Marriage Equality in America

Marriage Equality in America

The United States is in the middle of another controversial issue, same-sex marriage. Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender people living in the United States have been faced with numerous constitutional violations; both from citizens and the government of the United States. Denial of marriage equality is only one issue in a long history of deplorable treatment that the Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender community has suffered throughout the decades. From bar raids, arrests, and harassment from law enforcement in the 1960s to denial of equal protection of private property when one partner of a gay couple dies. The United States government took drastic measures by approving a constitutional amendment denying equal rights called the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Recently some states have recognized the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples and approved to sanction same sex marriage, whereas other states have incorporated constitutional amendments to deny gay couples equal rights.

Federal Law

According the Cornell University Law School, the United States Constitution 14th Amendment, section 1 ratified on July 09, 1868 states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (para. 1).

On January 23, 2004 the General Accounting Office of the United States produced an update to an earlier report that was sent to Senator Bill Frist, Majority Leader of the United States Senate regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. The initial report submitted in 1997 identified 1,049 statutory provisions of the United States code that included benefits, rights, and privileges only available to couples that shared federally recognized marital status (United States General Accounting Office, 2004). When the updated report was submitted in 2004, the number of provisions requiring marital status was raised from 1,049 to 1,138. This report from the United States General Accounting Office clearly outlines the 1,138 provisions currently denied to same sex couples because the Defense of Marriage Act passed on September 21, 1996 prohibits these couples from legally entering into a federally recognized civil union (United States General Accounting Office, 2004).

The Opposition

The primary opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States are religious institutions that argue that marriage is fundamental to procreation of the human species. Supported by 13 states that have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on a state level, and countless individuals that oppose homosexuality. The religious right of the United States is changing tactics of opposition from the 14th Amendment right to equality, and focusing on the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. In an essay by Jeff Jordan, “Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality”, he argues that it is sometimes permissible for public policy to discriminate against homosexuals because homosexuality is morally controversial (Beyer, 2002). Jordan attempts to use the Difference Thesis to support his position that there is a morally relevant difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, which in some cases, and areas of laws regarding equality justify differential treatment (Beyer, 2002).

Another popular position against same-sex marriage is the polygamy, incest, bestiality argument, commonly referred to as the PIB (Corvino, 2005). 

Supporters of the PIB argument, including U.S. Senator Rick Santorum believe that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead the legalization of incest, bestiality, and polygamy, all of which are commonly noted as unacceptable practices in many cultural norms (Corvino, 2005). In an interview Senator Rick Santorum states as quoted by, Corvino (2005): If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home,    then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. (p. 1). In the same interview Senator Santorum compared same-sex marriage to deplorable sexual acts like men having sex with children, dogs, and other cases (Corvino, 2005). Unfortunately, this argument has been a primary tool used by philosophers, Supreme Court Justices, politicians, religious institutions, and people within the general population (Corvino, 2005).

The Support

Beyer (2002) states “According to the Parity Thesis, there is no morally relevant difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals - the share the same moral status (p. 1). This position indicates that homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same moral basis, and are equally capable of adhering to moral norms of society. This position clearly shows that homosexuality is not a harm to societal norms, and courts throughout the United States have decided in favor of same-sex couples adopting children, and sharing in those states equal protection clauses. Marriage by definition is a word that falls into religious ritual, not legally recognized civil unions. The United States has a clear obligation to separate church from state, and in doing so must recognize that allowing the word “marriage” to represent or define a legally recognized civil union between two adults who meet the criteria of a functional family is a clear violation of such separation.

The ability to have access to the 1,138 provisions same-sex couples are excluded from, which include social security benefits, taxation benefits, and numerous other provisions afforded legally married couples is just one aspect of the argument. Another supporting position is health and mental wellness. The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community within the United States is significantly compromised in regard to health care delivery compared to the population in general (Buffie, 2011). Recognition and legalization of same-sex marriage allows same-sex couples access to medical benefits provided by employers and reduce the financial burden on society to pay for uninsured same-sex partners, and children of same-sex households. Medical concerns related to minority-stress is a growing national concern, especially after the high number of teen suicides related to bullying (Buffie, 2011).

