Should Same-Sex Relationships Have the Right to Adopt - Article Example

Should Same-Sex Relationships have the Right to Adopt? Abstract This paper addresses gay and lesbian couples and their right to adopt children. Law in several States prohibits same-sex couples not only from adopting non-biological children but also from adopting the biological children of their same-sex partner. Many States have overcome such legislation however the issue still remains since only an estimated 50% of US adoption agencies allow same-sex couples to adopt, and 40% will allow single gay parents to adopt. Critics maintain that same-sex parents will not be able to instill the proper ethical and moral systems onto their adopted children; they also claim that a same-sex household will be unable to teach children traditional gender roles. Some critics even believe that homosexuals are criminally minded and can only be viewed as child molesters who cannot reproduce themselves and must therefore convert the youth of America to their way of thinking. American institutions such as the American Psychiatric Association believe in a utilitarian ethical standpoint when it comes to same-sex adoption: this means that adoption is viewed in terms of what is best for the child in question. Same-sex homes can provide a loving, stable family life for children who would otherwise be placed in foster care, facing depression and other mental issues and costing the state money. Should Same-Sex Relationships have the Right to Adopt? Introduction A heterosexual couple who cannot have children will often consider adoption; it is a morally sound commitment to take on the life of a child and ensure it is healthy, happy and socially well-adjusted. A same-sex couple facing the same infertility concerns, however, will often face discrimination and stereotypical views when they try to adopt a child of their own. Around half of all American adoption agencies will not allow same-sex couples to adopt, and only 40% of these will allow single gay parents to adopt simply because of their sexual orientation. Gay adoption is a relatively recent concern in American contemporary history and the idea only took root in the 1970’s following the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. While there are many national organizations and individual citizens who believe in the ability of a same-sex couple to raise a child as well as, if not better than, a traditional heterosexual couple, critics cite a variety of reasons why this is not so. Often, critics of same-sex adoption believe that only a mother and father can instill the proper values on a child, or that being raised by same-sex parents will cause social problems later on in childhood and adulthood. From a legal standpoint, States in America are often at odds with one another; the growing trend in legislature, however, is that adoption should be viewed purely by its merit to the child. Significance This question is important because gay and lesbian adoption has been pushed more and more into focus by media and advocate groups over the past several years and governments face charges to make a decision one way or the other. It remains to be determined not only if homosexuals should have the right to adopt and raise children but even if they should be allowed to marry each other. As a society that is host to very diverse people in terms of not only sexuality but of race, ethnicity, culture and religion, America needs to ask itself what the overall positives and negatives would be if same-sex couples were allowed to adopt children. The effects of same-sex adoption will not only pertain to gay rights on the whole, but on the issue of ethics concerning child rearing. With gay rights coming through in more and more States and countries all over the world, it stands to reason that more gay couples will be looking to start families and lead normal lives with each other and the issue must be resolved. Another factor in the issue is that of state provided foster care, specifically in terms of funding and of the welfare of children placed in such care facilities. Current research suggests that there are many mental issues that arise from constant foster care simply because the child was not provided with a stable home environment. In addition to this, allowing same-sex couples to adopt would keep many children out of foster care and therefore cost the state less in the long run. Definitions Many people are confused about the actual meaning of the terms “same-sex relationship”, “homosexual” and “heterosexual”, and how these kinds of relationships might be relevant to the adoption of a child. These terms will be used frequently throughout the research paper to define differences in adoption policy as well as differences in ethical opinion. Legislation will also use these terms when making decisions about who can and cannot adopt children or be married; understanding the basic difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship will provide the basic framework for ethical decisions on adoption and related issues. It is this simple difference that has caused so much controversy. A same-sex relationship is a sexual, romantic partnership between two members of the same sex, for example two men or two women. Same-sex relationships occur between two homosexuals, meaning between two individuals who are sexually attracted to members of their same sex. Heterosexuals are individuals who are attracted to members of the opposite sex (Weeks, Heaphy and Donovan 9-15). Very often, in most societies around the world, homosexuals face discrimination and often violence because of their sexual preferences and this is directly related to the issue of same-sex adoption. Many adoption agencies, governments and individuals feel that only the traditional heterosexual mother and father are capable of raising children and therefore homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. Scope/Secondary Issues This topic will primarily cover whether it is right for same-sex couples to adopt children. This question will be addressed in terms