Introduction

Over the past decades, major social and institutional transformations have taken place around the world regarding LGBT + rights. Rights related to legal forms of partnership (i.e. same-sex marriage, civil union) and parenting rights have been at the centre of these developments. Nevertheless, there seems to be a divergence—at least in the context of European Union—between social support for same-sex marriage and support for parenting rights, with the latter receiving significantly less support than the former (Takács et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2018).

Academic research has devoted extensive attention on understanding the factors that shape public attitudes towards same-sex parenting (hereafter SSP) over the last decade. This body of research has extensively focused on factors, such as age, gender, education, religiosity and political beliefs that influence and predict support or opposition towards same-sex parenting, through quantitative measures (e.g. Brown & Henriquez, 2008; Webb et al., 2017a, 2018). However, some researchers argue that attitude research is unable to capture seemingly positive attitudes and often-implicit forms of prejudice towards SSP and they suggest focusing on the evaluation of parenting qualities of same-sex parents, as a way to access what is considered as modern prejudice towards SSP (e.g. Massey et al., 2013). More insight regarding these subtle expressions of prejudice is provided by qualitative research on the issue, which has focused more explicitly on the content and the function of arguments around SSP. Particularly discursive analysis (e.g. Clarke, 2001) on the issue shows how people construct arguments around SSP that are seemingly realistic and rational, sometimes positive at first sight, without appearing prejudiced.

In this study we would like to contribute to that qualitative research tradition that focuses on ways of formulating arguments that may implicitly or explicitly construct particular representations of SSP. Specifically, our objective is to examine the ways in which arguments that appear inclusive and supportive towards SSP are formulated and whether they may serve to undermine SSP, to legitimise exclusion and to reproduce heteronormativity.

Following a rhetorical/discursive social psychological approach, we do not analyze participants’ discourse as an indication of stable (even subtle) prejudiced attitudes or as the by-product of efforts to conceal ‘real’ prejudice. We consider it instead as rhetoric and argumentation situated in a particular historical and local/interactional context and we attempt to underscore its rhetorical functions and ideological implications. Towards this aim, we focus on explicitly favourable lines of arguing regarding SSP, showing how these may serve—by rhetorical implication—to construct it as low-quality parenting, or as an ambiguous parenting option for the child.

We focus on young adults, university students in the Republic of Cyprus. The accession of the Republic of Cyprus in EU in 2004, the rise of LGBT + activism and certain legal developments (i.e. Civil Union Legislation, penalisation of homophonic/transphobic rhetoric) have led to increased LGBT + visibility over the last decade. While Civil Union partnership is legal in the Republic of Cyprus since 2015, this does not give couples the right to raise children together. Thus, at the moment there is no legal provision for same-sex parenting. The most recent Eurobarometer (2019) shows that Cyprus still holds one of the last places amongst the other countries of the European Union regarding issues of social acceptance of LGBT + individuals and amongst the countries of Europe with the least support for same-sex parenting rights (Takács et al., 2016). Cypriots do not see same-sex marriage favourably, they do not feel comfortable with homosexual affection in public and feel very uncomfortable with the possibility of their child having a homosexual relationship (Eurobarometer, 2019).

On the other hand, mostly qualitative research in Cyprus and other southern European contexts, such as Greece shows that the public and media representations of LGBT + rights are largely polarised. One side understands these rights as a necessary protection of human rights and a step towards the modernisation of society and the other constructs them as a Western threat towards valued national ideals and argues for the need of privatisation of sexual orientation (Kadianaki et al., 2020). Given the polarization depicted in the findings of previous research, the attempt to delve into the rhetorical ambivalence of the alleged supportive arguments becomes even more topical, especially considering the societal implications that understanding lay beliefs around SSP has.

Literature Review

Measurement of public perception of same sex couples’ rights and attitudes towards same-sex parenting have been included in the early measures of prejudice towards homosexuals (e.g. Herek, 1984; MacDonald et al., 1973). Since then, research has proliferated, including items in large-scale surveys, such as the Eurobarometer and focused academic research on the topic.

A large body of research has focused on the factors that influence support or opposition to SSP in different ethnic contexts. Amongst those factors, a series of demographic characteristics such as gender and age of respondents have been shown to play a significant role. Specifically, male respondents have been consistently and in various ethnic contexts found to show less support than women to same-sex adoption and parenting rights (Webb et al., 2017a, 2018; Ryan et al., 2007; Costa et al., 2014; Costa et al., 2018; Lannutti & Lachlan, 2008; Gross et al., 2018), with very few exceptions reporting no gender differences (Baiocco et al., 2013). With regards to age, it is generally supported that older individuals hold more negative attitudes towards SSP (Baiocco et al., 2013; Herek, 2002; Steffens & Wagner, 2004). Education has also been studied as a predictor of attitudes towards SSP mainly in the USA and Australia. Educational level is not straightforwardly linked to attitudes towards SSP with some research pointing to inconsistent findings (e.g. Case & Stewart, 2010; Ellison et al., 2011; Garner, 2013; Merino, 2013; Webb & Chonody, 2012), while others note that there might be an interaction with gender or an influence of the subject of the study (Costa et al., 2014). Finally, contact with sexual minorities, especially in the form of acquaintances and friends is a predictor of positive attitudes towards same-sex families (thereafter SSF) and their rights (Lewis, 2011; Swank & Riaz, 2010), mediated by homonegativity and comfort with lesbians and gays (Costa et al., 2015).

