Argument for Right for Gays to Adopt in Virginia - Case Study Example

Title: Argument for Right for Gays to Adopt in Virginia Problem Statement In today’s society, there are more than 500,000 foster children waiting to be placed in stable, caring homes (Ruggeri, 29). There is a shortage of people who fit the broader social norm, this being the heterosexual individual or couple, to assist in the adopting process. Because of different political and social division that is present in society, many homosexuals are not given the opportunity to adopt these foster children, or any other youths that have been put into the adoption system. Homosexuals, whether coupled or living in individual households, often face pressure from defiant ethical supporters and their social peers because of their lifestyles. When coupled with laws designed to prevent them from attaining equal status, offering themselves as potential parents for awaiting children becomes a significant uphill battle. The division that exists in society about the validity of homosexuals’ claims that they can be stable parents can be witnessed in the many different laws designed to prevent adoption by this social group. For example, a 2006 constitutional amendment banned same-sex marriage in Colorado with similar constraints in Indiana (Padgett, 51). In more progressive states, such as Connecticut and New Jersey, civil unions are allowed under law, but are given considerable limitations compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Padgett). These laws, and many others which ban civil unions, act as the foundation for why homosexuals are not considered qualified or capable parents for volumes of children looking for support and stability. The Facts of the Matter In homosexual households consisting of two partners, it has been argued by many that extending same-sex marriage rights would tend to normalize the household for potential adopted children. In society, the same-sex, partnered household is often looked upon as being abnormal from the rest of society, thus such legitimization could bring children “a better sense of belonging” and allow them “to feel just like everyone else” (Kelly, 267). Abraham Maslow, a respected psychologist, developed his Hierarchy of Needs which describes the important tiers of needs that need to be addressed in order to a child to become fully self-actualized and develop the self-esteem needed to be active, healthy contributors to the broader society. These include meeting physiological needs, followed by security, and then belonging within some social unit. Children who are awaiting adoption may have their basic needs such as food and shelter guaranteed by governmental sources, however personal security and a sense of belonging can only be provided by a stable, loving household that offers ongoing emotional support to the child. In a foster home environment, the child is often left feeling as if they are an intrusion on the environment, thus they do not always successfully adopt the self-esteem needed to become successful, emotionally-healthy adults. This offers more support for why homosexuals in Virginia should be allowed to be adoptive parents in order to assist in self-esteem development. Statistics indicate that more than half of gay men and nearly half of lesbians genuinely want to have a child (Maxwell, 54), though many of them are limited to this due to their same-sex relationships. For those who might argue that homosexual households cannot provide adequate support, research indicates that same-sex couples who are fortunate to have adopted children tend to be older (which often brings wisdom), more educated, and have more economic capabilities than other heterosexual couples (Maxwell). As far as ensuring that potential adoptive children in Virginia will have adequate exposure to knowledge and financial resources, the research supports homosexuals as ideal couples at the physiological and educational levels. Those who argue that these households represent absolute instability might offer the emotional problems faced by homosexuals in today’s society, such as the common rejection from family members and colleagues that occurs when they come out as a public gay man or woman (Teich, 88). Religious organizations, as well, which are supposed to be welcoming and non-judgmental based on doctrine, often reject homosexuals from attending service, therefore opponents might believe that important religious lessons might not be learned by the adopted child. However, these are cultural trends that seem to be getting lost in today’s diversity climate and would only require extended effort on behalf of the homosexual looking to adopt to combat, such as finding more diversified friends or more accepting religious organizations. The Solution Those in opposition of homosexuals being allowed to adopt in Virginia can be pointed to sound psychological research that shows that there are far more similarities between heterosexual couples and their homosexual counterparts. “Division of household chores, sources of conflict and satisfaction, and the need for a supportive social network” categorize the same needs found commonly in both types of households (Wagner, 6). Additionally, success or failure of both the hetero- and homosexual relationships can often be predicted by similar views on personality, trust, respect, and interpersonal skills that allow individuals to handle household conflicts (Wagner). When homosexuals are attempting to be recognized for having the skills and resources to provide stable homes for children, they attempt to reinforce that their basic needs and values systems are often congruent with heterosexuals. Despite some outlandish behavior that occurs within certain homosexual groups, such as dancing in parades with outrageous adornments on their bodies, is not representative of the stable homosexual that has rejected what might be referred to as simply nonsense. It is often the stereotypical view of broader society that witnesses these behaviors, since they are often televised on various media networkers, and they therefore create an instant association with the concept of homosexuality with these more outlandish and ridiculous groups. As part of national diversity focus, people should be educated that publicized outrageous behavior from certain homosexual groups is an extreme and does not represent the lifestyles of conservative or moderate homosexual couples. Based on the research provided, there is far more evidence that the homosexual household can provide stability, emotional support, and even financial liberation from a difficult, government-supported foster or adoption system. It is nearly impossible for heterosexual households that work within the foster system to give children long-term self-esteem development due to complications with current family systems or simply due to the limited timeframe that foster children remain in heterosexual households before moving on. The homosexual environment, especially if one that is wholly-devoted to children’s’ well-being (which can be measured by competent social workers), is one that provides new opportunities for children who are already being taught modern lessons of diversity in the classroom and on their peer playgrounds. It is a win-win scenario for children in Virginia looking for a stable home, and certainly a victory for lonely homosexuals looking to nurture a child. Bibliography Ruggeri, Amanda. “A Quiet Fight Over Gay Adoption: The battle lines are similar to the same-sex marriage debate”, US News and World Report, Washington. Vol. 145, Iss. 10, 2008. This article describes the complications of the same-sex agenda based on different preventative laws aimed to lessen gay influence. Padgett, Tim. “Gay Family Values”, Time Magazine, New York. Vol. 170, Iss. 3, 2007. This article provides the different foundation of what drives homosexuals to look for adoption and family, from a unique perspective. Kelly, Fiona. “Severing the link between marriage and children’s best interest”, Equal Opportunities International, Patrington. Vol. 28, Iss. 3, 2009. This publication discusses the potential emotional concerns of children when living with homosexuals, as well as the problems with homosexuals in broader society. Maxwell, Lynne. “Building Rainbow Families”, Library Journal, New York. Vol. 133, Iss. 6, 2008. This article describes the similarities between homo- and heterosexual couples in terms of values and lifestyle, as well as statistics about education and finance. Teich, Mark. “Love at the Margins”, Psychology Today, New York. Vol. 39, Iss. 5, 2006. A simple article offering problems with homosexuals in society based on social norms that often work against their needs. Wagner, Cynthia G. “Homosexual Relationships”, The Futurist, Washington. Vol. 40, Iss. 3, 2006. This article describes how homosexual households and relationships are often built, based on division of responsibilities and values toward relationships. Read More