Legalization of Same Sex Marriages in the U.S.

Legalization of Same Sex Marriages in the U.S.

Legalization of Same Sex Marriages in the U.S.

Student Name

Course

Date

Instructor

Legalization of Same Sex Marriages in the U.S.

According to the Supreme Court, refusal of granting marriage licenses to gay as well as lesbian couples violates the constitution. The landmark ruling of 25 June 2015, which legalized marriage between same sex couples greatly, altered the laws governing matrimony. The rule bases its ground on the fact that marital unions embodies the highest ideals of fidelity, devotion, family, sacrifice, and most importantly, love.

The civil rights campaign started in the 1970s, but it was not until 1993 when the issue became more prominent. By 2010, 60% of the public had approved the issue, with the rates trending upwards slowly in the years that followed. Some same sex marriage supporters claimed that the marriage extend a civil right to a minority group. Young adults caused the most shifts in balance among the supporters and the non-supporters because they are more open to gay rights than the presiding generations (Silver, 2012). However, a study revealed that 28 percent of supporters and 14 percent of all Americans stated they changed their minds in favor of the LGBT marriage.

A research by PEW stated that 70% of those born after 1980 favored same sex marriages. Millennial support for same sex marriages grew substantially between 2003 and 2013 from 51% in 2003 to 70% in 2013. However, millennial generation only contributed to9% of the total population as compared to a decade later with the number at 27%. Older generations also increased their support for same sex marriages over the past decade. 32% of those who changed their mind in favor stated that they changed because they knew homosexual family members and friends. The basic opinion among most supporters is that people should feel free to choose what brings happiness to them and that the government should interfere. The most significant improvement on the issue happened in 2003 when Massachusetts first legalized same sex marriages.

The ruling nullifies the decision made in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated that states needed to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. The ruling also forced republican political leaders and conservative Christians to decide whether they would acquiesce or continue opposing same sex marriages. Republican 2016 candidates disliked the decision voicing their concerns about the future of religious liberty (Ariane, 2015 ). In their defense, the court stated it only made its rule based on the majority polls.

While some religious groups and other people opposing same sex marriages state that same sex marriages go against the religious beliefs, others base their argument on parenting concerns. They stated that changing the tradition meaning of marriage would cause inclusion of incest and polygamy. The church opposed same sex marriage stating that children perform best when the parents are a mother and a father, and thus, legalizing same sex marriages would not be in the best interest of children. Today, most Americans accept same sex couples as parents and suggest that same sex couples are as good parents as are the heterosexual couples. In addition, 66% people think same sex couples must have equal legal rights as heterosexual couples.

In conclusion, the ruling gave same sex couples the right to have marriages and avoid a life of loneliness. The court made the ruling based on majority public opinion, and granted the same sex couples a chance to enjoy legal rights and benefits the same as heterosexual couples. As the country exploded with celebrations among the supporters, it was clear that U.S. is the land of the free, despite conflicting opinions from some Christian leaders and opposing supporters.

References

Ariane, V. (2015). Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same Sex Marriages Nationwide. CNN Politics

Janet, H. (2015). Support for Gay Marriage Hits All-Time High-WSJ/NBC News Poll. In the Wall Street Journal

Silver, N. (2012). Support for Gay Marriage outweighs Opposition in Polls. New York Times

Posted in Uncategorized

Lego Case Writing Part 1

Lego Case Writing Part 1

Lego Case Writing Part 1

Question 1a

2021 has seen life settling in the “new normal” established after the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Now, working from home, observing social distancing, wearing face masks, carrying hand sanitizers, and a combination of all of these activities are some of the activities that have become an essential part of life. As people get used to staying and working from home, Legos is covering a huge gap and consumer need by providing an extra platform for families to connect through play and cheerful interactions. In the words of Abha Bhattarai (2020), “Adults with high-pressured jobs are telling us they’re using Lego to disconnect from the mania of the day.” Therefore, Legos is solving an increasing problem of stress and anxiety as people adapt to a new environment characterized by adverse changes in how they work, relate, and earn following the effects of the pandemic. With adult versions of the toys from Legos, adults are able to unwind, interact with other family members, and forget about the demands of their new and necessary adaptations.

Question 1b

Lego is able to solve the need to kill time and reduce stress better than any other toy because of how it is packaged as a fun and engaging product. Additionally, the product has a positive brand image known for fostering child development in a fun and educative way. Now, the company has rebranded in a way that it appeals, in a similar fashion, to the adult market. According to The Guardian (2020), Legos is now targeting “adults looking for a fun, engaging way to reconnect with their creative side…Lego offers the possibility of purposeless, pressure-free creativity, whereas even hobbies such as baking and painting can be shadowed by the worry that the results will fail to please other people. ”. Other toys in the market do not have the same level of appeal for the adult market. Competitors such as Mega Bloks and BanBao have focused on a follower strategy, and a more specialized target marketing for kids.

Question 1c

For the adult consumers, Legos new unique value proposition should be: Bringing together the traditional ideas of self-expression and creativity and incorporating imagination, fun, learning, and family togetherness as a way to create a new caring and inclusive global culture. In this unique value proposition, Legos would not only include its conventional marketing line and brand image for creativity and self-expression, but will also incorporate elements that appeal to the new market. This way, the brand will not be looking to target adult consumers separately but providing a somewhat bridging role, one that ensures the togetherness of the family setup while retaining traditional elements that make the brand unique. After all, “It’s not a secret that LEGO is not just for kids. Adults and even seniors all around the world build LEGO sets with their kids and grandkids, as well as themselves” (The Brothers Brick, 2020). Therefore, the idea is to retain its wide market for children while introducing that for adults and packaging it together as a fun-filled experience for the modern home.