Certain types of beliefs and ideologies also seem to play a role in determining attitudes towards SSP. Specifically, research in Australia, the USA and various EU countries shows that religious people are generally more negative towards same-sex parenting than atheist people or people with no religious affiliation (Ioverno et al., 2019, Costa et al., 2014; Webb et al., 2017a; Gross et al., 2018; D’Amore et al., 2022) and there is evidence that this difference holds regardless of gender (Costa et al., 2015; Gross et al., 2018). Political conservatism and right-wing political orientation are also shown to correlate positively to negative attitudes towards same-sex parenting (Brown & Henriquez, 2008; Costa et al., 2014; Ioverno et al., 2019; Whitley, 1990) in Portugal and the USA. Beliefs about the origin of homosexuality have also been studied. Respondents who believe in the social origin of homosexuality (i.e. that it is learned or chosen) are more negative towards SSP than respondents who believe that homosexuality is genetically determined (Costa et al., 2019; Frias-Navarro et al., 2015; Webb et al., 2018, 2020) and there is evidence that these beliefs mediate effects of gender, religiosity and political leaning on attitudes towards SSM and SSP (Costa et al., 2018).

Traditional beliefs about gender roles have been consistently linked in the literature with negative attitudes and prejudice towards same-sex parenting and opposition to inclusive policies towards same-sex families (Ioverno et al., 2019; Webb et al., 2017a, 2018; Doyle et al., 2015; D’Amore et al., 2022). This is explained by the fact that same-sex parents are perceived as violating gender norms and roles (Heilman et al., 2004), a belief held more by male than female respondents (Panchapakesen et al., 2014; Webb & Chonody, 2014). There is also evidence that heterosexuals’ sexism and internalised sexual stigma in lesbian women and gay men are associated to negative attitudes towards SSP (Pistella et al., 2018). Zhao and Zheng (2021) further differentiate between benevolent and hostile sexism in heterosexuals and show that they are related to different forms of opposition towards SSP: hostile sexism is related to both individual (i.e. beliefs about negative developmental influence on the child) and normative opposition (i.e. beliefs about adverse societal reactions that influence the child), while benevolent sexism is related only to normative opposition (Zhao & Zheng, 2021).

Respondents also seem to differentiate their attitudes depending on the structure of the target family. Specifically, male same-sex parents are judged more negatively than female same-sex parents (Herek, 2002; Webb et al., 2017a). This finding is explained by traditional masculinity beliefs (Ioveno et al., 2019) and the fact that females are culturally believed to be naturally more skilled at parenting than males (Baiocco et al., 2013; Massey, 2007; Pacilli et al., 2011) and because gay men are believed to pose a potential threat to children’s gender development, since they are considered to violate gender norms more intensely than females (Webb et al., 2017a). Nevertheless, there is opposing evidence, with attitudes concerning adoption by same-sex parents, showing no significant difference towards gay fathers and lesbian mothers (Gross et al., 2018). Lastly, regarding family structure, there is evidence that adoption by same-sex couples is seen more favourably than by single homosexuals (Gross et al., 2018).

Evaluating Parenting Qualities

A number of studies have argued that since prejudice is becoming subtler over the years, modern prejudice towards SSP is better measured through the evaluations and attitudes towards the quality of SSP, referring specifically to parenting abilities or effects on the psychological development of the child. These studies are generally semi-experimental and vignette-based, comparing participants’ responses in different parenting scenarios, in which the sexual orientation of the parents varies. Some of these studies show that same-sex parents are evaluated more negatively than heterosexuals in terms of their emotional stability, competence and loving and caring abilities (Morse et al., 2007) and children of same-sex parents are believed to have worse developmental outcomes related to gender identity and sexual orientation confusion or experience of societal stigma (Baiocco et al., 2013; Gato & Fontaine, 2016; Morse et al., 2007; Rye & Meaney, 2010; Tušl et al., 2020). These studies are generally based on university undergraduate samples and are conducted in Australia, Canada, the USA and some parts of Europe (i.e. Portugal, Czech Republic).

However, there is also a number of studies presenting opposing findings. For example, Massey (2007) conducted a vignette-based study with Australian undergraduate students who were asked to evaluate parenting skills in a disruptive family situation (e.g. a child screaming at a restaurant) considering parents’ sexual orientation and the gender of the intervening parent. Gay male parenting skills were rated most positively, and heterosexual parenting skills (where a woman was the active parent) most negatively. Similar findings were reported by Tusl and colleagues (Tušl et al., 2020) in Czech undergraduates, who showed same-sex couples are evaluated more favourably than heterosexuals, especially in handling a disruptive family situation. Massey (2007) explains that same-sex parents are evaluated better because of the increased effort they put to become parents and that women in heterosexual couples are evaluated against the high parenting standards that the ‘typical mother’ must have. In another study by Massey and colleagues (Massey et al., 2013) however, the evaluation of parenting skills was not directly affected by the sexual orientation of the targets but by the scores of participants on traditional and modern anti-homosexual prejudice.

