Letting Gays Adopt Children
The paper has thereby supported arguments that showed greater benefits towards allowing same sex couples to adopt children, one of which is support for the basic principles of American Democracy. The adoption actually legitimizes same sex relationships; and although heterosexual marriages are not affected, same sex adoption would strengthen homosexual relationships enabling them to provide a more holistic environment and support for the children.
The American Academy of Pediatrics revealed the findings that “no data have pointed to any risk to children of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents” (Laumann, 2002, p. 344). The current research therefore aims to provide arguments that support allowing same sex couples to adopt children. The article published in The First Post entitled Pros and Cons: Gay Adoption (2007) presented relevant details that provide advantages and disadvantages of allowing same sex couples to adopt children. The article revealed that there are five distinct advantages ranging from: (1) the ability to give adopted children a more secure home; (2) two full time parents are more beneficial than single parents; (3) the option for artificial insemination to female gay parents have been proven to create raising well-balanced children; (4) barring gay parents from adoption is a discriminatory act; and (5) the shortage of adoptive parents make this alternative a better option than foster care system. These advantages give credence and support to same sex couples being more advantageous in terms of providing holistic support to children than opting for foster care and giving the couples enhanced privilege for a stronger bond through the experience of raising children. On the other hand, arguments against gay adoption have these following supportive statements: (1) the children’s need for role models for both sexes is not satisfied; (2) gay adoption is contrary to Christian teaching; and (3) society simply views gay parenting unconventional and wrong. These disadvantages stem from some researches that indicate that the traditional basic framework and ideal familial environment is that children need biological parents. As validated by Staver (2004), “children who are raised outside of intact marriages, where there is a mother and a father, are at greater risk for a large number of serious personal and social problems, even after controlling for race, income, and family background” (10). Further, the adoption of children by same sex couples has been viewed as contrary to the cultural tradition of marriage. The importance of linking marriage to culture has been validly cited by Jost (2003) as he noted: “recognizing gay marriage ‘breaks down thousands of years of culture’, add the Family Research Council’s Mackey” (Jost, 2003, p. 728). Somerville (2003) added that “marriage carries important norms and values, “memes” (long standing units of deep cultural information passed on from generation to generation) related to reproduction…Extending marriage to include same-sex couples (or de-legislating marriage) would seriously harm all of these societal level functions of the institution of marriage” (5). Following this path of reasoning, same sex couples should therefore not be allowed to adopt children as the very foundation of their union is not accepted in traditional cultural norms. Despite the disadvantages and counterarguments, there are numerous contentions that support allowing same sex couples to adopt children are as follows: when state legislations allow same sex couples to marry and adopt children, they abide by the basic principles of American democracy. The basic principles of democracy on equality states that “all individuals are valued equally, have equal opportunities, and may not be