Attitudes towards lesbians and gay men and support for lesbian and gay human rights among psychology students

A questionnaire comprising two scales, the short form of the Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG-S; Herek, 1984) and the newly devised Support for Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Scale (SLGHR) were administered to 226 students taking undergraduate psychology courses at universities in the United Kingdom, to assess their attitudes towards lesbians and gay men, and their level of support for lesbian and gay human rights. The results indicated that whilst only a small percentage of respondents expressed negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men on the ATLG-S, the sample as a whole did not overwhelmingly support lesbian and gay human rights. The lack of support for lesbian and gay human rights is discussed in relation to its implications for psychology students as future practitioners and policy makers. </p

Mentoring Sexual Minority Youth

It is estimated that up to 10 percent of the U.S. population is lesbian or gay. Thus, one can assume that some of the teenagers being served by mentoring programs are members of this sizeable minority group. Understanding the issues these young people face can help programs create an environment where gay and lesbian youth benefit from the adult caring and support that is at the heart of mentoring. This technical assistance packet, written by P/PV and published by the National Mentoring Center at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, describes the significant obstacles confronting lesbian and gay youth. It also suggests initial steps and mentor training that programs can implement to make gay and lesbian youth feel safe and welcome

Rights-based reasoning in discussions about lesbian and gay issues: implications for moral educators

Despite a paucity of psychological research exploring the interface between lesbian and gay issues and human rights, a human rights framework has been widely adopted in debates to gain equality for lesbians and gay men. Given this prominence within political discourse of human rights as a framework for the promotion of positive social change for lesbians and gay men, the aim of this study was to explore the extent to which rights-based arguments are employed when talking about lesbian and gay issues in a social context. An analysis of six focus group discussions with students showed that when lesbian and gay issues are discussed, rights-based reasoning is employed intermittently, and in relation to certain issues more so than others. The implications of these findings for moral education aimed at promoting positive social change for lesbians and gay men are discussed.</p

Gay People Are Living There: Reaching Out Beyond the Cities

Evaluates the 2008 Out In Africa Satellite Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Mafikeng, South Africa. Describes the challenges and impact of bringing queer films to isolated, mainly black and poor, gay and lesbian communities and strengthening local groups

Moral reasoning and homosexuality: the acceptability of arguments about lesbian and gay issues

In the political arena, lesbian and gay issues have typically been contested on grounds of human rights, but with variable success. Using a moral developmental framework, the purpose of this study was to explore preferences for different types of moral arguments when thinking about moral dilemmas around lesbian and gay issues. The analysis presented here comprised data collected from 545 students at UK universities, who completed a questionnaire, part of which comprised a moral dilemma task. Findings of the study showed that respondents do not apply moral reasoning consistently, and do not (clearly) favour human rights reasoning when thinking about lesbian and gay issues. Respondents tended to favour reasoning supporting existing social structures and frameworks, therefore this study highlights the importance of structural change in effecting widespread attitude change in relation to lesbian and gay rights issues. The implications of the findings for moral education are also discussed.</p

Adoption by Lesbian and Gay People: The Use and Mis-Use of Social Science Research

In the past twenty years, openly lesbian and gay people have joined in the evolving national dialogue, within the law and elsewhere, about adoption. This Article considers the adoption dialogue, addressing in particular the facts and beliefs that sometimes form (both by informing and misinforming) the dialogue. Part I of this Article describes the ways in which lesbian and gay people confront adoption\u27s legal structures. Part II discusses the findings of social science research on parenting by lesbian and gay people. Part III reviews and analyzes some of the responses to this research. The Conclusion considers the nature of the discussions regarding the research and suggests a mode of reconstruction. I. The Legal Structures of Adoption The legal process of adoption intersects with the lives of lesbian and gay people in a variety of ways. The most common are (1) second parent adoptions in which a lesbian or gay person adopts the child of a partner, and (2) traditional adoptions, in which a lesbian or gay person adopts a foster child or a child whom the adoptive parent has previously not cared for. 1 The traditional form of adoption extinguishes the parental rights and obligations of the biological or legal parent so that the adoptive parent becomes the sole parent. Second parent adoption, however, leaves the parental rights of one legally recognized parent intact and creates a second legally recognized parent for the child. These adoptions have become fairly routine among children of heterosexual step-parents, though typically pursuant to ..

The Ninth Circuit\u27s \u3ci\u3ePerry\u3c/i\u3e Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality

In Perry v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit ruled that California’s Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Reacting to the state supreme court’s recognition of marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples, Proposition 8 was a 2008 voter initiative that altered the state constitution to “restore” the “traditional” understanding of civil marriage to exclude same-sex couples. The major theme of the Yes-on-Eight campaign was that the state should not deem lesbian and gay unions to be “marriages” because schoolchildren would then think that lesbian and gay relationships are just as good as straight “marriages.” Proposition 8 intended that gay and lesbian couples be carved out of civil marriage and relegated to a separate institution, domestic partnerships. The court properly viewed this official status segregation with suspicion—a suspicion that was confirmed by the proponents’ open denigration of lesbian and gay marriages and their inability to tie taking away marriage rights to a genuine public interest. The original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause was that the Constitution does not tolerate class legislation—namely, laws that separate one class of citizens from the rest and bestow upon its members a less esteemed legal regime and, with it, an inferior status. This is exactly what Proposition 8 did. Hence, Judge Reinhardt was strictly enforcing the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as applied to the facts before him

A Nationwide Study of Norwegian Beliefs About Same-sex Marriage and Lesbian and Gay Parenthood

In Norway, a gender-neutral Marriage Law that secured equal marriage and parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples took effect in January 2009. The aim of the current study was to explore Norwegian beliefs about equal marriage and parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples and the welfare of children with lesbian and gay parents. A sample of 1,246 Norwegians participated in the study by filling out a questionnaire. The majority reported that they were supportive of equal marriage rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples, whilst there was less support for granting gay and lesbian couples equal right to become parents. The negative attitudes towards equal parenting rights for lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples were explained mainly by concerns about the welfare of children growing up with gay and lesbian parents.publishedVersio

Sexual Orientation, Prejudice and Segregation

This paper examines whether gay and lesbian workers sort into tolerant occupations. With information on sexual orientation, prejudice and occupational choice taken from Australian Twin Registers, we find that gays and lesbians shy away from prejudiced occupations. We show that our segregation results are largely driven by those gay and lesbian workers with disclosed identities, and robust to the inclusion of unobserved factors that are inherited and observed factors that strongly correlate with productive skills and vocational preferences. Our segregation estimates are generally large and consistent with prejudice based theories of employer and employee discrimination against gay and lesbian workers.sexual orientation, occupational choice, discrimination, segregation

Identity, Speech, and Equality

My experience as a litigator tells me that the First Amendment as provided the most reliable path to success of any of the doctrinal claims utilized by lesbian and gay rights lawyers. Certainly no other block of cases can rival the success rate of the cases seeking recognition and even funding of lesbian and gay student organizations, all of which were brought on First Amendment grounds and ultimately won by plaintiffs