No description available.

No description available.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2018-04-06T12:54:55Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Carlos Augusto Teixeira Temperini.pdf: 9535719 bytes, checksum: 73b9e45837fb67e850d7538997675f43 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-06T12:54:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Carlos Augusto Teixeira Temperini.pdf: 9535719 bytes, checksum: 73b9e45837fb67e850d7538997675f43 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-06 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / The aim of this study is to describe and analyze contents and discourses about gay families in the Brazilian and American context in order to understand their arrangements and experiences. The theory structure was based on John Bowlby, Donald Winnicott and Elisabeth Badinter’s studies to discuss the parenthood importance in infant and child development as well as a reflection on “the myth of motherhood" and its impact on gay parenting experiences. The methodology was structured involving both quantitative and qualitative methods. Part of the data collection was carried out in Brazil and the other part the United States of America. For the treatment of quantitative data, we used statistical analysis, and for qualitative research, we used the Grounded Theory. The sample of this study was collected in three stages: (i) gathering public opinion through an online questionnaire about samesex marriage, gay families and child development; (ii) gathering the perception of gay families through a closed-interview questions and (iii) gathering the perception of gay families through an in-depth and open-ended interview. The samples of quantitative research were compounded by 1,055 Brazilians and 180 Americans. The qualitative research sample was compounded by 9 American gay families and 11 Brazilian gay families. It was observed in the American and Brazilian context that gay families, in the perception of the participants, have little social acceptance. These results camouflage the prejudice and discrimination of some of the participants who are self-entitled in favor of diversity, but who blame society for the difficulty of acceptance of those families. The (qualitative and quantitative) data crossing opened the door to understanding the dynamic functioning of gay families, which were called the Chameleon Families: adaptations, changes and challenges of gay families. It has been found that there is a functioning permeated by multiple and dynamic processes, fueled by psychological experiences, interrelated and lived by gay families, characterized by stages that require adaptations, changes and constant challenges. Those families commonly adapt and change because they want to have the right to be a family, to display love without being judged, to build their homes and to have children. They want to occupy social spaces without questions about parental capacity, about the child's mother, and the feeling that every child needs to have a woman present to guarantee their safe development. They want to claim their rights for freedom, equality and equity. They want social justice, so they do not have to invest too much in their children’s protection / Nesta tese, objetiva-se descrever e analisar conteúdos e discursos acerca da homoparentalidade masculina, em contexto brasileiro e americano, a fim de compreender as configurações, vivências e experiências dessas famílias. O arcabouço teórico foi construído à luz das teorias de John Bowlby, Donald Winnicott e Elisabeth Badinter, para discutir a importância dos cuidados e da função parental no desenvolvimento de bebês e crianças, além de trazer uma reflexão acerca do “mito do amor materno” e de seu impacto na vivência da homoparentalidade. A trama metodológica que se constituiu envolveu uma parte quantitativa e outra qualitativa. Parte da coleta dos dados foi realizada no Brasil e outra nos Estados Unidos. Para tratamento dos dados quantitativos, utilizou-se a análise estatística e para a pesquisa qualitativa utilizou-se a Grounded Theory. A amostra do estudo foi coletada em três etapas: (i) coleta da opinião pública, através de questionário online acerca do casamento homoafetivo, da família homoparental e do desenvolvimento dos filhos; (ii) coleta da percepção de famílias homoparentais através de entrevista estruturada fechada e (iii) coleta da percepção de famílias homoparentais através de entrevista aberta com profundidade. Participaram da pesquisa quantitativa 1.055 brasileiros e 180 americanos. Já na pesquisa qualitativa participaram 9 famílias homoparentais americanas e 11 famílias homoparentais brasileiras. Observou-se, através dos dados quantitativos, tanto no contexto americano, quanto no contexto brasileiro, que a família homoparental, na percepção dos participantes, apresenta baixa aceitação social. Esses resultados camuflam o preconceito e a discriminação de uma parcela dos participantes que se auto-intitulam a favor da diversidade, mas que culpabilizam a sociedade pela dificuldade de aceitação dessas famílias. O cruzamento dos dados (qualitativos e quantitativos) abriu portas para a compreensão do funcionamento dinâmico da homoparentalidade que foi denominado Famílias Camaleão: adaptações, mudanças e desafios da homoparentalidade. Descobriu-se que há um funcionamento permeado por processos múltiplos e dinâmicos, abastecidos por experiências psicológicas, inter-relacionadas e vivenciadas pelas famílias homoparentais, caracterizada por estágios e fases que requerem adaptações, mudanças e desafios constantes. Essas famílias comumente se adaptam e mudam, porque querem ter o direito de ser família, de endereçar o amor sem julgamentos, de construir seus lares e de ter filhos. Querem ocupar os espaços sociais sem os questionamentos sobre a capacidade parental, sobre a mãe da criança e sobre a necessidade de ter a presença de uma mulher para que a criança se desenvolva. Querem gozar e usufruir de direitos que garantam liberdade, igualdade e equidade. Querem uma sociedade mais justa, para não ter que investir demasiadamente na proteção de seus filhos