A study of 34,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants performed by Hatzenbbuehler, McLaughlin, Keyes, and Hasin produced empirical data supporting the negative health effects of discriminatory policies directly related to the subject of marriage equality. This study showed that individuals living in states that did not recognize marriage equality had significantly higher rates of psychiatric disorders like mood and anxiety disorder, and higher rates of substance abuse and psychiatric comorbidity that those living in states that did recognize marriage equality (Buffie, 2011). Currently available is a vast amount of research data that challenges the stigma that children raised by gay couples are less likely to live a well-balanced, healthy life. In fact, these studies have provided empirical evidence to the contrary. The data produced by these studies clearly indicates no difference in the psychological health of children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by heterosexual couples (Weber, 2011; Lambert, 2005; American Psychological Association, 2013).

Conclusion

Same-sex marriage is an issue that many countries will face over the next decade. Emotions regarding marriage equality run very high on both sides of the issue; however, opponents of the issue have not been able to provide empirical data that demonstrates that same-sex marriage is a detriment to society. Supporters of marriage equality, including major medical and psychological associations have produced empirical data that demonstrates same-sex families are just as viable in regard to stability as heterosexual families. Marriage equality in toto is an issue of basic, fundamental rights as outlined in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and denial of these rights clearly creates a sub-classification of a minority population denied equal rights as heterosexual citizens.

References

American Psychological Association. (2013). Lesbian & gay Parenting: Theoretical & Conceptual Examinations Related to Lesbian & Gay Parenting. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

Beyer, J. A. (2002). Public Dilemmas and Gay Marriage: Contra Jordan. Journal Of Social Philosophy, 33(1), 9-16.

Buffie, W. C., M.D. (2011). Public health implications of same-sex marriage. American Journal of Public Health, 101(6), 986-90. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/867825961?accountid=35812

Cornell University Law School. (N.D.). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

 Corvino, J. (2005, April). Homosexuality and the PIB Argument. Chicago Journal, 115(3), 501-534. doi:10.1086/428456

Delaet, D. L., & Caufield, R. P. (2008). Gay marriage as a religious right: Reframing the legal debate over gay marriage in the united states*. Polity, 40(3), 297. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300103

Lambert, S. (2005, December). Gay and Lesbian Families: What We Know and Where to Go From Here. The Family Journal, 13(1), 43-51. doi:10.1177/1066480704270150

United States General Accounting Office. (2004). Marriage Equality USA. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

Weber, S. (2011). Impacts of legal relationship recognition of same-sex parenting couples on family health and well-being. Journal of Nursing Law, 14(2), 39-48. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/878896030?accountid=35812

Depression in Human development and Society

Depression in Human Development and Society

According to Aetna InteliHealth (2011) states “You are a product of the interaction between your biology and the environment you grew up in” (p. 1). Depression is a mental condition that affects people for different reasons, and in different ways. In modern society depression has become so widespread that it is almost considered a designer illness, and has gained a level of societal acceptance as somewhat normal in some modern cultures. Depression is an illness that does not discriminate on age or gender. The condition can affect both children and adults, or men and women equally, but it does appear more frequently in specific age and gender groups. Individual personality, moods, and reactions to various interactions throughout life are based on biological, psychological, and societal roots (Aetna InteliHealth, 2011).

Research on the multiple dimensions of personality are a major focus of research psychologists, and numerous studies have produced data that shows personality traits remain fairly consistent over an individual’s lifespan (Aetna InteiliHealth, 2011). Although this indicates that genetic and biological factors are a strong influence, environmental factors also have significant influence on how a person perceives as his or her inner-self, and how the person will react to societal interactions (Aetna InteliHealth, 2011). British psychologist John Bowlby (1907-1990) studied the interaction between biology and environment. His celebrated works demonstrated the individual need of affection and guidance is balanced by equality of adventure and independence (Aetna InteliHealth, 2011).

Human Development Factors

Human development is an important aspect of any individual’s mental well-being. A child raised in a loving, supportive, and encouraging home is more likely to display a better ability to adapt to situations, both environmental and psychological, in adulthood. Children learn the home-life influences that will influence how they develop. Some children are more likely to seek experiences that are comforting, whereas others may seek experiences that provide more invigoration, and excitement (Aetna InteliHealth, 2011). In contrast to children raised in more desirable environments, children  raised in environmental conditions considered hard or hostile are more likely to develop deficiencies in adapting to opportunities and stressors in life (Aetna InteliHealth, 2011). Depression is just one of the negative outcomes for people raised in environments in which alcoholism, mental and physical abuse, and neglect are prominent (Aetna InteilHealth, 2011). Experiences like loss in childhood, the death of a family member, a personal tragedy like molestation, and other mental or physical traumas are recognized as precursors to an individual’s susceptibility to depression.

