Download gays adoption...
gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender adoption There is significant controversy surrounding adoption by same-sex couples. Together with same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples, parenting by same-sex couples is a major lesbian and gay rights issue in many countries around the world. The controversy generally concerns whether or not there will be negative consequences for children raised by same-sex couples. Specific questions include the potential for gender confusion, biased sexual orientation, or the general well-being of such children. Arguments in favour: 1) The United States has many children waiting to be adopted. Older children and those with special needs are especially hard to place. Children who fit this category are in foster homes right now with gay and lesbian parents who want to adopt them. It is unfair to the children to deny them permanent secure homes. 2) Most children in the United States do not live with two married parents. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married mother and father with children living at home. The Florida court argues that children are better off raised in a two-parent heterosexual household. In fact, scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual. 3)Actually gays’ main argument is based on the notion that a “healthy” family depends absolutely in the relationship between the couple. This is what makes the different between a care- parenting and of an inappropriate parenting. More specific gays argues “the family is not designed as “father” and “mother”, it is designed as a group of people who love each other and want to build a future together and with children, without caring if these children are biological or not. This is the most important fact about families: love between them as the main base”. Another gay argues “We are not talking about the sexual direction of parents but of affection and responsibility that is what matters in the end regardless you are “hetero”, “homo” or a single mother/father. I also think the rules and requirements should be the same for everybody as what should be evaluated is the capacity of someone of being responsible of a child, not his sexual preferences. I think it’s unfair that same-sex couples don’t have the same rights for adopting children when they have the same duties, obligations and responsibilities as any other citizen.” “I think what children need is love, security, stability, consistency and kindness,” The AAP announced that: “a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” 4) Part of the argument against gay marriage is that the original purpose of marriage is procreation and since homosexuals cannot procreate they should not be allowed to marry. This is a valid argument, especially in the eyes of the church and other religious organizations, but how do you account for couples that marry in a church
and live religious lives but are physically unable to procreate themselves? These couples either turn to unnatural methods of procreation such as surrogacy or fertility drugs. These children are conceived in ways other than the original purpose of marriage warranted but nobody has an objection. If couples still cannot procreate they turn to adoption because they want to raise a child and adoption allows them to share their love with a child that has been abandoned or given up for a better life. Homosexual couples are no different; they just want to share their love and homes with children who need them. 5) Proponents argue that single mothers and single fathers raise good children all the time; it cannot be the presence of two separate sexes that produce good children.
However, the divorce rate of heterosexual couples is above fifty percent. Obviously you cannot advocate for stable relationships as being necessary when more than half of same-sex couples with children get divorced. The separation of any two parents is hard on any child; it does not matter if they have two same-sex parents or two opposite sex parents. Proponents argue that there are so many children that need to be adopted that it is far better to have children go to a loving home where they can have individual care and attention then to live in a group home where they are merely a number and an expense for the state. They argue that it does not matter if the parents are of the same sex as long as they can provide a stable loving home for the child. Many states actually encourage same-sex couples to adopt to help the children in foster care find good permanent homes Proponents argue that by not allowing same-sex couples to adopt you are discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation which is a protected class in some areas such as employment. Homosexual couples would argue that homosexuality is innate. It is in their genes and it is not a learned behaviour so that if their child turned out to be gay it is because they physically are not that they learned the behaviour from their parents. Proponents argue that there are all different kinds of homes out there. Two sex households, single parents, blended families and children being raised by grandparents or other family members. The makeup of the household is not what matters, it is the loving environment. Proponents argue that children that grow up in same-sex households will be more sympathetic to differences and more likely to believe in equality for all. They will be more open -minded about different life styles than children who are raised in the traditional opposite sex households. Proponents argue that they are more able to produce well rounded and accepting children because they have lived it