In this thesis I start by reviewing the theoretical perspectives that have informed the debate around equality rights for gays and lesbians. Next, I will analyze the concept of equality developed by the Supreme Court of Canada under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the Andrews case, decided in 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected a model based on formal equality, embracing instead the far-reaching concept of substantive equality as a way to redress historical prejudice and disadvantage of individuals and groups that fall within enumerated or analogous grounds of discrimination. In the last decade, a number of courts have applied this model to equality claims brought under the Charter by same-sex couples. I will explore the details of several of these cases as well as a variety of statutes relating to same-sex couples. Finally, I will discuss recent law reform proposals that recommend that state benefits should be allocated regardless of the relationship status of the beneficiaries, thereby envisaging more radical changes to the legal system. I conclude that the Canadian approach to equality for same-sex couples has followed an interpretive method that seems to apply a definition of family that is shifting and varies on an ad hoc basis, but that the denial of spousal status under marriage laws represents a limitation of equality rights still to be overcome. I also conclude that, in fact, the concept of status may still influence the adjudication process under section 15 of the Charter as far as marriage rights are concerned. This is because the framework of analysis under section 15 calls for an assessment of the claimant's position in the larger socio-political context, and this element, if not properly circumscribed, risks being corrupted by existing prejudices and biases relating to family.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Deakin University, 2002. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on Dec. 25, 2005). Includes bibliographical references (p. 286-307).

In this thesis I start by reviewing the theoretical perspectives that have informed the debate around equality rights for gays and lesbians. Next, I will analyze the concept of equality developed by the Supreme Court of Canada under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the Andrews case, decided in 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected a model based on formal equality, embracing instead the far-reaching concept of substantive equality as a way to redress historical prejudice and disadvantage of individuals and groups that fall within enumerated or analogous grounds of discrimination. In the last decade, a number of courts have applied this model to equality claims brought under the Charter by same-sex couples. I will explore the details of several of these cases as well as a variety of statutes relating to same-sex couples. Finally, I will discuss recent law reform proposals that recommend that state benefits should be allocated regardless of the relationship status of the beneficiaries, thereby envisaging more radical changes to the legal system. I conclude that the Canadian approach to equality for same-sex couples has followed an interpretive method that seems to apply a definition of family that is shifting and varies on an ad hoc basis, but that the denial of spousal status under marriage laws represents a limitation of equality rights still to be overcome. I also conclude that, in fact, the concept of status may still influence the adjudication process under section 15 of the Charter as far as marriage rights are concerned. This is because the framework of analysis under section 15 calls for an assessment of the claimant's position in the larger socio-political context, and this element, if not properly circumscribed, risks being corrupted by existing prejudices and biases relating to family. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This study investigates the philanthropic practices of same-sex couples, including their motivations for giving and how they make philanthropic decisions. Existing research has focused almost exclusively on heterosexual couples and assumes that all households are the same. Using the frameworks of the eight mechanisms of giving and social identification theory, this study investigates the role of identity in philanthropic behavior and how gender differences may be amplified among same-sex couples. Drawing on 19 semi-structured joint interviews with gay and lesbian couples in Indiana, the research uses a qualitative method to "give voice" to a marginalized population's philanthropic experiences that are little studied. The study finds participants are highly engaged in nonprofit organizations and participate in a diverse array of philanthropic behaviors. While many couples support at least one LGBT-affiliated nonprofit, giving to LGBT causes does not constitute the majority of most couples' philanthropy. Still, sexual orientation plays a significant role in motivating support for the LGBT community, for public policy changes and equal rights initiatives, and to HIV/AIDS-service organizations. Sexual orientation also determines which organizations many donors would not support. Same-sex couples also use their philanthropy as a way to support their communities at-large and be recognized by mainstream society. In terms of financial management, a majority of participant couples maintained independent financial accounts or partial pooling systems of household income, leading to more opportunities for charitable giving; at the same time, couples expressed low conflict over making giving decisions and supported one another's interests. This study provides scholars and practitioners insights into the complex interactions of motivations, identity, and financial arrangements that underscore charitable giving, and it offers implications for nonprofit organizations and fundraisers who work with diverse populations of donors.

