsworth Dennis, Perry Kristin M., et al. 133 S.Ct. 2652 (2013) (no. 12-144) United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in her capacity as executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al. and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of The United States House of Representatives, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013) (no. 12-307), 2013 WL 840004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown SL. Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 (5):1059–1077. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan RW, Brooks RC, Raboy B, Patterson CJ. Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: Associations with children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology. 1998; 12 :402–419. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DR. The family and gay men and lesbians. In: Baumle AK, editor. International handbook on the demography of sexuality. Vol. 5. Springer; Dordrecht: 2013. pp. 257–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erich S, Leung P, Kindle P. A comparative analysis of adoptive family functioning with gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parents and their children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2005; 1 (4):43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farr RH, Forssell SL, Patterson CJ. Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science. 2010; 14 (3):164–178. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farr RH, Patterson CJ. Transracial adoption by lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Who completes transracial adoptions and with what results? Adoption Quarterly. 2009; 12 (3-4):187–204. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farr RH, Patterson CJ. Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development. 2013; 84 (4):1226–1240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fedewa AL, Clark TP. Parent practices and home-school partnerships: A differential effect for children with same-sex coupled parents? Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2009; 5 (4):312–339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulcher M, Chan RW, Raboy B, Patterson CJ. Contact with grandparents among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Parenting: Science & Practice. 2002; 2 (1):61–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulcher M, Sutfin EL, Chan RW, Scheib JE, Patterson CJ. Lesbian mothers and their children: Findings from the contemporary families study. In: Omoto AM, Kurtzman HS, editors. Sexual orientation and mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. American Psychological Association; Washington: 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulcher M, Sutfin EL, Patterson CJ. Individual differences in gender development: Associations with parental sexual orientation, attitudes, and division of labor. Sex Roles. 2008; 58 (5-6):330–341. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gartrell N, Bos H. US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics. 2010; 126 (1):28–36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gartrell N, Bos H, Goldberg N. Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual risk exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2011a; 40 (6):1199–1209. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gartrell N, Bos H, Goldberg N. New trends in same-sex sexual contact for American adolescents? Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2012a; 41 (1):5–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gartrell N, Bos H, Peyser H, Deck A, Rodas C. Family characteristics, custody arrangements, and adolescent psychological well-being after lesbian mothers break up. Family Relations. 2011b; 60 (5):572–585. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gartrell N, Bos HW, Peyser H, Deck A, Rodas C. Adolescents with lesbian mothers describe their own lives. Journal of Homosexuality. 2012b; 59 (9):1211–1229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gartrell N, Rodas C, Deck A, Peyser H, Banks A. The National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2005; 75 (4):518–524. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. Family formation and raising children among same-sex couples. Family Focus On LGBT Families F1. The William’s Institute; 2011. Retrieved November 30 th , 2012 http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Badgett-NCFR-LGBT-Families-December-2011.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates G, Newport F. Special Report: 3.4 % of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT. 2012 Retrieved January 1st, 2013 http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx .
• Goldberg AE. (How) does it make a difference? Perspectives of adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2007a; 77 (4):550–562. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE. Talking about family: Disclosure practices of adults raised by lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. Journal of Family Issues. 2007b; 28 (1):100–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg NG, Bos HW, Gartrell NK. Substance use by adolescents of the USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. Journal of Health Psychology. 2011; 16 (8):1231–1240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE, Kashy DA, Smith JZ. Gender-typed play behavior in early childhood: Adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles. 2012; 67 (9-10):503–515. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE, Smith JZ. Predictors of psychological adjustment in early placed adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Journal of Family Psychology. 2013; 27 (3):431–442. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE, Moyer AM, Kinkler LA. Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents’ perceptions of parental bonding during early parenthood. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice. 2013; 2 (2):146–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• (IOM) Institute of Medicine. (US) Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities . The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: building a foundation for better understanding. National Academies Press. Board on the Health of Select Populations, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; Washington, DC: 2011. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joos KE, Broad KL. Coming out of the family closet: Stories of adult women with LGBTQ parent (s) Qualitative Sociology. 2007; 30 (3):275–295. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosciw JG, Diaz EM. Involved, invisible, ignored: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents and their children in our nation’s K-12 schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; New York: [Accessed 21 Jan 2014]. 2008. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/001/1104-1.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreider RM, Ellis R. Living arrangements of children: 2009 (Current Population Reports, P70-126) US Census Bureau; Washington, DC: 2011. Retrieved January 10, 2013 www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-126.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Lavner JA, Waterman J, Peplau L. Can gay and lesbian parents promote healthy development in high-risk children adopted from foster care? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2012; 82 (4):465–472. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leung P, Erich S, Kanenberg H. A comparison of family functioning in gay/lesbian, heterosexual and special needs adoption. Children and Youth Services Review. 2005; 27 :1031–1044. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lick DJ, Patterson CJ, Schmidt KM. Recalled social experiences and current psychological adjustment among adults reared by gay and lesbian parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2013; 9 (3):230–253. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks L. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research. 2012; 41 (4):735–751. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meezan W, Rauch J. Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America’s children. The Future of Children. 2005; 15 (2):97–113. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore MR, Stambolis-Ruhstorfer M. LGBT sexuality and families at the start of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology. 2013; 39 :491–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Family & Marriage Research Counting Couples, Counting Families Full Report; Presented at National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland. Jul 19-20, 2011. Retrieved January 8, 2013. http://www.ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/Counting%20Couples/file115721.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ, Tornello SL. Gay fathers’ pathways to parenthood: International Perspectives. Journal of Family Research. 2010; 22 :103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ, Wainright JL, Pertman Adam. Adolescents with same-sex parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. In: Brodzinsky David M., editor. Adoption by lesbians and gay men: A new dimension in family diversity. Oxford University Press; New York: 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perrin AJ, Cohen PN, Caren N. Are children of parents who had same-sex relationships disadvantaged? A scientific evaluation of the no-differences hypothesis. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health. 2013; 17 (3):327–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Potter D. Same-sex parent families and children’s academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 (3):556–571. [ Google Scholar ]
• Regnerus M. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the new family structures study. Social Science Research. 2012a; 41 (4):752–770. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Regnerus M. Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses. Social Science Research. 2012b; 41 (6):1367–1377. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld MJ. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography. 2010; 47 (3):755–775. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld MJ, et al. Reply to Allen. Demography. 2013; 50 (3):963–969. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, Muraco JA. The use of representative data sets to study LGBT-parent families: Challenges, advantages, and opportunities. In: Goldberg AE, Allen KR, editors. LGBT-parent families. Springer; New York: 2013. pp. 343–356. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan S. Parent-child interaction styles between gay and lesbian parents and their adopted children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2007; 3 (2-3):105–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutfin EL, Fulcher M, Bowles RP, Patterson CJ. How lesbian and heterosexual parents convey attitudes about gender to their children: The role of gendered environments. Sex Roles. 2008; 58 (7-8):501–513. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan TX, Baggerly J. Behavioral adjustment of adopted Chinese girls in single-mother, lesbian-couple, and heterosexual-couple households. Adoption Quarterly. 2009; 12 :171–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tornello SL, Farr RH, Patterson CJ. Predictors of parenting stress among gay adoptive fathers in the United States. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011; 25 (4):591. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Gelderen L, Gartrell N, Bos HW, van Rooij FB, Hermanns JA. Stigmatization associated with growing up in a lesbian-parented family: What do adolescents experience and how do they deal with it? Children and Youth Services Review. 2012a; 34 (5):999–1006. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Gelderen L, Henny MW, Bos HW, Gartrell NK, Hermanns JA, Perrin EC. Quality of life of adolescents raised from birth by lesbian mothers: The US National longitudinal family study. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 2012b; 33 (1):1–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wainright JL, Patterson CJ. Delinquency, victimization, and substance use among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20 (3):526–530. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wainright JL, Patterson CJ. Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Developmental Psychology. 2008; 44 (1):117–126. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wainright JL, Russell ST, Patterson CJ. Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development. 2004; 75 (6):1886–1898. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsh MG. Growing up in a same sex parented family: The adolescent voice of experience. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2011; 7 :49–71. [ Google Scholar ]

Benedict backed me up on rights for LGBT couples, Pope Francis says

SAME-SEX BLESSINGS

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Reporting by Alvise Armellini, editing by Sharon Singleton

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Airline passengers in parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland faced travel disruption at airports on Saturday due to flight cancellations as a storm swept across both countries and left thousands of Irish homes with power outages.