Question 1d

If Lego were to communicate their new value proposition in an advertisement, I would advise on using an emotional rather than a rational appeal strategy. Leonidou and Leonidou (2009) describe rational appeals as those that “stimulate a logical thinking process in receivers of the message, putting them in a position to clearly measure the advantages (and sometimes the disadvantages) of the product advertised.” Such advertisements target performance, value, and quality. In contrast, emotional appeals focus on “on creating a state of heightened psychological arousal, whereby the individual becomes alerted and prepared to take certain actions” (Leonidou and Leonidou, 2009). Therefore, the emotional appeal is better because it targets higher psychological involvement. Legos would be selling a commodity that is meant for a family setup, adult creativity, and a fun way to spend evenings in the house. An emotional appeal would be more effective.

References

Bhattarai, A. (Jan 16, 2020). Lego sets its sights on a growing market: Stressed-out adults. The

Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/16/legos-toys-for-stressed-adults/

Leonidou, L. C., & Leonidou, C. N. (2009). Rational versus emotional appeals in newspaper

advertising: Copy, art, and layout differences. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(4), 522-546.

The Brothers Brick, (2020). LEGO’s new adult product strategy: Why LEGO is retiring Creator

Expert [Feature]. Available at https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/06/07/legos-new-adult-product-strategy-why-lego-is-retiring-creator-expert-feature/The Guardian, (2020). The Guardian view on Lego for adults: play is a serious business.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/17/the-guardian-view-on-lego-for-adults-play-is-a-serious-business

Posted in Uncategorized

Lego Model Question

Lego Model Question

Lego Model Question

Lego uses a legion of its fans on a global scale to drive the value of the company up through open innovation. It also uses open innovation as a critical tool to help the company create popular products while still connecting to its fanbase through meaningful connections. In this crowd-funded transformation, the platform referred to as the LEGO Ideas allows the company to active the creativity of its followers. Resultantly, the product development process of Lego has skyrocketed (Antorini et al. 77). Today, the company is able to accomplish projects in a year that traditionally took two or three years. The use of open innovation has enabled the firm to create a consumer-driven value stream that has set the firm apart from its competition.

Lego’s model is primarily based on using its fanbase a ma major selling point. In the short term, the model will enable its users to continue designing new models, share their ideas, and use their numbers to vote for the best creation. The same model is applicable in other business areas allowing users to design, share, and vote for the best designs to put into the market. The open innovation platform and model is likely to boost the longevity of the firm, an aspect that can be used in any other business establishment. The inbound ideas for new products allows the firm to stay relevant.

Works Cited

Antorini, Yun Mi, Albert M. Muñiz Jr, and Tormod Askildsen. “Collaborating with customer communities: Lessons from the LEGO Group.” MIT Sloan Management Review 53.3 (2012): 73-79.

Posted in Uncategorized

Joseph Pieper defines leisure from two perspectives of humanity

Joseph Pieper defines leisure from two perspectives of humanity

Leisure

Author

Institution

Course

Instructor

Date

Joseph Pieper defines leisure from two perspectives of humanity. From a mental perspective, he states that leisure is an attitude of the mind, and from a spiritual perspective, it is a spiritual condition that allows people to perceive the reality of their world. Leisure is an important time for humans, as it allows them to be in a state of doing nothing, while contemplating about the nature of their God. According to Pieper, in chapter five, leisure is a practice of resting. He states, “To rest from work means that time is reserved for divine worship: certain days and times are set aside and transferred to “the exclusive property of the gods (Pieper, 2009).” Pieper associates leisure with worship. Christians believe that, and have been instructed in the Bible to rest on the seventh day, as this is the day that was selected by God to rest. On the seventh day of each week, people should spend their time doing nothing else but worshiping God.

Pieper felt that leisure is an important part of the culture. The most successful people, i.e., individuals who are able to work effectively are the ones that realize the importance of leisure in their lives. People who work on a regular basis tend to experience a reduced ability to perform at a high level. To argue in support of the importance of leisure in the society, one has to remind people, the origin of leisure, i.e., it was conceived during the Creation period, and it is a gift from God to man, to worship and celebrate God on this day (Pieper, 2009). For man to fully rest, and revitalize, and get ready for another week of work, one must be willing to set aside a day, where they will do nothing but worship and celebrate God. This should not be a day where a person gets to do their weekly shopping, and catch up with friends.

To re-orient education towards the basis of this leisure entails not studying on the Sabbath day. A student should create a study plan for the six days of the week (Sensus Fidelium, 2016). However, on the seventh day, he or she should not engage in any academic activity. The student should reserve the seventh day of the week to worship God, and engage in a state of doing nothing.

The significance of leisure as perceived by Pieper is that on the seventh day, which to me is Sunday, I should not engage in the activities that I have been doing. On Sunday is the day I seek to catch up with my friends, or complete the unfinished assignments, or tasks of the week that has ended (Pieper, 2009). However, after reading this book, I will plan my Sundays to rest as is expected. I will go to church in the morning, and for the rest of the day, seek to read and watch sermons, which will revitalize my spirit and strengthen my resolve as a Christian, and I believe re-vitalize my physical strength for the coming six days of the week.

References

Pieper, J. (2009). Leisure: The basis of culture. Ignatius Press.

Sensus Fidelium. (September 16, 2016). Leisure: The Basis of Culture ~ Rev Scalia. YouTube. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysD6d8YSfpY

Posted in Uncategorized

Len Lin

Len Lin

Len Lin

Professor’s name:

FIN 6406-Corporate Finance

17/10/2018

Final Exam

Problem 1 [10 points]1.0

1-year call option, S=100, E=87, rf= 3%(annual)I step per year

How much should the call option worth?