This body of research has been largely informative regarding the factors that influence support or opposition to SSP and evaluation of parenting qualities of same-sex parents. The latter research on parenting qualities’ evaluation suggests that prejudice towards SSP is often implicitly expressed. Thus, there is a need for research that delves into the content of the beliefs and arguments around SSP and their potential functions and implications. A small number of qualitative research has focused on these and is reviewed below.

Qualitative Research on Arguments Related to Same-Sex Parenting

There are very few articles that approach the content of arguments regarding SSP in lay people’s accounts and these are mainly focused on non-supportive arguments and concerns regarding SSP. Three main concerns appear. First, participants raise concerns as to what they consider as ‘normal’ development of the children raised by SSP. For example, participants are concerned that children are raised to become homosexual (Hermosa-Bosano et al., 2022; Pennington & Knight, 2011) or confused about their sexual identity (Clarke, 2001). Another common concern regards children’s exposure to both gender roles. Female and male role models are presented as an essential feature of the family and their lack raises concerns as to the development of gender identity of the children (Clarke, 2001). Finally, another concern focuses on the bullying and stigma that children of SSF may receive (Clarke, 2001; Hollekim et al., 2015; Xavier et al., 2019; Hermosa-Bosano et al., 2022). In participants’ words, children of SSF have to pay the price of the social deviance of their parents. Explicitly or implicitly in all these arguments is the idea that homosexuality is not normal and that heterosexual parenting is a better or even an ideal option for the child. The child’s rights and best interests are constructed as paramount (Hollekim et al., 2015; Clarke, 2001) and thus lesbian and gay people who want to become parents are implicitly constructed as selfish (Hermosa-Bosano et al., 2022) disrespectful of children’s rights and interests and thus as inappropriate parents.

Supporting arguments regarding SSP appear less in the articles focusing on relevant research. For example, Webb and colleagues (Webb et al., 2017b) recognised supportive arguments that discussed SSP as a matter of human rights and equality, as a private matter that should not concern anyone else beyond the parents and framed in terms of love that is the same irrespective of the sexual orientation of partners. In Hollekim and colleagues’ research (Hollekim et al., 2015), there was also a reference to children’s need of dedicated parenting irrespective of parents’ sexual orientation (see also: Hermosa-Bosano et al., 2022).

Given the evident lack of research on arguments regarding SSP and particularly on supportive arguments, we considered valuable the opportunity to study arguments that contained explicit statements of support to SSP. As we show, these arguments are additionally interesting since they may express ambivalences around SSP in subtle and often seemingly positive ways.

In contrast to existing studies based mainly on an attitude paradigm, the discursive/rhetorical approach followed here argues that the distinction between attitudinal object and attitudinal evaluation cannot be sustained (Billig et al., 1988; Potter & Wetherell, 1988; Potter et al., 2020). Within this strand of research ‘subtle forms of prejudice’ may be approached not in terms of hidden attitudes or incentives but as potential rhetorical implications of seemingly favourable representations around SSP. Recognising the rhetorical and constitutive aspect of language, scholars of discursive and rhetorical psychology maintain that social actors construct the attitudinal object in the course of evaluating it and they often construct their evaluations as factual descriptions. Therefore, establishment of a priori content-based criteria that can clearly demarcate homophobic from non-homophobic and pejorative from supportive discourse may be misleading. It may result to a failure to recognise how forms of arguments may serve to legitimate exclusion.

Methods

Context and Data Collection

The current paper is derived from a broader research project on representations of LGBT + civic rights and political representation in Cyprus. The data were collected by five undergraduate and graduate students as part of a course of their university degree curriculum that trained them in conducting research. Focus group discussions were chosen as optimal means of delving into the dilemmas and controversies around LGBT + civic rights, because of their interactive nature, their potential to elicit different perspectives around a given issue and at the same time see how these are expressed and negotiated against other perspectives in conversation (Kitzinger, 1994).

Students posed the questions, moderated the discussions and ensured that all participants could freely express their views and respect the views of others. The topic guide included questions regarding their perceptions around three broad topics related to civic rights: (1) equality and visibility of LGBT + in Cyprus; (2) LG partnership such as civil union, marriage and parenting; and (3) LGBT + political representation. The questions were presented to participants verbally accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation, which contained related images to each topic of the discussion (e.g. pride parade, different forms of SSF, same-sex couples getting married, a well-known gay man who held a political position).

Participants

Eleven focus groups were organised through the online platforms of Microsoft teams and Zoom, between January 2021 and January 2022. COVID regulations at the time did not allow for organising these discussions in person. Forty-two undergraduate and graduate students participated in those 11 groups, varying in numbers and having up to six participants each (for the exact synthesis of each group see Table 1). Participants were students enrolled in different undergraduate or graduate studies of higher education institutions, 26 of which were female and 16 were male, all between 18 and 27 years old. Participants were not asked about their sexual orientation but they were told that they were free to state it if they wished. Groups lasted between 60 and 90 min and were recorded through the platforms.