Arguments against: Opponents argue that they only influence their children and force their beliefs on them. They do not allow the children to think for themselves. Opponents also argue that children of same-sex couples will be subject to ridicule and shunned by their peers for being different from them. They believe they will be considered as outcasts because they have two mothers or two fathers. Along the same lines, the world is built for opposite sex couples. It is seen in movies, magazines, advertisements. All kinds of paperwork including birth certificates and other important legal documents have lines for "mother" and "father". Children of same-sex couples will have to constantly explain their situation and be inconvenienced by it. They argue that by having two same sex parents they may influence the children to become gay themselves. They believe that seeing only one relationship model will convince them that that is the only correct way. Opponents argue that whether or not they are a protected class in some instances does not matter because the children are the ones who need to be protected. Opponents argue that same-sex couples just cannot provide the type of home that is conducive to child rearing. However, no one questions the single dad raising his daughter. Furthermore, there have been numerous studies done that prove there are no differences between children who have been raised by heterosexual couples and those who were raised by homosexual couples. Opponents turn to arguments that two men raising a baby girl cannot possibly give her the guidance that a girl needs, they cannot provide the support and answers a young girl needs at puberty and other milestones in a girls life 6) Another argument against gay adoption is that homosexual relationships are often unstable and that that most homosexuals are promiscuous t they are different because they are the same sex. They are not one mother and one father. To have a steady home and raise well rounded good children you need a man and a woman The Florida court argued that children are better off in homes with a mother and a father who are married. Some opponents of “gay’s adoption” argue that children of gay and lesbian parents will be subject to harassment and ridicule. Whether or not a person who is gay, lesbian or transgender is allowed to adopt, in most cases depends on the laws of the state where she or he lives, policies of the agency or attorney. Florida law continues to ban adoption by homosexuals as of this writing, as not in "the best interests of the child," while other states do not mention sexual preference
criteria for eligibility to adopt. Consequently, a homosexual person may theoretically adopt. In 1991, Florida law was challenged by a South Florida man, and a circuit court declared the law to be discriminatory. This case did not overturn state’s law, although it could be cited in other cases. When the partner of a homosexual or bisexual person wishes to adopt a biological child of one of them or they both wish together to adopt an unrelated child, they will often encounter difficulties. For example, some states require a biological mother to relinquish her parental rights before another woman can adopt her child; however, a lesbian mother would not wish to sign consent but would prefer to share parenting with her partner. In a few cases cited by attorney Emily C. Patt, the biological parent retained parental rights while at the same time an unrelated person was allowed to adopt the child. As a result, a child can have a biological parent and a "psychological parent" as well. In a 1985 Alaska case, Adoption of a Minor Child, a minor child's GUARDIAN AD LITEM recommended that a lesbian couple be allowed to adopt a child they had both parented since birth. The adoption was allowed because the court determined the mother's lesbian relationship was not a factor in whether she would be a good parent. Same-sex couples have also been allowed to adopt in California and Oregon. Increasingly, both gay and lesbian parents are permitted to become adoptive parents, although in the vast majority of cases, it is one of the partners who adopts rather than both. Gay’s arguments: Focus on the Family was also quick to challenge AAP’s policy: “Contrary to what the AAP claims, the research comparing outcomes from homosexual parenting and heterosexual parenting are notoriously inconclusive. There is a larger body of scientific literature showing children need a mother and a father for proper socialization.” According to a report by child and family psychologist, Dr. Bill Maier: “There are hundreds of research studies that support the idea that kids do better on just about every measure when they have two married parents—a father and a mother.” In citing a Rutgers University study by sociologist David Popenoe, Dr. Maier notes that researchers have shown that mothers and fathers bring different role-modeling strengths to raising kids that children don’t typically receive growing up in same-sex households: “Mothers tend to stress emotional security, personal safety and comfort with their children. Fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, risk-taking, initiative and independence with their kids. Moms and dads also discipline differently. Mothers provide flexibility and sympathy while fathers tend to provide predictability and consistency.” Maier concludes, “by nature same-sex couples cannot provide what we know children need. It is this “nature” that children in same-sex households eventually confront. But such confrontations bring confusion, anger, instability and insecurity. These are decisive