The initial and time-t values of the hedge portfolio are given by

HS0-C0= 103H- 50

103H-0

103H-0=103H-50

H=C+- C-/S+-S+ =0/50 = 0.5 shares

Therefore, a portfolio that is long 0.5 shares of stock and short one call is risk-free

0.5So-Co= 0.5*103-50= 26.5

It pays $ 26.5 in all cases

Since S=100, E=87, rf= 3%(annual) a bond that pays 26.5 will be worth today Bo=26.5/1.03= 25.73

This bond is equivalent to the portfolio 0.5So-Co

Therefore, the bond and hedge portfolio must have the same market value;

0.5So-Co=0.5*100-Co=25.73

50-25.73= 24.27

The call price will be $24.27

Problem 7 [10 points]

Consider the following average annual returns for Stocks A and B and the Market. Which of the possible answers best describes the historical betas for A and B

Answer: bA < 0; bB = 0.

Problem 6 [10 points]

We currently have the once-in-a-generation low interest rate environment, and the rates are likely to increase in the next decade. If you recently graduated from college and have a decent job, you have decided to purchase a relative expansive house to your income. Suppose that a bank offers you have three types of mortgages: adjusted rate mortgage (ARM), fixed-rate mortgage with constant payments (FRM) and graduated payment mortgage (GPM). Which type of mortgage should you choose and why?

Answer: One should choose the Fixed-rate mortgage. This is because, in the fixed-rate mortgage, the interest rates remain the same throughout the term of loan. Since it is anticipated that rates are likely to increase in the next decade, it would be safest choice as the current interest rates are based on low interest rate environment. On the other hand, in the GPM, payment starts from low and increase with time, this would only mean that one would pay more in the next decade. Conversely, the ARM too would not be a safe option since the initial rate would be fixed for a certain period of time, after which it would adjust itself periodically either annually or monthly, with the anticipated increase in the mortgage rates, one would pay more.

Problem 8 [10 points]

Suppose that Federal Reserve actions have caused an increase in the risk-free rate, rRF. Meanwhile, investors are afraid of a recession, so the market risk premium-rM-RrF, has increased. Under these conditions, with other things held constant, which of the following statements is most correct and why?

Answer: The prices of all stocks would decline, but the decline would be greatest for high-beta stocks.

Beta in stock tells us about the sensitivity of a stock or underlying with respect to the changes in the stock market. High-beta stocks exhibit greater volatility than broad market index. An increase in the risk-free rate will decrease in the prices of stocks but the decline would be greatest in high-beta stocks since they are very volatile and their prices go up and down very sharply.

Posted in Uncategorized

Lesbian and Gay Parenting

Lesbian and Gay Parenting

Lesbian and Gay Parenting

I. summary of research findings

Like families headed by heterosexual parents, lesbian and gay parents and their children are a diverse group (Martin, 1993). Unlike heterosexual parents and their children, however, lesbian and gay parents and their children are often subject to prejudice because of sexual orientation that turns judges, legislators, professionals, and the public against them, frequently resulting in negative outcomes such as loss of physical custody, restrictions on visitation, and prohibitions against adoption (Falk, 1989; Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990). As with all socially stigmatized groups, the beliefs held generally in society about lesbians and gay men are often not based in personal experience, but are instead culturally transmitted (Herek, 1991). The purpose of this summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and their children is to assist psychologists and other professionals to evaluate widespread beliefs in the light of empirical data and in this way ameliorate the negative effects of unwarranted prejudice.

Because many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical test, psychological research can evaluate their accuracy. Systematic research comparing lesbian and gay adults to heterosexual adults only began in the late

1950s, and research comparing children of gay and lesbian parents with those of heterosexual parents is of a more recent vintage. Research on lesbian and gay adults began with Evelyn Hooker’s landmark study (1957) and culminated with the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 (Gonsiorek, 1991). Case reports on children of gay and lesbian parents began to appear in the psychiatric literature in the early 1970s (e.g., Osman, 1972; Weeks, Derdeyn, & Langman, 1975) and have continued to appear (e.g., Agbayewa, 1984). Beginning with the pioneering work of Martin and Lyon (1972), first person and fictionalized descriptions of life in lesbian mother families have also become available (e.g., Alpert, 1988; Clausen, 1985; Jullion, 1985; Mager, 1975; Perreault, 1975; Pollock & Vaughn, 1987; Rafkin, 1990). Systematic research on the children of lesbian and gay parents did not, however, begin to appear in major professional journals until 1978, and most of the available research has been published more recently.

As this summary will show, the results of existing research comparing gay and lesbian parents to heterosexual parents and children of gay or lesbian parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite uniform: common stereotypes are not supported by the data.

Without denying the clarity of results to date, it is important also for psychologists and other professionals to be aware that research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges, not all of which have been surmounted in every study. As is true in any area of research, questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, & Wilson, 1993); no individual study is entirely invincible to such criticism.

One criticism of this body of research (Belcastro et al., 1993) has been that the research lacks external validity because it may not be representative of the larger population of lesbian and gay parents. This criticism is not justified, because nobody knows the actual composition of the entire population of lesbian mothers, gay fathers, or their children (many of whom choose to remain hidden) and hence researchers cannot possible evaluate the degree to which particular samples do or do not represent the population. In the long run, it is not the results obtained from any one specific sample, but the accumulation of findings from many different samples that will be most meaningful.

Research in this area has also been criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that call for such controls. Particularly notable in this category has been the tendency in some studies to compare development among children of a group of divorced lesbian mothers, many of whom are living with lesbian partners, to that among children of a group of divorced heterosexual mothers who are not currently living with heterosexual partners. It will be important for future research to disentangle maternal sexual orientation from maternal status as partnered or unpartnered.

Other criticisms have been that most studies have involved relatively small samples, that there have been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies, and that the classification of parents as lesbian, gay, or heterosexual has sometimes been problematic (e.g., some women classified by researchers as lesbian might be regarded as bisexual by other observers). It is significant, however, that even with all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in the area, and none of the published research suggests conclusions different from those that will be summarized below.

