Social problems in relation to the LGBT population
Several strategies have been embraced by supporters, sympathizes, and activists of gay sex marriage to win support of the public on the need to stop prejudicing gay and lesbianism marriages. For instance, the assimilation approach has resulted in positive results among the gays in America and reduced discrimination by a large percentage (Baker, 2010).
The proponents of this type of union are drawn from civil unions, domestic right groups, and registered informal societies who extend their hand in support for this highly criticized union (Hunter, 2012). The members of this group have managed to convince the society on the need to coexist by employing civil rights movements, public protests, and race riots as actualized by the sin city sisters of Las Vegas (Greenberg, 2010).
This is because the social problems are defined by the society towards this group as ordinary to any society of minorities (Sherkat, Vries, & Creek, 2009).
How social issues are framed in relation to the LGBT population
Over the years, LGBT population has attracted heated debate in the conservative American society. Specifically, the religious and conservative groups have been the most active in opposing homosexual couples getting married (Schultz & Lavenda, 2011). Despite these divergent opinions, LGTB population has spread across several states of America and is now legal in all states (Sherkat, Vries, & Creek, 2009).
Through mixed research in social surveys carried in 2009, Sherkat, Vries, and Creek (2009) established that racial divide has direct influence on perception about homosexual couples. Through survey interviews involving 180 participants from the white and African American communities with equal representation, Sherkat, Vries, and Creek (2009) established that 70% of the respondents from African American ethnicity opposed homosexual marriage unlike the 30% opposition by the white American ethnic groups.
Specifically, within the African American respondents, the main reason for this opposition was cited as conservative family norms and Protestantism faith which cannot accommodate same sex marriage. On the other hand, the 30 percent of the respondents from the white race that opposed same sex marriage argued that homosexual couples’ behavior is against the social norms (Sherkat, Vries, & Creek, 2009).
Social workers working with the LGBT population
How they assess needs, engage clients, design, and deliver interventions
The needs of the LGBT community are assessed through the small organizations and associations that serve the interests of the members of this population. This achieved through engaging the members and their representative on social welfare concerns that are unique to this population (Hunter, 2012).
Through organizations dealing with the LGBT community, the social workers are in a position design different response strategies and deliver interventions through live meetings, social events, and LGBT camps (Sherkat, Vries, & Creek, 2009).
How they validate their processes and practices
The social workers validate the intervention practices and processes in terms of response rate by the targeted members of the LGBT society. The responses from the targeted group are subjected to scrutiny in order to evaluate the success and failures through live feedback tracking and proactive engagement (Greenberg, 2010).
How the social beliefs influence the way the LGBT population is viewed and supported by social work profession
Individuals raised in loose religious foundation are more likely to support LGBT community than individuals raised in the normal traditional religious family consisting of a father and a mother (Greenberg, 2010). The momentous variances in type of religious family upbringing and LGBT community are critical in reflecting on the underlying factors that promote the way social beliefs influence how this population is viewed (Hunter, 2012).
Ethnicity also influences the perception on homosexual couples becoming legally married couples. It is possible that ethnic traditional societal norms on LGBT community and relationship may modify an individual’s views on this population (Hunter, 2012). Such an individual may struggle to conform to such values and avoid interaction with the LGBT community, irrespective of his or her role as a social worker (Schultz & Lavenda, 2011).
Appraisal of the relationship between the philosophical intentions of social work, the US mindset regarding this population, and society in general
Generally, the US mindset regarding the LGBT community is more likely to oppose this population than the members of the LGBT society as was observed in the Californian ‘Proposition 8’ vote. The Christian antagonists of same sex marriage cited breakdown of societal norms as leading to emergent of destructive and traumatizing developments within the society, which may make young people to seek comfort in same sex relationships.
In response, these individuals may resort to social tendencies of same sex relationships in rebellion leading to their categorization as same sex couples in adulthood. The treatment of the LGBT community in the Christian society as outcasts and their exclusion from societal activities in America may not end any time in the near future (Schultz & Lavenda, 2011).
As a result, the philosophical intentions of social work may not achieve the optimal results since the members of the LGBT community dwell among the rest of the population (Sherkat, Vries, & Creek, 2009).
References
Baker, B. (2010). Same-Sex Marriage and Religion: An Inappropriate Relationship. e- Research, 1(3), 1-9.
Greenberg, D. (2010). The construction of homosexuality. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Hunter, N. (2012). The future impact of same-sex marriage: More questions than answers. The George Town Law Journal, 100(1), 1855-1879.
Schultz, E, & Lavenda, R. (2011). Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sherkat, D., Vries, K., & Creek, S. (2009). Race, religion, and opposition to same-sex marriage. OpenSIU Journal, 1(4), 1-35.