LGBTQ Family & Relationships

LGBT Family

For the second full week of LGBTQ Pride Month, we’ve selected articles from our broad journals portfolio under the theme LGBTQ Family & Relationships. This collection explores the complexities of social, ethical, psychological themes of LGBTQ families and relationships, covering topics such as family planning, marriage equality, child development, sexual health, and many more. Enjoy this research freely through July 31, and don’t forget to comment and share below!

And, don’t forget to come back each Monday as we post think pieces from Wiley authors and LGBTQ advocates centered around a new theme. You’ll also get unlocked access to journal articles and book excerpts that examine the ethical, social, and philosophical issues faced by the LGBTQ community. Thanks for joining us as we continue the necessary conversation on LGBTQ rights, awareness, and support.


Social and psychological creativity in gay male midlife identity management British Journal of Social Psychology | Early View

Performative family: homosexuality, marriage and intergenerational dynamics in China The British Journal of Sociology | Early View

Greedy Spouse, Needy Parent: The Marital Dynamics of Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Intergenerational Caregivers Journal of Marriage & Family | Early View

Development of the Gay and Lesbian Relationship Satisfaction Scale Journal of Marital and Family Therapy | Early View

Religion and Public Opinion Toward Same-Sex Relations, Marriage, and Adoption: Does the Type of Practice Matter? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion | Early View

Religiousness and Support for Same-Sex Marriage: An Endogenous Treatment Approach Social Science Quarterly | Early View

Ambivalence in Gay and Lesbian Family Relationships Journal of Marriage & Family | June 2016

Identity Transformation During the Transition to Parenthood Among Same-Sex Couples: An Ecological, Stress-Strategy-Adaptation Perspective Journal of Family Theory & Review | March 2016

Queer Theory, Intersectionality, and LGBT-Parent Families: Transformative Critical Pedagogy in Family Theory Journal of Family Theory & Review | March 2016

Maybe “I Do,” Maybe I Don’t: Respectability Politics in the Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy | December 2015

Meanings of Intimacy: A Comparison of Members of Heterosexual and Same-Sex Couples Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy | December 2015

Why Donor Insemination and Not Adoption? Narratives of Female-Partnered and Single Mothers Family Relations | December 2015

Queering the Martial Races: Masculinity, Sex and Circumcision in the Twentieth-Century British Indian Army Gender & History | August 2015

The Personal Politics of Same-Sex Marriage Politics & Policy | August 2015

LG(BT) Families and Counting Sociology Compass | July 2015

Getting “Bi” in the Family: Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences Journal of Marriage & Family | June 2015

Sexual Health Risk Behaviors Among Older Men Who Have Sex With Men: Implications for Interventions Adultspan Journal | April 2015

Reminders of Heteronormativity: Gay Adoptive Fathers Navigating Uninvited Social Interactions Family Relations | April 2015

“An individual of ill-defined type” (“Un individu d’un genre mal défini”):  Hermaphroditism in Marriage Annulment Proceedings in Nineteenth-Century France’ Gender & History | April 2015

Intimacy and Emotion Work in Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Relationships Journal of Marriage & Family | April 2015

Relationship Preferences Among Gay and Lesbian Online Daters: Individual and Contextual Influences Journal of Marriage & Family | April 2015

Making Sense in and of the Asexual Community: Navigating Relationships and Identities in a Context of Resistance Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology | March/April 2015

Relationship Education and Therapy for Same-Sex Couples Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy | December 2014

Reducing Health Disparities and Enhancing the Responsible Conduct of Research Involving LGBT Youth The Hastings Center Report | October 2014

Gay men and intimate partner violence: a gender analysis Sociology of Health & Illness | May 2014

Adoptive Gay Father Families: Parent–Child Relationships and Children’s Psychological Adjustment Child Development | March/April 2014

Reductio ad absurdum objections and the dis-integration argument against merely instrumental sex Journal of Social Philosophy | September 2013

Outing Heteronormativity in Interpersonal and Family Communication: Feminist Applications of Queer Theory “Beyond the Sexy Streets” Communication Theory | May 2013

The Cross-Pressures of Religion and Contact with Gays and Lesbians, and Their Impact on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion Politics & Policy | February 2012

The Friends and Family Plan: Contact with Gays and Support for Gay Rights Policy Studies Journal | May 2011

‘Dealing with sperm’: comparing lesbians’ clinical and non-clinical donor conception processes Sociology of Health & Illness | January 2011


LGBTQ RightsMiss last week’s post on LGBTQ Rights? No worries! The research collection is free through July 31. Go here to read the latest on LGBTQ law, policies, activism, and more.

Advertisements

It’s LGBTQ Pride Month

lgbtq pride 2016

All people deserve to live with dignity and respect, free from fear and violence, and protected against discrimination, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

– Barack Obama in his Presidential Proclamation for LGBT Pride Month 2015

June is LGBTQ Pride Month. Celebrate with us!

Visit The Philosopher’s Eye Blog each Monday this month to read think pieces from Wiley authors and LGBTQ advocates. You’ll also get unlocked access to journal articles and book excerpts that examine the ethical, social, and philosophical issues faced by the LGBTQ community.

Join us as we continue the necessary conversation on LGBTQ rights, awareness, and support.

Happy Reading,

The Wiley Blackwell Philosophy Team

 

What Would Universal Marriage Equality Mean for Culture?