This summary consists of four sections. In the first, results of research on lesbian and gay adults (and parents) are summarized.

In the second section, a summary of results from research comparing children of lesbian and gay parents with those of heterosexual parents or with established norms is presented. The third section summarizes research on heterogeneity among lesbian and gay families with children. The fourth section provides a brief conclusion.

A. Lesbian and Gay Parents

One belief that often underlies both judicial decision-making in custody litigation and public policies governing foster care and adoption has been the belief that lesbians and gay men are not fit to be parents. In particular, courts have sometimes assumed that gay men and lesbians are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians’ and gay men’s relationships with sexual partners leave little time for ongoing parent-child interactions (Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990). Results of research to date have failed to confirm any of these beliefs (Falk, 1989, 1994; Patterson, 1994b, 1995b, 1996).

Mental Health of Lesbians and Gay Men

The psychiatric, psychological, and social-work professions do not consider homosexual orientation to be a mental disorder. More than 20 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association removed “homosexuality” from its list of mental disorders, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities” (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). In 1975, the American Psychological Association took the same position and urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that had long been associated with homosexual orientation (American Psychological Association, 1975). The National Association of Social Workers has a similar policy (National Association of Social Workers, 1994).

The decision to remove homosexual orientation from the list of mental disorders reflects the results of extensive research, conducted over three decades, showing that homosexual orientation is not a psychological maladjustment (Gonsiorek, 1991;

Reiss, 1980; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston, & McKee, 1978). The social and other circumstances in which lesbians and gay men live, including exposure to widespread prejudice and discrimination, often cause acute distress; but there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning (Freedman, 1971; Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart et al., 1978; Hooker, 1957; Reiss, 1980).

Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents

Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation (Cramer, 1986; Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988; Patterson, 1996). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing (Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982; Thompson, McCandless, & Strickland, 1971), nor have lesbians’ romantic and sexual relationships with other women been found to detract from their ability to care for their children (Pagelow, 1980). Recent evidence suggests that lesbian couples who are parenting together tend to divide household and family labor relatively evenly (Hand, 1991; Patterson, 1995a) and to report satisfaction with their couple relationships (Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992; Patterson, 1995a). Research on gay fathers has similarly found no reason to believe them unfit as parents (Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner and Bozett, 1990; Bozett, 1980, 1989).

B. Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents

In addition to judicial concerns about gay and lesbian parents themselves, courts have voiced three major kinds of fears about effects of lesbian or gay parents on children.

The first general concern is that development of sexual identity will be impaired among children of lesbian or gay parents-for instance, that children brought up by gay fathers or lesbian mothers will show disturbances in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior (Falk, 1989; Hitchens & Kirkpatrick, 1985; Kleber, Howell, & Tibbits-Kleber, 1986). It has also been suggested that children brought up by lesbian mothers or gay fathers will themselves become gay or lesbian (Falk, 1989;

Kleber et al., 1986).

A second category of concerns involves aspects of children’s personal development other than sexual identity (Falk, 1989; Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990; Kleber et al., 1986). For example, courts have expressed fears that children in the custody of gay or lesbian parents will be more vulnerable to mental breakdown, will exhibit more adjustment difficulties and behavior problems, and will be less psychologically healthy than children growing up in homes with heterosexual parents.

A third category of specific fears expressed by the courts is that children of lesbian and gay parents may experience difficulties in social relationships (Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990; Falk, 1989; Hitchens & Kirkpatrick, 1985). For example, judges have repeatedly expressed concern that children living with lesbian mothers may be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise traumatized by peers. Another common fear is that children living with gay or lesbian parents may be more likely to be sexually abused by the parent or by the parent’s friends or acquaintances.

Sexual Identity

Three aspects of sexual identity are considered in the research: gender identity concerns a person’s self-identification as male or female; gender-role behavior concerns the extent to which a person’s activities, occupations, and the like are regarded by the culture as masculine, feminine, or both; sexual orientation refers to a person’s choice of sexual partners–i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (Money & Earhardt, 1972; Stein, 1993). To examine the possibility that children in the custody of lesbian mothers or gay fathers experience disruptions of sexual identity, research relevant to each of these three major areas of concern is summarized below.

Gender identity. In studies of children ranging in age from 5 to 14, results of projective testing and related interview procedures have revealed normal development of gender identity among children of lesbian mothers (Green, 1978; Green,Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray, & Smith, 1986; Kirkpatrick, Smith, & Roy, 1981). More direct assessment techniques to assess gender identity have been used by Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter (1983) with the same result; all children in this study reported that they were happy with their gender, and that they had no wish to be a member of the opposite sex. There was no evidence in any of the studies of gender identity difficulties among children of lesbian mothers. No data have been reported in this area for children of gay fathers.

Gender-Role Behavior. A number of studies have examined gender-role behavior among the offspring of lesbian mothers (Golombok et al., 1983; Gottman, 1990; Green, 1978; Hoeffer, 1981; Kirkpatrick et al., 1981; Patterson, 1994a). These studies reported that such behavior among children of lesbian mothers fell within typical limits for conventional sex roles. For instance, Kirkpatrick and her colleagues (1981) found no differences between children of lesbian versus heterosexual mothers in toy preferences, activities, interests, or occupational choices.

Rees (1979) administered the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to 24 adolescents, half of whom had divorced lesbian and half of whom had divorced heterosexual mothers. The BSRI yields scores on masculinity and femininity as independent factors and an androgyny score from the ratio of masculinity to femininity. Children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers did not differ on masculinity or on androgyny, but children of lesbian mothers reported greater psychological femininity than did those of heterosexual mothers. This result would seem to run counter to expectations based on stereotypes of lesbians as lacking in femininity, both in their own demeanor and in their likely influences on children.

