Jump to content
Invision Community
FORUMS BLOG/NEWS USER BLOGS USER MEDIA ADVERTS   ADD  MANAGE CHAT CLUBS & USER PERSONAL FORUMS LINK EXCHANGE
LGBT DATING & LEARNING Bisexual Dating Lesbian Dating Site Gay Dating Site Transgender Dating Site Distance Degree Online Online Courses Master's Degree Online Online School Associate Degree Online

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Opposition to the term homophobia People and groups have objected to the use of the term homophobia. Non-neutral phrasing Use of homophobia, homophobic, and homophobe has been criticized as pejorative against LGBT rights opponents. Behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles stated in 1993 that "as [homophobia] is usually used, [it] makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the user does not approve. Philosopher Gary Colwell stated in 1999 that "the boundary of the term 'homophobia' is made so elastic that it can stretch around, not just phobias, but every kind of rational fear as well; and not just around every kind of fear, but also around every critical posture or idea that anyone may have about the practice of homosexuality". In 2012 the Associated Press Stylebook was revised to advise against using non-clinical words with the suffix -phobia, including homophobia, in "political and social contexts." AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn said the word homophobia suggests a severe mental disorder, and that it could be substituted with "anti-gay" or similar phrasing. The AP's decision was criticized in some media outlets, especially those in the LGBT area, who argued that homophobia did not necessarily have to be interpreted in a strict clinical sense. Heterophobia The term heterophobia is sometimes used to describe reverse discrimination or negative attitudes towards heterosexual people and opposite-sex relationships. The scientific use of heterophobia in sexology is restricted to few researchers, notably those who question Alfred Kinsey's sex research. To date, the existence or extent of heterophobia is mostly unrecognized by sexologists. Beyond sexology there is no consensus as to the meaning of the term because it is also used to mean "fear of the opposite" such as in Pierre-André Taguieff's The Force of Prejudice: On Racism and Its Doubles (2001). Referring to the debate on both meaning and use, SUNY lecturer Raymond J. Noonan, in his 1999 presentation to The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS) and the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT) Conference, states: Stephen M. White and Louis R. Franzini introduced the related term heteronegativism to refer to the considerable range of negative feelings that some gay individuals may hold and express toward heterosexuals. This term is preferred to heterophobia because it does not imply extreme or irrational fear. wikipedia.org
  3. Distinctions and proposed alternatives Researchers have proposed alternative terms to describe prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people. Some of these alternatives show more semantic transparency while others do not include -phobia: Homoerotophobia, being a possible precursor term to homophobia, was coined by Wainwright Churchill and documented in Homosexual Behavior Among Males in 1967. The etymology of homophobia citing the union of homos and phobos is the basis for LGBT historian Boswell's criticism of the term and for his suggestion in 1980 of the alternative homosexophobia. Homonegativity is based on the term homonegativism used by Hudson and Ricketts in a 1980 paper; they coined the term for their research in order to avoid homophobia, which they regarded as being unscientific in its presumption of motivation. Heterosexism refers to a system of negative attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favour of opposite-sex sexual orientation and relationships. It can include the presumption that everyone is heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior. Sexual prejudice – Researcher at the University of California, Davis Gregory M. Herek preferred sexual prejudice as being descriptive, free of presumptions about motivations, and lacking value judgments as to the irrationality or immorality of those so labeled. He compared homophobia, heterosexism, and sexual prejudice, and, in preferring the third term, noted that homophobia was "probably more widely used and more often criticized." He also observed that "Its critics note that homophobia implicitly suggests that antigay attitudes are best understood as an irrational fear and that they represent a form of individual psychopathology rather than a socially reinforced prejudice." wikipedia.org
  4. Efforts to combat homophobia Most international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, condemn laws that make homosexual relations between consenting adults a crime. Since 1994, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has also ruled that such laws violated the right to privacy guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2008, the Roman Catholic Church issued a statement which "urges States to do away with criminal penalties against [homosexual persons]." The statement, however, was addressed to reject a resolution by the UN Assembly that would have precisely called for an end of penalties against homosexuals in the world. In March 2010, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, described by CoE Secretary General as the first legal instrument in the world dealing specifically with one of the most long-lasting and difficult forms of discrimination to combat. To combat homophobia, the LGBT community uses events such as gay pride parades and political activism (See gay pride). In August 2019, the Pride in London community took a different initiative to “show solidarity with the LGBT+ community” and colored the crossings in rainbow colors for the annual parades. The first permanent crossings have