Table 1 Information regarding the synthesis of focus groups: number, gender and level of studies of participants
Full size table

The criteria of inclusion of participants was their university student status and the representation of both males and females in the groups. This was primarily a convenience sample, to allow students to train in data collection. Nevertheless, this age group is of research interest for additional reasons. It is at this age that youth possibly develop and practice a more conscious citizen identity as they assume for the first time a number of rights and responsibilities (e.g. right to vote and be voted). At the same time, it is during university studies that students are more likely to disclose their sexual orientation to others (Lance, 2008) and thus LGBT + issues may become more visible. Given that research on how this age group perceives issues around citizenship rights is limited (Sloam, 2012). studying the perceptions of university students on issues around LGBT + rights is of high interest.

All participants were Greek Cypriot citizens and were recruited through social media of the students-moderators and through snowballing. They gave their informed consent through designated consent forms that were sent to them before the discussions through email. Discussions were recorded through the platforms used and recordings were not shared with anyone. Only the pseudonymized transcribed version was shared with the authors. All participants were informed that the research has been approved by the National Bioethics Committee in Cyprus.

Mitigating Bias in Our Research Practice

Given the fact that our study explored a delicate topic, we attempted to create a research context that would allow different views to be expressed. Towards this aim, we carefully formulated the questions to be asked in ways that would allow different voices to be prompted. Moreover, during data collection, we used students as moderators and we trained moderators systematically to abstain from evaluating the beliefs of others, to give floor to all possible arguments, and to reserve the expression of their own views until the discussion ended. Finally, during data analysis, we coded the data collaboratively, discussing any possible divergence that appeared in our understanding of the data and we ensured that our interpretations were grounded in the data. Nevertheless, despite our effort to construct a research environment that would allow participants to freely argue and counterargue, we need to acknowledge that data production does not constitute an unbiased objective pursuit. In line with the social constructionist background of our study, we recognize that we as researchers, our agenda, concerns and presumptions as well as the moderators, constituted integral part of the data generation process. Hence, the accounts elicited have been largely influenced by our questions and research approach (O’Reilly et al., 2021). We did however keep an open reflective stance throughout the process (Willig, 2008) to mitigate this as much as possible.

Analytical Procedure

Data were transcribed verbatim by students-moderators. All transcriptions were inserted into ATLAS ti (version 8) software (Hwang, 2008). This software facilitates qualitative analysis of large sets of data as it aids the process of coding. For the purposes of this article the parts of the responses that referred to LG parenting were coded collaboratively by first and third author. The authors read the data repeatedly and following an extended discussion, they came up with the following 13 codes that they believed captured successfully the content of the data: (1) comparison of female and male SSP, (2) comparisons of children of SSF with children from heterosexual families, (3) comparisons of SSF and same-sex parents with heterosexual families, (4) comparisons with single-parent families, (5) personal contact with SSF, (6) psychological effects of SSF to the child, (7) reactions to stimuli of SSP, (8) references to mother/father figure or woman/man figure, (9) references to orphans and orphanages, (10) references to social stigma around SSF, (11) stance towards legal right to parenting for SS couples, (12) social reactions to the possibility of legal SSP, and (13) what matters for a family.

The coding procedure, which is a pre-analytic step, facilitated a systematic overview of the data regarding the types of arguments used to support or to oppose SSP. Arguments contained to a very large extent explicitly supportive statements with only a few accounts being explicitly skeptical, grounding their reluctance on the psychological effects to the child, due to societal discrimination towards SSP or the possibility of the lack of mother figure in male same-sex parents.

Out of the data containing explicitly supportive arguments, we decided to focus on those that were recurrent amongst the data. We identified three recurrent argumentative lines that are presented in the analysis below. The first argumentative line (‘It is better to be raised by Lesbian and Gay parents than being raised in an orphanage’) was based on the material contained in codes 2, 3, 9, 11 and 13, the second argumentative line (‘It is better than irresponsible heterosexual or disadvantaged (single) parenting’) was based on the material contained in codes 2, 3, 4, 8, 11 and 13 and the third argumentative line (‘Upbringing in Same Sex families is even better than in heterosexual families’) was based on the material contained in codes 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13. The rest of the codes (i.e. 1, 5, 7) did not contain detailed argumentation regarding SSP as a right and thus were not used to build the analysis.

To understand better these lines of arguments we employed principles of rhetorical psychology (Billig, 1991) paying attention to the counter-arguments that speakers position themselves against and the rhetorical strategies used in order to support the respective arguments. Furthermore, in analysing specific excerpts, we were interested in what discourse accomplishes in the local interactional context, paying attention to the rhetorical devices used to provide facticity to evaluative discourse (Edwards & Potter, 1992) and to position participants in particular ways (as open-minded vis-a-vis other people or society in general). Finally, our analytic interest lies in capturing what a particular argumentative line tells us ‘about the wider discursive economy, about what is taken for granted in a social scene… and who is routinely empowered and who is disempowered as a consequence’ (Wetherell, 2015, p. 317).

Findings

It Is Better to Be Raised by LG Parents than Being Raised in an Orphanage

The first argumentative line involves rhetorical comparisons and contrasts between SSP and being raised in an orphanage. The first excerpt is part of a focus group 1 with two women and a man who discuss the right of marriage and parenting amongst LG individuals. The second excerpt comes from a focus group with two women and two men and it is a reaction towards two photos projected by the moderator showing same-sex parents with their child.

Excerpt 1

Ntina: Yes, I don’t think that there should be a discrimination in this issue. You cannot impose to somebody with whom to be and if he/she wants to adopt a child or not. It is definitely better than for the child to be orphan (Female, FG1).