Bibliography: leaves 235-261 / Queer studies have not adequately considered gay men seeking sexual exclusivity within longterm relationships. In contrast, the emphasis has been on understanding evolving queer norms. Homonormativity has been informing sexual permissiveness. In accordance, and contrasting gay men seeking sexual exclusivity, gay, male couples tended to use relationship agreements to stipulate guidelines for extradyadic sex. This study was inspired by my inability—as a counsellor of gay men seeking sexual exclusivity—to provide them with credible insights to better understand their goals. Representing an initial step in generating practical knowledge, it was anticipated that my counselling clients could benefit from an exploration of lived experiences rather than having to rely on theoretical inferences and opinions. “How” and “why” participants maintained sexual exclusivity were the main targets of discovery. Eleven gay, Canadian men aged thirty-three and older, in relationships of five years or longer, participated in semistructured interviews in-person or via video chat. Using Kleiman’s (2004) protocol for phenomenological analysis, common units of meaning were coded, from interview responses, so that distinct subthemes, contributing to six themes, were identified. These findings included content concerning “seeking positive affects,” “avoiding negative affects,” “factors supporting sexual exclusivity,” “threats to sexual exclusivity,” “rigidity in beliefs,” and “decision-making toward sexual exclusivity.” The first two themes integrated innately to form a meta-theme, “emotional optimization.” An essential insight into how participants maintained sexual exclusivity was their awareness of, and restraint in using, sexually tantalizing, visual stimuli, which was the primary risk to sexual exclusivity. Suggestions for gay men desiring sexual exclusivity included discontinued utility of pornography and cybersex. Varied implications for prospective research, clinical practice and support groups were delineated. / Psychology / D. Phil. (Psychology)

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2015. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Marriage is regarded as one of the most important and universal cultural symbols of belonging, and incorporates a range of privileges that can be acquired in no other way. It is where relationships of desire, politics and economics are fused into personal and public rituals of socially sanctioned connection and inclusion. Yet it draws new boundaries of social inclusion and exclusion or stigmatisation. In this thesis I use narrative inquiry to investigate how seventeen Capetonian queer couples in committed relationships perceive and experience same-sex marriage, and ask whether the Civil Union Act has given them a greater sense of belonging. Sexuality is deeply politicised through gendered disciplinary regimes that impinge on people’s emotional and intimate lives. Sexual politics in South Africa today emerge from a complex history of the sycretisation of widely varying cultural and political discourses, beliefs and practices wrought through colonialism and post-colonial recuperation. The formal protection of lgbti-q identities in the post-apartheid South African Constitution is the outcome of strategic struggles for lgbti-q recognition as human rights. However, formal rights do not necessarily lead to social inclusion as they may not reflect extant cultural values, hence I use the thicker concept of ‘belonging’ as developed by Yuval-Davis to analyse everyday inclusion—a concept which enables me to understand ‘privatised’ and affective dimensions of citizenship shaped by contexts of care and interpersonal intimacy. Worldwide, marriage has long been a central institution in how societies regulate their social and physical reproduction; but marriage also confers privileges which can be accessed in no other way. As in the West, marriage equality was a key aim for lgbti-q struggles in South Africa. But feminists have critiqued marriage as an institution of gendered hierarchy and a site of profound oppression for women. It is at the centre of the private|public dichotomy, and symbolic of women’s differentiated citizenship through, inter alia, the ideology of ‘women as property’. Hence same-sex marriage is deeply politicised in how it upholds or challenges heteropatriarchy. By looking at how a diverse range of same-sex couples in committed relationships perceive and experience same-sex marriage in South Africa, I unravel the ambiguities and contradictions of marriage as a project of belonging for lesbians and gays. Marriage as a sexual politics of belonging is about how lesbian and gay citizens experience equality and dignity in their everyday lives—recognition of them as citizen-subjects, protection of their intimate relationships as well as their struggles for belonging. I engage with the complex outcomes of colonial conquest and post-colonial recuperation on African sexual