Sex role behavior of children was also assessed by Green and his colleagues (1986). In interviews with the children, no differences between 56 children of lesbian and 48 children of heterosexual mothers were found with respect to favorite television programs, favorite television characters, or favorite games or toys. There was some indication in interviews with children themselves that the offspring of lesbian mothers had less sex-typed preferences for activities at school and in their neighborhoods than did children of heterosexual mothers. Consistent with this result, lesbian mothers were also more likely than heterosexual mothers to report that their daughters often participated in rough-and-tumble play or occasionally played with “masculine” toys such as trucks or guns; however, they reported no differences in these areas for sons. Lesbian mothers were no more or less likely than heterosexual mothers to report that their children often played with “feminine” toys such as dolls. In both family types, however, children’s sex-role behavior was seen as falling within normal limits.

In summary, the research suggests that children of lesbian mothers develop patterns of gender-role behavior that are much like those of other children.

No data are available as yet in this area for children of gay fathers.

Sexual Orientation. A number of investigators have also studied a third component of sexual identity: sexual orientation

(Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach, 1995; Bozett, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989; Gottman, 1990; Golombok et al., 1983; Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989; Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986; Rees, 1979). In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both gay fathers and lesbian mothers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents. For instance, Huggins (1989) interviewed 36 teenagers, half of whom were offspring of lesbian mothers and half of heterosexual mothers. No children of lesbian mothers identified themselves as lesbian or gay, but one child of a heterosexual mother did; this difference was not statistically significant. In a recent study, Bailey and his colleagues (1995) studied adult sons of gay fathers and found more than 90% of the sons to be heterosexual.

Because the heterosexual and no heterosexual sons did not differ in the length of time they had resided with their fathers, the effects of the exposure to the fathers’ sexual orientation on the sons’ sexual orientation must have been either very small or nonexistent.

Other Aspects of Personal Development

Studies of other aspects of personal development among children of gay and lesbian parents have assessed a broad array of characteristics. Among these have been separation-individuation (Steckel, 1985, 1987), psychiatric evaluations (Golombok etal., 1983; Kirkpatrick et al., 1981), assessments of behavior problems (Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua and Joseph, 1995;

Golombok et al., 1983; Patterson, 1994a), personality (Gottman, 1990), self-concept (Gottman, 1990; Huggins, 1989;

Patterson, 1994a; Puryear, 1983), locus of control (Puryear, 1983; Rees, 1979), moral judgment (Rees, 1979), and intelligence (Green et al., 1986). Research has shown that concerns about difficulties in personal development in these areas among children of lesbian mothers are unwarranted. As was the case for sexual identity, studies of these other aspects of personal development have revealed no major differences between children of lesbian versus heterosexual mothers. One statistically significant difference in self-concept emerged in

Patterson’s (1994a) study: children of lesbian mothers reported greater symptoms of stress but also a greater overall sense of well-being than did children in a comparison group of heterosexual families. The responses of both groups were, however, within a normal range (Patterson, 1994a). Overall, the belief that children of gay and lesbian parents suffer deficits in personal development has no empirical foundation.

Social Relationships

Studies assessing potential differences between children of gay and lesbian versus heterosexual parents have sometimes included assessments of children’s social relationships. The most common focus of attention has been on peer relations, but some information on children’s relationships with adults has also been collected. Research findings that address the likelihood of sexual abuse are also summarized in this section.

Research on peer relations among children of lesbian mothers has been reported by Golombok and her colleagues (1983), Green (1978), and by Green and his colleagues (1986). Reports by both parents and children suggest normal development of peer relationships. For example, as would be expected, most school-aged children reported same-sex best friends and predominantly same-sex peer groups (Golombok et al., 1983; Green, 1978). The quality of children’s peer relations was described, on average, in positive terms by researchers (Golombok et al., 1983) as well as by lesbian mothers and their children (Green et al., 1986).

No data on the children of gay fathers have been reported in this area.

Studies of relationships with adults among the offspring of lesbian and gay parents have also yielded a generally positive picture (Golombok et al., 1983; Harris & Turner, 1985/86; Kirkpatrick et al., 1981). For example, Golombok and her colleagues

(1983) found that children of divorced lesbian mothers were more likely to have had recent contact with their fathers than were children of divorced heterosexual mothers. Another study, however, found no differences in this regard (Kirkpatrick et al., 1981). Harris and Turner (1985/86) studied the offspring of gay fathers as well as those of lesbian mothers; parent-child relationships were described in positive terms by parents in their sample. One significant difference between lesbian and gay parents, on the one hand, and heterosexual parents, on the other, was that heterosexual parents were more likely to say that their children’s visits with the other parent presented problems for them (Harris & Turner, 1985/86).

In the Golombok et al. (1983) study, children’s contacts with adult friends of their lesbian mothers were also assessed. All of the children were reported to have contact with adult friends of their mothers, and the majority of lesbian mothers reported that their adult friends were a mixture of homosexual and heterosexual adults.

Concerns that children of gay or lesbian parents are more likely than children of heterosexual parents to be sexually abused have also been addressed. Results of work in this area reveal that the great majority of adults who perpetrate sexual abuse are male; sexual abuse of children by adult women is extremely rare (Finkelhor & Russell, 1984; Jones & MacFarlane, 1980; Sarafino, 1979). Moreover, the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse cases involve an adult male abusing a young female (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994; Jones & MacFarlane, 1980). Available evidence reveals that gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978; Jenny et al., 1994; Sarafino, 1979).

Fears that children in custody of gay or lesbian parents might be at heightened risk for sexual abuse are thus without basis in the research literature.