been put on roads in Lambeth. Others were painted in Royal Borough of Greenwich. One form of organized resistance to homophobia is the International Day Against Homophobia (or IDAHO), first celebrated May 17, 2005 in related activities in more than 40 countries. The four largest countries of Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Colombia) developed mass media campaigns against homophobia since 2002. In addition to public expression, legislation has been designed, controversially, to oppose homophobia, as in hate speech, hate crime, and laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Successful preventative strategies against homophobic prejudice and bullying in schools have included teaching pupils about historical figures who were gay, or who suffered discrimination because of their sexuality. Some argue that anti-LGBT prejudice is immoral and goes above and beyond the effects on that class of people. Warren J. Blumenfeld argues that this emotion gains a dimension beyond itself, as a tool for extreme right-wing conservatives and fundamentalist religious groups and as a restricting factor on gender-relations as to the weight associated with performing each role accordingly. Furthermore, Blumenfeld in particular stated: Drawing upon research by Arizona State University Professor Elizabeth Segal, University of Memphis professors Robin Lennon-Dearing and Elena Delavega argued in a 2016 article published in the Journal of Homosexuality that homophobia could be reduced through exposure (learning about LGBT experiences), explanation (understanding the different challenges faced by LGBT people), and experience (putting themselves in situations experienced by LGBT people by working alongside LGBT co-workers or volunteering at an LGBT community center). wikipedia.org
  5. Economic cost There are at least two studies which indicate that homophobia may have a negative economic impact for the countries where it is widespread. In these countries there is a flight of their LGBT populations —with the consequent loss of talent—, as well as an avoidance of LGBT tourism, that leaves the pink money in LGBT-friendlier countries. As an example, LGBT tourists contribute 6,800 million dollars every year to the Spanish economy. As soon as 2005, an editorial from the New York Times related the politics of don't ask, don't tell in the US Army with the lack of translators from Arabic, and with the delay in the translation of Arabic documents, calculated to be about 120,000 hours at the time. Since 1998, with the introduction of the new policy, about 20 Arabic translators had been expelled from the Army, specifically during the years the US was involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, presented in March 2014 in a meeting of the World Bank the results of a study about the economical impact of homophobia in India. Only in health expenses, caused by depression, suicide, and HIV treatment, India would have spent additional 23,100 million dollars due to homophobia. On top, there would be costs caused by violence, workplace loss, rejection of the family, and bullying at school, that would result in a lower education level, lower productivity, lower wages, worse health, and a lower life expectancy among the LGBT population. In total, she estimated for 2014 in India a loss of up to 30,800 million dollars, or 1,7 % of the Indian GDP. The LGBT activist Adebisi Alimi, in a preliminary estimation, has calculated that the economic loss due to homophobia in Nigeria is about 1% of its GDP. Taking into account that in 2015 homosexuality is still illegal in 36 of the 54 African countries, the money loss due to homophobia in the continent could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Another study regarding socioecological measurement of homophobia and its public health impact for 158 countries was conducted in 2018. It found that the prejudice against gay people has a worldwide economic cost of $119.1 billion. Economical loss in Asia was 88.29 billion dollars due to homophobia, and in Latin America & the Caribbean it was 8.04 billion dollars. Economical cost in East Asia and Middle Asia was 10.85 billion dollars. Economical cost in Middle East and North Africa was 16.92 billion dollars. The researcher suggested that a 1% decrease in the level of homophobia is associated with a 10% increase in the gross domestic product per capita. A newer study from March 2018 done by The Williams Institute (UCLA School of Law) concludes that there is a positive correlation between LGBT inclusion and GDP per capita. According to this study, the legal rights of LGBT people have a bigger influence than the degree of acceptance in the society, but both effects reinforce each other. A one point increase in their LGBT Global Acceptance Index (GAI) showed an increase of $1,506 in GDP per capita; and one additional legal right was correlated with an increase of $1,694 in GDP per capita. wikipedia.org
  6. Distribution of attitudes Disapproval of homosexuality and of gay people is not evenly distributed throughout society, but is more or less pronounced according to age, ethnicity, geographic location, race, sex, social class, education, partisan identification and religious status. According to UK HIV/AIDS charity AVERT, religious views, lack of homosexual feelings or experiences, and lack of interaction with gay people are strongly associated with such views. The anxiety of heterosexual individuals (particularly adolescents whose construction of heterosexual masculinity is based in part on not being seen as gay) that others may identify them as gay has also been identified by Michael Kimmel as an example of homophobia. The taunting of boys seen as eccentric (and who are not usually gay) is said to be endemic in rural and suburban American schools, and has been associated with risk-taking behavior and outbursts of violence (such as a spate of school shootings) by boys seeking revenge or trying to assert their masculinity. Homophobic bullying is also very common in schools in the United Kingdom. In some cases, the works of authors who merely have the word "Gay" in their name (Gay Talese, Peter Gay) or works about things also contain the name (Enola Gay) have been destroyed because of a perceived pro-homosexual bias. In the United States, attitudes about people who are homosexual may vary on the basis of partisan identification. Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to have negative attitudes about people who are gay and lesbian, according to surveys conducted by the National Election Studies from 2000 through 2004. This disparity is shown in the graph on the right, which is from a book published in 2008 by Joseph Fried. The tendency of Republicans to view gay and lesbian people negatively could be based on homophobia, religious beliefs, or conservatism with respect to the traditional family. Homophobia also varies by region; statistics show that the Southern United States has more reports of anti-gay prejudice than any other region in the US. In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." One study of white adolescent males conducted at the University of Cincinnati by Janet Baker has been used to argue that negative feelings towards gay people are also associated with other discriminatory behaviors. According to the study, hatred of gay people, anti-Semitism, and racism are "likely companions." Baker hypothesized "maybe it's a matter of power and looking down on all you think are at the bottom." A study performed in 2007 in the UK for the charity Stonewall reports that up to 90 percent of the population support anti-discrimination laws protecting gay and lesbian people. wikipedia.org
  7. Social homophobia The fear of being identified as gay can be considered as a form of social homophobia. Theorists including Calvin Thomas and Judith Butler have suggested that homophobia can be rooted in an individual's fear of being identified as gay. Homophobia in men is correlated with insecurity about masculinity. For this reason, homophobia is allegedly rampant in sports, and in the subculture of its supporters that is considered stereotypically male, such as association football and rugby. These theorists have argued that a person who expresses homophobic thoughts and feelings does so not only to communicate their beliefs about the class of gay people, but also to distance themselves from this class and its social status. Thus, by distancing themselves from gay people, they are reaffirming their role as a heterosexual in a heteronormative culture, thereby attempting to prevent themselves from being labeled and treated as a gay person. This interpretation alludes to the idea that a person may posit violent opposition to "the Other" as a means of establishing their own identity as part of the majority and thus gaining social validation. Nancy J. Chodorow states that homophobia can be viewed as a method of protection of male masculinity. Various psychoanalytic theories explain homophobia as a threat to an individual's own same-sex impulses, whether those impulses are imminent or merely hypothetical. This threat causes repression, denial or reaction formation. wikipedia.org
  8. Internalized homophobia Internalized homophobia refers to negative stereotypes, beliefs, stigma, and prejudice about homosexuality and LGBT people that a person with same-sex attraction turns inward on themselves, whether or not they identify as LGBT. The degree to which someone is affected by these ideas depends on how much and which ideas they have consciously and subconsciously internalized. These negative beliefs can be mitigated with education, life experience and therapy, especially with gay-friendly psychotherapy/analysis. Internalized homophobia also applies to conscious or unconscious behaviors which a person feels the need to promote or conform to cultural expectations of heteronormativity or heterosexism. This can include extreme repression and denial coupled with forced outward displays of heteronormative behavior for the purpose of appearing or attempting to feel "normal" or "accepted." Other expressions of internalized homophobia can also be subtle. Some less overt behaviors may include making assumptions about the gender of a person's romantic partner, or about gender roles. Some researchers also apply this label to LGBT people who support "compromise" policies, such as those that find civil unions acceptable in place of same-sex marriage. Some studies have shown that people who are homophobic are more likely to have repressed homosexual desires. In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half said they were homophobic by experience, with self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia found that men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia) were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men.[69] Another study in 2012 arrived at similar results when researchers found that students who came from "the most rigid anti-gay homes" were most likely to reveal repressed homosexual attraction. The researchers said that this explained why some religious leaders who denounce homosexuality are later revealed to have secret homosexual relations. They noted that "these people are at war with themselves and are turning this internal conflict outward." A 2016 eye-tracking study showed that heterosexual men with high negative impulse reactions toward homosexuals gazed for longer periods at homosexual imagery than other heterosexual men. According to Cheval et al. (2016), these findings reinforce the necessity to consider that homophobia might reflect concerns about sexuality in general and not homosexuality in particular. In contrast, Jesse Marczyk argued in Psychology Today that homophobia is not repressed homosexuality. Researcher Iain R. Williamson, in his 1998 paper "Internalized Homophobia and Health Issues Affecting Lesbians and