identities, before turning to an understanding of queer citizenship. I show how belonging is a much thicker concept than citizenship because it accesses our affective relationships. I proceed to use Nira Yuval-Davis’s framework for analysing belonging. She divides belonging into two streams: facets of belonging relating to identities, social locations and political and ethical values; and a politics of belonging. Struggles for belonging are waged around boundaries of inclusions and exclusions, and only become visible when belonging is contested. Projects for belonging are complex and multi-layered negotiations around the boundaries of belonging. Using narrative inquiry, I present the stories of seventeen couples and six key informants to fashion a narrative about same-sex marriage as a project of belonging. I asked them about coming out, and how they met their partners. They also told me about their relationships with children and significant others. We talked about their perceptions and experiences of same-sex marriage, and their views of the Constitution and Civil Union Act. I also asked about their sense of safety as queers and what they thought needed to be done to help queers belong (more). The participants’ most significant sense of belonging derived from having their rights protected in the Constitution. Their sense of entitlement to be who they are, was the outcome of powerful struggles for recognition. The various couples had been in committed relationships for between 8 and 52 years. Some had made use of the immigration status of same-sex partners to be together, which meant they were instantly thrown into ‘marriage’-like situations. Some didn’t want to get married, but 10 couples were married. Except for two couples, all the couples who got married did it primarily for the tangible benefits associated with marriage: through marriage they established formal kinship relationships linked to property and commitment to care. They were generally not interested in the cultural trappings of ‘weddings’, and had modest and quiet ceremonies. All the married couples affirmed that the Act had given them a greater sense of belonging. While all the participants valued formal recognition through the Constitution, the lack of substantive equality needed to be addressed to ensure future belonging for lgbti-q. I concluded that same-sex marriages are powerful social institutions, capable of either upholding heteropatriarchies through homonormative performances, but also capable of subversions. A foundational challenge comes through disrupting the ‘women as property’ exchange embedded in most marital traditions. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die huwelik word beskou as een van die belangrikste en algemeenste kulturele simbole van samesyn, en behels ’n reeks voordele wat op geen ander manier toeganklik is nie. Die huwelik is die kern waar begeerte, politiek en ekonomie verenig in persoonlike en openbare instellings van gemeenskaplike aanvaarding en verbinding. Terselfdertyd teken dit ook nuwe grense van sosiale insluiting, uitsluiting of stigmatisering. In hierdie tesis ondersoek ek wat sewentien Kaapse queer paartjies in vaste verhoudings dink van gay huwelike en hoe hulle dit ondervind, en ek vra of die Civil Union Act hulle meer samesyn (belonging) laat voel. Seksualiteit is uiters polities omdat dissiplinêre sisteme mense se emosionele en intieme lewes reguleer. Seksuele politiek in die huidige Suid-Afrika spruit uit ’n gekompliseerde geskiedenis van ’n samevloeiing van verkillende kulturele en politiese diskoerse, gelowe en praktyke van kolonialisme en post-kolonialistiese herstel. Die formele beskerming van lgbti-q identiteite in die post-apartheid Grondwet van Suid-Afrika, is die uitkomste van strategiese stryde vir lgbti-q herkenning as menseregte. Nogtans het formele regte nie noodwendig gelei tot sosiale insluiting omdat hulle nie die bestaande kulturele waardes weerspieël nie, daarom gebruik ek die konsep van ‘samesyn’ soos ontwikkel deur Yuval-Davis om alledaagse insluiting te ontleed—’n konsep wat my in staat stel om die ‘private’ en emosionele dimensies van burgerskap, die kontekste van sorg en interpersoonlike intimiteit, te verstaan. Wêreldswyd is die huwelik ’n kerninstelling in die regulering van sosiale en fisiese voortplanting in gemeenskappe. Maar die huwelik verleen ook voorregte wat op geen ander manier verkrygbaar is nie. Soos in die Weste, is huweliks-gelykheid ’n sleutelpunt in stryde vir lgbti-q erkenning in Suid-Afrika. Maar feministe het kritiek gelewer teen die huwelik omdat hulle glo dis ’n terrein vir die instelling van geslagshiërargie en diepgaande onderdrukking van vroue. Dit is die spilpunt waarom die verdeling tussen privaat | openbaar draai, en is simbolies van vroue se gedifferensieerde burgerskap deur, onder andere, die ideologie van ‘vroue as besittings’. Dus is gay huwelike polities ingewortel in hoe hulle heteropatriargie onderskraag of aanvat. Deur te kyk hoe etlike Suid-Afrikaanse paartjies