Over recent years, sexual minorities have growingly gained attention in the human rights discourse. This attention focuses on the de-criminalisation and anti-discrimination of lesbians, gays and others. However, states and human rights instruments remain unwilling to view those belonging to these newly established minorities in their complexity as social individuals and citizens. This makes it very difficult for sexual minorities to do things considered quite “normal” and essential for others, such as living a family life and raising children.
Raising the topic of same-sex families within a human rights discourse remains highly controversial. “Family,” however, is more than a benevolent luxurious minority topic in modern welfare states. The human family constitutes the foundation of the human rights regime and as such is a fundamental cross-sectional institution and mechanism within liberal-democratic societies. Denying lesbians and gays the moral capacity of taking responsibility for partners and children, assigns them an inferior second-class status in society. Framing this distinction with categorical justifications by according them a special minority status, only supports hierarchical distinctions. It needs to be questioned, whether a specific heteronormative life-long man-wife conception of partnership can serve as the (universal) standard for marriage, family and the conception of a “good citizen” and fully recognised member of society or whether it is not this concept of “normality” that needs to be questioned rather than the assumed specificities of excluded “others.”
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION
2 SUBJECT-CREATION: SEX, GENDER AND EMBODIMENT
2.1 “HOMOSEXUALS” AND THE ESSENTIAL CONSTRUCTION OF “LESBIGAYS”
2.2 CATEGORISATION AND THE STRUGGLE FOR (EQUAL) RIGHTS
3 SUBJECT DIFFERENTIATION – LIBERAL SOCIETIES
3.1 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE – SOCIAL AND SEXUAL
3.2 MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
3.3 CITIZENSHIP AND GENDER
3.4 SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIPS AND FAMILIES
3.4.1 Filiation
3.4.2 Sexuality and Parenting – Questions we don’t ask
4 SUBJECT-(NON)-RECOGNITION - “THE FAMILY” IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
4.1 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
4.2 EUROPEAN UNION
4.3 THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
4.4 SEXUAL RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
5 SUBJECT RE-DEFINITION: THE SEXY HUMAN FAMILY?
5.1 UNIVERSALLY SEXUAL?
5.2 EQUALLY DIFFERENT?
5.3 POLITICALLY AUTONOMOUS?
6 SUBJECTED? – CONCLUSION
Research Objectives & Key Themes
This thesis examines the (non)recognition of same-sex families within the human rights discourse, challenging the heteronormative foundations of family law and citizenship in modern liberal states. It argues that same-sex families should be viewed not as a niche minority issue, but as a fundamental cross-sectional topic that exposes the exclusionary mechanisms of liberal democracy and its rigid public-private divide.
- Critique of the heteronormative construction of "the family" in international human rights law.
- Investigation into the relationship between gender, sexual orientation, and citizenship in liberal welfare states.
- Analysis of the discriminatory impact of state policies regarding adoption, reproduction, and partnership rights.
- Exploration of alternative theoretical frameworks to re-position sexual minorities as full social individuals and citizens.
Excerpt from the Book
1 Introduction
Two premises inspired the title of this thesis: first, our societies in general and debates about sexual minorities in particular, are extremely sexualised. By focusing on sexual orientation, which is believed to be a major difference, lesbians and gays are not seen in their complexity as individuals and citizens, which makes it very difficult for them to do things that are considered quite “normal” for other citizens such as raising children and living a family life. Secondly, raising the topic of same-sex families within a human rights discourse is inherently controversial. Are there not more severe problems to solve than that of a privileged minority in well-established welfare states gaining access to family status? Indeed, there might be. But this work takes a different perspective. Family is not a single minority issue as its conception is a fundamental cross-sectional institution and mechanism within modern liberal societies. Family connects the public and private spheres of liberal societies, and it both entails rights and duties against the state and challenges principles of non-discrimination and equality on a scale that goes far beyond presumed lesbian and gay motivations to reduce their income-taxes and unfairly adopt other people’s babies.
Summary of Chapters
1 INTRODUCTION: Introduces the core premise that same-sex families are a fundamental issue within liberal societies, challenging the exclusion of non-heterosexuals from citizenship and family rights.
2 SUBJECT-CREATION: SEX, GENDER AND EMBODIMENT: Analyzes the historical and social construction of "homosexuality" and "lesbigays" as identities subjected to scientific and moral categorization.
3 SUBJECT DIFFERENTIATION – LIBERAL SOCIETIES: Examines how the public-private divide and the concept of "traditional family" in liberal societies function to marginalize same-sex partnerships and parenting.
4 SUBJECT-(NON)-RECOGNITION - “THE FAMILY” IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: Critically evaluates how international human rights instruments, including the ECHR and EU policies, consistently maintain a heteronormative paradigm.
5 SUBJECT RE-DEFINITION: THE SEXY HUMAN FAMILY?: Explores new theoretical pathways and the possibility of a "universal sexual subject" to move beyond current essentialist equality paradigms.
6 SUBJECTED? – CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the findings, arguing that true recognition requires questioning the underlying hierarchies of the liberal state and the structural roots of homophobia.
Keywords
Same-sex families, Human rights discourse, Heteronormativity, Liberal societies, Citizenship, Gender identity, Sexual minorities, Public-private divide, Equality paradigm, Queer theory, Family law, Reproductive rights, Social constructivism, Filiation, Non-discrimination.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research?
The thesis investigates why and how same-sex families are excluded from legal and social recognition within the framework of modern liberal democracies and international human rights law.
Which theoretical fields does the author draw upon?
The work utilizes feminist anthropology, political philosophy, queer theory, and legal analysis to deconstruct heteronormative societal norms.
What is the primary research goal?
The objective is to reveal that same-sex families are a cross-sectional issue that challenges the foundational principles of citizenship and equality, rather than just a specialized minority concern.
What methodology is applied?
The author employs a critical, constructionist approach, analyzing legal frameworks and discourse, and applying feminist and queer theories to expose underlying hierarchies.
What does the main body explore?
It explores the history of sexual categorization, the structural role of the "traditional family," legal barriers to parenthood for same-sex couples, and the limitations of current anti-discrimination strategies.
What are the characterizing keywords?
Key concepts include heteronormativity, citizenship, sexual orientation, public-private divide, human rights, and the critique of essentialist identity politics.
Why are same-sex families often denied adoption rights?
The author argues that adoption laws are frequently tied to a heterosexual, married model of the family that states protect as a "natural" political unit, viewing same-sex alternatives as disruptive to this hierarchy.
How do "Scandinavian models" differ from others?
Scandinavian approaches are noted for a more gender-sensitive and relational understanding of citizenship, focusing on individual roles rather than a rigid heterosexual family unit.
What role does the "public-private divide" play in this exclusion?
This divide allows states to label the family as "private" and thus avoid direct scrutiny, while simultaneously regulating it to maintain patriarchal, heteronormative standards.
What is the author's stance on the "equality paradigm"?
The author is critical of simple equality claims, suggesting they often force minorities to assimilate into oppressive institutions rather than transforming the foundations of the system itself.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Dagmar Mehrtens (Autor:in), 2004, Sexy Families for Sexy Citizens?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/169758