Gay Men" finds the term homophobia to be "highly problematic" but for reasons of continuity and consistency with the majority of other publications on the issue retains its use rather than using more accurate but obscure terminology. The phrase internalized sexual stigma is sometimes used in place to represent internalized homophobia. An internalized stigma arises when a person believes negative stereotypes about themselves, regardless of where the stereotypes come from. It can also refer to many stereotypes beyond sexuality and gender roles. Internalized homophobia can cause discomfort with and disapproval of one's own sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic sexual orientation or egodystonic homophobia, for instance, is a condition characterized by having a sexual orientation or an attraction that is at odds with one's idealized self-image, causing anxiety and a desire to change one's orientation or become more comfortable with one's sexual orientation. Such a situation may cause extreme repression of homosexual desires. In other cases, a conscious internal struggle may occur for some time, often pitting deeply held religious or social beliefs against strong sexual and emotional desires. This discordance can cause clinical depression, and a higher rate of suicide among LGBT youth (up to 30 percent of non-heterosexual youth attempt suicide) has been attributed to this phenomenon. Psychotherapy, such as gay affirmative psychotherapy, and participation in a sexual-minority affirming group can help resolve the internal conflicts, such as between religious beliefs and sexual identity. Even informal therapies that address understanding and accepting of non-heterosexual orientations can prove effective. Many diagnostic "Internalized Homophobia Scales" can be used to measure a person's discomfort with their sexuality and some can be used by people regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Critics of the scales note that they presume a discomfort with non-heterosexuality which in itself enforces heternormativity. wikipedia.org
  9. State-sponsored homophobia State-sponsored homophobia includes the criminalization and penalization of homosexuality, hate speech from government figures, and other forms of discrimination, violence, persecution of LGBT people. Past governments In medieval Europe, homosexuality was considered sodomy and it was punishable by death. Persecutions reached their height during the Medieval Inquisitions, when the sects of Cathars and Waldensians were accused of fornication and sodomy, alongside accusations of Satanism. In 1307, accusations of sodomy and homosexuality were major charges leveled during the Trial of the Knights Templar. The theologian Thomas Aquinas was influential in linking condemnations of homosexuality with the idea of natural law, arguing that "special sins are against nature, as, for instance, those that run counter to the intercourse of male and female natural to animals, and so are peculiarly qualified as unnatural vices." Although bisexuality was accepted as normal human behavior in Ancient China, homophobia became ingrained in the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China due to interactions with the Christian West, and homosexual behaviour was outlawed in 1740. When Mao Zedong came to power, the government thought of homosexuality as "social disgrace or a form of mental illness", and "[d]uring the cultural revolution (1966–76), people who were homosexual faced their worst period of persecution in Chinese history." Despite there being no law in the communist People's Republic against homosexuality, "police regularly rounded up gays and lesbians." Other laws were used to prosecute homosexual people and they were "charged with hooliganism or disturbing public order." The Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin decriminalized homosexuality in 1922, long before many other European countries. The Soviet Communist Party effectively legalized no-fault divorce, abortion and homosexuality, when they abolished all the old Tsarist laws and the initial Soviet criminal code kept these liberal sexual policies in place. Lenin's emancipation was reversed a decade later by Joseph Stalin and homosexuality remained illegal under Article 121 until the Yeltsin era. Homosexuals were one of the many groups alongside Jews that were murdered during the Holocaust. Current governments Homosexuality is illegal in 74 countries. The North Korean government condemns Western gay culture as a vice caused by the decadence of a capitalist society, and it denounces it as promoting consumerism, classism, and promiscuity. In North Korea, "violating the rules of collective socialist life" can be punished with up to two years' imprisonment. However, according to the North Korean government, "As a country that has embraced science and rationalism, the DPRK recognizes that many individuals are born with homosexuality as a genetic trait and treats them with due respect. Homosexuals in the DPRK have never been subject to repression, as in many capitalist regimes around the world." Robert Mugabe, the former president of Zimbabwe, has waged a violent campaign against LGBT people, arguing that before colonisation, Zimbabweans did not engage in homosexual acts. His first major public condemnation of homosexuality was in August 1995, during the Zimbabwe International Book Fair. He told an audience: "If you see people parading themselves as lesbians and gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police!" In September 1995, Zimbabwe's parliament introduced legislation banning homosexual acts. In 1997, a court found Canaan Banana, Mugabe's predecessor and the first President of Zimbabwe, guilty of 11 counts of sodomy and indecent assault. In Poland local towns, cities, and Voivodeship sejmiks have declared their respective regions as LGBT-free zone with the encouragement of the ruling Law and Justice party. wikipedia.org