Scientists fear that the season could be damaging given that Greece has just had its warmest winter on record, leaving much of the land warm and dry.

Government-backed Pellegrini on course to win Slovak presidential election

At stake is whether Prime Minister Robert Fico, who took power in October for the fourth time, will get an ally in the presidential palace or an opponent who could challenge his pro-Russian stance and plans to reform criminal law and the media.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

José Andrés: Let People Eat

By José Andrés

Mr. Andrés is the founder of World Central Kitchen.

In the worst conditions you can imagine — after hurricanes, earthquakes, bombs and gunfire — the best of humanity shows up. Not once or twice but always.

The seven people killed on a World Central Kitchen mission in Gaza on Monday were the best of humanity. They are not faceless or nameless. They are not generic aid workers or collateral damage in war.

Saifeddin Issam Ayad Abutaha, John Chapman, Jacob Flickinger, Zomi Frankcom, James Henderson, James Kirby and Damian Sobol risked everything for the most fundamentally human activity: to share our food with others.

These are people I served alongside in Ukraine, Turkey, Morocco, the Bahamas, Indonesia, Mexico, Gaza and Israel. They were far more than heroes.

Their work was based on the simple belief that food is a universal human right. It is not conditional on being good or bad, rich or poor, left or right. We do not ask what religion you belong to. We just ask how many meals you need.

From Day 1, we have fed Israelis as well as Palestinians. Across Israel, we have served more than 1.75 million hot meals. We have fed families displaced by Hezbollah rockets in the north. We have fed grieving families from the south. We delivered meals to the hospitals where hostages were reunited with their families. We have called consistently, repeatedly and passionately for the release of all the hostages.

All the while, we have communicated extensively with Israeli military and civilian officials. At the same time, we have worked closely with community leaders in Gaza, as well as Arab nations in the region. There is no way to bring a ship full of food to Gaza without doing so.

That’s how we served more than 43 million meals in Gaza, preparing hot food in 68 community kitchens where Palestinians are feeding Palestinians.

We know Israelis. Israelis, in their heart of hearts, know that food is not a weapon of war.

Israel is better than the way this war is being waged. It is better than blocking food and medicine to civilians. It is better than killing aid workers who had coordinated their movements with the Israel Defense Forces.

The Israeli government needs to open more land routes for food and medicine today. It needs to stop killing civilians and aid workers today. It needs to start the long journey to peace today.

In the worst conditions, after the worst terrorist attack in its history, it’s time for the best of Israel to show up. You cannot save the hostages by bombing every building in Gaza. You cannot win this war by starving an entire population.

We welcome the government’s promise of an investigation into how and why members of our World Central Kitchen family were killed. That investigation needs to start at the top, not just the bottom.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said of the Israeli killings of our team, “It happens in war.” It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by the Israel Defense Forces.

It was also the direct result of a policy that squeezed humanitarian aid to desperate levels. Our team was en route from a delivery of almost 400 tons of aid by sea — our second shipment, funded by the United Arab Emirates, supported by Cyprus and with clearance from the Israel Defense Forces.

The team members put their lives at risk precisely because this food aid is so rare and desperately needed. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification global initiative, half the population of Gaza — 1.1. million people — faces the imminent risk of famine. The team would not have made the journey if there were enough food, traveling by truck across land, to feed the people of Gaza.

The peoples of the Mediterranean and Middle East, regardless of ethnicity and religion, share a culture that values food as a powerful statement of humanity and hospitality — of our shared hope for a better tomorrow.

There’s a reason, at this special time of year, Christians make Easter eggs, Muslims eat an egg at iftar dinners and an egg sits on the Seder plate. This symbol of life and hope reborn in spring extends across religions and cultures.

I have been a stranger at Seder dinners. I have heard the ancient Passover stories about being a stranger in the land of Egypt, the commandment to remember — with a feast before you — that the children of Israel were once slaves.

It is not a sign of weakness to feed strangers; it is a sign of strength. The people of Israel need to remember, at this darkest hour, what strength truly looks like.

José Andrés is a chef and the founder of World Central Kitchen.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy . We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

9-1-1′ s Oliver Stark Reacts to Buck’s Sexual Awakening: ‘There Have Been Crumbs for Years’ (Plus, What’s Next?)

Executive editor.

• Share on Facebook
• Show more sharing options
• Submit to Reddit
• Post to Tumblr
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on WhatsApp
• Print This Page

9-1-1 celebrated its 100th episode on Thursday with a milestone moment we were beginning to think would never happen. And it was hot .

After spending the hour growing increasingly jealous of Eddie’s newfound friendship with Tommy, Buck found himself conspicuously alone with the hot helicopter pilot, at which point he realized that his complicated feelings were about much more than “friendship.” As the pieces of Buck’s scattered brain fell into place, he also determined that Eddie wasn’t the one he wanted to notice him.

“Trying to get your attention has been kind of exhausting,” Buck told Tommy, cuing up one of the most satisfyingly steamy sequences we’ve gotten from this show in a minute. The two continued to trade obtuse sentiments, their eyes darting nervously toward one another’s lips, until Tommy finally shut him up with a kiss. Boom. Fireworks. Pride Month has come early.

Though 9-1-1 showrunner Tim Minear had only formally pitched the kiss to Oliver Stark a few weeks before shooting, Stark believes that his character’s sexual awakening has been a long time coming.

“There have been crumbs for years and years,” he says to anyone who dares to act surprised by this turn of events. “If you look back, and I don’t know if it was even intentional from anybody in the moment, I think that the thread is there throughout. So coming to this moment now is really exciting and deserved and earned.”

And for those who have been waiting for this moment — even if you hoped the kiss would involve a certain single father with abs for days — Stark has a special message to share: “You were right.”

“I honestly believe that,” he says, “and I’ve probably believed for a long time that we should end up in this place. I withdrew myself a lot from social media because you would see these things [about Buck] and I would agree… but I couldn’t agree, right? It was such a fine line, because if things didn’t happen, then I’d have been quote-unquote queerbaiting. So thank you [to those fans] for sticking with the story, and I hope there’s an element of it that feels right. I also hope you continue to stay on board and enjoy the story as we tell it.”

So, what story is going to be told? Below, Stark and Minear answer that very question, along with several of TVLine’s other burning queries about this long-awaited game changer of a kiss. Grade the 100th episode in our poll below, then read on for our full interview about this milestone hour.