Excerpt 2

Giorgos: Umm, of course not, it is not something that is considered abnormal or causes aversion let’s say when you see it. Because I cannot understand why some people might say that a family with two fathers or two mothers should not be considered normal. Sometimes, some people believe that it is better for the childrens’ souls to be destroyed in orphanages, instead of having a better future with a family with two fathers or two mothers. (Male, FG9).

In both excerpts quoted above speakers first declare their unambiguous open-minded stance. Ntina in the first excerpt declares her entire support for the freedom of everyone to be with whomever they want and to become a parent, while Giorgos claims his rationality by wondering why some people may not consider same sex parenting normal. He does so by first ruling out the possibility that the images shown may be considered aversive or abnormal to someone else’s eyes.

The unequivocal faith in freedom of act in both excerpts is followed by comparisons. Using an extreme case formulation (‘It is definitely better’) the speaker in the first excerpt compares SSP with not having parents at all. The speaker in the second excerpt attributes to some unspecified others the (constructed as) unreasonable claim that it is better for children’s souls to be destroyed in orphanages than to have a future within a family with same-sex parents. According to discursive psychologists (Edwards & Potter, 1992), rhetorical contrasts underline the action orientation of discourse and highlight its potential implications. As Edwards (1999: 279) puts it, rhetorical contrasts ‘are orienting to normative and moral orders’, constructing what is normative and what is not. Moreover, the measure of rhetorical comparison determines the value of an object. By rhetorically comparing SSP with having no parents or with being raised in a threatening and inappropriate for a child environment, participants construct SSP as a ‘lesser of two evils’ and by implication as lower quality parenting. Similar is the line of arguing unfolded in excerpt 3, taken from focus group 5 with three women and one man. The moderator asked what participants thought regarding SSP.

Excerpt 3

Georgia: I would say that I also support same-sex couples to be able to have children. The main reason is because, apart from an equality point of view where a same-sex couple should be able to do what a heterosexual couple can do, it’s also…I believe it’s better for the child itself. For example, a child that is going to be adopted will be able to receive love and attention from two parents that will love and will want it. And I am confused because many times I went through the process of talking with people who were like “ umm, no it is better for the child to remain in the orphanage instead of..”. I mean, this point of view the worst, it is unthinkable, its not even rational (Female, FG5).

Georgia starts out with formulating an explicit subject-side ‘attitudinal position’ (Potter, 1998; Potter et al., 2020): She is in favour of SSP. She proceeds to ground her attitude on two reasons that are ordered hierarchically in terms of importance. The first reason, through the use of a distant footing (i.e. the footing of an animator) (Goffman, 1981), is constructed as less important and trivial, but also as familiar and indisputable. It encompasses opinions concerned with equality and sameness between same-sex and heterosexual parents, which are not attributed to anyone specifically and are rather constituted as well-known truths. On the contrary the second reason is constructed as personal opinion (‘I believe…’) and as more important. According to Georgia, what is vital (and beyond the appeal to principles of equality and sameness) is that SSP may be better for the child itself. Interestingly this premise is predicated on a comparison between heterosexual and SSP. It is again predicated on a—similar to the above—‘lesser of two evils’ argument: SSP is better than being raised in an orphanage. The latter is not constituted as a widely endorsed truth. Quite the opposite, it is given the status of a marginal opinion, as the speaker mentions that she frequently had to confront people who believe the opposite. Through active voicing (Wooffitt, 1992) and by the use of three part list (“the worst, it is unthinkable, it’s not even rational”), the participant claims her rationality vis-à-vis those who believe that it would be better for children to remain in an orphanage than behind adopted by a same-sex couple. By the same token, though, she also constructs being raised by heterosexual parents as beyond comparison and SSP as low quality parenting.

Next excerpt comes from focus group 4, involving three men and one woman. The moderator asked them about their views on SSP and this excerpt is part of the participant’s response, preceeded by some comments about the social change needed for SSP to happen.

Excerpt 4

Pavlos: This is my personal opinion, it is better for a child, instead of being in the orphanage, to have somewhere to eat, somewhere to sleep and the child is going to figure out its sexual orientation with time I believe, if there is right education from the parents, it does not necessarily mean that the child is also going to turn gay. (Male, FG4).

Pavlos, in common with the speakers quoted above starts by employing a ‘lesser of two evils’ way of accounting. He then proceeds to counterargue against the premise that the sexual orientation of parents may affect the child’s sexual identity. This is rhetorically constituted as an unauthored statement (‘it does not necessarily mean…’) in contrast to the counterargument, which is constituted as participant’s personal opinion. According to the latter, if they are given the ‘right education’, children raised by SSP will not necessarily become homosexual themselves. What is noteworthy is that, through his reference to the role of parents’ proper education in restricting the possibility that children may become homosexuals themselves, homosexuality is constructed as something undesired and preventable.

What is also remarkable is that the argument in favour of SSP is predicated on the idea that same-sex parents should not necessarily be role models (at least in terms of sexuality) something that it is—by implication—constructed as expectable and non-negotiable for heterosexual parents.

