Suchergebnisse

National hearing Family reunification has always been defined exhaustively by the legislature. It was on the basis of a 'majority and dominant' standard, 'a normality' of the definition of 'family' that the legislature relied on in order to define the beneficiaries of family reunification. It is the concept of 'family' commonly accepted in France or 'culturally acceptable by the nation' which leads the French legislature to lay down a narrow definition of the family members eligible for family reunification. As a result, the beneficiaries of the reunification are the married spouse and their minor children. No admission of cohabiting partners, free union partners or same-sex partners is possible for family reunification purposes. Only "institutionalised spouses" are allowed to benefit from family reunification. This traditional "heterosexual couple" approach therefore excludes a number of other couple relationships, in particular same-sex couples. By confining itself to a "normal family" approach, the legislator does not take any account of social changes and "new" conceptions of the "family". ; National audience Le regroupement familial a toujours été défini limitativement par le législateur. C'est sur la base d'un standard « majoritaire et dominant », « d'une normalité » de la définition de la« famille » que s'est fondé le législateur, pour définir les bénéficiaires du regroupement familial.C'est la conception de la « famille » communément admise en France ou « culturellement acceptable par la nation » qui pousse le législateur français à poser une étroite définition des membres de la famille admissibles au regroupement familial. De ce fait, les bénéficiaires du regroupement sont le conjoint marié et leurs enfants mineurs. Aucune admission des concubins,des partenaires en union libre ou des partenaires de même sexe n'est possible au titre du regroupement familial. Seuls les « conjoints institutionnalisés » sont autorisés à bénéficier du regroupement familial. Cette approche traditionnelle du « couple ...

Durante el siglo XIX se construyó una identidad homosexual particular, medicalizada y estigmatizada .En los años 60, la existencia de esa identidad fue negada por el movimiento gay aunque con su sola existencia parecía confirmar esa especificidad. En la actualidad siguen coexistiendo estos dos discursos, un discurso mayoritario que condena y estigmatiza la homosexualidad, y un discurso politizado que lucha por su normalización. El individuo que se reconoce como homosexual ha de enfrentarse, en primer lugar, a la compensación del discurso estigmatizante, lo que le será más fácil si tiene acceso a los diferentes mecanismos legitimadores. Pero, en este artículo también se consideran otros aspectos que son relevantes para la construcción de una identidad homosexual personal, subalterna o dominante, como son las formas de sociabilidad, la imagen del individuo (afeminado/viril) y su posición socio-estructural, entre otros. Por último, se considera también la dialéctica entre visibilidad y ocultación y la fragmentación existente entre los homosexuales. En consecuencia, resulta difícil hablar de la existencia de una identidad homosexual que incluya a todos los individuos. ; The stigmatized and medicalized homosexual identity was created during the 19th century. In the sixties, the existence of this identity was denied by the Gay Movement, although its negation reinforces its existence. Nowadays these two discourses still coexist, a majority that condemns and stigmatizes homosexuality and a politicized minority that supports its normalization. Persons identifying as homosexual have to contend with the stigmas reinforced by the majority, this process is easier in the presence of legitimating mechanisms. However, in this article I also consider other important questions for the construction of a dominant or secondary homosexual personal identity: forms of sociability, personal image (effeminate/virile), and socio-structural positioning, among others. Finally, I consider the dialectics between visibility and concealment and the fragmentation that exists among homosexuals. This fragmentation makes it difficult to talk about the existence of a homosexual identity which includes all the people involved. ; Grupo de Investigación Antropología y Filosofía (SEJ-126). Universidad de Granada

