Adoption of Children by Homosexual Couples Should be More Widely Encouraged
The issue of homosexual couples has long been a debatable element in most communities within the global setting, both in terms of household and national aspects. The American nation is also acting on the same issue with at least fifty-nine percent of the populace in 2008 acting against such relations (Knox and Caroline 260). The principal justifications given towards this standpoint is that the practice is “immoral, a sin, against the Bible,” (Knox and Caroline 260). Despite this however, the same investigation has revealed that at least forty-one percent of individuals in the US within the same period actually maintain that homosexuals should be accorded identical lawful rights just like any other individuals, including adoption practices. Investigations into the credibility and permissibility of adoption practices amongst same-sex couples have offered tangible evidence that sustains the view that it should be promoted towards creating fairness and wellbeing within the societies.
The US Children’s Bureau noted that, one hundred and nineteen thousand children were present in foster institutions awaiting adoption in 2003. In addition to this, twenty-thousand other children were in pre-adoptive institutions bearing the same need (Knox and Caroline 265). Following the investigation, Bureau personnel revealed that senior supervisors, owners and managers of such foster homes gave the information that a majority of these children would never pass for adoption practices since most present ‘ideal’ couples target very young children, largely ranging from months old to five-year-old babies. This is due to the couples’ belief that children within the identified range are easily assimilated into a new home with negligible levels of conflict. The irony in such adoption practices is that the bulk of children, precisely more than sixty-seven percent, in foster homes is above the given age range. Worse still, the investigation reveals that “laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage…tens of thousands of children…who need permanent, loving homes” (Knox and Caroline 265).
Edicts offered against homosexual adoptions is that same-sex family settings impart a negative development aspect in children due to lack of role separation. The communal setting also tends to offer a similar influence in terms of homophobic behavior towards children adopted in such a setting (Saletam, 2002). For instance, a case identified by Gandossy evidences a good example that young Jackson has to handle in terms of his peers. Jackson is an adopted child to gay parents Roach and Manford (Gandossy, 2007). The couple revealed that with Jackson’s development, the child severally questions his parents for a mother only to be directed to his grandmother or aunts for the given function. The school setting enhances the given challenge with Jackson’s peers always questioning the reason for the lack of a mother. Although such issues offer some points of remarkable concern, it is good to note, “the quality of parent-child relationship…is the strongest predictor of outcomes in a child’s development…with biological relationship rated second,” (Rimalower and Caren 20). Following this view, Jackson’s case infers an issue of quality bonding with his parents as opposed to biological inclinations as largely given.
In addition, the biological issue can easily be solved in a homosexual setting with the inclusion of dual rights to both parties (adoption and biological) with the incorporation of the co-parent clause. Co-parenting in same-sexual relations is a lawful provision that permits a lesbian or gay individual into acquiring adoption rights on a child belonging to their counterparts without the dissolution of existing rights held by the biological guardians (Rimalower and Caren 20). To express this in an understandable manner, if a heterosexual couple A and B bear a child C, then both parents A and B are lawfully termed as C’s parents. Assuming that A and B separate and both form other relations, the guardian rights are still maintained by the given individuals. Assuming that A creates a same-sexual relation with D and both offer consent to adopt C, then the co-parenting clause projects guardianship rights to D without nullifying B’s rights. At the end of the adoption arrangement, C will bear three guardians namely A, B and D.
Although the co-parent provision does not cover children that do not share any biological parents, the same approach may be projected in existing laws towards handling such issues. It is true that adoption edicts are partial in nature and this only acts towards enhancing the issue of homophobia present in societies. Homophobic acts lead to physical and emotional cruelty from the bigger populace to homosexual couples and children within the same setting (Rimalower and Caren 22). Logic dictates that enforcing divisive edicts does not offer permanent resolutions to such practices but only lead to a degeneration of the community through hateful observances. The same also offers a large constraint in States that have permitted homosexual coupling. Presently, twelve states in the US have permitted child adoptions to same-sex families, three others have instituted edicts that disallow the same, and thirty-six have accorded the issue to judiciary and foster homes managers (Gandossy, 2007). In the latter States, the identified players have the full authorization of determining whether adoptions by same-sex couples should be consented in the affected regions.
