Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2016 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Montes, Silmara
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Staut Junior, Sérgio Said |
| Banca de defesa: |
Tagliamento, Grazielle,
Santos, Anderson Marcos dos |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Tuiuti do Parana
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Mestrado em Psicologia
|
| Departamento: |
Psicologia
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Resumo em Inglês: |
The general objective of this research was to analyze the idea of Law and Psychology students about homoaffective unions from the juridical and social aspects in a university in Curitiba. The study participants were twenty young adults, aged between eighteen and twenty-five, students in a private university at Curitiba city. In the first focus group, ten students participated in the law course. For the second focus group were ten participants of the Psychology course. It was used a semi-structured interview with eight questions about the legal and social aspects of homosexual unions, such as: homosexuality, family and friends in homoafetive context, role of law and psychology professionals in the protection of rights, lack of legislation in the context of homoaffective unions and adoption by homoaffective couples. Research participants were not identified. The focus groups were recorded and later transcribed for the analysis of the data collected, using the content analysis technique. The results found in this study revealed that most of the students claimed to have nothing against the subject of homosexuality, even though the prejudice was implicitly observed. Despite the biased discourse of some students, most have turned out to be in favor of homosexual unions. It was observed that for students their families are against homosexuality, as there is also prejudice within their homes. For the students some friends 'accept' homosexuality others 'no'. In the Law group we observed the argument that the lawyer has to act with professionalism and neutrality towards homosexuals. In the Psychology group, they expressed opinions related to the role of the psychologist in relation to the help of self-acceptance and the fight against prejudice, also experienced by the family and society. Although most of the students in the two courses claimed that they had no prejudice in relation to homosexuality, some of them were found to be against the regulation of same-gender marriage, which implicitly demonstrates prejudice. The students have expressed favorable and contrary opinions regarding the regulation of the fight against homophobia, with arguments that clearly demonstrate personal prejudice and also the lack of understanding about the extent of the psychological and symbolic violence suffered by homosexuals. In both groups, some students were opposed to adoption by homosexual couples. |
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede.utp.br:8080/jspui/handle/tede/1315
|
Resumo: |
The general objective of this research was to analyze the idea of Law and Psychology students about homoaffective unions from the juridical and social aspects in a university in Curitiba. The study participants were twenty young adults, aged between eighteen and twenty-five, students in a private university at Curitiba city. In the first focus group, ten students participated in the law course. For the second focus group were ten participants of the Psychology course. It was used a semi-structured interview with eight questions about the legal and social aspects of homosexual unions, such as: homosexuality, family and friends in homoafetive context, role of law and psychology professionals in the protection of rights, lack of legislation in the context of homoaffective unions and adoption by homoaffective couples. Research participants were not identified. The focus groups were recorded and later transcribed for the analysis of the data collected, using the content analysis technique. The results found in this study revealed that most of the students claimed to have nothing against the subject of homosexuality, even though the prejudice was implicitly observed. Despite the biased discourse of some students, most have turned out to be in favor of homosexual unions. It was observed that for students their families are against homosexuality, as there is also prejudice within their homes. For the students some friends 'accept' homosexuality others 'no'. In the Law group we observed the argument that the lawyer has to act with professionalism and neutrality towards homosexuals. In the Psychology group, they expressed opinions related to the role of the psychologist in relation to the help of self-acceptance and the fight against prejudice, also experienced by the family and society. Although most of the students in the two courses claimed that they had no prejudice in relation to homosexuality, some of them were found to be against the regulation of same-gender marriage, which implicitly demonstrates prejudice. The students have expressed favorable and contrary opinions regarding the regulation of the fight against homophobia, with arguments that clearly demonstrate personal prejudice and also the lack of understanding about the extent of the psychological and symbolic violence suffered by homosexuals. In both groups, some students were opposed to adoption by homosexual couples. |