Addressing the ways in which etiology, the science of causes, has come to dominate discussions of gay and lesbian politics, this essay examines traces of evolutionary theory in recent right-wing rhetoric against gay marriage from such organizations as the Family Research Council, as well as in ostensibly pro-gay claims that homosexuality is not acquired but biologically determined. Invoking Darwin, antigay groups claim that same-sex marriage will lead to human extinction because it does not serve the propagation of the species. However, this insistence on homosexual sterility is in fact driven by a fear of queer increase. This essay proposes that antigay rhetoric tacitly construes same-sex desire as a meme, a unit of cultural meaning believed to recur and mutate like a gene. In this phobic view of gay etiology, then, homosexuality is a dangerous idea that proliferates more successfully than heterosexual reproduction. In response, queer communities increasingly claim that homosexuality is immutable and essential, citing scientists' theories of biological determinism to support the more colloquial notion that they are born gay. Many such theories, however, share the evolutionary and reproductive language used by the religious Right, seeking to prove homosexuality both memetically and genetically sterile. Reading popular publications on biological causes of homosexuality, this article shows how "born gay" and "gay gene" discourses produce their own vulgar Darwinism, echoing the voices they would oppose.

Abstract
This article shows that British homosexual Muslims face rejection and identity conflict between their homosexuality and their Muslimness. The opposition between Islam and homosexuality has created a feeling of exclusion, illustrating the assumed incompatibility between being Muslim and being homosexual. Homosexual Muslims face religiously motivated homophobia rooted in the heteronormative precepts of Islam. In parallel, they face Islamophobic attitudes in which Islam is now used as a form of civilisational opposition to the British values of tolerance and inclusion and the wider homosexual community see it as a threat to their very existence. Nevertheless, the results show that the hostility of Muslims toward homosexuality is evolving, and the heteronormative discourses are now coexisting with more neutral and even homo-friendly approaches. A new bicultural belonging among homosexual Muslims is being constructed to address individual strategies of managing both identities and is fostering new interpretations of acceptance of different sexualities within Islam.

An examination of Sigmund Freud's relation to homosexuality argues that recent scholarly works calling Freud one of the foremost inventors of contemporary homophobia contain only a grain of truth. It is contended that Freud viewed homosexuality as normalizing vs pathologizing; ie, he considered heterosexuality the normal result of identity formation & did not see homosexuality as a sickness. Further, his view of homosexuality was universalizing, not minoritizing, because he was against isolating homosexuals as a separate class. However, his far harsher treatment of lesbians than gay men is evidence of his misogyny. While he denied any link between homosexual object choice & character inversion (effeminacy) in males, he saw lesbians as always mannish. It is concluded that efforts by analysts to "cure" homosexuality are decidedly anti-Freudian, maintaining that Freud came close to saying homosexuality was not in the range of any therapy. J. Lindroth

Introduction -- A life-changing choice -- Developing healthy and realistic expectations -- The power of forgiveness -- A life of honesty -- Finding authentic community -- Dating, marriage and, yes sex -- Leaving lesbianism / Yvette Schneider -- Leaving homosexuality out of your marriage / Mike Goeke -- This is my destiny : the life you were created to live -- A final encouragement

La experiencia homosexual

Machine generated contents note: -- Foreword: The Book and Its Author (Stephen Halliwell, University of St Andrews, UK) -- Foreword: The Book and its Influence (Mark Masterson, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, and James Robson, Open University, UK) Preface -- Abbreviations I PROBLEMS, SOURCES AND METHODS -- 1 Scale -- 2 The Visual Arts -- 3 Literature -- 4 Vocabulary II THE PROSECUTION OF TIMARKHOS -- A The Law -- 1 Male Prostitution -- 2 Penalties -- 3 Status -- 4 Hubris -- B Manifestations of Eros -- 1 Defences against a Charge of Prostitution -- 2 Eros and Desire -- 3 Eros and Love -- 4 Following and Fighting -- 5 Homosexual Poetry -- C Nature and Society -- 1 Natura/Impulse -- 2 Male and Female Physique -- 3 Masculine and Feminine Styles -- 4 Pursuit and Flight -- 5 Courtship and Copulation -- 6 Dominant and Subordinate Roles III SPECIAL ASPECTS AND DEVELOPMENTS -- A Publicity -- B Predilections and Fantasies -- C Comic Exploitation -- D Philosophical Exploitation -- E Women and Homosexuality IV CHANGES -- A The Dorians -- B Myth and History Postscript, 1989 List of Vases -- Bibliography -- Index of Greek Texts and Documents -- Index of Greek Words -- General Index