  10. Religious attitudes Many world religions contain anti-homosexual teachings, while other religions have varying degrees of ambivalence, neutrality, or incorporate teachings that regard homosexuals as third gender. Even within some religions which generally discourage homosexuality, there are also people who view homosexuality positively, and some religious denominations bless or conduct same-sex marriages. There also exist so-called Queer religions, dedicated to serving the spiritual needs of LGBTQI persons. Queer theology seeks to provide a counterpoint to religious homophobia. In 2015, attorney and author Roberta Kaplan stated that Kim Davis "is the clearest example of someone who wants to use a religious liberty argument to discriminate [against same-sex couples]." Christianity and the Bible Passages commonly interpreted as condemning homosexuality or same-gender sexual relations are found in both Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Leviticus 18:22, says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is also commonly seen as a condemnation of homosexuality. Christians and Jews who oppose homosexuality often cite such passages; historical context and interpretation is more complicated. Scholarly debate over the interpretation of these passages has focused on placing them in proper historical context, for instance pointing out that Sodom's sins are historically interpreted as being other than homosexuality, and on the translation of rare or unusual words in the passages in question. In Religion Dispatches magazine, Candace Chellew-Hodge argues that the six or so verses that are often cited to condemn LGBT people are referring instead to "abusive sex". She states that the Bible has no condemnation for "loving, committed, gay and lesbian relationships" and that Jesus was silent on the subject. This view is opposed by a number of conservative evangelicals, including Robert A. J. Gagnon The official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality is that same-sex behavior should not be expressed. The Catechism of the Catholic Church States that, "'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'...They are contrary to the natural law.... Under no circumstances can they be approved." Islam and sharia In some cases, the distinction between religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia is not clear, a key example being territories under Islamic authority. All major Islamic sects forbid homosexuality, which is a crime under Sharia Law and treated as such in most Muslim countries. In Afghanistan, for instance, homosexuality carried the death penalty under the Taliban. After their fall, homosexuality was reduced from a capital crime to one that is punished with fines and prison sentences. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates, however, is unclear. In 2009, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) published a report entitled State Sponsored Homophobia 2009, which is based on research carried out by Daniel Ottosson at Södertörn University College, Stockholm, Sweden. This research found that of the 80 countries around the world that continue to consider homosexuality illegal: Five carry the death penalty for homosexual activity: Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, the Iranian government has executed more than 4,000 people charged with homosexual acts. In Saudi Arabia, the maximum punishment for homosexuality is public execution, but the government will use other punishments – e.g., fines, jail time, whipping – and even forced sex change as alternatives, unless it feels that people engaging in homosexual activity are challenging state authority by engaging in LGBT social movements. Two do in some regions: Nigeria, Somalia In 2001, Al-Muhajiroun, an international organization seeking the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate, issued a fatwa declaring that all members of The Al-Fatiha Foundation (which advances the cause of gay, lesbian, and transgender Muslims) were murtadd, or apostates, and condemning them to death. Because of the threat and because they come from conservative societies, many members of the foundation's site still prefer to be anonymous so as to protect their identities while they are continuing a tradition of secrecy. wikipedia.org
  11. Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and ignorance, and is often related to religious beliefs. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify. Negative attitudes toward identifiable LGBT groups have similar yet specific names: lesbophobia is the intersection of homophobia and sexism directed against lesbians, biphobia targets bisexuality and bisexual people, and transphobia targets transgender and transsexual people and gender variance or gender role nonconformity. According to 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, 19.3 percent of hate crimes across the United States "were motivated by a sexual orientation bias." Moreover, in a Southern Poverty Law Center 2010 Intelligence Report extrapolating data from fourteen years (1995–2008), which had complete data available at the time, of the FBI's national hate crime statistics found that LGBT people were "far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime." The term homophobia and its usage have been criticized by several sources as unwarrantedly pejorative. wikipedia.org
  12. Many states require home studies before a child can be placed in your custody as adoptive parents. We recommend you complete a home study as one of the first steps in your adoption process. On average the home study process takes three to four months to complete. In general, the following information is included in the final home study report: Significant people in the lives of the applicants Marriage and family relationships Motivation to adopt Expectations for the child Feelings about infertility (if this is an issue) Parenting and integration of the child into the family Family environment Physical and health history of the applicants Education, employment, and finances, including insurance coverage and child care plans if needed References and criminal background clearances Summary and social worker's recommendation Personal and family background, including upbringing, siblings, key events, and what was learned from them lifelongadoptions.com