We’ll start with the question on everyone’s mind: Of all the men in Los Angeles, how did Tommy find himself in the unique (not to mention enviable) position of becoming Buck’s first bisexual experience?

Following the “merry-go-round of different love interests we’ve had for Buck,” Minear felt that his storyline “needed a good smack to give it some new life.” So when Tommy came back into the picture, following Lucy’s unavailability to fly into the hurricane, Minear found himself struck with the idea. (“That’s when it occurred to me!”) From there, the idea evolved organically.

“I felt like the chemistry would be strong between Buck and Tommy,” Minear says. “Lou hasn’t been in a ton of the show. He was part of the boys club that persecuted Hen and Chimney at first. But I would watch those brief scenes with Lou, and that smile would happen, and I’d think, ‘This guy’s got a lot of charisma.’ I really felt like, if he was comfortable doing this story, I should reach out to him.”

Minear much preferred having Buck go through this experience with someone the audience already knew, rather than having to “invent some bi character for Buck to have an awakening with.” Fortunately for Minear, when he finally got them together, “they had chemistry!”

And it isn’t lost on Minear that Buck’s dynamic with Tommy echoes the one he once had with Eddie, calling it “almost a reprise of the dynamic from [Eddie]’s first episode where Buck was super jealous of the new guy. Now he’s jealous for a different reason.”

Is Buck Bisexual?

Not that we need to get hung up on labels, but it’s a fair question to ask: How is Buck going to identify now that he kissed a boy and he liked it?

When asked if Buck considers himself bisexual, Stark says, “That’s the way I have it in my head. We’ll see flashes of how he might look to label it in the next episode, but yeah, I think that would be the correct term.”

What's Going Through Buck's Mind During That Kiss?

We know how we reacted to that kiss (spoiler alert: it involved expletives!), but what about Buck? Did he even know he wanted to kiss Tommy until it happened?

“In that moment, I don’t think he’s thinking about the kiss until it happens,” Stark says, adding that Buck really “doesn’t know what he’s feeling the entire episode. We called it jealousy or whatever, but he didn’t understand his feelings at any point. There was a storm brewing inside of him, but he didn’t know what that meant.”

Once the kiss happened, however, Stark acknowledges that there was a definite “release” on his part. “It’s this ‘…oh’ moment,” he says. “I got really emotional watching it, which I didn’t expect. I just feel really happy for Buck, because it’s this moment of clarity. He’s obviously been searching for something, and this wouldn’t have even been one of his guesses. But then it happened, and he was like, ‘Oh, that was the thing.'”

How Will Everyone React to Buck's News?

One of Minear’s favorite things about Buck’s new relationship is how it connects to Eddie and the rest of the 118.

“In the past, whenever I hooked these guys up with somebody, [their story] would be siloed off in its own universe,” he says. “It never lived organically with the other characters. This story affects Buck’s relationship with Maddie, it affects his relationship with Eddie, and it opens up opportunities for conversations about deep feelings and vulnerabilities.”

But the question remains: How will the people in Buck’s life react to his discovery?

“Some people will be surprised and some of them will not be so surprised,” Stark says with a laugh. “There will also definitely be a couple of instances of ‘It’s about time!'”

What's Next for Buck and Tommy?

Not that we expected 9-1-1 to suddenly sweep Buck’s sexuality under the rug, but Stark assures us that his character’s journey of self-exploration will remain a key focus of the season.

“This story is not going away,” Stark says. “It leads directly into Episode 5, and I’m excited to delve into it further. I think the most honest way to tell the story of a man in his thirties discovering this for the first time is for him to ask: ‘What does this mean for myself? Have I been living a lie? Who am I?’ I’m excited for Episode 5, because we get to look into that a little bit more.”

Episode 5 will find Tommy and Buck grabbing those drinks they talked about this week, but we’d be lying if we said we aren’t worried about what their big night has in store: “You get to see their first date,” Minear says. “And you get to see how that goes a little… aground.”

Cancel reply

251 comments.

Email * Your email address will not be published. We will notify you when someone replies.

ZOMG! The Buddie shippers will be SCREAMING! And this time, I’LL SCREAM WITH THEM!

yeah I reacted with expletives too, I had a feeling that something was going to happen with the way the camera was angled

plus most people don’t stand that close like that unless they’re telling a secret

Yeah, they were definitely telegraphing with that angle.

I won’t watch anymore episodes of 9-1-1 until Tommy Kinard is GONE! I don’t understand this and do not misunderstand me because this is not about Buck being bisexual. It’s about the show because they have been telling a different story with Eddie and Buck for years. If all they wanted him to do was hook up with a dude, they should have did it with Connor last season.

Because it’s pretty obvious that they want to do more than just “hook him up with a dude.” Why can’t people just wait and see how the story progresses? It’s only been one episode.

I don’t and won’t wait for anything. It’s been 6 years and Tommy is just as bad as Taylor and all the other women Buck’s dated. It’s just a matter of time before Tommy leaves Buck just like they did and he’ll be back to square one. So have fun watching the train wreck and tragedy because everyone has seen this story before, four times actually and the only difference is it’s with a man this time.

Did it ever occur to you this relationship is just there to be a stepping stone to what you say you want? Because that’s very likely.

Buck’s already had plenty of stepping stones, therefore this one should have been different. He’s still making the same mistakes but it appears some only care about him being with a dude. I don’t care if he’s not going to end up with Eddie but Jeez Louise, is Buck ever going to learn when someone is BAD for him? Tommy’s a user and he told Buck that to his face but like always Buck “Low Self Esteem” Buckley is still trying to impress people and hoping someone will make him happy when he hasn’t done anything to work in himself. He hasn’t learned anything.

Yes! That’s what I said!

Thank you Andy. You get it.

Damn how old are you? It’s a procedural. Like sure nowadays they get to the ships quickly, within the first 4-5 seasons but for a long time you’d have been lucky to get even a hint of a confirmation before the 6th-8th season. And that was for het ships. It’s a pretty normal length so far

First of all my age has nothing to do with this so it’s interesting that’s your initial knee jerk response. I’m an adult who’s been watching Buddie for years and who’s seen all the bread crumbs of their relationship and along with the hints about Buck being bi and Eddie being gay. However, one of the issues with shipping characters is, shows take years for some ships to go canon but mere weeks for others and that doesn’t make any sense. If either Buck or Eddie was a woman, they would have been together during their second meeting like Buck and Taylor were or literally any other hetero pairing. Taking 6 or 7 seasons to make a ship canon is ridiculous and that goes for all ships including Elliott and Olivia on SVU. It’s been 25 years and they’re still stumbling around each other but at least their situation was different since Elliott was married but his wife died almost 3 years ago and now that he wants to be with Liv, she’s stalling but she’s also ready to date 🧐 make it make sense. The issue is, at least in my opinion, shows stall out ships to keep viewers watching but with shows being canceled without warning only to be replaced with reality shows, none of them should be taking years to make a ship canon. Wasting time and stalling them out could run the risk of the ship never happening and no one wants to wait a decade or more especially since actors/actresses leave series sometimes after the 5th, 6th or 7th season. 9-1-1 has been lucky they’ve only lost 3 main characters over 7 seasons and one of them was only slated for season 1. If they had been canceled after season 6 and ABC hadn’t picked them up, then Buddie wouldn’t have ever gone canon. But now that they have another chance, there shouldn’t be anymore delays. They’ve been renewed for another season but a 9th is not guaranteed so this ship needs to sail already especially with shows biting the dust and procedural dramas becoming a thing of the past on network tv and being replaced by reality tv, game and competition shows that most don’t watch (I don’t because it’s not interesting to me but whatever floats a person’s boat to keep them entertained). Finally, for the few shows that are being greenlit for the fall of 2024, it’s unlikely most of them will make it past their first season and where will they be? Incomplete and the few that survive will be on borrowed time especially shows like 9-1-1 because it’s expensive to produce like 9-10M per episode.

