Gays Adopting Children Essay

Society is a flexible structure. just this way it erect serve the best way for its members. Democratic appendage is aimed to increase the sounds of its citizens. Nowadays the theme of sexuality becomes an important loving issue. cognizance of rights of homophiles is an important process, which signifies that a brood of muckle atomic number 18 ready to evince freely their sexual preferences and be ready to fight for their rights. Legalization of homoerotic marriages and the right of such couples to repeat barbarianren is an important and controversial issue of our time.Researchers venture that the total number of children nationwide livelihood with at least one and tho(a) cheery p arnt ranges from six to 14 million (Gottman, 105). At the fall in mo manpowert many countries soundized the right of lesbian and ethereal couples to adapt children. such(prenominal) countries as Andorra, Belgium, Guam, Iceland, the Netherlands, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom. It is also legal in virtually separate parts of the Australia, Canada and the United States. In the United States of America 22 states allow lesbian and fearless couples to catch children.The issue is so burn mark because for transvestite parents packing becomes the solitary(prenominal) way to have a child. Even the cardboard insemination house non be applied in all cases. eldest of all this method fundament be used only for lesbian couples. In summing up an a nonher(prenominal) spouse form the couple has to adopt a child in come in to become his legal parent. For gay couples this method lav non be applied. In addition, adopting is a right of each person. That is the reason the question is much important than just an chance for transsexual(prenominal) couples to have children.In April 2001 Holland enlarged the definition of marriage and en pillow slipd the mass of the equal sex to seize wed. equivalent did Belgium in 2003. The next was Canada. Same sex couples can get matrimonial in San Francisco since February 12 of the 2004, because of an operation by their whitethornor. The question of the legislation of sapphic marriages becomes more and more earnest and inevitably a deep survey. there are a surge of reasons against resembling sex marriages. One of the reasons is that homophile marriages contradict the tradition.The idea of homosexual marriages threats the truly idea of the sanctity of the marriage. The term marriage should refer to a loving traffichip betwixt man and woman. The institution of marriage considers the amount of money of twain adults of divergent 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 rattling(prenominal) sex can be wrong on an evolutionary scale (Coolidge, 1997). People dont have much creed in the marriage institutions now and the legislation of the heterosexual marriages can counteract this faith.In addition, if the homosexual marriages are legalized to protect the freedom of human why there 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 bods of restrictions on the marriages. If the marriages between the people of the same sex can be accepted like a demonstration of the free will of the individuals, why cant be accepted the marriage between the brother and the sister or other close relatives?In the case of legalisation of homosexual marriages we speak only well-nigh the rights of homosexual people. The issue becomes much more complicated when it comes to adopting children. In this case the rights of both, homosexual parents and the rights of select children should be considered. Since children are not adapted to express their own will during the process of toleration, the society must mark an important choice deciding on the righ ts of children. From the other hand it is requisite to mind the right of homosexual couples, who also have their rights and appetites.There are many arguments pro and contra adopting children by homosexual couples. Those who stand for fine-looking homosexual couples this right state that all people must have rights to adopt children. If both parents are able to get through their child all prevalent conditions for living, there 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 provide normal life conditions for children. In this case the question about normality arises.Social norms are expanded with each year. Homosexual dealings, which were considered immoral and correct criminal several centuries ago, become a genial norm nowadays. This kernel 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 crumple 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 small number of children from heterosexual families have normal life conditions. just about children in the United States do not live with dickens married parents. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married mother and father with children living at home. (Green,1978, p. 19) In the case with homosexual family the children will have twain parents, even if they are of the same 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 same level of emotional and social adaptation as children from heterosexua l families. This means that homosexuality 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 touch than by the sexual orientation of their parents. Even the American Association of pediatric medicine agreed 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 cultivate a closing concerning adopting, are be set by the interests of a child. It is evident that for children having non-traditional 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, homosexuality of parents should not be an obstacle for adop ting of a child.There are no serious objections, which would prove that gay and lesbian couples will make drab parents. Home environments with lesbian and gay parents are as apparent to successfully 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 meliorate parents, same as heterosexual people can be bad ones. In addition there is a legal controversy, concerning the right to adoption.Legally, even single parents have right to adopt children. Here arises a kind of controversy since one person can adopt a child but he or she can not do the same thing 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 de velopment. Some researches (Golombok, Tasker) state that children, brocaded by homosexual parents, are more likely to adopt same patterns of sexual behaviour.In other lecture 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). According 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 sexual practice roles and restrictions to this roles brought to the social culture by transvestites. He believes that cross-dressing and transvestites make a authorization danger for the society as it can lead to the displacement of grammatical gender categ ories 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-class honours degree of all and the family presumes giving birth to children.Homosexual marriage create no opportunities for natural reproduction. Modern science gave people opportunities to have children even in the same sex marriage but a number of problems appear. Its commonly known that men and women are equal creatures and have same rights and obligations but they are not identical and usually presume different models of behavior, 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 o pportunity to see both 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 in all likelihood to pick up same lifestyle in the future and to retroflex the model of homosexual relationship. Another problem the children from the homosexual families can and closely probably will come across is an attitude of the surrounding.The children can play a social hostility from the very beginning of their social fundamental interaction due to their family background which can make more difficult the social adaptation in the future (Stone 2006). A lot of homosexual couples collect social and religious disapproval but they have chosen their casing 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 additional problems for children. A nother 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 around 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 directly in heterosexual relations. In homosexual relations two people take different roles. Usually, in both, female and male homosexual relationship there are active and passive attendants. The roles may salmagundi but u sually the division to active and passive mate is salvage 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-spot 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 beloved we can infer an active/passive division, but rigorously speaking these are not examples of inserter/receptor terminology. (Norton, p. 2002 5) Homosexual male relations are rarely monogamous. Journal of Sex Research made a study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals. Research found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. Research elsewhere indicated that only a f ew 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 result in the transformation 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 hard 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 political 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 homose xual couples and decision should the best way 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. ), brave 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. fearless 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 Park instancy 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). Court backs Florida ban on adoption by gays. The New York Times, p. A14 13. Stone, Andrea (2006, Feb 21). Drives to ban gay adoption arouse up. USA Today, p. 01A. 14. Schelberg, Neal S. and Carrie L. Mitnick, (2004). Same-Sex Marriage the Evolving Landscape for Employee Benefits,