640px-Eric_Stonestreet,_Jesse_Tyler_FergusonUntil recently, American culture has been relatively devoid of representations of the LGBTQ couple. In fact, one of the frequent observations made by critics of television programs and films particularly has been the tendency of those forms to depict lesbians and gays as singular figures isolated from continuing relationships or larger community. There are,
one supposes, a few notable (or infamous) exceptions if one wishes to press the issue: Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas had attained a certain celebrity status by the 1920s and 1930s, though their salon days were spent in Paris and not in America. Likewise, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were by all accounts a couple in the 1920s but their infamy as murderers hardly made them role models.  Lesbian and gay couples did exist, to be sure, among them Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who were together more than five decades before Martin’s death in 2008, and Jorn Kamgren and gay activist Harry Hay, who were together for nearly a dozen years, but they were not well-known.  And novelist Henry James popularized “Boston Marriages” — close romantic relationships between women – in 1886’s The Bostonians, though the sexual nature of these relationships was likely neither universal nor well-understood. Lesbian and gay couples were becoming more culturally visible by the 1970s, thanks in part to a series of efforts by gay couples to marry in Minnesota, Seattle, and Colorado, as well as to their appearance in works such as the play and television series Hot L Baltimore.  Even as LGBTQ characters began to emerge in television and film, on-screen couples remained relatively scarce until the new millennium, with press accounts of states’ legalizing, first, civil unions and domestic partnerships, and eventually marriages.  When the TV series Modern Family debuted in 2009, the gay couple Mitch and Cam soon became audience favorites. The current U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which seeks to overturn state bans on the conduct and recognition of same-sex marriages, has dramatically increased the visibility of LGBTQ couples. But would universal marriage equality also mean greater cultural visibility or would an end to the legal and political battles over marriage equality lead to normalization and a return to invisibility?

Bruce E. Drushel, Ph.D.
Guest Editor, Journal of American Culture
Associate Professor, Media, Journalism & Film, Miami University

We encourage you to share, comment, and engage with us in the comment section below! Please also check out our free special collection of scholarly articles and books in LGBT studies.

The Psychological Burden Associated with the Stigmatization of Homosexuality

imagesThe Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) has long focused on the psychological burden associated with the stigmatization of homosexuality and, in articles over the past decade, explored the roots of public opposition to marriage equality; examined the rights and responsibilities of gay parents; and critiqued the “psychological” arguments that are typically put forward regarding gay rights.

In “Social Advocacy for Equal Marriage: The Politics of ‘Rights’ and the Psychology of ‘Mental Health’, (Analyses of Social Issues of Public Policy, December 2004), Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson argue against the discipline’s dominant narrative regarding homosexuality, with its focus on social stigmatization and the mental health damage or deficit that such stigmatization imposes. They argued instead for a discourse of rights, which “asserts universally applicable principles of equality, justice, freedom, and dignity.” The psychological approach, by contrast, seemed fundamentally “antithetical to the conceptual framework of human rights, as a basis for social justice.”

In “The Rights and Responsibilities of Gay and Lesbian Parents: Legal Developments, Psychological Research, and Policy Implications,” (Social Issues and Policy Review, December 2008), Jared Chamberlain, Monica Miller, and Brian Bornstein enrich the discussion about how courts should deal with gay parents who chose to end their relationship. They argue that children benefit from having continued contact with two parents—even if in gay relationships there may be a biological connection to only one of the parents—and that the children’s well-being is unaffected by their parents’ sexual orientation. The same “best interest” standard that prevails among heterosexual parents in determining child custody should prevail among gay parents, with visitation rights allocated accordingly. A review of the literature reveals that children of lesbian parents showed no differences in terms of “psychological development and family functioning,” exhibited similar levels of self-esteem, and experienced similar gender identity formation processes. They concluded by urging psychologists:

to continue to conduct and publicize the results of research on children of same-sex parents, especially in new areas such as dissolution of the same sex-relationship; they can conduct research comparing families with lesbian gay and heterosexual parents; and they can evaluate children in custodial disputes that result from the breakup of same-sex relationships in the same manner that they work with the children in heterosexual divorce cases.

In “Anti-Equality Marriage Amendments and Sexual Stigma,” (Journal of Social Issues, No. 2, 2011) Gregory Herek summarizes the stigma-based analysis of anti-equality marriage laws and campaigns. He discusses how being denied the legal right to marry because of one’s orientation constitutes an instance of stigma; and being subject to political campaigns promoting anti-equality marriage amendments are a source of heightened stress for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. The personal and political are interrelated: The initial enactment and continuing existence of anti-equality marriage laws depend on the continuing salience of such attitudes among the voting public. He closes by asking two questions: How the process of coming out and discussing one’s sexual orientation impacts one’s friends, relatives, and acquaintances; and second, how and why some heterosexual friends and family chose to become allies in the struggle for marriage equality and related structural stigma and prejudice.

Finally, Melanie Duncan and Markus Kemmelmeier focus on what attitudes fuel opposition to same-sex marriage, in their article “Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage: An Essentialist Approach.” They argue that the negative same-sex marriage (SSM) attitudes are the result of essentialist thinking about marriage—that is, thinking that categorizes marriage as universal, unique, invariant, and not the result of human agency. In fact, “essentialist” attitudes about marriage were a more potent predictor of negative SSM even than essentialist conceptions of homosexuality. In that respect, marriage is often conceptualized as if it predated or had an existence independent of the society in which it is practiced; marriage is viewed by opponents of SSM as if it had an “objective” reality, whose essence is formally enshrined. These attitudes are revealed in studies probing essentialist beliefs about homosexuality and essentialist beliefs about marriage: “Although opponents of SSM may be likely to harbor prejudices against homosexuals, their opposition to SSM seems to be more critically motivated by their essentialist perspective on marriage itself.”

We encourage you to share your thoughts and comments on this post below. If you’re interested on reading scholarly content, made free this month only to support the continuation of conversations surrounding the LGBT Community, read here.

For more from SPSSI, visit Wiley Online Library.  There you’ll find a free sample issue, content alerts, and a host of psychology articles.