The shows writing doesn’t need to revolve around your specific wants.

You’re absolutely correct but like I said, this is not the story they’ve been writing. Buck basically approached a male version of all his tragic love interests so the fallout will be the same since he still can’t tell when a person doesn’t mean him any good. Tommy basically called Buck stupid to his face but I guess you all didn’t pick up on that.

I’m sorry but you’ve said Tommy has called Buck “stupid” to his face and told Buck that Tommy is just a “user”. Where in your pea-sized brain did either of those words come out of Tommy’s mouth? If you’re a troll, which I’m just gonna assume, be a troll but don’t make up things. Tommy was trying to put some sense into Buck with the whole “Eddie can have more than one friend” and then put Buck’s mind at ease that he couldn’t replace Buck with Eddie or Christopher. No where in there or their other interactions did he say that he thought Buck was “stupid” for being jealous. Also you clearly can’t read given how they talk, in the article, about these threads being there for years so they have been going toward this story. Go outside and touch grass.

First of all you obviously didn’t look up what it means when someone says the phrase “This guy” to you. Second of all name calling is childish so maybe you’re the one who’s suffering from a peazer brain. Finally I won’t respond to any more of your replies so get lost and learn how to research script language before you assume you understand someone’s post.

I loved that show! You have now ruined it. It is no longer being watched/recorded.

You’ve clearly never paid attention, there have been LGBTQ+ characters since the show started.

And Buck wasn’t one of them, not even a little.

How can anyone say something like that about something so personal

You don’t know that. You really don’t. I came here to read all of the open and closeted homophobic and overall stupid statements. Thanks for not disappointing me.

Really? Buck always gave off vibes. I don’t think the actor played a straight guy very well, so I’m fine with him finally coming out.

Plus remember when they filmed the 911 and Lone Star 911 cross over episodes? Buck kept talking on and on to TJ, who told him (Buck) thar he was flattered, but already had a boyfriend. Buck was shocked and bewildered. He also said that he was straight, but then looked off into the distance as to digest what TJ said.

Say it louder, please. They never set Buck up for this in any previous season. They switched to ABC and had to fall in line with all the other shows on that night with gay characters. They did it just because.

Greg, I didn’t see your response until after I responded to Ken but see my response to him because you too are also incorrect!

Sorry Ken but you’re incorrect. The hints/bread crumbs about Buck being bi have always been there and the article provided an example but apparently some viewers refused to see it. On at least 5 different occasions since season 2, bread crumbs were left showing Buck isn’t opposed to dating men because he only dated women people who didn’t want to see or understand or brushed it off like it couldn’t be that when in fact it was. Buck and Eddie were about to jump each other’s bones and make out in Buck’s loft during season 3 and Eddie was caught by Chimney looking at Buck’s behind during the same season so please stop with the “they’ve never been shown to be bi or gay” because you’re wrong sir. You either missed it or chose to ignore it but that’s not on 9-1-1 since it was there in plain sight.

It has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ characters that were introduced and have always been gay. No one cares. Buck has been portrayed as heterosexual (and actively so!) since episode 1. This is just pandering and sensationalism. It is not believable.

You have no idea what internalized homophobia means? Also not everybody learns everything about themselves before 25. And he’s only around 32. The fact that he focused so much on sex with women could easily be the reason why he never entertained the possibility of being with men. Everybody has different experiences but the fact that I’ve seen many Bi ppl heavily relate to Buck here definitely means that it’s not as impossible as you believe it. (also there were “hints”, small possibilities here and there like Buck thinking Maddie was setting him up with Josh, TK thinking he might be hitting on him, ect… They’re not conclusive ofc but it’s not as out of the left field as you seem to believe it to be)

My best friend was once dating four men on two continents in three countries at the same time. Then she came out as gay. She struggled with her sexuality so much and overcompensated until she came to terms. Stuff like this happens. And – brace yourself – it happens to people you know and know well.

BrooklynGirl you’re wrong! Please see my response to Ken and Greg because Buck has in fact been shown to be into men on multiple occasions.

why y’all had to make buck gay ?out of all people that’s one. second, you already have LBGT+ actors in there why everything has to be gay ????? ugh .. i loved the show but after that i won’t be watching it again.

I agree buck didn’t not have to be gay … that was just not cool and I am not homophobic I just didn’t want to see buck kiss no man….that was actually sad to see….

Defensive much?

Tamara, you’re incorrect. Please see responses to those above because Buck has been shown to be into men but you probably ignored it because you didn’t want to see it.

How to tell someone you are homophobic …

Not for nothing, but being against a character sexuality changing does not make somebody homophobic. There is a distinction and people who throw out those terms lightly are a problem in society.

Personally I have no problems with representation from all races, religious beliefs and sexual orientation on television. We are a melting pot of a nation and tv should reflect accordingly.

I do have a problem with what I do feel to be an attack on heterosexual friendships specifically those of men. Personally I have several friends that I consider closer than most family and it would be nice if men could have that on television shows.

I understand I’m a straight white male, so apparently I’m not allowed to have an opinion according to some, but it is what it is.

Joe, my reply to you is not an attack or anything because your response seems to be genuine therefore, I decided to respond and hopefully it will help. I don’t know you but your reasoning regarding heterosexual male friendships being attacked on TV shows is flawed because they’re literally everywhere including 9-1-1. It’s interesting how no one who says this ever acknowledges the existing friendships between Bobby and Chimney, Chimney and Eddie, Buck and Albert and/or Michael and Bobby (they were great friends before Michael left). — When it comes down to it, it seems people only state the excuse you used about male friendships being eliminated from tv is when it involves Buck and Eddie and yet they always fail to remember they too are in fact friends! They’re best friends first but they’ve also fallen in love with each other and that usually is the underlying issue for most but they either don’t want to admit it or they’re ignoring it. My question to you is why is it an issue for two people who’ve built a family, make no mistake Buck and Eddie built one six years ago, to be together? It’s rhetorical but still it’s also relevant because Buck’s been searching for someone to love him unconditionally and he wants a family of his own but all the women he dated only wanted him for one thing then they left him. Eddie’s been searching too and he wants someone to love both him and Chris but the woman he was married to didn’t want either of them and the woman he dated in season 4 was just going along with societal norms just because they looked like the perfect family. She literally watched him have a panic atrack at the thought of him spending his life with her but she chose to ignore it until he broke up with her. — Chris loves Buck just as much as he loves his father Eddie and to prove it, he ran away to Buck’s loft when he was upset with Eddie and he called Buck during Eddie’s breakdown. He could have called 9-1-1 and it’s obvious he could have since Buck and Eddie are first responders but he called the man who loves him just like his father does. The fact is they are exactly who the other one needs, wants and have been searching for therefore their gender shouldn’t be an issue. Buck’s the partner and coparent Eddie desires and Eddie’s the person who sees and knows Buck and he’ll never leave. He also knows Buck will do anything for Chris and he’ll fight for him. Buck and Eddie are in love (whether they’ve realized it is debatable but I think they do know), they clearly make each other happy and that’s all that should matter. Therefore, Buck and Eddie’s friendship will be even stronger once they become a romantic couple and shouldn’t every couple be friends first? They are so please try to look at this without the preset and preconceived societal norms that include everyone living their lives like those before them because the facts are every family is different and they all won’t include a husband, a wife and 2.5 children since some might include two husbands with a son like Buck and Eddie and their son Chris. Both of them love Chris and they’ll in fact die for him. Eddie’s almost died at least 3 times and Buck did die. Chris was worried about both of them. — In my opinion that’s the story 9-1-1 has been telling and showing for Buck and Eddie for the last 6 years to prove how they’re a family all on their own. So, if you’re looking for male friendships Bobby’s and Chimney’s is great too and they’ve been there for each other in times when the other one was struggling, more so in seasons 1 and 2 but still it’s there. — I hope my response helps and if it didn’t, please know there are other shows with deep male friendships included in them like House M.D., The Closer, Major Crimes, S.W.A.T., Chicago P.D., Blue Bloods, Chicago Fire and others just to name a few. — I’ll end my reply with the fact that Buck and Eddie will still be best friends when they become a romantic couple and said friendship will be even stronger.