Mississippi however is notably different from the other States as it permits non-dating lesbians and gays but not to couples. Utah on the other hand offers no direct prohibition of such adoptions yet it makes the arrangement quite impossible by the edict that adoption practices can only be completed by married individuals. Note that, the State does not permit homosexual marriages. Revisiting Jackson’s case, schooling institutions have equally offered partial treatment to children in homosexual families’ thus enhancing violence towards such individuals as opposed to “making school a safe and welcoming place,” (Rimalower and Caren 22) as every parent needs. Failure of schools to offer a safe setting infuses a level of hazard to other students too since they maybe harmed in such instances. With the need to offer children a home setting, it is actually quite useful to support gay and lesbian adoptions in clearing the present backlog of children in foster homes. Schools should also aid with the acceptance process by introducing gay settings within family courses in a bid to incorporate an approval in learners since this will offer a lasting resolution to violence and homophobic practices.
Views that homosexual parents nurture similarly oriented children should be discarded since this stand only offers erroneous conclusions. It should be noted that same-sex attractions are not in anyway psychologically related and therefore, homosexual parents are well able to support children with heterosexual relations without any forms of constraints (Rimalower and Caren 22). In addition, same sex couples have noted similar levels of emotional support to children when evaluated against heterosexual couples. This is because, gay and lesbian couples are able to offer such requirements owing to the fact that gender division is noted within the couple, with one acting as the mother to the child and female partner to the counterpart whereas the other partner acquires the father and husband functions. This pattern and results have been noted in studies spanning across more than nineteen investigations that have also supported the equality factor across “gay and lesbian adoptive parents and heterosexual adoptive parents on measures of family functioning and child behavior problems,” (Knox and Caroline 265).
Following the given evidence, barring children from such adoption options is just being illogical both to the nation in terms of wellbeing and to children in foster homes. Governments have to allocate colossal funds to foster homes in every trading period in order to support the populace noted in such institutions without any form of aid. This monetary function has to be adequately provided in a manner that covers issues like food, residence, schooling, and salaries amongst others. With foster homes noting a high inclusion that clearing rates in largely all institutions, overheads attached to such maintenances have continued rising and this is very strenuous for national authorities in terms of support (Caldwell 39). Consenting homosexual adoptions offers a tangible resolution to this issue with costs presently offered by the government being shifted to the adoption family and thus allowing the accumulated sum to be averted in other wellbeing activities. This is quite useful in the present economic deepening, otherwise foster homes maybe forced to discontinue children adoption or in extreme cases dissolve due to sustenance inability.
In addition, disallowing same-sex adoption has led to “high rates of homelessness, incarceration, early pregnancy, failure to graduate from high school, unemployment, and poverty” (Knox and Caroline 265). Homelessness is caused by the inability of children from acquiring adoption parents until the age out level where they become highly unlikely to acquire any form of adoption. With such a background, such individuals may resort to unconstructive practices once the maximum age for such an institution is attained thus forcing the affected into practices such as substance abuse, crime and prostitution. It is very distressing to note that such factors are initiated by practices that disallow same-sex adoptions. In conclusion, it is evident that homosexual adoptions are very valuable to a community in terms of reducing the level of children in foster institutions, lessening monetary support needs from the government, and averting harmful practices like crime from a growing populace. With investigations noting that, children in same-sex settings are also well able to achieve good lifestyles since emotional need are well accorded by homosexual couples, then the practice should be enhanced in all communities.
Caldwell, John. “Little Victories for Gay Adoption.” The Advocate 10 Jun. 2003: 38-39. Print.
Gandossy, Taylor. “Gay adoption: A new take on the American family.” Cable News Network, 25 Jun. 2011. Web. 01 Nov. 2011.
Knox, David, and Caroline Schacht. Choices in Relationships: An Introduction to Marriage and the Family. New York, NY: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Rimalower, Lucy, and Caren Caty. “The mamas and the papas: the invisible diversity of families with same-sex parents in the United States.” Sex Education 9.1 (2009): 17-32. Print.
Saletam, William. “Adopting Premises: The sneaky debate over legalizing adoptions by gay couples.” The Slate Group, 7 Feb. 2002. Web. 01 Nov. 2011.