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.