Doubt you’d be happy if a main gay character was hot for the opposite sex out of the blue just for ratings and to appease the minority but very vocal gen z viewers. This was done for ingenious reasons, it’s insulting to the fans as well as the gay community.

Why? What are your reasons?

Agreed. Here either

Ngl, I thought they were gonna start this storyline in season 4 when Albert, Chimney’s brother, was introduced and moved in with Buck. I was really rooting for that too. This just feels weird and out of place. And so many BE shippers are just so rude to the women that dare get in the way of their ship. The way Gabrielle Walsh was treated was so awful.

Don’t defend a woman who pretends to be Latina to get roles! That is why she got the majority of the hate!

It would have been an interesting storyline at the very least. Chim dating Maddie, Buck’s sister while Buck goes and dates Chim’s brother.

Catherine, it appears you’re unaware of the way the actresses responded to and sometimes instigated the issues they experienced with the fandom. Violence and bullying are never ok and no one should be subjected to it. That’s a fact. However, if I recall correctly, Gabrielle, Megan and now Edy do/did things on social media to provoke the fans and they played/play the vicitm when they get clapped back on. These Gen Zers keep the receipts in the form of screenshots and they are quick to repost the posts they submitted and they get the bulk of those negative reactions and it’s based on something they 9 times out of 10 started.

Clearly someone has unrealized issues about themselves if this particular storyline is so upsetting to you.

I don’t have any unrealized anything. I just don’t like Tommy because he’s a problematic character but like I said all most people care about is Buck kissing a man, any man and it doesn’t matter if he’s a good person or not. I’m not naive and I know he will kiss Eddie and it will be the best kiss of his life but in my opinion, his first kiss should have been with someone else instead of Tommy but if you like it then good for you.

sir/ma’am ACT SMART IF 911 DECIDES TO PUT BUCK AND EDDIE TOGETHER, THEY WILL BUCK HAS TO START SOMEWHERE, IT JUST HAPPEN TO BE WITH TOMMY. YOU SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TO ABC, THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO RELIEVE OUR STRESS THEY COULD HAVE BUILT IT UP AND DISSAPOINTED US BUT IF YOU DO NOT ACT POSITIVE AND SEE THIS WHY THE SHOW KEEPS US 911 FANS GOING. Just a small kiss broke the 911 fanbase tension and made most of us happy. I bet you’re gonna watch next weeks episode.

The all caps isn’t necessary for you to make a point. As I stated, Tommy is a problematic character but as usual everyone who’s happy about Buck finally kissing a man only cares that he kissed one. There are much better characters available but for some reason all the bad ones are thrown at Buck including Taylor, Tommy, Natalia, Dr. Wells and Abby (yes she was problematic too not just because she was twice his age but she violated dispatch policy and illegally obtained his phone number. His first kiss with a man should have been with someone better but like I said all most people care about is him kissing a man. Tommy acted horribly with Chimney and Hen (go watch their begins episodes and you’ll see) in season 2 so yeah, he’s problematic. And as far as watching Thursday, I will NOT because I don’t want to see Tommy on a date with Buck and I don’t want to see smiley Marisol. She has one facial expression and it’s unsettling. But hopefully you’ll enjoy it.

I figured something was about to happen with how close Tommy and Buck were standing to each other

Well, good to know that Buck’s male love interests are as badly written as his female ones, I guess. Yay, equality? We literally saw nothing about them getting close, Tommy calls him Evan for no reason anyone can tell, 911 doing its best “just assume things happened offscreen!!!” job again. Eddie gets completely massacred as a character for this to happen because there’s basically no other way to hook Buck up with another dude. But hey, they get to pat themselves on the back now.

Thank you because this is exactly how I feel about this. Buck hasn’t learned anything and the writing isn’t doing him any justice. There has to be a better male love interest for Buck than Tommy because he’s no better than any of the women Buck dated. The sad part is, Buck still doesn’t value himself enough to find someone who will care about him. Tommy calling him Evan doesn’t prove he knows him. And where did that even come from? Buck’s still worried about being abandoned but he attaches himself to a guy who all but called him stupid to his face. Still making the same mistakes so I guess he’ll ask Tommy to help him buy a couch now. New love interest, same mistakes. SMH

The thing is… I am very happy that we finally got bi Buck, and I appreciate it. However… I’m sorry, but this whole thing was just absolutely terribly written. Minear says that he wanted an established character rather than having to invent a new one, but – to Buck and Eddie, Tommy is a stranger. It doesn’t matter that the audience already knows him, *they* didn’t know him before. So they literally just met last week, and now both Buck and Eddie are totally into Tommy and think he’s the coolest guy ever, Eddie hangs out with him so much that *Christopher* has an opinion about him, Buck is apparently into him, and we don’t get to see any of this happen? We just have to accept that it happened off screen. And I know that 911 generally approaches relationships with a “tell, don’t show” mentality, but a storyline that important for Buck really deserved better. Not to mention that in order to make all this happen, they had to throw Eddie’s character completely under the bus. And the bait and switch of “Buck is jealous because he wants Eddie’s attention… haha you THOUGHT!” felt cruel in a way none of the Buck/Eddie teasing has felt before.

Again, I am ultimately glad that bi Buck is happening. But it’s 2024, I think we need to hold TV shows to higher standards than blindly applauding them simply for having a queer character. It doesn’t make up for bad writing.

I agree again because the way Buddie shippers were blindsided with an “Oh, you really thought this was about Eddie and Buck since Buck was shown focusing all his attention him when Tommy was and wasn’t there, well you’re wrong because it’s all about Tommy” was definitely hurtful in a way that’s hard to describe. Because you’re right they didn’t know him which means it could have been someone new that neither Buck and Eddie nor the 118 knew but Tim said he didn’t want another “siloed” character but I think one who wasn’t part of the LAFD would have been better. Buck could have met someone if he would have gone go karting by himself or anywhere and started getting to know them on screen so at least it wouldn’t have seemed like it just came out of nowhere. Eddie being thrown under the bus wasn’t cool either and it wasn’t the first time for the sake of a Buck centric storyline. Christopher being introduced to Tommy was also interesting and the audience didn’t see any of it. Apparently, Marisol was babysitting while Eddie hangs out with Tommy but that doesn’t even make sense since she was just chaperoning his first date with Eddie. It gave Ana 2.0 during the blackout but at least they dated for months and she was Chris’ school teacher at one point. The rushed writing surely didn’t help which is why last season should have ended differently. Not sure where things are going now since the synopsis for episode 5 is out and it indicates “Eddie and Marisol take a closer look at their relationship” which has taken place completely off screen and it could end up being very bad. Either Eddie goes all in AGAIN only to stick it out like he planned to do with Ana even though he was literally panicking because of it or he’ll break up with her after seeing Buck and Tommy on their date. Brenna directed it and she directed the shooting so hopefully Buck and Eddie’s undying love for each other will be captured again with both Marisol and Tommy quickly exiting stage left.