Socialization Factors

Socialization is an area of study that focuses on the social effects on depression in both adults and children; however, more studies have been performed on socialization effects on adults than adolescents and children (Conway, Rancourt, Adelman, Burk, & Prinstein, 2011). Using well  established models of cognitive-interpersonal influences on depression, researchers have placed emphasis on understanding the developmental variations of social processes related to the onset and maintenance of depression (Conway, Rancourt, Adelman, Burk, & Prinstein, 2011). Data from this research suggests that the transition from childhood to adolescence presents concern of vulnerability to contexts of depression; this is noted as being more prevalent in girls than boys. According to Conway, Rancourt, Adelman, Burk, and Prinstein (2011) “Depression socialization initially was documents in the adult clinical literature, with much of the relevant research deriving from J.C. Coyne’s 1976 interpersonal theory of depression” (p. 1). Continued studies focused on the depression socialization hypothesis in naturalistic context are designed to examine the intergenerational transmission of depression, and have produced data that indicates a temporal association between diagnosis of depression in mothers and their children (Conway, Rancourt, Adelman, Burk, & Prinstein, 2011).

Although there has been much research of depression socialization in adults, studies examining socialization of depression in adolescents and young children has been somewhat overlooked, even with the large amount of data from clinical research on developmental influences on children (Conway, Rancourt, Adelman, Burk, & Prinstein, 2011). The study performed by Conway, Rancourt, Adelman, Burk, and Prinstein was performed to examine and identify to connection of an individual’s depression to specific friendship groups, and average levels of depressive symptoms within the group. This study surmised that the average levels of depression socialization effects in a peer group could be used as a predictor for an individual’s depression symptoms over time (Conway, Rancourt, Adelman, Burk, & Prinstein, 2011). The study found that peer influence, and individual position within the group could determine the strength of depression socialization, and the effects were more prevalent in adolescents within the group that had lower friendship nominations from other group members (Conway, Rancourt, Adelman, Burk, & Prinstein, 2011).

Conclusion

Depression is a condition that affects people on a non-discriminatory level. It is a condition influenced by biological, and social factors an individual experiences throughout his or her lifetime. Two major influences on depression are human development that include experiences in childhood, and socialization factors that include how depression relates to various peer groups. Although considerable data shows that females are more prone to depression than males, it does not reduce the seriousness of symptoms related to depression. Studies indicate that early development, combined with biological factors play a major role in predicting depression at various stages of an individual’s life. Taking into account studies that show socialization influences also helps provide predictors for depression. Accounting for the variables of biological, developmental, and environmental allows researchers to develop new methods of diagnosing and treating depression in people spanning all age brackets.

References

Aetna InteliHelath. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8596/35215/362810.html?d=dmtContent

Conway, C. C., Rancourt, D., Adelman, C. B., Burk, W. J., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011, August 15).            

Depression Socialization Within Friendship Groups at the Transition to Adolescence: The Roles of Gender and Group Centrality as Moderators of Peer Influence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0024779

Cultural Differences in Marriage

Marriage in Different Cultures

Marriage is an age-old tradition that represents the union of two individuals to form a family unit. Cultural differences are a major consideration of how marriages are performed, and define he essence of how a culture views intimate relationships. In some countries, marriages are prearranged to strengthen bonds between families, combine land control, or advance political agendas. In other countries marriage is a voluntary act that symbolizes the love shared by two individuals, or the desire to start a family. Today in America and other countries marriage has taken a modern turn in beliefs, practices, and purpose. Arranged marriage is less favorable, while intergenerational marriages have become normal practice.

Arranged Marriage in Hindu Culture

According to Chawla (2007) “Research on arranged marriage in the humanities and social sciences has been limited to historical and comparative sociological analyses” (p. 1). In India where Hinduism is the primary religion, arranged marriages are generally arranged based on specific criteria. There is a considerable amount of data regarding arranged marriage in India related to how marriage generates and reflects ideals of social order (Harman, 1997). This data shows comparisons to familial caste and subcaste boundaries, family dynamics, and the specific roles of husband and wife (Harman, 1997). Also reflected is the religious aspect of marriage where unmarried deities are and exception, and that single status dictates the powers of the particular deity (Harman, 1997). Most common in arranged marriage is the concern of similar social standings that include the class of both families, religion, and educational levels of the couple to be married (Chawla, 2007). To ensure proper genealogical diversity, families employed the services of sambhalas (match makers) to track the genealogical history of each family. Arranged marriages would not be permitted if the bride and groom shared familial relation of five to seven generations (Sur, 1973 as cited in Chawla, 2007). Even with current modernization, arranged marriages are still common practice, but research has displayed a growing disapproval of this practice.

