Gays Adopting Children Essay

Society is a flexible structure. Only this trend it female genital organ serve the better(p) way for its members. Democratic process is aimed to growing the by the chasten wayss of its citizens. Nowadays the theme of conjureuality becomes an grave sociable issue. Recognition of slumps of sapphics is an authoritative process, which signifies that a lot of mint ar ready to say freely their sexual practiceual preferences and are ready to fight for their obligations. Legalization of tri darkistic marri whiles and the right of such couples to adopt children is an important and controversial issue of our time.Researchers estimate that the heart number of children nationwide living with at least peerless fearless parent ranges from six to 14 million (Gottman, 105). At the present importee umpteen countries legalized the right of homosexual and frolicsome couples to adapt children. Such countries as Andorra, Belgium, Guam, Iceland, the Netherlands, Sweden, South Afri ca, Spain, the United Kingdom. It is to a fault legal in some speciate parts of the Australia, Canada and the United States. In the United States of America 22 acress endure lesbian and gay couples to adopt children.The issue is so burning be character for transvestite parents adopting becomes the sole(prenominal) way to contain a child. Even the artificial insemination fag end not be applied in exclusively slicks. First of totally this method acting can be used only for lesbian couples. In addition another spouse form the couple has to adopt a child in order to become his legal parent. For gay couples this method can not be applied. In addition, adopting is a right of each(prenominal) person. That is the reason the question is more important than just an probability for homosexual couples to lay down children.In April 2001 Holland enlarged the definition of marriage and enabled the concourse of the analogous sex to get married. Same did Belgium in 2003. The next was Canada. Same sex couples can get married in San Francisco since February 12 of the 2004, because of an action by their mayor. The question of the legislation of homosexual marriages becomes more and more burning and need a deep survey. There are a lot of reasons against alike sex marriages. One of the reasons is that homosexual marriages contradict the tradition.The idea of homosexual marriages threats the in truth idea of the sanctity of the marriage. The term marriage should refer to a love transactionhip in the midst of man and woman. The institution of marriage considers the union of two adults of diametric sex living together. For centuries the marriage was considered just between the people of the opposite sex and by now the marriage of the people of the alike(p) sex can be wrong on an evolutionary exfoliation (Coolidge, 1997). People dont feel much faith in the marriage institutions now and the legislation of the straightaway marriages can weaken this faith.In addi tion, if the homosexual marriages are legalized to protect the freedom of human why thither should be other restrictions for the marriages such as marring the relative or the age of getting married? So called domino effect can cause the demand to cancel all kinds of restrictions on the marriages. If the marriages between the people of the very(prenominal) sex can be authentic like a deduction of the free exit of the individuals, why cant be accepted the marriage between the brother and the sister or other near(a) relatives?In the case of legalization of homosexual marriages we speak only nearly the rights of homosexual people. The issue becomes much more complicated when it comes to adopting children. In this case the rights of two, homosexual parents and the rights of adopted children should be considered. Since children are not able to express their own will during the process of adoption, the society must make an important choice deciding on the rights of children. From th e other hand it is necessary to beware the right of homosexual couples, who also have their rights and intrusts.There are more arguments pro and contra adopting children by homosexual couples. Those who stick up for giving homosexual couples this right maintain that all people must have rights to adopt children. If both(prenominal) parents are able to guard their child all everyday conditions for living, at that place is no reason to ban homosexual parents to adopt children. Those, who are against this right, state that homosexual couple will not be able to interpret normal life conditions for children. In this case the question about atomic number 7 arises.Social norms are expanded with each year. homosexual congresss, which were considered sinful and raze criminal several centuries ago, become a cordial norm nowadays. This sum that the meaning of normal family structure and normal life conditions can also be transformed with the flow of time. Those, who support an idea to give the right of adopting to homosexual couples state that many children wait for adoption and giving this right to homosexual couple would help to improve the situation.In addition specialists, who stand for the legalization of the right of homosexual couples to adopt children state that only miserable number of children from heterosexual families have normal life conditions. near children in the United States do not live with two married parents. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married bewilder and father with children living at home. (Green,1978, p. 19) In the case with homosexual family the children will have two parents, even if they are of the very(prenominal) sex. In normal families children often have only one parent.The proponents of legalization of adoption give data, which proves that children, grown up in one-parent and homosexual families, have equivalent retire of emotional and cordial reading as children fro m heterosexual families. This means that gayness of parents has little effect on the development of a child. As state specialists, children are more influenced by their relations with their parents and social surrounding than by the sexual druthers of their parents. Even the American Association of Paediatrics hold with this opinion and supported the legalization of adoption.In addition, if we turn to legal issues, there is no official reasons to ban homosexual couples to adapt children. There is no special amendment in the Constitution, which would deny gay and lesbian couples their rights to adopt children. Most courts, which should make a decision concerning adopting, are be driven by the interests of a child. It is evident that for children having non- handed-down family with loving parents is much better than not have any. If sexual orientation of parents has little impact on the living conditions of their children, oddity of parents should not be an obstacle for adopting of a child.There are no serious objections, which would prove that gay and lesbian couples will make bad parents. Home environments with lesbian and gay parents are as potential to success luxurianty support a childs development as those with heterosexual parents (Schelberg, Mitnick 2006) Specialists state that here is not connection between sexual orientation and parenting skills. This means that homosexual people can be perfect parents, same as heterosexual people can be bad ones. In addition there is a legal feud, concerning the right to adoption.Legally, even bingle parents have right to adopt children. Here arises a kind of controversy since one person can adopt a child plainly he or she can not do the same affair if he has a spouse of the same sex. Those, who stand against the legalization of homosexuals right to adopt a child give their arguments in order to support their position. They state that homosexual environment can have an extremely negative effect on childs devel opment. round researches (Golombok, Tasker) state that children, raise by homosexual parents, are more likely to adopt same patterns of sexual behaviour.In other words children, raised in homosexual families have more chances to become homosexuals as well. As Golombok and Tasker state by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their childrens sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian or gay (Golombok, Tasker, 1993, p. 124). fit to their opinion homosexual couples should not be giving a right to adoption. Sexuality is not only personal affair. Its also social phenomenon society has to deal with.Woodhorse talks about the fortification of grammatical gender authoritys and restrictions to this roles brought to the social culture by transvestites. He believes that cross-dressing and transvestites make a potential risk of exposure for the society as it can lead to the displacement of gender categories and gender roles. On a social and cultural level the two groups (male and female) are equally restricted. (Woodhouse,1996, p. 117). The marriage is an institution aiming to create a family first of all and the family presumes giving birth to children.Homosexual marriage create no opportunities for pictorial reproduction. Modern science gave people opportunities to have children even in the same sex marriage just now a number of problems appear. Its ordinarily known that men and women are equal creatures and have same rights and obligations just they are not identical and usually presume different lays of style, models of reactions and thinking. A lot of research made by scientists proves that the child needs both a mother and a father to become a full personality (Donovan, 2001).There are some things during the upbringing which can be taken only from womens or only from mens behavior patters. The children raised in the homosexual families will not have the opportunity to see b oth female and male behavioral patters, which can cause serious problems for their future life. In addition the children raised in a homosexual surrounding are more plausibly to select up same lifestyle in the future and to copy the model of homosexual kinship. Another problem the children from the homosexual families can and closely belike will come across is an attitude of the surrounding.The children can meet a social hostility from the very beginning of their social interaction delinquent to their family background which can make more nasty the social adaptation in the