van dieselfde geslag hulle toegewyde verhoudings beskou en ondervind, ontrafel ek die raaisels en dubbelsinnighede van gay huwelike as ’n projek van samesyn vir lesbiërs en gays. Die huwelik as seksuele politiek van samesyn is hoe lesbiese en gay burgers in die alledaagse lewe hulle gelykheid en menswaardigheid beleef—dat hulle as burgers erken word, en dat hulle intieme verhoudings sowel as hulle stryde vir samesyn gekoester word. Ek ontrafel die kompleksiteit van Afrikane se seksualiteite deur die gevolge van koloniale verowering en post-koloniale herwinning aan te pak, voor ek na queer burgerskap kyk. Ek bewys dat samesyn ’n meer betekenisvolle begrip is as burgerskap omdat dit ook ons emosionele verhoudings kan aanspreek. Ek gebruik Nira Yuval-Davis se raamwerk vir die ontleding van samesyn. Sy deel dit in twee strome: fasette van samesyn verbonde aan identiteite, sosiale stand en politieke en etiese waardes; en die politiek van samesyn. Stryde oor samesyn word rondom grense van insluiting en uitsluiting gevoer, en word slegs sigbaar wanneer samesyn bevraagteken word. Projekte vir samesyn is ingewikkeld met veelvoudige onderhandelings rondom grense van in— of uitsluiting. Ek gebruik verhaalontleding om die stories van sewentien paartjies en ses sleutelinformante te omskep in ’n vertelling omtrent gay huwelike as ’n projek van samesyn. Ek het hulle gevra oor hoe hulle “uit die kas geklim” het, en hoe hulle hulle minnaars ontmoet het. Hulle het my ook vertel van hulle verhoudings met hulle kinders en belangrike mense in hulle lewens. Ons het gepraat oor hulle sienswyses oor, en ondervindings van, gay huwelike, en hulle sienings oor die Grondwet en Civil Union Act. Ek het ook uitgevra omtrent hoe veilig hulle voel as queers, en wat hulle dink gedoen moet word sodat queers (meer) samesyn kan ondervind. Die deelnemers se grootse gevoel van samesyn was as gevolg van hulle regte wat gekoester word deur die Grondwet. Hulle gevoel van geregtigheid om te wees wie hulle is, het gespruit uit ’n kragtige stryd vir erkenning. Die verskillende paartjies was tussen 8 en 52 jaar lank in vaste verhoudings. Party het gebruik gemaak van die immigrasie wetgewing vir gay minnaars om saam te bly, wat beteken het dat hulle hulle summier in ‘huwelik’-soortige verhoudings bevind het. Party wou nie trou nie, maar 10 paartjies het getrou. Behalwe twee paartjies, het al die paartjies gesê hulle het hoofsaaklik getrou om die tasbare voordele van huwelike te geniet: deur huwelike kon hulle formele verwantskappe skep met besittings en verpligtings tot sorg. Hulle was oor die algemeen nie geïnteresseerd in die kulturele vertoon van troues nie, en het beskeie en stil seremonies gehou. Al die getroude paartjies het gesê dat die Civil Union Act hulle ’n groter gevoel van samesyn gebring het. Alhoewel al die deelnemers die amptelike erkenning van die Grondwet waardeer het, het hulle gesê dat die gebrekkigheid aan substantiewe gelykheid aangespreek moet word om toekomstige samesyn vir gays te verseker. Ek het tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat gay huwelike kragtige gemeenskaplike instellings is wat heteropatriargieë kan onderskraag deur homonormatiewe gedrag, maar dat hulle ook ondermynend kan wees. ’n Fundamentele uitdaging is die moontlike ontwrigting van ‘vroue as besittings’ onderhandelings wat in meeste huwelikstradisies vasgelê is.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2017-10-24T11:52:18Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Maria Ivone Marchi-Costa.pdf: 2123350 bytes, checksum: 06b09a530571f39153564e14ac93930d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-24T11:52:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Maria Ivone Marchi-Costa.pdf: 2123350 bytes, checksum: 06b09a530571f39153564e14ac93930d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-09-08 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / The homoparental family is one of the forms of family that, in postmodern society, has increased and gained more visibility. However, it still experiences prejudice, and homoparental competence to raise children and the possible compromising of their affective and sexual development are reasons for doubt and discussions. This research aimed to understand how couples who define themselves as homoaffective, that is, couples of gays and lesbians who maintain a stable relationship, experience the daily family life and the exercise of parenthood. The qualitative methodology was used, and the interpretation of the participants’ narratives was based on the hermeneutics of Ricoeur, seeking the co-construction of meaning in the dialogue with the researcher. Three couples of lesbians and three couples of gays participated in the study, totaling 12 people who defined themselves as homoaffective, in stable marital relationships and that had children. The discourses were obtained through dialogical interviews, recorded and transcribed, from which thematic analysis emerged categories and subcategories that