Marriage in Nineteenth-Century Britain

Intergenerational marriages in nineteenth-century British culture was considered at he time to represent a creepy threat of incest invoked by a young woman marrying a man old enough to be her father (Carens, 2010). Esther Godfrey’s book titled The january-May Marriage in the Nineteenth-Century British Culture draws attention to the various methods in which relationships between young women and older men were viewed in Victorian times (Carens, 2010). Godfrey uses literature and artwork to disclose the concept of how some young women took advantage of aging males to obtain wealth, status, or the attraction of younger men (Godfrey, 2009 as cited in Carens, 2010). Another aspect of marriage in Victorian Britain is covered by Marcus (2007) who theorized that people of the Victorian era “savored various relationships between women as being central to femininity and supporting married life” (p. 1). Diversity in relationships was a fundamental aspect of Victorian England, and issues like lesbianism were acceptable in more respectable societies (Parker, 2007).

Conclusion

In regard to marriage and culture, there are many aspects that require evaluation. In many westernized, or modernized cultures marriage between two people is a symbol of the love and commitment that each person has toward the other. In some cultures, love has less value in marriage because families arrange marriages based on specific criteria of the culture. In Victorian times, marriage between an older man and a much younger woman was in some cased reviled, but acts like lesbianism were accepted in in higher respected society structure.

References

Carens, T. L. (2010). The january-may marriage in nineteenth-century british culture. Victorian Studies, 52(2), 314-316,348. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/366780844?accountid=35812

Chawla, D. (2007). I will speak out: Narratives of resistance in contemporary indian women's discourses in hindu arranged marriages. Women and Language, 30(1), 5-19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198829230?accountid=35812

Harman, W. (1997). From the margins of hindu marriage: Essays on gender, religion, and culture. The Journal of Asian Studies, 56(3), 816-818. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230407217?accountid=35812

Parker, S. A. (2007). Between women: Friendship, desire, and marriage in victorian england. Choice, 45(1), 184-184. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/225743964?accountid=35812

Introduction to Cross-Cultural Psychology

Introduction to Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cross-cultural psychology is a psychological practice that studies the cultural effects on human psychology that requires researchers to draw conclusions using samples from multiple cultures (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). Human behavior shares similarities in basic terms of listening to others, sharing feelings, and behavioral traits. However, the differences of human behavior vary greatly. People develop individually base don factors like learning, environmental influence, familial influence, religious beliefs, and societal allegiances (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). According to (Shiraev & Levy, 2010) “Cross-cultural psychology s the critical and comparative study of cultural effects on human psychology” (p. 1).

Cross-cultural psychologists examine the psychological differences, and make comparisons of the underlying causes of these differences. Researchers examine various links between cultural norms and behaviors by comparing the possible dissimilar social and cultural forces that influence people within various cultures (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). Human behavior is strongly influenced by various biological factors, and personal experiences. Culture is one of the most important factors that influence an individual’s behavior through culture-specific attributes shared by people of a culture in a particular geographic region (Shiraev & Levy, 2010).

Definitions of Cultural and Cross-Cultural Psychology

The genetic makeup of any individual provides a partial explanation and description of human behavior. Although human behavior is strongly affected by biological factors, all human behavior can be affected by individual experiences (Segall, Dasen, Berry & Poortinga, 2000). During an individual’s lifetime of experiences, cultural influence is regarded as a primary factor that shapes diversity in behavior. Shiraev and Levy (2010) refer to culture as a combination of various behaviors, symbols, and attitudes shared by large groups of people. These factors are communicated from generation to generation, vary depending on geographical location, and influence individual behavior across different regions.