Summary

Overall, then, results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers’ children that emerges from results of existing research is thus one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, and with mothers’ adult friends–both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Studies in this area to date are few, and the data emerging from them are sketchy. On the basis of existing research findings, however, fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities are unfounded.

C. Diversity among Gay and Lesbian Families

Despite the tremendous diversity evident within gay and lesbian communities, research on differences among lesbian and gay families with children is as yet quite sparse. One particularly important kind of heterogeneity involves the circumstances of children’s birth or adoption. Some men and women have had children in the context of heterosexual relationships that split up after one or both parents assumed lesbian or gay identities. Much of the existing research on lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children was initiated to address concerns that arose for such families in the context of child custody disputes, and it was often designed at least in part to examine the veracity of common stereotypes that have been voiced in legal proceedings. A growing number of men and women have also had children after assuming lesbian or gay identities. Recently, a small body of research (e.g., Flaks, et al., 1995; McCandlish, 1987; Patterson, 1994a, 1995a; Steckel, 1987) has begun to address issues relevant to families of this type. Parents and children in these two kinds of families are likely to have experiences that differ from one another in many respects.

Many issues (for example, residential versus non-residential parenting) have yet to be addressed directly by research. In this section, research findings on the impact of parental psychological and relationship status and on the influence of other stresses and supports are described. One dimension of difference among gay and lesbian families concerns whether or not the custodial parent is involved in a couple relationship, and if so what implications this may have for children. Pagelow (1980), Kirkpatrick et al. (1981), and Golombok et al. (1983) all reported that, in their samples, divorced lesbian mothers were more likely than divorced heterosexual mothers to be living with a romantic partner; however, none of these investigators examined connections between this variable and children’s adjustment or development in lesbian mother families.

Huggins (1989) reported that self-esteem among daughters of lesbian mothers whose lesbian partners lived with them was higher than that among daughters of lesbian mothers who did not live with a partner. Because of the small sample size and absence of statistical tests, this finding should be seen as suggestive rather than conclusive. On the basis of impressions from her own work, Kirkpatrick has also stated her view that “contrary to the fears expressed in court, children in households that included the mother’s lesbian lover had a richer, more open and stable family life” than did those in single parent lesbian mother households (Kirkpatrick, 1987, p. 204).

Issues related to division of family and household labor have also been studied. In families headed by lesbian couples, Patterson (1995a) found that, although mothers did not differ in their reported involvement in household and family decision-making tasks, biological mothers reported more time spent in child care and non-biological mothers reported more time spent in paid employment. In families where mothers reported sharing child care duties relatively evenly between themselves, parents were more satisfied and children were better adjusted. Thus, equal sharing of child care duties was associated with more advantageous outcomes both for parents and for children in this study.

Another aspect of diversity among gay and lesbian families relates to the psychological status and well-being of the parent. Research on parent-child relations in heterosexual families has consistently revealed that children’s adjustment is often related to indices of maternal mental health. One might therefore expect factors that enhance mental health among lesbian mothers or gay fathers also to benefit their children. Lott-Whitehead and Tully (1993) reported considerable variability in the amounts of stress described by lesbian mothers, but did not describe sources of stress nor their relations to child adjustment. Rand, Graham, and Rawlings (1982) found that lesbian mothers’ sense of psychological well-being was associated with their degree of openness about their lesbian identity with employers, ex-husbands, and children; mothers who felt more able to disclose their lesbian identity were more likely to express a positive sense of well-being.

Unfortunately, no information about the relations of these findings to adjustment or development among children of these women has been reported to date.

Another area of great diversity among families with a gay or lesbian parent concerns the degree to which a parent’s gay or lesbian identity is accepted by other significant people in a child’s life. Huggins (1989) found a tendency for children whose fathers were rejecting of maternal lesbian identities to report lower self-esteem than those whose fathers were neutral or positive. Due to small sample size and absence of significance tests, this finding should be regarded as preliminary and suggestive rather than definitive. Huggins’ (1989) finding does, however, raise questions about the extent to which reactions of important adults in a child’s environment can influence responses to discovery of a parent’s gay or lesbian identity.

Effects of the age at which children learn of parental homosexuality have also been a topic of study. Paul (1986) found that offspring who were told of parental gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity either in childhood or in late adolescence found the news easier to cope with than those who first learned of it during early to middle adolescence. Huggins (1989) also reported that those who learned of maternal lesbianism in childhood had higher self-esteem than did those who were not informed of it until they were adolescents. From a clinical perspective, it is widely agreed that early adolescence is a particularly difficult time for children to learn that a father is gay or that a mother is lesbian (Bozett, 1980; Pennington, 1987; Schulenberg, 1985).

Some investigators have also raised questions about the potential role of peer support in helping children to deal with issues raised by having a gay or lesbian parent. Lewis (1980) was the first to suggest that children’s silence on the topic of parental sexual orientation with peers and siblings might add to their feelings of isolation from other children. All of the 11 adolescents studied by O’Connell (1993) reported exercising selectivity about when they disclosed information about their mothers’ lesbian identities. Paul (1986) found that 29% of his young adult respondents had never known anyone else with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual parent, suggesting that the possibility of isolation is very real for some young people. Potentially negative effects of any such isolation have not, however, been uncovered in research to date. Lewis (1980) suggested that children would benefit from support groups consisting of other children of gay or lesbian parents, and young people interviewed by O’Connell (1993) agreed, but systematic evaluations of such groups have not been reported.

In summary, research on diversity among families with gay and lesbian parents and on the potential effects of such diversity on children is only beginning (Martin 1989; Patterson, 1992, 1995b) Existing data on children of lesbian mothers suggest that children may fare better when mothers are in good psychological health and living with a lesbian partner with whom they share child care. Children may find it easier to deal with issues raised by having lesbian or gay parents if they learn of parental sexual orientation during childhood rather than during adolescence. Existing data also suggest the value of a supportive milieu, in which parental sexual orientation is accepted by other significant adults and in which children have contact with peers in similar circumstances. The existing data are, however, still very sparse, and any conclusions must be seen as tentative.