allowed to understand that: the motivation to start a family is based on the belief that it is necessary and desirable, bringing a sense of social belonging, especially through children; the sense of family is not tied to its configuration, nor to the parents sexual orientation, but to what is lived in it; the way relationships are built; parenting is prioritized as well as the provision of the children’s needs; according to those parents, children give the family a positive meaning way showed by daily life, according to what they see in everyday life, and this valorization helps in the confrontation of social prejudice; the possibility of those parents being influences in the definition of the future sexual orientation of the children is shifted to other figures of the family, their relationships or the community; domestic activities are divided according to availability and exclude the gender criterion; parental competence is not defined by the parents gender (father or mother), however, they understand that, for society, lesbians are more apt and competent in raising children; homoconjugality was the object of prejudice coming from the families of origin, however, homoparentality minimized it; children were the sources of approximation between homoparental family and family of origin since they made possible the amplification of the kinship ties and favored the assumption of new positions/identities as grandparents, uncles and cousins. In the social environment and at school, there were some experiences of acceptance, but also of both explicit and veiled prejudices; the same was true for the judiciary. It was possible to observe that, although they do not always admit or perceive, the partners in several situations reproduce almost compulsorily the heteronormativity, which runs counter to the idea that there is something specific in the exercise of homoparentality due to the sexual orientation of the parents / A família homoparental é uma das formas de família que, na sociedade pós-moderna, tem aumentado e ganhado mais visibilidade. Porém, ainda vivencia preconceito, sendo a competência homoparental para criar os filhos e o possível comprometimento no desenvolvimento afetivo e sexual deles motivos de dúvida e discussões. Esta pesquisa objetivou compreender como casais que se autodefinem como homoafetivos, isto é, casais de gays e lésbicas que mantêm relação estável, vivenciam o cotidiano da vida familiar e o exercício da parentalidade. A metodologia qualitativa foi utilizada, e a interpretação das narrativas dos participantes baseou-se na hermenêutica de Ricoeur, buscando a coconstrução de sentido no diálogo com o pesquisador. Participaram da pesquisa três casais de lésbicas e três casais de gays, totalizando 12 pessoas que se autodefiniram como homoafetivas, mantinham relação conjugal estável e possuíam filhos (as). Os discursos foram obtidos por meio de entrevistas dialógicas, gravadas e transcritas, de cuja análise temática emergiram categorias e subcategorias que permitiram compreender que a motivação de constituir família funda-se na crença de que ela é necessária e desejável, trazendo um senso de pertencimento social, sobretudo por meio de filhos(as); o sentido de família não está atrelado à sua configuração, nem à orientação sexual dos pais, e, sim, ao que nela se vive; o modo como se constroem as relações; a parentalidade é priorizada, assim como a provisão das necessidades dos(as) filhos(as); segundo tais pais/mães, os(as) filhos(as) dão à família um significado positivo de acordo com o que constatam na vivência cotidiana, e essa valorização ajuda no enfrentamento do preconceito social; a possibilidade de esses pais/mães serem fontes influenciadoras na definição da futura orientação sexual dos(as) filhos(as) é descartada, e o suprimento da falta da figura do outro gênero é deslocada para outras figuras da família, das suas relações ou da comunidade; as atividades domésticas são divididas conforme a disponibilidade e exclui o critério de gênero; a competência parental não é definida pelo gênero dos pais (pai ou mãe), porém, entendem que, para a sociedade, as lésbicas são mais aptas e competentes na criação de filhos; a homoconjugalidade foi alvo de preconceito por parte das famílias de origem, porém, a homoparentalidade o minimizou; os(as) filhos(as) foram fontes de aproximação entre família homoparental e família de origem, na medida em que possibilitaram a ampliação dos laços de parentesco e favoreceram a assunção de novas posições/identidades como avós, tios e primos. No meio social e na escola, houve algumas experiências de acolhimento, mas também de preconceitos tanto explícitos como velados; o mesmo se deu em relação ao judiciário. Foi possível observar que, embora nem sempre admitam ou percebam, os (as) parceiros (as) em várias situações reproduzem quase compulsoriamente a heteronormatividade, o que contraria a ideia de que há algo específico no exercício da homoparentalidade devido à orientação sexual dos pais e mães