Debate on Allowing Homosexuals to Adopt Children - Essay Example

Debating Multiculturalism Name Institution Overview of the Debate on Allowing Homosexuals to Adopt Children The end of the debate as to whether gay marriages should be legalized and such marriages taken seriously as approved civil institutions or rather the inevitable manifestation of its irrelevance over the last century has given a path to the birth of a new heated debate that yet affects the multi-cultural nature of the United States. Should same-sex partners be given legal consent to adopt children? This debate is very popular across all the states of the Federal Reserve. It has manifested in state congressional houses as well as the Federal Parliamentary Houses. In the judiciary courts, it has gained momentum as there have been suits and counter-suits that have culminated in statutes of several state constitutions being amended or revoked, as the case of Florida and Kansas, with some cases being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (Futino and Martins). The debate, in the public view, has less gay rights sympathizers with the majority, under churches and other conservative institutions, being against the idea of gays adopting children. The judiciary, however, has, by requirement, seemingly inclining to the side of favoring the push by LGBTQ since it relies on subjectivity. It does not take into account public opinion. Since empirical data does not suggest conclusively that children raised up by gay couples disadvantages them in their development, the judiciary has made the majority of its rulings to the favor of the LGBTQ. In Legislative bodies, the majority oppose the motion. The debate is however still balanced since such matters demand constitutional changes that require big numbers. The debate will in the Parliamentary context require an overwhelming argument to sway total consensus (Howell). Important Historical Antecedents to the Debate There have been judicial and legislative manifestations of the debate as well as media publicity too. Initially, the Catholic Church and the society, in general, reacted murderously to homosexuality. It was illegal under the law, and one would be convicted for merely confessing love to a person of the same sex. On May 18, 1970, a same-sex couple, the student from the University of Minnesota applied for a marriage license in Hennepin County District to Court clerk Gerald Nelson. The clerk denied the application and the couple sued him. The trial court sided with the clerk and even after appealing, the appellate court did not find the favor of the couple (Craig, Martinez, and Kane). Maryland, in 1973, in what seemed like a chain reaction sparked by the Minnesota Supreme Court, became the first state to ban same-sex marriages. The first mass wedding for same-sex marriages happened on Oct. 10, 1987. The Supreme Court made a ruling allowing same-sex marriages in May 1993 and President Bill Clinton signed Defense of Marriage Act into law in the year 1996. A poll was conducted on Aug. 18, 2003, and found that majority of Americans loathed same-sex marriages and would be opposed to any presidential candidate that was for gay marriages. On July 14, 2004, efforts to ban same-sex marriages in the US Senate were thwarted. It was a significant win for the LGBTQ community. The US House of Representatives followed suit months later. Barrack Obama publicly endorsed gay marriages in the year 2012. Cases are now in The US Supreme Court to determine whether or not same-sex parenting is allowed with over 30 states having legalized the adoption of children by gay couples (Craig, Martinez, and Kane). Tactics Employed in the Debate Reports have been written by opposing parties to sway the majority in their defense. The most common among all the pieces of information in the reports has been the expert opinion in the general welfare of children raised by gay parents. It is apparent that subjectivity has suffered in most of these reports as experts pay more attention to data favoring their arguments and disregarding the other. The empirical sets of data that result in most studies that is fully subjective however indicate patterns that discredit same-sex marriages. These reports are included in articles that are popularized in social media, on TV and even used in public rallies and demonstrations. There have been attempts, some successful, to use legislative bodies to enact laws to the favor of both sides of participants in the debate. Eloquent politicians such as Obama have particularly been indispensable in empowering the Gay community. Judicial exercise has yet been another tactic used in the debate with parties suing and counter-suing directives that affect the state of the legality of same-sex parenting by adoption. Facts and Statistics Supporting Same-Sex Parenting The States that explicitly permit for adoption by same-sex couples are California, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Oregon, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Indiana, New