It is clear, however, that existing research provides no basis for believing that children’s best interests are served by family conflict or secrecy about a parent’s gay or lesbian identity, or by requirements that a lesbian or gay parent maintain a household separate from that of a same-sex partner.

D. Conclusion

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.

It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and relatively scarce. Less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Little is known about development of the offspring of gay or lesbian parents during adolescence or adulthood. Sources of heterogeneity have yet to be systematically investigated. Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Clinton Anderson, Natalie Eldridge, Patricia Falk, Mary Henning-Stout, Larry Kurdek, April Martin, Bianca

Cody Murphy, Vera Paster, and Roy Scrivner for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

II. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

The citations in this annotated bibliography come from a number of sources: from the original APA publication Lesbian Parents and Their Children, from a PsycLit search on gay and lesbian parenting from the years 1987-1993, and from recommendations made by our expert reviewers. We recognize that this bibliography is not all inclusive. The literature on lesbian and gay parenting is rapidly expanding, and we may have missed some resources. Furthermore, there are a number of doctoral dissertations on gay and lesbian parenting. We have not included disser

Posted in Uncategorized

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered communities

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered communities

Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered Communities (LGBTR)

Name:

Institution

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered communities

In a society whose larger part of the population is heterosexual, the few who find themselves on the other side of the bridge, more often than not find themselves on the receiving end of the majority. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered community made up the minority in society. The conflict between the two groups more often than not is silent and goes unnoticed. However, in some parts of the world, there is discrimination and violence against the minority group.

Owing to the fact that every person in society has something to offer, then the contribution of the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered communities (LGBTs) too should be appreciated. This is not always the case as most heterosexual persons look down upon and despise them. However in some regions, these groups have gained support from other persons in society and shown progress in the projects they undertake.

There is an undoubted input of the LGBTs in our day-to-day life especially in connection to the arts and cultural sector. A group like The Gay and Lesbian Fund for Colorado has created more awareness among straight persons that they have the capacity to do so, this is as stated by Johnson (2011). It is in regards to nightlife and recreation, there are numerous gay-friendly social events that are organized in the neighborhoods. Denver has the largest performing arts complex, art galleries and museums that display artistic work collected during the LGBTs social events. There are a huge number of theatres that screens plays and regional premieres that are LGBT affiliated.

In connection to family life and religion, homosexuals have received much criticism. Though some religions have slowly been accepting them there is a negative perspective of them still. There are various forms of families within this minority section of persons. These families are normal and complete with children. With time there has been a noted increase in societal tolerance towards changes in the family structure and in sexual orientation. More persons are now confident of their sexuality and do not shy away from it. In addition, more of them are creating their own families through donor insemination, adoption and surrogacy (Martin & Rayan 2000).

The coming up of such families has a direct impact on school set-up as the kids need to be incorporated in normal society. This has in a way caused the school authorities to be considerate of this minority group and brought in the services of professions to advice on how to deal with them. It is true that these groups needs this specialized knowledge and gradually, will get them. With such efforts, development of family, school and community partnerships is guaranteed as the children are successful in their education. This is one of the positive contributions of the gay and lesbian family set-ups (Dixon, 2001).

In connection to family life and religion, homosexuals have received much criticism. Though some religions have slowly been accepting them there is a negative perspective of them still. New churches that support this group have come up and taken in these persons in large numbers (Unitarian Universalist Associations of Congregations, 2011). This in a way has challenged the main stream churches which tend to relax the hard stance they have on this group to avoid losing followers. Unitarian Universalist Congregations welcomes the LGBTs. Such holds a strong believe in respecting the worth and dignity of every person. This is one of the few religions that have openly taken to ordaining gays and lesbians and even overseeing their religious activities such as weddings.

Heterosexuals, who consider themselves as ‘the normal ones’ find it difficult to accept the LGBTs in their lives. In a case of a school set-up, children from the perceived normal families of father and mother tend to segregate themselves from those from gay families. This is really discouraging especially if it extends to push the kids out of school for some reason. As Dixon (2001) notes, heterosexual parents can also be a setback in the case where they are against the spread of diverse ideologies on sexuality.

In the case where persons affiliated to the LGBTs start up businesses; few heterosexuals are supportive, in terms of being clients and customers. This may be a discouraging factor for them and make them to pull out of such ventures. Bad publicity due to their sexuality may also lead to their downfall.

Lack of support from governments to this minority groups is also a hindrance to their progress. In the case where there is a petition for their defense or such a cause, lack of hold-up demoralizes them. This may push these persons to moving away and settling in zones that recognize their rights and respect them or alternatively cause them to withdraw from the public domain.

Rigid ideologies held by heterosexuals about homosexual also hinder the appreciation of efforts they put to attain normalcy in their lives (Martin & Rayan 2000). However how much society grows, chances are that they will never come to a point of complete acceptance of homosexuals. But gradually, with activism and social forums, things get better for them.

References

Dixon P. M. (2001). Strange Fruit: Comparing the Struggles of African-Americans for Civil Rights with the Struggles of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered Peoples. Retrieved on 20th April 21, 2012 from http://whosoever.org/v6i1/fruit.html

Johnson A.M. (2011). GLBT Arts and Culture. Retrieved on 20th April 20, 2012 from http://www.denvergov.org/DenverOfficeofCulturalAffairs/ThingstoDoinDenver/CulturalItineraries/GLBTArtsCulture/tabid/436897/Default.aspx

Martin. A., & Ryan. D. (2000). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Parents in the School Systems. School Psychology Review 29(2) pp. 207-216.

