Homosexual Parenting - Essay Example

Homosexual Parenting Introduction Why do most legislations and cultures around the world condemn homosexual parenting? This is a question this article tries to argue out explicitly on the ground that most reactions to homosexual behaviours in most countries dispute from the point of view of gender norms. Negative perceptions surrounding homosexual parenting revolves around the traditional concept of manhood and feminineness in a comprehensive family structure. Some will argue on the basis that as long it is a consensual union, the homosexual couples, just like any other normal human beings, have the right to adopt and raise a child just like the heterosexual couples (Schumm and Walter 374). Some individuals in homosexual marriage unions occasionally opt for children adoption to supplement their unions with no regard serious psychological harm the adopted children may later go through when old enough (Schumm and Walter 375). Notably, this document does not question an individual’s resolve and preferences on the choice of marriage. Neither does it intend to promote any form of discrimination against homosexual parents; it, however, points out at some outstanding and crucial issues that for a long time has been mystified concerning homosexual parenting (Schumm and Walter 376). Background Information on Homosexual Parenting A previous study conducted by a US research firm indicated that approximately 1 % of world’s populace are in the infamous LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transsexual) marriage unions. The same report indicated that among the LGBT unions, Gay marriages comprised of the greatest percentage (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 106). Furthermore, according to the latest statistics collected from United States 2000 census results conducted by the US Department of National Survey it was reported that close to three million homosexual parents were interested in child adoption. Similarly, another independent report suggested that approximately 70, 000 people who annually applied for full child adoption were either lesbians or gays (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 108). The same report indicated that more than 17, 000 children adopted annually in California in the United States were under homosexual parenthood. Homosexual parenting in the United States is on a steady rise comprising approximately 9 % of the registered marriage unions (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 109). Notably, most of these children adopted by homosexual couples are usually of younger age and are in most cases foreign born (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 109). Thesis Statement Discussion The ability to articulately and modestly raise a child doesn’t depend on the sexual orientation of the purported parents; however, the well fare of the adopted child should be the top priority. The underlined thesis statement is developed based on the United States constitutional norms relating to individual liberty and privacy (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 112). In essence, one cannot argue that just because a child is raised by homosexual couples he faces more challenges compared to another kid raised by heterosexual partners (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 113). In relation to the rules governing civility and equality, no human being should be discriminated sexual relations. Arguably, though refuted by many people in the United States, homosexual couples have equal rights to adopt and raise children (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 117). However, as already discussed and supported in this document, most civil rights groups and individuals airing out their support for homosexual parenting pays more attention to the welfare of the LGBT group (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 118). Little consideration is given to the well-being of the adopted kids who in the actual sense should be jealously protected from any form of physical or psychological trauma sometimes associated with family issue. As an active proponent of homosexual parenting, my ideas are confounded on liberty with particular concern and concentration for the welfare of the adopted kid (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 119). The argument is not to criticize the idea of homosexual couples vested with the responsibility of raising a child, but on the fact that adopted kid may have a retarded growth and development pattern. According to a study conducted in the US by an independent firm confirmed this claim (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 121). The study found out that such children were more likely to develop a unique lifestyle like that of the foster parents (Belcastro, Philip, Theresa, Thomas, Jimmie, and Richard 121). For instance, the study report indicated that close to 40 % of the children raised by homosexual parents introduced themselves as either gay of lesbians depending on the sexual orientation of the foster parents. A child’s behaviour model is tied to the environment and has a direct influence on the mode of conduct the entire lifespan of such a kid. Notably, and against the belief of the majority of the proponents of homosexual relationships, most homosexual marriages faces regular family issues compared to heterosexual unions (Camilleri, Priscilla, and Martin 289).Therefore, a child raised from such unions under the jurisdiction and care of homosexual parents are more likely to be physically and psychologically traumatized. The idea and thought of homosexual parenting does not only contravene the accepted religious and conservational practices and principles but also go against the rule of modest behaviour and human integrity (Camilleri, Priscilla, and Martin 293). The argument in this document is not on any acceptable form of union, or on the legitimacy and permissibility of homosexual parenting, but on the welfare of the adopted kid. Most societies and countries in support of homosexual parenting pay very little attention to the provoked lives of the adopted children (Camilleri, Priscilla, and Martin 296). The Pro and Con Position There is no viable reason for rejecting homosexual unions and parenting in the US as such unions fall under conceivable criteria used to identify families under the United States Constitution argument on the family (Camilleri, Priscilla, and Martin 297). The stereotype and myth that children under the care of homosexual parents may end up being molested is irrational and baseless as independent reports indicate high incidences of child molestation in heterosexual unions. However, the current society must learn to accept the fact that the success of parenthood doesn’t depend on a person’s sexual orientation, but on individual effort based on pure love and affection (Camilleri, Priscilla, and Martin 298). Most children raised by homosexual parents develop without any notable balance in their lives as they are not exposed adequately to the particular roles and responsibilities associated with a particular sex. Conclusion This document proposes that stringent legislations on adoption be enacted to help ascertain the modesty and capability of the homosexual parents before granting them permission to adopt a kid (Nestor and Byron 21). If a couple found to be of a questionable character, the homosexual couples should be barred from the adoption process until proven otherwise (Nestor and Byron 22). Some heterosexual couples are honest about the intention to adopt a child and may be willing to unconditionally provide support and love to the kid. However, this document still suggests a thorough background check on the lifestyle and pattern of living of a homosexual couple before ultimately granting them the responsibility of raising a child (Nestor and Byron 23). Either way, they must have proven their worth beyond reasonable doubts that they will provide the child with proper growth and upbringing (Nestor and Byron 24). No one can deny the fact that in this modern era, homosexual parenting in the United States of America is gaining ground and wider acceptance. In the light of this, this document recommends that homosexual rights activists when championing for their rights should pay more attention to the plight and wellbeing of the soon to be adopted children. Works Cited Belcastro, Philip A., Theresa Gramlich, Thomas Nicholson, Jimmie Price, and Richard Wilson. "A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Effects of Homosexual Parenting on Childrens Sexual and Social Functioning." Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 20.1-2 (2004) (Eds.): 105-22. Web Camilleri, Priscilla, and Martin Ryan. "Social Work Students Attitudes toward Homosexuality and Their Knowledge and Attitudes toward Homosexual Parenting as an Alternative Family Unit: An Australian Study." Social Work Education 25.3 (2006): 288-304. Web. Nestor, Byron L. "Attitudes Of Child Psychiatrists Toward Homosexual Parenting And Child Custody." Family Court Review 17.2 (2009) (Eds.): 21-24. Web. Schumm, Walter R. "Evidence of Pro-Homosexual Bias in Social Science: Citation Rates and Research on Lesbian Parenting." Psychological Reports 106.2 (2010): 374-80. Web. Read More