York and Vermont. The 2000 census revealed that only 24 percent of American children lived in families that had active mother and father legally wedded. There does not exist any conclusive evidence linking homosexuality to a person’s environment. There are more than 16,000 adopted children who have been living with lesbian and gay parents in the State of California with an estimated 6,500 total children are living with a homosexual parent across the United States. Over two million have also expressly declared an interest in adopting children. Scientific studies indicate that most children are more influenced by their interactions with their parents than by their sexual orientation (Meezan and Rauch). Facts and Statistic Discrediting Same-Sex Parenting Studies from centuries ago, independent of the debate, with enough empirical data, have always conclude that, children need role models of both sexes to grow up to be well-balanced adults. Since currently there are fewer male teachers in primary schools, boys without father figures become underachievers. Most child protection agencies that are non-governmental are religious and strongly opposed to same-sex parenting and, therefore, withdraw any support that they offer to the general welfare of children. Adoption agencies ran by the Catholic Church would rather close down than process applications by same-sex couples. It is a common factor among all religious groups and bodies to shun homosexuality. It is considered ungodly and unnatural. Being a Christian country on which the moral ethic the society is based on, approval of homosexuality is in itself a contradiction to the universal symbol of hope and overall good; religion and spirituality. Personality determines a person’s attitude and feeling towards homosexuality where nature supersedes opinion. The fraction of the population with homosexual traits in the United States is negligible compared to straight people. It the norm, therefore, for people to be born naturally straight and to, consequently, not be appealed or pleased to keep constant gay company. A majority of minors who have been consulted on whether to be adopted by homosexual parents seem to oppose strongly the concept of same-sex families and opt to remain in foster care where they are not exposed to gay foster parents (Tasker). Therefore, imposing gay parenting on children whose probability of being straight is 0.995 and whose probability of being against homosexuality is 0.89 is an infringement of their right to personality and self-determination. It is wrong for the norm to be overridden by the minority. There is a high level of promiscuity among same-sex couples and resultantly, instability in same-sex families. Promiscuity in parents provides a precedence of not just promiscuity but numerous deviant behaviors in children. The instability of a family also deters the physical, psychological and social well-being of children. The leading source of child sodomy and predation is from same-sex parenting. Young boys living with gay circles are the most prone to sexual predation is the Unite States (Tasker). Effects of Policies on Contemporary Society The legalization of same-sex parenting has had confusing results that are hard to categorize. While it has one hand lead to the mass availability of willing adoptive parent, with over 2 million being LGBTQs, a considerable number of adoption agencies have created a stalemate by opting for closure to rather than being indulged in same sex adoptions. A crisis is looming in the society with the majority of moral and ethical standings of the founding philosophies being openly disregarded by the judiciary, and even legislative process has led to the weakening of the moral fiber is the country. The level of spirituality and faith in the United States is slowly denied (Massey, Merriwether, and Garcia). Work cited Craig, S. C., M. D. Martinez, and J. G. Kane. “Core Values, Value Conflict, and Citizens’ Ambivalence about Gay Rights.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2005): 5–17. Futino, Regina Silva, and Simone Martins. “Adoption by Homosexuals - A New Family Configuration under the Eyes of Psychology and Law.” Aletheia 24 Jul-Dec (2006): 149–159. Howell, Signe. “Adoption of the Unrelated Child: Some Challenges to the Anthropological Study of Kinship.” Annual Review of Anthropology 38 (2009): 149–166. Web. Massey, Sean G, Ann M Merriwether, and Justin R Garcia. “Modern Prejudice and Same-Sex Parenting: Shifting Judgments in Positive and Negative Parenting Situations.” Journal of GLBT family studies 9 (2013): 129–151. Meezan, William, and Jonathan Rauch. “Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children.” Future of Children 15 (2005): 97–115. Tasker, Fiona. “Same-Sex Parenting and Child Development: Reviewing the Contribution of Parental Gender.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (2010): 35–40. Read More