SO many thoughts. Yay representation! A fresh and an intriguing storyline for Buck! Validation for those of us who *always* saw it! I really appreciate Oliver Stark saying that; I’m not (that) crazy, and I don’t tend to look for things that aren’t there, and I was sick of feeling gaslighted (and look…while I appreciate that this storyline is about Buck’s journey *first and foremost,* I also respectfully ask Tim Minear to please have mercy on the Buddie fans and not have Eddie “brotherzone” Buck 😭). Great 100th episode.

I cannot believe ya’ll got a Buddie shipper for the show runner lol.

At the very least, he supports those who do ship it, which is a nice change 😅 For me, Buck’s journey is the focal point here. This kind of representation is so important but pretty rare on TV, and I’m excited regardless. I’ll never *not* root for Buck and Eddie, but I also recognize that it might not happen (or would take some time if it does).

Uh, that is the show creator as well as showrunner. He is not a “Buddie shipper.” He created the characters in the first place.

Never watching again . Why can’t we have 1 show that just deals with being a firefighter and no same sex lust and kissing and sex , some of us don’t want to see that while watching a MANLY drama

Why can’t we have one gay story on any board without a homophobic response??

Why can’t we have guys with a best friend without a small group screaming for them to “get together” because that’s their reality.? It’s not the reality of the majority of the population who’d like to be “represented’ too. Why can’t we ask for that without a heterophobic response.

Was Tommy Buck’s best friend?

Male friends are a dime a dozen on TV. It’s like one of the most commonly shown relationships. They are a hell of a lot more common than male and female friendships or men who become lovers after being friends.

Heterophobic. LOL

The majority of the population is represented the majority of the time.

You always have the option of not watching, not caring, not commenting, not reading comments, and finding something else to do.

@KP, I love your response! My sentiments exactly.

Thomas, we do. I guess you haven’t been watching both 9-1-1 and 9-1-1 Lone Star apparently.

Exactly! These people obviously haven’t seen the show before… Hen’s had a wife since season 1 and there have been plenty of LGBTQ+ characters since it started. The show was created and produced by a gay man.

I don’t think it’s a homophobic response. I will probably watch it again, I enjoy the show. I agree, why can’t we have ONE show that doesn’t involve same sex relationships or trans characters. This group of people is less than 1% of the population yet 100% of programming shows it. Hollywood needs to quit shoving this down our throats.

Or maybe you should stop being bigoted and hiding it behind “it’s not a homophobic response to ask for one show to not have diversity” – there are a TON of shows that don’t have any gay or queer characters since like the inception of entertainment. Sorry you have to live in the modern world where writers and creatives want to showcase more than just white, cis straight people.

But it’s okay to shove heterosexual relationships down our throats? My guess is that, back in the day, you would be arguing that Hollywood should stop shoving interracial marriages down our throats as well. Nothing is being shoved down anyone’s throats.

Hollywood has always been on the forefront on society. It’s been true for decades. It’s called acceptance.

You wouldn’t be alive without a heterosexual relationship happening…so miss us with the delusional replies…People are not Homophobic…That’s not even a real word…It was made up….No one is scared of gay people….just tired of society trying to stop generations from being born which involves heterosexual people…or an egg and a sperm coming in contact

Completely irrelevant to the whole conversation.

And yes, people are often scared around people who make them uncomfortable.

Bi and trans people exist, heterosexuality is not the end all be all to have children

Less than 1%? In 2022 Gallup estimated that 7.2% of the US adult population were LGBTQ+. That’s just he ones who weren’t closeted and willing to admit it. In younger people the percentage was even higher because they didn’t face the same stigma that older people did. In adults born after 1997, nearly 1 in 5 (19.7%) identify as something other than straight

ABSOLUTELY I agree Hollywood is now doing the opposite and TRYING TO FORCE IT. And missing the POINT

LOL “less than 1% of the population” girl where are you getting your statistics from, The Westboro Baptist Church School of Homophobia? Be serious. And were you paying attention to Josh or Karen or Hen who have been there forever or nah? There are plenty of shows with no queer characters, but 9-1-1 has never been one of them.

More like 5% — but regardless, if it works in the context of the story, what’s the problem? Previously exclusively straight men do discover different sexualities later on (especially those with dysfunctional upbringings). Besides, as many people have noticed, this didn’t exactly come out of left field. Buck’s series of failed relationships could well have hinted at what the real issue was. And two seasons ago, T.J. from 911 LoneStar picked up on Buck’s vibe (even if he didn’t himself).

because you took a womanizer and made him gay?

It actually makes sense.

Why is a difference of opinion a “homophobic response”?. 911 has numerous gay characters and gay storylines. They didn’t need to hijack Buck!

1.Buck has always been Bi coded. And there were numerous moment where it was suggested to the audience albeit humorously. 2. The way people have responded is homophobic. The whole “why do we need more diversity” tends to come from a queerphobic bias. Because the complaint is very much about the fact that a character suddenly (to them) became queer. Which, considering people can realize they’re queer at literally any age is a weird take when you could have for example just thought that the storyline didn’t need to have Eddie in it just for a Buck realization story.

Then you weren’t ever really watching the show, Sherry, because there has been a same-sex couple – part of the heart of the show, mind you! – since the first season.

Because this is ABC and that is all this channel is known for, sex sex and sex. I am so over it. Now I wish 911 had stayed on Fox.

What about Hen & Karen?? Guess they tone count cause they’re not 6’2 & blue eyes. Shallow

There are going to be a lot of women angry because they liked to self insert with Buck love interests and feel they can no longer do that. Their reaction would be as ugly if Buck and Eddie were to actually ever get together (which is honestly the main reason I think they haven’t let it happen).

1) I feel like if he’s bisexual, then women can continue to insert themselves as they see fit, so to speak but also B) fans gonna do what fans gonna do – head cannon and fan fiction does not care what’s on screen a lot of the time, so this won’t even be a blip for a lot of female fans.

It won’t affect many female fans but the ones who are affected are definitely making themselves known on social media and announcing their departure like it’s an airport, LMAO. I’m just glad ABC did this early in the season, so people who are going to be biphobic/homophobic can move on and let the rest of us watch and enjoy in peace.

“Manly drama”?? lmao. Lady, I need you to be serious. It’s a soap opera, you goober.

a soap opera created by RYAN MURPHY. honestly i guffawed, hollered and chortled at “manly drama” be so fr 😭

Was that supposed to be sarcasmn? Whats up with the “manly” thing? I’m guessing that all of the bad luck Buck’s had with women could possibly be because he had doubts about his sexuality, even subconsciously, maybe. I don’t know either, but I’m excited for the ride. Plus, everybody has to have a first of something different than you’re used to before. So more than likely Tommy is just that for Buck. We will see.