  13. Alabama LGBT Adoption Laws Alaska LGBT Adoption Laws Arizona LGBT Adoption Laws Arkansas LGBT Adoption Laws California LGBT Adoption Laws Colorado LGBT Adoption Laws Connecticut LGBT Adoption Laws Delaware LGBT Adoption Laws DC LGBT Adoption Laws Florida LGBT Adoption Laws Georgia LGBT Adoption Laws Hawaii LGBT Adoption Laws Idaho LGBT Adoption Laws Illinois LGBT Adoption Laws Iowa LGBT Adoption Laws Kansas LGBT Adoption Laws Kentucky LGBT Adoption Laws Louisiana LGBT Adoption Laws Maine LGBT Adoption Laws Maryland LGBT Adoption Laws Massachusetts LGBT Adoption Laws Michigan LGBT Adoption Laws Minnesota LGBT Adoption Laws Mississippi LGBT Adoption Laws Missouri LGBT Adoption Laws Montana LGBT Adoption Laws Nebraska LGBT Adoption Laws Nevada LGBT Adoption Laws New Hampshire LGBT Adoption Laws New Jersey LGBT Adoption Laws New Mexico LGBT Adoption Laws New York LGBT Adoption Laws North Carolina LGBT Adoption Laws North Dakota LGBT Adoption Laws Ohio LGBT Adoption Laws Oklahoma LGBT Adoption Laws Oregon LGBT Adoption Laws Pennsylvania LGBT Adoption Laws Rhode Island LGBT Adoption Laws South Carolina LGBT Adoption Laws South Dakota LGBT Adoption Laws Tennessee LGBT Adoption Laws Texas LGBT Adoption Laws Utah LGBT Adoption Laws Vermont LGBT Adoption Laws Virginia LGBT Adoption Laws Washington LGBT Adoption Laws West Virginia LGBT Adoption Laws Wisconsin LGBT Adoption Laws Wyoming LGBT Adoption Laws lifelongadoptions.com
  14. Many gay couples — certainly those offering themselves as adoptive parents — form relationships that are more stable than many heterosexual marriages, thus giving adopted children a secure emotional home. Because they actively choose and had to work hard to be parents, gay parents can be more motivated, involved, and committed than some hetersexual parents. Children that grow up in same-sex households are more sympathetic to differences and more likely to believe in equality for all. Children raised in same-sex households are proven to be more open minded about different lifestyles and relationships than children who are raised in traditional opposite-sex households. Children of gay parents report they felt less hindered by gender stereotypes than they might have been if raised in a heterosexual household. There is a shortage of adoptive parents. A loving adoptive family — gay or straight — is better than the foster care system. Same-sex relationships have been proven to be more stable than many heterosexual relationships, providing a better example of a healthy relationship for the child involved. If having parents of the same gender is disadvantageous to children in any way, it has nothing to do with their parent's gender and everything to do with society's reaction to the family. Affection and nurturing qualities are more common with peers amongst children who have been raised in same-sex households, in comparison to children who grew up in heterosexual households. Children with gay adoptive parents are more apt to think outside of the societal box. Because gay parents have likely had to face difficulties and discrimination in their lives, they are usually better able to appreciate when their child has his or her own problems. Gay parents will naturally be more open minded when it comes to accepting their child’s lifestyle choices. Children raised in same-sex households may have a better ability to overcome huge obstacles, stand firm in the face of adversity, and make decisions based on emotion and love rather than firm facts. lifelongadoptions.com
  15. For many, LGBT adoption is still a new concept, and the image of a “perfect” family includes a mother and a father of opposite sexes. We know this is a just a stereotype. Today, more and more gay and lesbian couples are becoming parents, whether through artificial insemination, a surrogate or LGBT adoption. Almost 40% of all agencies and 83% of public agencies reported making at least one adoption placement with a lesbian or gay man. However, one-third of agencies would reject a gay or lesbian applicant, either because of the religious beliefs guiding the agency, a state law prohibiting placement with LGBT parents, or a policy of placing children only with married couples. Additionally, agency heads are more likely to have negative views towards gays and lesbians adopting when they associate such adoptions with greater evaluation and support needs. As a gay-friendly service, we were appalled to hear such discrimination. Here are some additional facts supporting gay adoption: There is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation, impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation. Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. It is influenced most by a parent’s ability to create a loving and nurturing home. This ability has nothing to do with whether the parent is gay or straight. There is no evidence to support claims that children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents. Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of gay and lesbian parents as they do among children of heterosexual parents. There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one's environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not "make" a child gay. Studies have shown that children are more influenced by their interactions with their parents than by their parents’ sexual orientation. Adopted children in the United States with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born. Same-sex couples in all states except Mississippi can petition for joint adoption statewide. States that allow same-sex couples to petition for a second parent adoption include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. lifelongadoptions.com