Unitarian Universalist Associations of Congregations (2011). Bisexual, Gays Lesbian and Transgender Community retrieved on 19th April 21, 2012 from http://www.uua.org/beliefs/justice/6252.shtml

Posted in Uncategorized

lesson critique

lesson critique

Lesson critique

Name:

Institution:

Formative assessment. (group work)

Strengths: Combination of ideas from different students improves learning; Weak students can get help from their peers in the group through discussion; Encourages teamwork and cooperation among students.

Weaknesses: Possibility of some students not participating and letting others do all the work; Individual attention by teacher to weak student is lost

12807957620

Relevance of assessments

The formative assessment enables the students to grasp the basic concepts of the topic while the summative test gives them a deeper understanding of the three aspects of irony as well as a chance to demonstrate what they have understood

Summative assessment.

Strengths: Promotes deeper understanding of the concept through discussion and active criticism; Encourages interaction of students and fosters good relationships.

Weaknesses: Student will not learn all the three available options since discussion is only between two

127635016129012807952089151281113161290

Collection of feedback.

Pros: level and scope of understanding is assessable as students get a chance to present what they have learnt, and the method allows for learning from peers through group work and student to student criticism and correction.

Cons: students may not cover the three presentation areas; they are only required to cover two so the feedback may not be conclusive criticism from fellow students may not be sufficient.

Instructional strategies.

Strengths: encompasses the entire scope of the topic covering verbal situational and dramatic irony; encourage teamwork and group participation and peer learning through group work

Weaknesses: one on one interaction by the teacher with students is minimal; the tests do not exhaustively cover the entire scope of the topic for each student, and could promote laziness in some students who will rely on their group members to do all the work.

References

Borich, D. B. (2013). Effective teaching methods: research based practice. Pearson.

Embrey, S. (2010). Teachers lesson planner and record book. Sterling

Grant, C. A., and Sleeter, C. E. (2006). Turning on learning: five approaches for multicultural teaching plans for race, class gender and disability.

Posted in Uncategorized

Lessons learnt from American Civil war

Lessons learnt from American Civil war

Lesson Learnt from American Civil warStudent’s Name:

Institution:

Date:

Lessons learnt

The American civil war was the outcome of years of difference in ideologies and economic differences between the North and the South. In my opinion, it however broke out when least expected. The two factions had co-existed for years in spite of their differences. The election of Abraham Lincoln at a time where slavery was the focus of the South’s economy caused many southerners jitters. They feared that their livelihood would be compromised by abolition of slavery, thus they opted to secede for their economic survival (Keene 2010)

McClure however makes it clear that slavery was just the white crest of a strong wave that had rocked the Union since its inception CITATION McC86 l 1033 (McClure 1886). He faults George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for failing to explicitly outline the powers of the states and those of the central government. Jefferson’s believe in ‘power for the people’ was used by the southerners who perceived the Northerners as infringing into their freedom to keep slaves.

Despite the casualties, the War managed to unite the Union once again. The Civilian War can thus be viewed as a necessary evil that enhanced America’s unity. McClure highlights the reluctance the soldiers had when fighting their brothers. It is this brotherhood that aided the union’s post war prosperity and patriotism. It also enhanced the status of African Americans who were finally granted citizenship.

This whole course has brought to light the patriotism and selflessness the founding fathers of America portrayed in fighting for the rights of their people. It has instilled in me a sense of patriotism and identity that will help me in interacting with fellow citizens and taking part in national processes like voting.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY McClure, Alexander Kelly. “The lesson of our civil war.” Pamphlets on the Civil War, 1861-1865, 1886.

Keene, J. D., Cornell, S., & O’Donnell, E. T. (2010). Visions of America: A history of the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Posted in Uncategorized

lesson plan For Grade level kindergarten

lesson plan For Grade level kindergarten

lesson plan For Grade level: kindergarten

Content: drawing, singing, actingLesson outcome: children will be able to sing and have social interactive activities to help them supplement the class work and improve their co-curricular activities.

DAY ONE:

Singing

Objectives:

Singing while expressing them.

Singing will help them explore their talents.

It will create an optional activity for them to spend their pass time.

It will provide for an optional method to express their feelings.

Pupil’s task;

Be willing to learn new songs

Participate in class activities

Be willing to participate as a group member

Teacher’s task;

Teach the children new and educative songs.

Coordinate the children to sing together.

DAY TWO:

Drawing

Objectives;

For the children to learn how to express themselves through drawing.

To enhance the child’s ability to handle drawing materials.

To enhance the child’s talent .Pupils task;

To follow the teachers instructions on how to undertake this activity.

To bring with them drawing tools.

Teachers task;

To guide the children on how to draw.

Ensure that the children use their tools effectively.

DAY THREE

Acting

Objectives;

To nature the children’s talent

To provide an avenue where the child can express himself/ herself

Pupil’s task;

To follow the teachers guidelines

To be willing to work in a group setting.

Teacher’s task;

To show the children how to dramatise and express themselves through acting.

Provide plays which are fun and easy to act. In case of plays with a complicated plot the teacher should simplify it and rewrite it in a simpler way.

By developing a class with same activities all aimed at achieving one prime objective that is to develop a child’s talent and grouping the lessons or units in a way that all contents complement one another for example in the case above, all are involved with self expression (Lee, 2000).

Through bringing children and other people from outside to help and to motivate the children through competitions, this adds to the teaching skills and the impact of one’s teaching skills.

Children will be able to assess themselves through several internal and external competitions so as to prove if the skills and approaches are working for them or not, children will develop a repertoire of themselves through the skills and their performance in class through presentations(Lee, 2000).

References:

Lee, A. M., Thomas, K. T., & Thomas, J. R. (2000). Physical education for children: daily lesson plans for middle school (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Posted in Uncategorized