It Is Better than Irresponsible Heterosexual or Disadvantaged (Single) Parenting

In common with the excerpts previously considered, the ones included in the current section tend to ground SSP evaluations on explicit comparisons. But while in the previous section, SSP was compared to not having parents and being raised in an orphanage, here it is juxtaposed to irresponsible parenting or to single-parent families.

The next excerpt comes from focus group 3, in which two men and a woman participated. Petros below replies to a question regarding his view towards same-sex marriage and SSP.

Excerpt 5

Petros: So, we can not be dogmatic for such a matter because we see couples consisting of a man and a woman who they might not take care of their child at all, to neglect it, to not dedicate the necessary time, attention, education and all these things. And we can see two, a same-sex couple where all these things such as love, care, education and all the rest that could [happen] where umm…I believe it is…that it should exist, that it is each parent’s obligation to provide to the child whatever they can, to provide their child all this love (Male, FG3).

For Petros, one’s opinion on SSP cannot be the end product of an absolute judgement. It is a matter of a comparative judgement. Same-sex parents can be better compared to heterosexual parents, who do not give their children the time and attention they need. As it is aforementioned, discursive psychologists have underscored the implications of comparisons in constructing binaries and discerning between the normative and the non-normative. In the comparison drawn in excerpt 5 (and in other similar accounts) the heterosexual family becomes something like a control group vis-à-vis same-sex parents are evaluated. On the contrary, the representation of a same-sex couple that meets the prerequisites and the necessary standards of good parenting is constructed by the use of numbers (‘two.. one couple’) as well as by the use of modality (‘could happen’) as an exception and as a possibility.

The comparison of SSP with heterosexual parenting in general may have important unwanted implications, since it vitally contributes to the reproduction of heteronormativity (see also Clarke, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001). Of course in the account quoted in excerpt 5 the construction of the specific comparison group of irresponsible parents is also worthy of attention. Same-sex parents are deemed to be preferrable than parents who fail to provide their children with all those that the participant represents as parental obligation: care, education and most notably, love. Love is constituted as the essential criterion of good parenting also in the next excerpt, which was part of focus group 8, with five women. Elena comments on the views of her interlocutor who argued that many heterosexual couples are not ideal as parents.

Excerpt 6

Elena: I completely agree with Maria, on that many times we see parents who are straight or they have that “ideal” that some believe in, but they do not have as much love to offer to raise a child, and it’s irrelevant if it’s raised by two mothers, two men or whatever but what there should exist is love and uhm definitely the maturity to raise a child (Female, FG8).

Excerpt 6 includes an argument that adopts a sexuality and/or gender blind perspective, as far as parenting is concerned and constitutes love as the ultimate criterion that demarcates good from bad parenting. No matter whether parents are straight or not, no matter whether they are two women or two men ‘or whatever’, according to the Elena, they need to have maturity and to provide love that is necessary in child-rearing. By posing love as the ultimate criterion differentiating ‘good’ from ‘bad’ families, Elena implicit fails to address how certain forms of family may be prioritized over others due to prevailing heteronormative discourses and how certain power differences in society affect families differentially (see also Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004).

Excerpt 7 comes from the same focus group as excerpt 5. The moderator asked participants whether SSP should become legal in Cyprus. Dimitris started his response by acknowledging that he didn’t know whether it was already legal and that he searched for evidence, amongst which, a meta-analysis publication that showed how two parents are better than one, irrespectively of their gender and sexual orientation. He continued:

Excerpt 7

Dimitris: So my aesthetic view, even with the views that I hold now, aesthetically speaking I can’t see a same-sex couple having a child. But my aesthetics don’t have anything to do anything with what is happening in reality, where science indeed shows that two parents are better than one, than single-parent families for the upbringing of a child regardless of sex or sexual identity, so yes it seems that it does not matter (Male, FG3).

Dimitris in excerpt 7 in common with the speaker in the previous excerpt, employs a gender- and sexuality-blind perspective in his account of good parenting. He provides however a new basis of comparison, juxtaposing SSP to single parenting. Single-parent families are constituted as a less appropriate context for children raising than any two-parent family, independently of parents’ gender or sexuality (see also Zartler, 2014; Wiegers & Chunn, 2015 for assumptions about single-parent families). The facticity of the speaker’s claim is constructed by well-known rhetorical devices. Firstly, it is constructed as beyond or even as against his own worldview and motivations. SSP is represented as against his own aesthetic criteria and beyond his own current opinions. Therefore, he has no stake or interest (Edwards & Potter, 1992) in arguing in favour of it. Secondly, his account is warranted by being depicted as grounded on scientific findings. It is science that indicates that two parents are better than a single parent.

Upbringing in Same Sex Families Is Even Better than in Heterosexual Families

In this argumentative line participants engage in constructions of SSF as raising better equipped children than heterosexual families. Specifically, they tend to maintain that SSF raise children who are prepared to deal with bullying and other societal reactions to their diversity.

In her talk preceding excerpt 8, Tatiana emphasized the risk of being traumatized by bullying that children raised in SSF have to face. In excerpt 8, answering a question related to how children are being raised in SSF, Tatiana constructs children as more mature because of having to deal with being different.

Excerpt 8

Tatiana: I believe, as I said before ehh, I don’t believe that they have lots of differences, it is just that I believe that the children of same-sex families grow up a little bit sooner because they understand that they have something different from the rest and they go through the process to think “what is that I have different from the others” so they enter the process of having this serious conversation sooner so that the parent prepares the child to integrate smoothly in the society. So, generally I believe that they grow up faster, I don’t think this is bad, it is just perhaps that the child loses a bit of its childhood (Female, FG2).