  16. Joint adoption by same-sex couples is legal in the following subnational jurisdictions or dependent territories: UK Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories: Bermuda (2015) Cayman Islands (2019) Gibraltar (2014) Guernsey (2017) Isle of Man (2011) Jersey (2012) Pitcairn Islands (2015) Falkland Islands (2017) Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha (2017) Mexico: Aguascalientes (2019) Baja California (2017) Campeche (2016) Chiapas (2017) Chihuahua (2017) Coahuila (2014) Colima (2016) Hidalgo (2019) Mexico City (2010) Michoacán (2016) Morelos (2016) Nayarit (2019) San Luis Potosí (2019) Puebla (2017) Veracruz (2016) Querétaro (2017) Caribbean Netherlands (2012) The following countries permit step-child adoption in which the partner in a relationship can adopt the natural and the adopted child of his or her partner: Estonia (2016) Italy (2016 – on a case-by-case basis) Slovenia (2011) Switzerland (2018) San Marino (2018) Taiwan (2019) Since 2014 in Croatia, a similar institution called partner-guardianship exists. It allows a life partner who is not a biological parent of their partner's child or children to gain parental responsibilities on a temporary or permanent basis. wikipedia.org
  17. National debates As of September 2019, there are national debates on LGBT parenthood in the following countries: Chile Czech Republic (step-child or partial adoption) Hungary Legal status Joint adoption by same-sex couples is legal in the following countries: Andorra (2014) Argentina (2010) Australia (first jurisdiction 2002, last jurisdiction 2018) Austria (2016) Belgium (2006) Brazil (2010) Canada (first jurisdiction 1996, last jurisdiction 2011) Colombia (2015) Costa Rica (2020) Court ruling states marriage and joint adoption will be legal after May 2020. Denmark (2010) Greenland (2016) Faroe Islands (2017) Finland (2017) France (2013) Germany (2017) Iceland (2006) Ireland (2015) Luxembourg (2015) Malta (2014) Netherlands (2001) New Zealand (2013) Norway (2009) Portugal (2016) South Africa (2002) Spain (2005) Sweden (2003) United Kingdom England and Wales (2005) Scotland (2009) Northern Ireland (2013) United States (first jurisdiction 1993, last jurisdiction 2016) Uruguay (2009) wikipedia.org
  18. Last week
  19. Opinion polls for same-sex adoption Country Pollster Year For Against Don't Know/Neutral/No answer/Other Austria IMAS 2015 46% 48% 6% Belgium Ipsos 2013 67% 33% 0% Bulgaria Eurobarometer 2006 12% 68% 20% Cyprus Eurobarometer 2006 10% 86% 4% Czech Republic CVVM 2019 47% 47% 6% Denmark Pew Research Center 2017 75% - - Estonia ASi 2012 26% 66% 8% Finland Taloustutkimus 2013 51% 42% 7% France Pew Research Center 2017 64% - - Germany Pew Research Center 2017 67% - - Greece DiaNeosis 2017 26% 72% 2% Hungary Eurobarometer 2006 13% 81% 6% Ireland Red C Poll 2011 60% - - Italy Ipsos 2019 34% - - Latvia Eurobarometer 2006 8% 89% 3% Lithuania Eurobarometer 2006 12% 82% 6% Luxembourg Politmonitor 2013 55% 44% 1% Malta Misco 2014 20% 80% - Netherlands Pew Research Center 2017 86% - - Norway YouGov 2012 54% 34% 12% Poland Ipsos 2017 16% 80% 4% Portugal Pew Research Center 2017 59% 28% 13% Romania Eurobarometer 2006 8% 82% 10% Russia VTsIOM 2015 3% 88% 9% Serbia GSA 2010 8% 79% 13% Slovakia Eurobarometer 2006 12% 84% 4% Slovenia Delo Stik 2015 38% 55% 7% Spain Pew Research Center 2017 81% - - Sweden Pew Research Center 2017 80% - - Switzerland Pink Cross 2020 67% 30% 3% Ukraine Gay Alliance of Ukraine 2013 7% 68% 12% 13% would allow some exceptions United Kingdom Pew Research Center 2017 73% wikipedia.org
  20. Public opinion A 2006 poll by the Pew Research Center found a close divide on gay adoption among the United States public, while a 2007 poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp. said 57% of respondents felt gays should have the right to adopt and 40% said they should not. In 2018, a YouGov poll found that over half of Americans (55%) said they believe heterosexual and homosexual couples can be equally good parents. Majorities also said they were in support of gay (53%) and lesbian (55%) couples having the right to adopt and raise children. In the United Kingdom in 2007, 64% of people said they thought gay couples should be allowed to adopt and 32% said they should not. 55% of respondents thought that male couples should be able to adopt and 59% of people thought that lesbian couples should be able to adopt. In Brazil, a 2010 poll asked, "Do you support or oppose allowing gay couples to adopt children?" The poll found that 51% opposed adoption by same-sex couples and 39% supported it. An opinion poll conducted in late 2006 at the request of the European Commission indicated that Polish public opinion was generally opposed to both same-sex marriage and to adoption by gay couples. The Eurobarometer 66 poll found that 74% of Poles were opposed to same-sex marriage and 89% opposed adoption by same-sex couples. wikipedia.org
  21. Arguments Adoption of children by LGBT people is an issue of active debate. In the United States, for example, legislation to prevent adoption by LGBT people has been introduced in many jurisdictions; such efforts have largely been defeated. Prior to 1973, state courts commonly barred gay and lesbian individuals from holding a parenting role, especially through adoption. Major professional organizations have made statements in defense of adoption by same-sex couples. The American Psychological Association has supported adoption by same-sex couples, citing social prejudice as harming the psychological health of lesbians and gays while noting there is no evidence that their parenting causes harm. The American Medical Association has issued a similar position supporting second parent adoption by same-sex partner, stating that lack of formal recognition can cause health-care disparities for children of same-sex parents. The following arguments are made in support of adoption by LGBT parents: The right of a child to have a family, guardians or people who can take care of their wellbeing Human rights – child's and parent's right to have a family life There are no differences between children raised by same-sex or straight couples. For that reason, sexual orientation of the parents has no relevance when it comes to raising a child Evidence confirming that, despite the claims of those opposed to LGBT+ parenting, same-sex couples can provide good conditions to raise a child For the children, adoption is a better alternative to orphanage Less formalities for step-parents in everyday life, as well as the situation of a death of a biological parent of a child wikipedia.org