If you want to see a show that deals with being a firefighter, have you considered asking for a ride-a-long at one of your local firehouses? As you stated, this is a DRAMA, and it’s still MANLY regardless of who’s attracted to who. Did you throw this kinda fuss when he hooked up with the various women through the seasons? I bet not!

Stick with newsmax and oan

You’ve got to be kidding. There’s so many shows and movies out there with no LGBTQ+ characters or storylines yet you want to sit and complain about the shows that do have it? Why can’t we have representation of people who are LGBTQ+? Why can’t we have LGBTQ+ characters and storylines? There’s a saying that you should really consider following: Don’t like, don’t watch.

You don’t want same sex lust on a show all about people riding poles?

ummm…do you just want to watch a documentary then?

I hope all you homophobic people stop watching. Good riddance.

“Basketball beard” 😭 Who do I need to Venmo for this glorious line?!

I suspect Maddie and Chim will be the absolute LEAST surprised at this turn of events. I’m going to enjoy watching bi Buck experience his new dating adventures – and this being 9-1-1, they will indeed be adventurous!

Disappointed you decided to go this route with Buckley. I am probably not going to watch the show any longer. Too bad great characters guess you ran out of storylines.

You’re complaining about a storyline while claiming that they ran out of storylines. Any other contradictions that you’d like to share?

“There have been crumbs for years and years,” he says to anyone who dares to act surprised by this turn of events.”

This was my favorite part of the interview. Some people got SO nasty when you suggested that Buck might not be straight. Like…I have my moments, but I really never thought that I was being delusional about it 😭 It just seemed like, if so many viewers saw it, and the media saw it, and people involved in the show saw it…we couldn’t all be wrong??

I knew as soon as Tommy showed at Buck’s apartment that Buck would end up kiss Tommy. I figured out pretty early in the episode that Buck liked Tommy and was projecting his frustrations onto Eddie. I haven’t liked any of Buck’s previous relationships at all. It will be interesting to see what happens. I find both Tommy and Buck to be extremely attractive. I doubt this whole situation will hurt the show’s ratings. I am a heterosexual woman who isn’t losing my mind over a fictional TV character being bisexual. I am pretty sure that Oliver Stark is still straight in real life. He has a girlfriend. Ryan Murphy the producer and director of the is gay. If you look at any of his shows. There is people from the LGBTQ community as characters in his shows. What about Hen and her wife? Or her ex that was in jail. Or T.K and Carlos? Or Paul?

I sensed throughout the episode that it might turn in this direction. Very disappointing. As a true fan who has never missed an episode, Buck has always presented as heterosexual and I find his reaction to be totally contrived and unbelievable.

““There have been crumbs for years and years,” he says to anyone who dares to act surprised by this turn of events.”

It’s not unbelievable. I didn’t come out until I was 40. I always presented myself as heterosexual, dating women and was engaged, but never once had a fulfilling relationship with a woman.. I covered it with most of the the typical masculinity tropes. However, I knew I was gay by 5th grade. It just wasn’t something acceptable to the people around me and I was terrified so had to wear a mask and hide it. All my friends and family were shocked when I came out because everyone knew I was straight, only I wasn’t. Of all of them, only one had a problem when they found out. My only regret was that I didn’t come out sooner. So no, it’ snot unbelievable, because I lived it.

You said you never had a fulfilling relationship with a woman…but it only boils down to who you wanted to have sex with….i dare people to ask The Lord to show them the truth…he will blow your mind on the things of this world…

Dear Q-Anon, please leave the chat and go back to Beirtbart News and leave God to yourself

Oh, no! Now I have 6 seasons to binge :D

You won’t regret it!

This was long overdue. It was event hinted during the lonestar crossover

So excited and happy for Buck and for Oliver Stark, who continues to do a wonderful job bringing this character to life. Of course I hope Buck ends up with Eddie, but there is season eight in the future and plenty of time for that to happen. This is Buck’s moment!

Not really sure how to feel about this. Guess I will have to wait and see. But I for sure don’t want ANYTHING to happen between Buck and Eddie.

I prefer that Buck and Eddie remain best friends without benefits but I think it’ll be interesting to see Buck explore his sexuality. I am very open minded.

Agreed. I mostly cannot stand Ryan Guzman so I cannot get with Eddie’s character, I never liked him. I was really hoping Albert, Chimney’s brother, would become a main character and be a part of this kind of storyline and end up with Evan/Buck but alas.

Purrrrr, Buck is yummy! It doesn’t matter if he’s bisexual. He can date a female one week and a male the next week.

I absolutely loved tonight’s episode of 911. It really took me by surprise in a great way. Keep it going.

It was an interesting episode for sure, but to me the best part wasn’t the gay flirting , it was that horrible accidental homicide where the lady killed her own son because (apparently) she has some weird disease that makes her SEE people, but they have different faces? Wow! Kudos to the writers on that one.

A lot of shows have had episodes about this disease over the last few years.

Shouldn’t it disqualify you from owning a gun??

LOL, Face Blindness is an old trope. “Perception” & “Royal Pains” used it in the same week a few years back. Also on “Arrested Development.”

It’s a trope that’s been used on a lot of medical shows

I love that she wasn’t capable of squeezing Chim’s hand, but she was somehow capable of shooting her son.

It wasn’t a disease. They said multiple times she fell and hit her head.

Damnit! I should know better than to come to this site before an episode ends!!

More later.

No, he’s not bisexual. The show has just bowed to the will of a loud, persistant group of fans who want him to be. Pat yourself on the back and say good bye to those who are getting tired of tv trying to destroy the whole concept of best friends. Enough of this nonsense already. You can’t just change someone’s sexual orientation IRL. Stop doing it in our shows.

Good lord. You don’t know that Buck is going to end up with Eddie. And if that did happen, it’d take several seasons. I really do believe that they’re best friends first and this coming out storyline is for Buck and Buck alone. But even if Eddie does also realise he has romantic feelings for Buck sometime in the future, who cares? As long as it’s not rushed and feels earned, then go for it 911 writers!

Also, plenty of people realise later in life that they are gay or bi. And as Oliver Stark said above – this really shouldn’t come as much of a shock as there have been crumbs for years! (Crumbs like TK assuming that Buck was gay when they met on 911 Lonestar. Or Buck literally never feeling 100% fulfilled in any of the short-lived relationships he has had with women. Or constantly feeling like something was missing or that he needed to “find” himself – which he has spoken about constantly with his therapist on the show).

His story is so similar to mine and loads of gay/bi men that I know in real life… and it’s nice to see that representation on screen in a way that doesn’t feel shoe-horned.

And I’d just like to point out that there are dozens upon dozens of examples of best friends forming romantic relationships on tv shows. The “friends to lovers” trope is well-documented. I’d bet my last dollar that you never had a problem with any of female/male friends to lovers 👀

FRIENDS: Monica & Chandler / Joey & Rachel | HIMYM: Barney & Robin | BROOKLYN NINE-NINE: Jake & Amy | GREY’S ANATOMY: Izzie & George / Jo & Link / Alex & Izzie / Owen & Teddy / April & Jackson | THE GOOD PLACE: Eleanor & Chidi | THE VAMPIRE DIARIES: Elena & Damon / Caroline & Stefan | THE OFFICE: Jim & Pam | THE FLASH: Barry & Iris | RIVERDALE: Archie & Betty | AGENTS OF SHIELD: Fitz & Simmons | GILMORE GIRLS: Luke & Lorelai | GOSSIP GIRL: Dan & Blair | THE WALKING DEAD: Rick & Michonne | NEW GIRL: Nick & Jess | PARKS & RECREATION: Leslie & Ben | BONES: Bones & Booth | CHUCK: Chuck & Sarah | ANGEL: Angel & Cordelia | DAWSONS CREEK: Joey & Pacey. 》》》》 I could literally go on. The OP definitely had zero issue with any of these straight couples “destroying the whole concept of best friends” lol. Mind you, Buck & Eddie are literally still just best friends with no real indication that’s gonna change. OP should just say they hate LGBT people and leave. No need to hide their homophobia/biphobia behind not liking something that TV shows do ALL THE TIME with straight characters! Loser behaviour.