of positive research and critical claims; both formal study results and informal individual opinion will be included to ascertain the ethical and utilitarian aspects of same-sex adoption. The paper will explore the various ways in which society itself would be affected by the allowance of same-sex couples to adopt; specifically in terms of the child’s welfare, the parents, stereotypically judgments and state foster care funding. Differences in parental styles and outcomes of heterosexual and homosexual couples will be looked at as well, supported by scientific research on the subject and contrasted by anti-same-sex adoption groups such as the formidable Catholic Church. The mental wellbeing of the adopted children in question will be examined through published scientific research concerning the different mental disorders, physical abuse statistics and social skills between children of homosexual and heterosexual parents. Same-sex adoption is also relevant to same-sex marriages, tax breaks and other legal issues. Same-sex marriage is often, but not always the precursor to same-sex adoption issues; the latter is parallel with financial aspects of marriage and as such is related to the ultimate welfare of the adopted child in terms of education and family stability. These issues are not the focus of this particular paper. Assumptions This paper assumes that, given the trend that more people than ever admit to being homosexual, more and more homosexual couples will come together and decide to start a family. Furthermore, it is assumed that homosexual parents and heterosexual parents will have different approaches to parenting and therefore influence their respective children in different ways from each other. In assuming that homosexual parenting is an issue that will not go away, research along the topic of same-sex adoption, child rearing and child welfare is something that must be accomplished. This will not only help to clarify the differences in child rearing patterns between homosexuals and heterosexuals (if indeed there are any) but to distinguish the differences between adults who are raised in traditional homes and by same-sex parents. This paper also assumes that, given two basic viewpoints concerning same-sex adoption and parenthood, one of these sides is either ethically or statistically wrong. A survey mentioned in “Educational and Child Psychology” (Barrett, H., Tasker, 2001) focused on the daily living situations of children who grow up with a gay parent. The survey collected information about the parents’ pattern towards parenting, the challenges overcome, the successes achieved and the responses and opinions of their eldest sons and daughters about growing up with a gay parent. This kind of research proves the general assumption that same-sex parents are fundamentally different than traditional mother-father homes. History and Background Systematic research comparing homosexual adults to heterosexual adults began in the late 1950’s, however research comparing the children of lesbian and gay parents with those of heterosexual parents is more recent. Such research resulted in the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, and simultaneously case reports on the children of lesbian and gay parents appeared in the psychiatric literature of the early 1970’s (Tully 54). Research on the subject began to appear in major professional journals in the late 1970’s and has grown into a considerable body of research only in recent years. States that now allow the adoption of a same-sex partner’s children are Colorado, California, Connecticut, Vermont, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Other states, including Maryland, have seen second-parent rights granted via trial courts (Perry, 2007). Currently, over fifty percent of America’s adoption agencies allow same-sex couples to adopt, while around forty percent of these agencies have already let gay and lesbian parents who are not in a relationship adopt children. Some same sex-couples are currently opting to adopt children without having the legal status of being the non-biological parent. While some people believe that adoption of a same-sex partner’s children can stabilize the family unit, critics believe that this practice could have adverse affects on the adopted children and should be rightfully discouraged. Florida is the only state that clearly disallows adoption by gays, lesbians and same-sex couples, because of a law drawn up in 1977 (Wardle et al 71-76). Anita Bryant led a campaign against adoption by same-sex couples, convincing the State that homosexuals are essentially child molesters. Following this crusade, a ban was imposed on adoptions by same-sex couples that has been contested many times and is always overruled. Today the American Psychiatric Association states that: In light of data showing that children of gay and lesbian parents function just as well emotionally, cognitively, and socially as children of heterosexual parents, courts should stop using sexual orientation as grounds to deny members of same-sex couples the right to adopt their partner’s children. (Arehart-Treichel, 2002) This shows that although much discrimination still exists against homosexuals whether they want to adopt their partner’s existing children or simply adopt non-biological children, much has changed from just a few decades ago when homosexuality was officially considered a mental disorder. Slowly, today’s courts and State governments are warming to the idea that a stable family unit can be provided by same-sex partners. Values in Conflict In its most basic form, the controversy over same-sex adoption can be explained as the logical outcome of a difference in opinion over child-rearing. Traditionalists believe that the best and therefore only way to raise a child is with a two-parent household where there is a mother and father present. (Strasser 3) This way the child will understand gender roles, have role models that represent both genders and therefore be able to identify his or her place in society during adolescence and adulthood. Homosexuals