Friday, June 11

Homosexual Adoption, Who should raise a Child???

I'm posting a research paper, from a brother who I share my views with, this essay is serious business. However, I will first post a video that will surely tug your heart!! Enjoy!

Children are Priority

The Defense of Marriage Act is a good law in that the federal government of the United States legally upheld the sacredness of traditional marriage which is the foundation for family life. Traditional marriage has been historically proven to be the most successful system for proper child development. While same-sex marriage is the primary focus for the legal war that is being waged between gay rights activists and proponents of traditional marriage, an arguably more significant bi-product of this conflict is the implications towards the legality of same-sex adoption. Though the conflict over the future of gay marriage is significant enough as an isolated issue, the struggle is exponentially more significant than just consensual adults seeking legal recognition. The future of same-sex marriage will be the catalyst for the future of same-sex adoption. Where legislation regarding same-sex marriage must carefully consider the rights and social ambitions of the couple, legislation that would also govern adoption should always be tailored towards the best interest of the child and not the interests of prospective parents. There is a higher likelihood that children adopted by same-sex couples will suffer parental death. There is a higher likelihood that children adopted by same-sex couples will face developmental challenges as a result of being fatherless or motherless. Certainly children adopted by same-sex couples are the subject of a hasty cultural experimentation. Because of these reasons, same-sex adoption is not an adequate solution for natural and healthy child development. Without The Defense of Marriage Act, there would be no ability for individual states to restrict same-sex adoption.

According to a collaborative study put out by the International Journal of Epidemiology, the life expectancy of a homosexual man ranges from 34.0 years to 46.3 years, a full 20 years less than the life expectancy of a heterosexual man. (p. 657-62). One possible cause for such a discrepancy between the life expectancy of homosexual and heterosexual men is the high rate of HIV infection among homosexuals. According to the US Center for Disease Control, “approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 2006...; [fifty-three percent] of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men (CDC).” In 2008, at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's (NGLTF) national conference, a well-known gay rights activist named Matt Foreman gave a speech in which he stated, “With 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi (sexual), we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease." (par. 30). According to a study conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron, homosexual women, similar to their male counterparts, die young with the median age of death being 44 years old. (par. 10). Because of the drastically high mortality rate of middle-aged homosexuals, children who are adopted by homosexual parents are placed at a much higher risk of losing a parent to death. No child should be given to a couple of whom one will likely die before their child reaches adulthood.

Though many homosexual individuals would make loving care-takers, as a family unit, same-sex couples cannot provide a complete and natural nucleus for children. Children adopted by same-sex couples are by default either fatherless or motherless. Nature has designed families to consist of a child being raised by a biological mother and father. In an article of a Washington Times’ publication, author and professor of social and political ethics, Jean Bethke Elshtain explains the importance of traditional parenting:
There are big conceptual and historical issues here. There are also simple, humble truths. The humble truth is that every child needs and deserves the love and provision of caring adults in a relationship that perdures. The committed, two-married-parent family is the best environment we know anything about in which to rear children. (par. 10)
As Elshtain explains, a stable, two-parent upbringing fosters healthy children. Same-sex couples cannot offer a child both a father and mother. Adopted families should reflect the most basic natural needs of a child. Countless studies have shown that children who are either without a father or without a mother are strikingly more prone to psychological disorder, criminal activity and many other sociological problems.

Records of human civilization date back thousands of years. These surviving records detail how many past societies have reached progressive levels of social and scientific development. It is known that many ancient societies achieved advanced scientific understanding, impressive mathematical and astronomical precision, sincere piety and religious practice, enlightened philosophy that laid the foundation for modern thinking habits, and intricate social structure. Many aspects of modern culture were built upon these ancient ways of life. Despite all the information that has been gathered about these past societies, there has not been any evidence discovered that would indicate the existence of same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting or any form of same-sex family structure. Historically, no society has ever developed, much less sanctioned the concept same-sex marriage or same-sex adoption and parenting. The summary of The Defense of Marriage Act accurately states, “What has been understood under federal law for over [two-hundred] years: that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.” (par. 4). The United States’ historical understanding of marriage simply reflects how marriage was defined throughout all of world history, both recent and ancient alike. It is only within the past quarter of a century that same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting have become widespread concepts. The idea of same-sex parenting is not only revolutionary to near modern society; it is revolutionary to all known aspects of all known social structures to ever exist. Elshtain says, “All societies have a stake in the creation and sustaining of norms surrounding sexuality, child rearing, and other vital human activities.” (par. 9). Same-sex parenting is a first of this kind of social undertaking that places children, society’s future, as the subjects experimentation. The rights and desires of homosexual couples must take a back seat to the needs and well-being of the children. For it is the well-being of the children that will translate into the well-being of the civilization.

Some who favor same-sex adoption may argue that it is better for an orphaned child to be adopted by gay parents than to never be adopted. Why then are there restrictions in place for who can and who cannot adopt? Why would not that same reason apply to other sub-par homes for the orphaned children? Traditional couples who are older and closer to death are typically not eligible to adopt. Paul Cameron says, “Adoption agencies will seldom permit a couple in their late 40s or 50s to adopt a child because of the risk of parental death.” (par. 10). Just as older, higher risk heterosexual couples are rightly restricted from adopting, so should the high risk of homosexual life restrict same-sex couples from adopting because of the probability of parental death for the adopted child. It is often determinative for adoption agencies to deny adoption to a fatherless or motherless family; it should be equally determinative against fatherless or motherless same-sex homes. Despite the reduced number of eligible families who can adopt, the standard must be determined based on the well-being and development of a child, not based on convenience. Standards for child safety must trump personal desires of the prospective parents, even same -sex couples.

With marriage and family as an anchor for the development of individuals, the society of humankind has grown and thrived for thousand of generations. Throughout history, traditional marriage has remained the root of family success and children the fruit. A system that fosters social stability, procreates offspring, and was given to man by nature should not be anxiously uprooted, redesigned or redefined in the name of cultural acceptance. Though the protection of society and the advocacy for the well-being of children may be misunderstood as bigotry, the American culture must not yield to special interests or personal desires over what is morally and socially best. The Marriage Defense Act served to protect the sanctity of marriage, and esteem marriage as a uniquely defined sacred system on which society is built. This is why the Act is and good. Society must continue to thrive for thousands more generations.

written by Phil Barry

Works Cited
Hogg RS, Strathdee SA, Craib KJP, O'Shaughnessy MV, Montaner JSG, Schechter MT. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay men. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997;26(3):657–61
Hall, Irene H., Ruiguang Song, and Philip Rhodes. "HIV Incidence Estimate." Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA., 2008. Web. 05 Apr. 2010. .
Foreman, Matt. "State of the Movement." National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Detriot. 8 Feb. 2008. Web.
“The Defense of Marriage Act.” Summary of the Act: Congress of the United States,1996. 371-72. Print.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. "Reflections on the Family at Millennium's Beginning." World & I
March 2000: 312-323. SIRS Researcher. Web. 05 April 2010.
Cameron, Paul, and Perrin, Ellen C. “Q: Does Adoption by Gay or Lesbian Couples Put American Children…” Insight on the News 22 Apr 2002: 40-43. SIRS Researcher. Web. 05 April 2010.

No comments:

Back to the top