Marlene Alcantar, 590 words
From the "Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage" article, the methods in which they used the data from are from the General Social Surveys, regression models, and equation models with key factors. From these surveys and models it showed that whites are more likely to agree with same-sex marriages and that African Americans are more likely to oppose on same-sex marriages. Some reasons as to why that is, is due to the independent variables such as, race, religion, political views, gender, residence, age, income, and church attendance. The result of those variables, which are the dependent variables, are opposition to same-sex marriage or for same-sex marriage. Some important factors that weren't covered as independent variables are family relations with homosexuals, occupation, prejudice against gays or lesbians, and whether they themselves are gay or lesbian. The results from this was that religion and race are the big factors in which why African Americans don't support same-sex marriages as much as whites do. It showed that African American females have a high attendance rate in protestant Baptists churches, which are conservative churches. This high attendance rate overcame their political beliefs of either democrat or liberal. Many whites go to liberal churches were there is support for same-sex marriages while African Americans go to conservative churches where there is no support at all for same-sex marriages. For African Americans, religion overcame politics and for whites, politics overcame religion. According to the regression analysis, income and education had no effect on African Americans, but had a big effect on whites. The only reasonable explanation as to why African Americans stay the same was simply due to gender and church attendance.
In the article, "Teacher Perspectives on Abstinence and Safe Sex Education in South Africa", the methods that they used were structured interviews with open-ended questions. They interviewed 25 teachers who teach grade 10 and 11 life orientation curriculum. They had an interview guide containing broad open-ending questions for teachers to speak freely about what, how, and why they taught sex education. The questions that they used included whether teachers supported sex education in schools, whether they should teach abstinence only, comprehensive sex education or both, and what teachers included in their lessons. The interviews were in English, however English was most of the teachers' second language so they would switch to Sesotho or Afrikaans. The interviews were coded and analyzed using the qualitative software program NVivo 9. Data was analyzed using an open-coding methodology. The independent variables that they used were race, age, gender, and learner population. The dependent variables were teaching abstinence only or safe sex practices or teach both. As a result from the research, the findings were that all of the 25 supported for abstinence, however 24 of them recognized that some learners were already sexually active. There were 2 different viewpoints. One was teachers who supported teaching abstinence alongside safe sex practices and letting the learners choose freely. The other is teachers who refused to discuss with learners about any sexual practice except abstinence. In the end, most of these teachers fell somewhere in the middle of these two viewpoints. The teachers who would teach both said they would promote both AO (abstinence only) and CSE (comprehensive sex education) without isolating young people through their morals. As for the teachers with the opposition views, they would emphasize on abstinence only curriculum with a core understanding that sex and HIV education leads to an increase in sexual behavior. The main argument here is that both AO and CSE curriculums are based on the ability of right knowledge to wanted results.
No comments:
Post a Comment