Tatiana adopts a close footing, formulating her discourse as personal opinion (‘I believe…I don’t believe’). Her attitudinal position is in common with the accounts considered so far in explicit comparisons. What is noteworthy, however, is the way in which the speaker shifts from a ‘no difference’ type of accounting (‘I don’t believe that they have lots of differences’) to a favourable image of children in SSF. Children raised in SSF are represented as being more mature, because they engage in serious conversations about their diversity early on, so that they are more smoothly integrated into society. The participant’s claim concerning the maturity of children is articulated through the use of active voicing (‘what is that I have different from the others’) which emphasizes the performer of the action. Children are portrayed to reflect on and actively deal with their ‘difference from others’.

What is particularly interesting, however, is the upshot of Tatiana’s contribution quoted above. Tatiana’s gist formulation of her previous account (‘So, generally I believe that they grow up faster’), is followed by an evaluation which has two parts. While the first is uncomplicated (‘I don’t think this is bad’) the second is openly mitigated by the use of words such as ‘just, perhaps…a bit’. Mitigation, as discursive psychologists maintain (Edwards & Potter, 1992), constitutes an important rhetorical device for the management of moral accountability in talk. Arguing that children may lose part (even ‘a bit’) of their childhood may serve to undermine the positive evaluation of SSP previously articulated by Tatiana and positions her as being against it. In the end, living their childhood and being protected by knowledge that may put their innocence at risk is—in the Western World—considered to be a fundamental right of children (Hacking, 1999; Jackson & Scott, 1999).

In the next excerpt, Paris from focus group 1, uses a similar way of accounting with the one analysed, arguing that SSF children appear better equipped to deal with societal reactions towards their diversity.

Excerpt 9

Paris: I think that there are definitely differences, like what Tolis said that they definitely prepare their children a lot more for the…for the way that the society will treat them. So these kids respectively become more receptive towards that direction and they know that yes, there will be people who will say this and that and that I shouldn’t pay attention. And yes, some kids maybe will not have to learn this because they are in a normal, in quotation marks, family, so they don’t have to be prepared for this cruelty (Male, FG11).

Paris, unlike Tatiana who starts with a ‘no difference’ way of accounting, emphasizes difference from the beginning. Using an extreme case formulation (‘there are definitely differences’) (Pomerantz, 1986), he represents children of SSF as being better equipped to deal with societal reactions. What is commonly associated as a negative factor of growing up in SS families (Clarke, 2001) here, at least at first sight, it seems to be reversely constructed as an asset of children being raised by SSP. Children become more receptive and more resilient as to how to cope with what people may say. On the contrary, children being raised in what is put in quotation marks by Paris ‘normal family’ do not need to be prepared. The speaker keeps distance from the categorization of heterosexual families as normal, which is (by the use of quotation marks) attributed to unspecified others who have an unfavourable attitudinal position towards SSP in the public dialogue. Nevertheless, he positions himself as sharing the common, in public dialogue, argument that children from SSF will face societal reactions. What is more, through the use of the word ‘cruelty’, he depicts these reactions as extreme. Therefore, while he argues that being raised by heterosexual parents may be disadvantageous, the word ‘cruelty’ signifies that it protects children from something truly undesirable.

Discussion

All three argumentative lines presented demonstrate a declaration of supportive stances. Participants support equal rights amongst heterosexual and homosexual individuals who want to become parents and renounce discrimination. In all argumentative lines, participants do so by presenting rhetorical contrasts and comparisons. In the first two, they compare SSP with having no parents at all and being raised in an orphanage or being brought up by a single-parent or,finally, by irresponsible parents. In the third argumentative line, the contrast is focused on whether upbringing in SSF is different or not from heterosexual families.

Despite their supportive affirmation, all argumentative lines construct SSP as a ‘lesser of two evils’ or an ambiguous option for the child. In the first two argumentative lines, being raised by same-sex parents is presented as acceptable when compared to conditions that are considered by participants as disadvantageous for the development of the children. The particular imagery created through references to orphanages, irresponsible parents and broken single-parent families (when compared to the two-parent ideal) is that of dysfunctional environments. This imagery makes the choice of SSP an appropriate one, but leaves all other conditions beyond comparison. Namely, if the conditions were equally good or bad between same-sex and heterosexual families, would SSP still be an acceptable or even equally legitimate option? Thus, in these accounts, the two-parent heterosexual families remain the normative, the ideal against which all other forms of family are evaluated.

While the reference to irresponsible heterosexual parents appears as a possibility, it is more of an exception to the norm of responsible, caring heterosexual parenting. The acknowledgment that heterosexual parents may not be naturally suited to become parents or naturally caring towards their child may have de-essentialising qualities (i.e. heterosexuals as not naturally gifted to become parents). However, as long as hierarchies and normative standards persist, de-essentialised constructions, as other authors have showed (Figgou, 2013; Verkuyten, 2003) may be used for social exclusive purposes and may fail to deconstruct the heteronormative ideal.