  22. LGBT adoption is the adoption of children by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT+) people. This may be in the form of a joint adoption by a same-sex couple, adoption by one partner of a same-sex couple of the other's biological child (step-child adoption), or adoption by a single LGBT+ person. Joint adoption by same-sex couples is legal in twenty-seven countries as well as several subnational jurisdictions and dependent territories. Furthermore, some form of step-child adoption is legal for same-sex couples in five countries. Given that constitutions and statutes usually do not address the adoption rights of LGBT persons, judicial decisions often determine whether they can serve as parents either individually or as couples. LGBT parenting The existing body of research on outcomes for children with LGBT parents includes limited studies that consider the specific case of adoption. Moreover, where studies do mention adoption they often fail to distinguish between outcomes for unrelated children versus those in their original family or step-families, causing research on the more general case of LGBT parenting to be used to counter the claims of LGBT-adoption opponents. One study has addressed the question directly, evaluating the outcomes of adoptees less than 3-years old who had been placed in one of 56 lesbian and gay households since infancy. Despite the small sample, and the fact that the children have yet to become aware of their adoption status or the dynamics of gender development, the study found no significant associations between parental sexual orientation and child adjustment. Scientific research indicates that the children of same-sex couples fare just as well or even better than the children of opposite-sex couples. wikipedia.org
  23. 7. When In the Year to Plan Your Wedding There are several factors that may help determine when in the year to have your wedding. Your guest count, wedding location and your budget play huge roles in this decision. While off-season venues tend to save a lot of money, it can also make it more difficult for all of your guests to attend. Depending on your location, some venues may require you to book far in advance so if you plan to do a destination wedding, you have to choose your spot early! Of course, there is also the option of planning your wedding around your favorite season. Depending on your priorities and what you want from your wedding, you will want to pick the timing strategically. The most important thing when planning your wedding is that it’s, well, you. Don’t worry about any traditions you aren’t interested in or guests you don’t want beside you. Enjoy having your closest friends and family beside you as you share this very special day with your love. bridebox.com
  24. 6. Bachelor/Bachelorette Parties When it comes to the bachelor/bachelorette parties, have your fun! Many same-sex couples choose to have separate parties. If you and your partner have different ideas of who to invite and where to go, your parties can take place on the same evening and potentially even merge toward the end of the evening. You can travel to great bachelor/bachelorette party destinations or keep it local at your favorite bars. bridebox.com
  25. 5. What To Wear When it comes to what to wear for your same-sex wedding, there are no rules. Whether you are on the hunt for two wedding dresses or none, the most important thing is for you to feel comfortable and beautiful on your big day. Some couples like to coordinate their attire even if they don’t see the other’s before the wedding. This could mean coordinating ties, dress styles, color schemes or lengths. Like all couples, you will want to start shopping early. This is especially true for woman who opt out of wearing a dress because sometimes the perfect outfit can be hard to find in stores. If you aren’t seeing anything you love, consider getting your ensemble custom-made or tailored. As for your bridal party if you choose to have one, it is entirely up to you whether you prefer deciding on a wedding dress code or letting your guests choose their attire with no theme. bridebox.com
  26. 4. Wedding Planner If it’s within your budget, you may consider hiring a wedding planner. That will help make the process of finding same-sex-friendly professionals and navigating your options easier. It will also help save you time. bridebox.com
  27. 3. Find LGBTQ-Friendly Venues and Vendors When searching for your perfect wedding venue, we recommend making it clear from the get-go that you are having a same-sex wedding. Disclosing this information right away will make it so that you don’t waste your time trying to coordinate with anyone who is not for marriage equality. If you have specific vendors you are interested in, approach them first. If you are starting with a blank slate, perhaps do research on some of the most loved LGBTQ-friendly vendors in your area. You want to be sure you are in good hands with your wedding vendors so finding professionals that you are comfortable with is key. bridebox.com
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...