future (Stone 2006). A lot of homosexual couples meet social and religious disapproval but they have chosen their type of behavior themselves and must be responsible for their decisions. The children raised in the homosexual families do not have this choice. Negative attitude of the church to same sex marriages can create additive problems for children. Another problem appears with the children, adopted by gay couples.The patters of family behavior, which are presented in homosexual families, are very different from patterns, peculiar to heterosexual families. This issue is very important since children most probably will adapt the type of relations they see in their family. Homosexual relations usually are thought to be not traditional ones and talking about sexuality in this type of relations is difficult due to the multiple variations of these relations. There are a lot of distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Complementary nature of the most heterosexual relations is not so evident in homosexual ones.In most of the homosexual relations there is a division, which is expressed more instantaneously in heterosexual relations. In homosexual relations two people take different roles. Usually, in both, female and male homosexual relationship there are active and passive partners. The roles may change but usually the division to active and passive partner is sa ved and this relation is usually transmitted to other spheres of life of the couple. Passive partner usually takes female roles in sex and everyday behaviour. An active partner plays the role of the man accordingly. There are derivations in the models of homosexual relations.Tapinc (1992) distinguishes four additional models of homosexual relations. In the first model both males are homosexual. This is one of traditional homosexual models. The homosexual mail pair consists of the erastes and the eromenos, lover and lovemaking we can infer an active/passive division, but strictly verbalise these are not ex axerophtholles of inserter/receptor terminology. (Norton, p. 2002 5) Homosexual male relations are rarely monogamous. ledger of Sex Research made a shoot of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals. Research found that only 2.7 per centum claimed to have had sex with one partner only. Research elsewhere indicated that only a few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners (Bozett 1993, p. 112). This way if homosexual parents get an opportunity to adopt children, this most probably will go away in the chemise of the role and functions of family. Children, grown up in such nontraditional families with untraditional family values, will use this model in their future families. This may result in the increase of the families with untraditional family values.Possible consequences of this phenomenon are very nasty to predict. To sum up, there are many reasons for and against adopting children by gay and lesbian couples, There is no one definite opinion concerning this issue. The debates concerning this subject are hold in several spheres, such as religions, social and governmental ones. A lot of important factors should be considered in order to take a right decision concerning this issue. Adopting concerns the rights of both children and homosexual couples and decision should the best w ay serve to the interests of both sides.References1. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, (2002, Oct 4). NA. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from Database. Gale Power Search. 2 . Bailey, J. M. , Bobrow, D. , Wolfe, M. & Mikach, S. (1995), Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers, Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129 3. Bozett, F. W. (1987). Children of gay fathers, F. W. Bozett (Ed. ), laughable and Lesbian Parents (pp. 39-57), New York Praeger 4. Coolidge, David Orgon, (March 1997). Same-Sex Marriage? Baehr v. Miike and the Meaning of Marriage, South Texas Law Review, 381-119 5.Davidson, Arnold (1987) Sex and the emergence of sexuality, Critical Inquiry, 14 (Autumn), 16-48, reprinted in 6. Stein, Edward (ed. ), Forms of desire (1992, 1990), 89-132. 7. Donovan, (2001,Sept 14). Judge upholds Florida ban on gay adoption. National Catholic Reporter, p. 37, 39. 8. intrepid rights. The Advocate, (2002, April 30). p. 18(1). 9. Gottman, J. S. (1991), Children of gay and lesbian parents, F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman, (Eds. ), Homosexuality and Family Relations (pp. 177-196), New York Harrington super C Press 10. Golombok, S. , Spencer, A. , & Rutter, M.(1983), Children in lesbian and single-parent households psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572 11. Green, R. (1978), Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents, American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697 Huggins, S. L. 12. Lewin, Tamar (2001, August 31). motor lodge backs Florida ban on adoption by gays. The New York Times, p. A14 13. Stone, Andrea (2006, Feb 21). Drives to ban gay adoption heat up. USA Today, p. 01A. 14. Schelberg, Neal S. and Carrie L. Mitnick, (2004). Same-Sex Marriage the Evolving Landscape for Employee Benefits,