In all argumentative lines, love is constructed as a key criterion for an ideal family. Gender-and sexuality-blind arguments are put forward that legitimise SSP, if the most important condition of loving one’s child is met. While the criterion supports access to SSP rights, it is at the same time an impossible criterion to define and use in establishing SSP rights institutionally. It also closes down the conversation about SSP rights in a rather superficial way, not enabling further discussion regarding different forms of family and upbringing. Specifically, as Clarke and Kitzinger (2004) note in their analysis of talk shows with lesbian and gay parents, the argument that ‘love makes a family’ may obscure the difficulties and challenges that same-sex parents face in raising their children while it also conceals the institutional and ideological support of heterosexual families. In its effort to stress the similarities between SSP and heterosexual parenting, their differences are not recognized.

The third argumentative line follows a similar structure. Participants face the dilemma of difference/similarity. SSF are constructed as different in that they raise children who are prepared to deal with negative societal reactions. While this is at first sight presented as an asset of children growing up in SSF, namely, becoming more mature and resilient, it is at the same time undermined by references to children losing their childhood or facing bullying, which is expected to negatively affect their lives significantly. This then presents intending parents with an impossible dilemma in which becoming parents would mean making their children more mature and resilient but also more exposed to bullying, compromising their welfare. This may come to down to characterizing intending parents as irresponsible and inconsiderate because of prioritizing their need to become parent over the child’s welfare, as related literature shows (Clarke, 2001; Ellis, 2001).

Contribution to the Literature

The rhetorical/discursive psychological approach taken in this study suggests that it is impossible to identify these arguments as clear stances in a scale measuring support or opposition towards SSP rights. Participants do not construct SSP as unambiguously positive/negative or in a straightforwardly homophobic or non-homophobic way. They evaluate SSP as they construct it; their evaluation is integrated in the construction of SSP as they formulate their arguments in particular rhetorical contexts. That said, our study contributes to research that underscores the value of studying attitudinal positions in and through discourse, where the complexity and the action orientation of assessments and evaluations can be documented (Potter & Wetherell, 1988; Potter et al., 2020).

It is also misleading to identify these as efforts to conceal prejudice towards SSP and families. Participants’ arguments are fraught with dilemmas and ambivalences of ideological proportion (Billig et al., 1988). What we see here is that the endorsement of neo-liberal ideology leads participants to construct seemingly supportive arguments and to rhetorically position themselves as open-minded individuals, while at the same time they create impossible conditions for SSP acceptance or construct SSP as second-class parenting, a ‘lesser of two evils’. It is thus we suggest more informative to engage with these dilemmas that are expressed in participants’ arguments and with the ways that participants navigate them in order to gain a deeper understanding of how SSP rights are understood and constructed.

Social Policy Implications

In this study, we showed that these young people may support the right to SSP ostensibly, but in effect, they devalue SSP and fail to question their idealized heteronormative standards. In other words, they explicitly support individual rights, without questioning though social norms and societal (heteronormative, bio-normative) criteria of good parenting. The findings have implications for social policy and particularly sexual citizenship. Sexual citizenship describes those rights and responsibilities that are related to citizens’ intimate and sexual life (Richardson, 2004, 2018). Since sexuality became a central concern in debates around citizenship, sexual citizenship has been studied in a variety of academic disciplines. As a concept, it has exposed the heteronormative, patriarchal and nationalist assumptions (Nagel, 1998; Plummer, 2001; Weeks, 1998) that govern the understanding of citizenship.

In alignment with increasing social psychological work on the issue, we view sexual citizenship as a practice of socio-political actors in certain local contexts (Kadianaki et al., 2020), through a bottom-up understanding of citizenship that examines citizens’ perspective, rather than the perspective of the institutions. This approach provides an understanding of how people engage in constructing and demarcating the limits of rights of the LGBT + community and by implication, in this study particularly how they construct limits of inclusion and exclusion of same-sex parents.

In this study, participants are young people in their early and late 20s, an age in which they become more active citizens and they do so through various and also alternative forms of participation (i.e. social media). Since the ways they understand citizenship is still limited (Sloam, 2012), studying their perspectives on SSP rights bears additional value. Their perspectives are paramount in the unfolding debates around SSM and SSP around the world. This study may thus bring important insights that could be taken into account both in youth citizenship education, as well as in the framing of rights in the public dialogue.

Having said that, it is important to recognize as a limitation of the study the fact that young higher education students were interviewed by other university students, which most probably created the conditions for these ideas to appear. While it gave us a unique opportunity to study how these ideas are formulated and operate, it also points to future directions of this research with the aim of extending the study to more diverse segments of the lay public (e.g. older age people, diverse educational backgrounds or parents in different families, heterosexual parents, single parents) in order to allow for a fuller understanding of arguments regarding sexual citizenship issues.

Conclusion

An understanding of the ambivalence or rather of the rhetorical implications of the argumentative lines considered may help to understand the lack of public support towards SSP in social surveys. It may also serve as a basis for the construction of convincing counter arguments. As we have already maintained, since ambivalence was often between supporting individual parental rights without questioning societal heteronormative norms, an approach to rights and norms as social and historically situated constructs, through a sexual citizenship perspective could be more effective. While counterarguments may also be in the course of time appropriated by anti-SSP discourse, important discursive shifts may take place in the public debate that can instigate social change.