issues in the adoption process. A child’s nature is to crave the “love, security, stability, consistency and kindness” of a father and a mother. Statistically speaking, that’s not significantly present in a same-sex household. Even the left-of-center magazine, the American Prospect, recognizes this: “It’s not just the presence of two adults in the home that helps children, as some argue. Children living with cohabiting partners and in stepfamilies generally do less well than those living with both married biological parents.” In a study by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffrin in 1996 whereby they published 57 life-story narratives of children who had grown up with homosexual parents, the authors found that in 92 percent of the cases, children mentioned one or more problems or concerns. Of 213 scored problems, 201 were attributed to homosexual parents. Cited one boy, age 10: “I went to the gay and lesbian parade. I saw men in women’s costumes and women in men’s costumes. It was weird. This made me confused … It wasn’t fun for me to find out my mom was a lesbian.” Prohibiting gays to adopt a child or to from being married is violation of their personal human rights. A gay can invoke numerous of violations. Now due to international declaration of human rights and European Convention of Human Rights gay’s rights became sacred and inalienable just us any other person in the world. As we know European citizen who might be gay or lesbian can make an individual recourse to the European Court of Human rights and to demand equality or to accuse his state, if that violated his rights. More specific article 1 provides that all the states have the obligation of respect and recognition of human rights of all its citizens. Examination of legal aspect Legal arguments which can be invoked by homosexuals Article 5 provides that all the citizens have equal right on personal freedom and safety. The article with the word “freedom” means liberty and also not an illegitimacy detention. But the word personal freedom can also interpreted with the means of freedom to personal life and expression. So one State by prohibiting gays’ right to marriage or adoption is violating his personal freedom. Article 8 provides that all the citizens have the right of respect of there personal and family life. So the personal life of homosexuals is becoming inviolable by this article. In the meaning of personal and family life is included the right to marriage and to adopt. The State by interfering and depriving from a homosexual couple to adopt or to get marriage is violating their right to have their own personal life and family. Article 9 & 10 provide that all citizens have the right of freedom of thought, conscience and expression. More specific says that every person has freedom to express his thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. So if everyone is free to express his thoughts then must be no discrimination from state’s part in regard of homosexuals’
beliefs. So if they believe that a marriage or an adoption is legitimate then the state can’t restrain them to move on and express their beliefs and will. Legal arguments which can be invoked by heterosexuals against gays Article 5 purpose can’t be interpreted with the aforementioned way. The purpose of the article is mentioned to an unlawful detention. Any other approximation of this Article is illegitimate and declines from the purpose of the present article. Article 8 provides that all the citizens have equal right of respect of their personal and family life. The right of adopting or to marriage is irrelevant in the meaning of this article. It is acceptable that they can do whatever they want to in their personal moments. But meaning of the word “family” is a natural family of one mother and one father. Otherwise a homosexual couple can’t be regarded as a real family. Article 9 &10 provide that all citizens have the right of freedom of thought, conscience and expression. The article is mentioning to religious toleration. If anyone was free to believe whatever he want and to express it then the rules and the whole judicial system would be useless. Heterosexual are free to express their beliefs. But there is no right in the meaning of this article to move on for adoption or marriage. Article 12 provides that Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right. It strictly says about men and women. According to this article heterosexual couples haven’t any right neither to marriage nor to family. Also provides that the exercise of this right must be in accordance with national laws. It is becoming clear from this phrase that the States are not obliged to follow any European model in relation with the laws which every state legislates to regulate the marriage and family matters. Article 17 &18 provide that nobody is able to abuse his rights. All the aforementioned allegations of the homosexuals are a misrepresentation of articles meaning. So if homosexuals misrepresent the E.C.H.R. articles in order to strengthen their thesis must be regarded as an abuse of their rights. The articles must be interpreted in order to implement the purpose of which they were written.