The primary focus of cultural psychology is to discover the most important connections between culture and the psychological state of individuals living in a particular geographic region (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). Cultural psychologists study specific behaviors, and the cultural environment in which the behavior is displayed (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). In contrast to cross-cultural psychology, cultural psychology studies the interaction of behaviors, and the specific cultural influences that drive those behaviors. Cross-cultural psychology focuses of the psychological differences of various cultures, and relies heavily on critical thinking, comparative studies, and demonstrating how cultural influences affect human behavior (Shiraev & Levy, 2010).

The Relationship

When one compares cultural to cross-cultural psychology, it is easy to recognize that both disciplines study how culture influences individual behavior. Cultural psychology studies various cultural factors that influence individuals in a specific region, whereas cross-cultural psychology focuses on critical thinking and comparative research of psychological variations across different cultural populations. Although both disciplines contribute valuable data regarding human behavior, they use different approaches to understand and explain how culture effects individual psychological states (Singelis, 2000).

Cultural psychology research produces valuable data collected from different population centers. The data provided by this research is then used by cross-cultural psychologists to study, test, and compare against data from other studies (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). The relationship between cultural and cross-cultural psychology permits researchers to produce data that explains how culture in influenced by individual processes like cognitions, information processing, and goals. This process also permits researchers to compare this data with data produced by studies that explain influences of interpersonal actions like communication, or social influences (Berry, 2004). This type of research produces valuable information that helps researchers gain a better understanding of cultural influence, psychological phenomenon, and interpersonal connections through methods of critical, comparative analysis of data spanning multiple cultures (Berry, 2004).

Importance of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is an important factor in cross-cultural psychology. Critical thinking provides researchers with specific methods of inquiry and problem-solving processes (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). Most people are usually able to be swayed by subjective information rather than reliable fact and statistics provided by in-depth investigation (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). Relying on critical thinking, researchers are less likely to produce bias perspectives, and more likely to produce sound evidence that supports varying hypotheses.

Most people attempt to explain and understand social phenomenon based on personal perspectives, and are more prone to interpret external information to satisfy personal mental schemas (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). The problem with this process is that can create bias, and result in researchers ignoring reliable data. Critical thinking is a cognitive tool that provides psychologists with suggestions that promote careful thought, and help reduce use of biased data in cultural research (Shiraev & Levy, 2010).

The Methodology

One primary factor is understanding diversity among varying regions, researchers must collect reliable evidence, verify facts, and collect data in an unbiased method (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). Researchers use various methods to collect data, and various models of research to support theories that attempt to explain and predict human behavior. Research on these matters provides valuable data that helps people understand and control behavioral actions. Stuart (2005) states “psychology purports to be a behavioral science... the basic and applied literature of psychology must be anchored by research” (para. 5).

The desire of researchers to advance the study of multicultural behaviors, and the understanding of these behaviors requires using a variety of research methods to develop hypotheses regarding the differences of various cultures. Lacking this valuable information, researchers would be more likely to produce results based on biased assumptions regarding cultural influences on human behavior (Stuart, 2005). In order to produce solid research that interprets, predicts, and manages behavior, psychologists must rely on quantitive and qualitative data (Shiraev & Levy, 2010). The quantitative approach requires researchers to use a comparative outlook when measuring human behavior, whereas qualitative approach is normally conducted in a natural experimental setting (Shiraev & Levy, 2010).

Conclusion

The core  function of human existence is the ability to learn behaviors, habits, and traits throughout the entire lifespan. Individuals modify behavior based on factors like environmental, cultural, and interpersonal interactions. Cultural psychology studies the associations and influences of culture on individual behavioral patterns. Cross-cultural psychology studies the vast diversity of various cultures using critical and comparative methods. Although both methods study how culture effects behavior, cross-cultural psychology relies more on critical thinking to reduce the opportunity of providing biased study results. Both forms of study are equally important in understanding how culture influences individual behavior.

References

Berry, J. (2004). The psychological foundations of culture. Canadian Psychology, 45(4), 315-316. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220818428?accountid=35812

Segall, M.H., Dasen, P.R., & Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H. (2000). Human behavior in global perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural psychology. Adolescence, 35(139), 603-603. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/195940053?accountid=35812

Shiraev, E. B. & Levy, D. A. (2010). Cross-cultural psychology: Critical thinking and contemporary applications (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn Bacon.

Singelis, T.M. (2000). Some Thoughts on the Future of Cross-Cultural Social Psychology. JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY,, 31(1), 76-91. doi:10.1177/0022022100031001007

Stuart, R. (2005). Multiculturalism; Questions, Not Answers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(5), 576-578. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.576