and gay rights activists believe that although there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the traditional household, a same-sex couple will have just as much success raising children as a traditional set of parents. Studies tend to show that no negative trends can be found concerning same-sex parents. According to the Journal of Homosexuality (Harris, M.B., Turner, 1985), a survey of 23 male and female homosexual parents and 16 heterosexual single parents was conducted to determine whether the parents’ homosexuality created unusual problems, benefits or both for children. Both sets of parents reported relatively few serious problems. All of the parents also had a generally positive relationship with their children; the main difference for heterosexual parents was the greater emphasis on the provision of an opposite-sex role model for their children. Homosexual parents saw a number of benefits and fewer problematic issues for their children. The controversy surrounding the adoption rights of same-sex couples revolves around the concern that it will result in negative implications for the adopted children. People assume that adoption by same-sex couples may lead to gender confusion, biased sexual orientation or that it may affect the overall well-being of the children. Research has, however, shown that parents’ sexual orientation has no impact on children, and there no noticeable difference between the behavior of the adopted children and that of their peers (Douglas and Philpot 22). The American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Academy of Pediatrics and many other relevant professional organizations believe that same-sex parents should be given the right to adopt just like heterosexuals. Criticisms continue to appear, however, and people who do not support same-sex parenting believe that it is unhealthy on moral and cultural grounds. Despite the controversies and uncertainty about the parenting implications of same-sex parents on the adopted children, many people believe that they should be given the right just like any other individual. Those in favor of same-sex adoptions think in terms of basic human equality, where any individual or couple has the same rights of any other. Still other people point out the countless children in many countries who are homeless and in need of adoption for mere survival. Supporters of same-sex adoption ask if these children better off in poverty and squalor or with two devoted parents that love each other. The American Psychiatric Association recommends that: Decisions not only about adoption, but also about conception, child rearing, visitation, and custody should be made in the best interest of the child. What a child needs most of all are committed, nurturing, and competent parents, and gay parents are as capable of being as committed, nurturing, and competent as are heterosexual parents. (Arehart-Treichel, 2002) Some children face many challenges when it comes to living in foster homes: self-harm and suicide attempts are common among these children, who are more likely to face mental and physical challenges from an early age. Judging by the poor condition of so many children in so many countries, it seems logical that same-sex individuals be given the right to adopt as they will be both providing homes and reducing financial stress on the government. Restricting gays and lesbians from adopting children could easily cost the United States between $87 and $130 million per year, according to a study by UCLA Law School’s William Institute. If more same-sex households were allowed to adopt children the financial burden of maintaining foster homes could be significantly lessened. Another factor to consider against the critique of same-sex adoption is that many children of heterosexual parents do not grow up with two married parents. It is very common for a child to be raised with one biological parent and one step-parent, therefore the belief that the marriage of two heterosexual people will result in the permanent establishment of a two-parent household is incorrect. Moreover, studies have shown that children are more influenced by their general interaction with parents than they are with the sexual orientation of their parents. In favor of same-sex adoption are various studies which have shown that same-sex couples sometimes fare better than heterosexual couples in overcoming common parenting challenges. The effect of their sexual orientation on the adopted children is close to negligible in terms of socializing, getting educated and succeeding in adulthood, and therefore there seems to be no legal basis for depriving same-sex couples of adoption rights. The American Psychiatric Association sympathizes with prospective gay parents when it says: It is disturbing to hear about cases in which gay or lesbian parents are being denied custody or the right to adopt solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. That’s discrimination. The American Psychoanalytic Association deplores such discrimination and is especially troubled when psychological findings [about gay parenting] are distorted, misrepresented, or blatantly ignored, as is so often the case in these legal decisions. (Arehart-Treichel, 2002) Discrimination is something that homosexuals have always had to deal with, however when it comes to their right to have a family the very basis on which the United States was founded gets called into question. America was formed on the assumption that every individual would be treated as an equal and receives the same rights; denying same-sex couples the right to adopt is therefore completely hypocritical of the American government on any terms other than that of criminal homosexuals who wish to adopt. Critics of same-sex adoption argue that homosexual couples may have adverse effects on children and that such parents may not instill the right ethical and moral values in the adopted children. Such critics believe that these children are likely to be influenced by the sexual orientation of their parents and to adopt such behaviors in the future. One