The concept of the best friend–two people of the same gender who care about each other and don’t have-sexr–has indeed been destroyed by Hollywood. I am disappointed too I don’t think Buck is bisexual either. Just the showrunners giving into Twidiot shippers.

Kindly allow another Allison to weigh in – I have *always* believed (and hoped) for this realization/development for Buck’s character. Any viewer who has closely watched every episode should have definitely picked up numerous clues throughout the seasons. Yes, I am a proud shipper and am absolutely thrilled with the Buck/Tommy kiss… because it leaves me with even more hope for eventual #Buddie canon! 🌈

he is bisexual if the show writers write him that way, which they have. that’s how tv shows work lol. is this your first time? ex-amish, are you?

I was really disappointed with the story line.. I think the same sex story experiences had been addressed enough with Athena’ husband Michael, Henrietta’s wife, Karen….

I just loved how the writers made Buck’s character a carefree, happy-go-lucky daredevil kind of guy and I looked forward to see what he would do next… So I was surprised at this. Did’nt feel this change in storyline was necessary and very disappointing!!!!!!!

If you think Buck’s character could ever be described as a ‘carefree, happy-go-lucky-daredevil’ then I’d argue you’ve never watched more than a single episode of this show. He is the polar opposite of happy-go-lucky and carefree :’D No wonder his obvious bisexuality came as such a shock to you!

Wouldn’t a “carefree, happy-go-lucky, daredevil kind of guy” be more prone to explore romantically?

Personally, I never saw the breadcrumbs, but I just thought people were just grasping at straws to find ways for Buck and Eddie to suddenly become a couple. It’ll be fun to see how this plays out.

I did not see breadcrumbs either. But I knew where they were going. And I rolled my eyes. Guess you can now just have characters change sexual orientation. Will any of the LGBT characters turn straight? Did not think so.

Depends, can you think of an example when a gay person has struggled for years dealing with his heterosexuality and finally decides to come out of the closet and admit he is straight?

This episode was fun & crazy. Just the way I like it.

I am so depressed, never watching any 911 episode again

So question, who is the person Eddie is with? You know when they said something at the Bachelor Mansion.

Marisol, the one from last season where her brother ‘sealed’ himself up in her attic and then she met him again at the hardware store.

And next week we find out she’s an ex nun so things are not going well for Eddie. Just dump her. She acts like a goofy giddy 12 year old

Why?!? I have loved Buck’s character since the begining! His taste for adventure, masculinity, and caring personality with Christopher. You already had gay characters. Why did you feel the need to ruin Buck’s character?!? I’m so tired of this being in every show! Should have known, as what else should we expect with ABC? This is not real life in all Firehouses! Before you start the hate, I have a gay cousin who underwent chemical transformation years ago! Also, a gay inlaw! I’m not going to watch anymore.🥺

Why what? It is possible for a man to be masculine and gay. The fact that you have a problem with people being gay has nothing to do with what happens in firehouses. This story is a lot more believable than all the hookups on Chicago Fire.

First, no one is suggesting Buck is gay. Just that he is bi. Also, a gay or bi person could perfectly be described as having a “taste for adventure, masculinity, and caring personality with Christopher”. Finally, “I have a gay cousin who underwent chemical transformation years ago”, what does tthat even mean? Do you mean a trans cousin? Because that has nothing to do with being bi, gay or anything here.

I sincerely hope and pray that your so-called family and inlaws never go anywhere near you or anyone else harboring such a backward and unreasonable attitude.

Why is exploring Buck’s bisexuality “destroying the character”? just say you’re biphobic and get lost

no no no!!! please dont make Buck’s character go down this path!!! It’s not even believable.

It isn’t about believability, it’s about appeasing the Rainbow Brigade.

“There have been crumbs for years and years,” he says to anyone who dares to act surprised by this turn of events.

Yeah…. Looks at Maddie suggesting Buck might have a crush on Eddie, the elf who thought they were together, the poker scene where they joke about setting Buck and Josh together….so not believable

Most Popular

You may also like.

site categories

Nicola coughlan says her ‘bridgerton’ contract specifies a pg-version of the show for her parents, ‘the good doctor’ stars break silence after surprising death in abc show’s final season.

By Armando Tinoco

Armando Tinoco

Night & Weekend Editor

More Stories By Armando

• NFL Network Layoffs: Melissa Stark, Andrew Siciliano, Will Selva & James Palmer Among On-Air Talent Exits
• ‘Good Morning Football’s Will Selva Exits NFL Network After 11 Years
• Heather Rae El Moussa Says ‘Selling Sunset’ Was “Very Toxic” & It Was A “Blessing” Not Being Asked To Return To Netflix Reality Series

SPOILER ALERT: This article details The Good Doctor Season 7, Episode 5, “Who At Peace.”

After the shocking death on The Good Doctor , the actor who suffered the fatal hit on the latest episode of the ABC drama is reacting.

In a new social media post, Noah Galvin , who played Dr. Asher Wolke, is reflecting on his time shooting the show.

Related Stories

‘The Good Doctor’ Kills Off A Series Regular In Final Season Shocker

‘the good doctor’ cast says goodbye with a flurry of social media salutes.

“I spent the last four years in Vancouver working away from my fiancee and dog and family,” Galvin posted on Instagram . “It was hard but these people made it really worth it. I love you @thegooddoctorabc thank you for everything!!”

Bria Samoné added, “I love you deep.”

Christina Chang also replied to Galvin, adding, “Lerve you.”

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Noah Galvin (@noahegalvin)

The Good Doctor Season 7, Episode 5, “Who At Peace,” shocked viewers with the death of Galvin’s Dr Asher Wolke, who suffered an antisemitic attack that ended his life.

After Asher assisted a patient’s wedding, he drove the rabbi back home, where they encountered a couple of thugs vandalizing the synagogue. Asher told them to leave and they would not have a problem with the first assailant saying, “What do you care?”

Asher said, “I am a Jew. A gay one, in fact, and I’m calling the cops.”

After believing everything had been resolved and there would be no problems, the couple of thugs returned and struck Asher’s head, leaving him for dead.

The next episode of  The Good Doctor airs on Tuesday, April 9 at 10 p.m. ET and it’s titled “M.C.E.,” where “the team must deal with a mass casualty event that forces them to put aside their emotions following a recent tragedy.”

Must Read Stories

Nbc cancels sci-fi series after two seasons; raymond lee reacts to news.

‘Monkey Man’ Seeing $10M, ‘First Omen’ $8M; ‘Godzilla’ No. 1 Again

‘quiet on set’ filmmakers on docuseries response, episode 5 & toxic kids tv, ‘mamma mia’ turning 25 on west end & producer’s greta gerwig wish.

Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy.

Read More About:

60 comments.

Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.