author says that “gays cannot distinguish gender to their children” (Steffey, 2003). This raises the question of whether traditional gender roles are important enough to society for individuals and families to endeavor to keep them intact; research carried out to contrast homosexual and heterosexual homes does not seem to suggest that children of same-sex parents grow up confused about gender roles, however, and this point seems subsequently of no importance. Adopted children are likely to face a lot of challenges as they will have either one or both parents missing from their lives. Many people believe that it is best for a child to be brought up by a married father and mother because otherwise they will be susceptible to socially ridicule, underestimation or prejudice. These claims are contrasted by the fact that children of heterosexual parents often do not have a two parent home. Besides the lack of traditional homes for children of heterosexual parents, many people still continue to believe that same-sex couples are criminally minded, and specifically that they are child-molesters. Anita Bryant believed that “homosexuals cannot reproduce – so they must recruit. And to freshen their ranks they must recruit the youth of America” (Varnell, 2002). She believed that any stereotypical sign of homosexuality was a beacon to America’s youth and that all children must be protected from their influence before every child developed into a homosexual. Many people still believe that this is true, despite a rise in homosexual support from heterosexual individuals throughout the country, and it is argued that children are likely to adopt behavior that is not characteristic of their own gender because of their exposure to homosexuality in the home. Critics of same-sex adoption rights also claim that children adopted by homosexual parents are likely to face more psychological problems and are more likely to be unhealthy and vulnerable to mental breakdowns. Critics of same-sex adoption believed that adopted children will face problems in social relationships and will be unsure about their role. One major group that opposes same-sex adoption is the Catholic Church, which issued the following statement: Children deserve to be placed into homes centered around a wife and mother and a husband and father. Human history has amply shown that children thrive best when they grow in such a family. In offering adoptive services, Catholic Charities has consistently maintained this position (Perry, 2007). Clearly this attitude is blatantly hypocritical when the entire world knows Catholic priests who were raised in heterosexual households were engaging in child molestation. Another religious-based view on same-sex adoption states that because homosexuals cannot have children naturally, God does not want them to have children. One author counters this with the following statement: Those against gay adoption argue that same-sex couples cannot produce children naturally so therefore, it is wrong for them to even be together, much less adopt children. But, if this is your argument, why do you allow heterosexuals that cannot reproduce naturally the right to adopt also? (Steffey, 2003) This is perfectly logical. If homosexuals that cannot have children naturally do not deserve to adopt, heterosexuals that cannot have children do not deserve to adopt either. Position Thesis and Justification Based on research that suggests the children of same-sex parents are completely socially capable of building up positive and healthy relationships with the diverse people around them, it seems ethically right that same-sex relationships should indeed be allowed to adopt. Despite the vast amount of critical opinion concerning not only same-sex adoption but homosexuality in general, there is no scientific evidence available to back up claims that children raised by same-sex parents will not understand traditional gender roles or be able to function normally in social situations. Moreover, in America, the fundamental societal principle is that we are all created equally; in this sense any couple should have the same rights as another couple, regardless of any arguably inane factors that make them different. If same-sex couples cannot adopt children, logically it follows that other individuals and groups must be discriminated against on the same basis that they are not a part of the social majority. When denying one group's rights, every American's rights come into jeopardy. It goes against what being an American stands for to deny a group based on belief or sexuality. In terms of the utilitarian aspects of same-sex adoption, it stands to reason that many actions are ethical when done in the best interests of the child in question. It is therefore morally right to employ the same background checks on homosexuals that heterosexuals undergo when applying to adopt; this would alleviate the stigma that homosexuals are child molesters and in any case would certainly be in the best interests of the child. A law abiding same-sex couple should receive the same right to adopt as a law abiding heterosexual couple. On the other hand, rejection for an adoption of a same-sex couple that has been convicted of pedophilia or child abuse should be the same as a heterosexual couple convicted of the same charges. It comes down to government legislation, and in many cases court decision, to determine whether same-sex couples can adopt either the biological child of one partner or a non-biological child. In any case, laws that were once strictly set against same-sex adoption are constantly being loosened due to the simple fact that children need homes and it is the fundamental desire of most couples, gay or straight, to start a family and raise children. Government bodies do not want to shoulder the financial burden that comes of foster care maintenance, nor do they generally wish to persevere in denying adoption rights to homosexuals that seem perfectly capable of raising children and providing them with a loving, stable home and ensuring they receive an education. The decision of many American States to allow homosexuals to adopt their same-sex partner’s children reflects the utilitarian ethical theory that the outcome is the best reason to make a decision (Audi 277); in this case the creation of a fully united, stable family unit is the reason for giving adoption rights to homosexuals. It logically follows that same-sex couples and single homosexuals will be able to adopt non-biological children because these children also needs loving homes and no proof exists that suggests homosexuals cannot properly provide for children. Since the research shows that adopted children are not negatively affected by living with same-sex parents, there is no concrete reason to deny a child a stable home; controversy surrounding the capabilities of same-sex parents is misdirected. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter spoke about the Colorado law passed to allow same-sex adoption: From my experience in law enforcement, I know how important it is for children to grow up in a stable environment. This law gives children in a one-parent family a chance to grow up in a two-parent home. We must do all we can to strengthen families and provide children with as stable an environment as possible. (Perry, 2007) Foster children can be placed in many different foster homes and normally do not grow up with a home life they can rely on day after day, year after year. In order to cut down on the numbers of children in this situation, States often push the child into an unfit home with biological parents. Sometimes children succumb to early death at the hands of violent biological parents (Gelles et al 44-45), and cases like these show stable same-sex households in a much better light. Not allowing same-sex partners or homosexuals to adopt is discrimination, and according to the founders of this country, discrimination is ethically, morally and legally wrong. If one group is allowed to be discriminated against, it follows that one by one, every discernable group will face discrimination on some basis. Unless criminal action is in question, there is no reason for discrimination of any kind. It stands to reason that given the extensive planning that goes into an adoption, same-sex couples or indeed anyone who decides to adopt will have put much more thought into child-raising than a single mother or a couple who conceive accidentally. There are no mistakes or accidents involved in adoption, unlike natural birth. These parents not only decide to raise a child, but have to fight for the right to do so. A person that determined will likely be focused and capable enough to raise and love a child. In a society where arguably unfit mothers and fathers can continue to have children since it is physically simple, completely dedicated mothers and fathers who are homosexuals ought to have the right to adopt. Conclusion Should same-sex relationships have the right to adopt? There are many arguments against same-sex adoption: firstly that homosexuals are criminally minded and must be considered child molesters; also that a same-sex couple cannot instill the traditional social aspects of gender onto their adopted children; and finally that in terms of religious morality, god doesn’t allow homosexuals to naturally reproduce and therefore they should not be able to create a family unit. Despite the myriad of criticisms against same-sex adoption, there is absolutely no scientific data that suggests same-sex parents are any less capable of raising children that heterosexual parents are; in fact research often suggests that same-sex parents are more capable of dealing with normal parenting issues than the traditional family unit. When it comes to the actual legislation concerning same-sex adoption, there are two issues to consider: whether a homosexual can adopt the biological children of his or her same-sex partner, and whether a same-sex couple can adopt a non-biological child. It makes functional sense that homosexuals be allowed to adopt on both counts because this way the family unit can be kept intact and new family units can be formed to support children who would otherwise be facing the mental negativities of a foster home and creating a pull on the financial resources of the State. Since it cannot be disputed that “every child needs and deserves a permanent, loving home” (Perry, 2007), it should be the primary role of adoption agencies, government bodies and courts to allow capable people to adopt needy children, regardless of whether they are single, part of a couple or whether they are gay or straight. Works Cited Audi, Robert. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. New York: Routledge, 2002. Arehart-Treichel, Joan. “Psychoanalysts Back Option of Same-sex adoption”. American Psychiatric Association 2002. Barrett, H., & Tasker, F. Educational and Child Psychology. 2001. Gelles, Richard and Jane Lancaster (eds). Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1987. Harris, M. B., & Turner, P. H. “Gay and lesbian parents”. Journal of Homosexuality 1985/6, 12, 101-113. Herring, Jonathan. Family Law issues, Debates and Policy. 2001. Patterson, Charlotte J. “Lesbian and gay parenting” retrieved 28 Nov. 2007. . Peddicord, Richard. Gays and Lesbian Rights. 2001. Perry, Elisabeth. “Gay Adoption Battle Mirrors Marriage Wars”. Washington Blade 2007. Steffey, Marianne. “Homosexual Adoption Biggest Gay Rights Problem”. East Tennessean 3 Nov 2003. Strasser, Mark. The Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage: Federalist Principles and Constitutional Protections. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers, 1999. Tully, Carol. Lesbians, Gays & the Empowerment Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Varnell, P. “Exorcising the Ghost of Anita”. Chicago Free Press 18 Sept. 2002. Wardle, Lynn, Strasser, Mark, Duncan, William and David Coolidge (eds). Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate. Westport CT: Praeger, 2003. Weeks, Jeffrey, Heaphy, Brian and Catherine Donovan. Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. London: Routledge, 2001. Read More