Marriage and Adoption by Homosexuals, What Interest Prevails?

This is both a moral and a political question whether gay couples should be recognized as "married" and what's even worse- allow them to adopt children. According to the dictionary the definition of marriage- it is between one man and one woman. Yes, polygamy is not legal either.

So gay couples, which are usually a man and another man or a woman and another woman do not fall under the category of marriage. But the most important question is: "Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?"

Quite some time ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics published in the journal "Pediatrics" a declaration supporting the right of gays and lesbians to adopt children of her partner, claiming that "children born to or adopted by a family member of the same sex deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. " And to justify this statement, the Academy stated: "a sufficient number of studies suggest that children of homosexual parents have the same advantages and expectations of health, adaptation and development than children of heterosexual" (1).

Surely pediatricians, with the laudable aim of ensuring children's health, taking into consideration the advantages of having two health insurance and social assistance for two parent's death. Even the alimony and visitation in cases of separation of the "couple". But it is worth asking what the true welfare of a child is in these cases. Because, unless things change, the interest of the child is the center of every adoption law and process, which aims to give a home to a child which did not ever know.

But let us state the facts because, unfortunately, if we do not seek rational arguments to prove the truth, that until now no one has a doubt, we run the risk of appearing "intolerant." Particularly because in recent months the European society begins to see, here and there, national or regional governments eager to go down to posterity as a pioneer in the adoption of legislation without the support of public opinion and scientific expertise.

There are two arguments put forward by proponents of this new meaning of "family": the first is better for an abandoned child to live with a gay couple that with nobody, or not having any family. But today, the real situation is quite different: the delayed age of marriage and family setup, the massive recourse to contraception, the effects of modern lifestyle on fertility of the spouses and the extent abortion, have contributed to more and more couples to turn to the techniques of artificial insemination and adoption to realize their dreams of starting a family. One example is the case of Spain, the country with the lowest birth rate in the world, where waiting lists to adopt Spanish children reach nine years or so, in the last five years, international adoptions have increased 264% (2). Children from China, Rusia and Central Africa are adopted by newly setup families.

The second argument is that denying gay couples the right to adoption is an act of discrimination. Especially now that the principle of non discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has been included in Article 21 of the future European Constitution (3). To respond to this claim is necessary to distinguish between two concepts: the unequal treatment and discrimination. The discrimination is unjustified unequal treatment. For example, according to the criteria of justice unequal treatment of the law when it requires the payment of income tax in proportion to the wealth of the declarant. Similarly, a short person can not claim discrimination to be rejected as a basketball player, hostess or police officer or a person with vision problems, for jobs where that quality is important. In the present case, the homosexuality of the adopters is a relevant feature to the education and development of a child.

Why? First, because, although they are poorly disseminated by "politically incorrect" - serious scientific studies showing that children in homosexual households are four times more likely to seek sexual identity by experimenting with homosexual behavior (4). Take into account another fact: the highest suicide rate in the U.S. occur among adolescents with homosexuales trends (5). Knowing the enormous pressures that result from a confused sexual identity, its adoption would allow to place wrong thoughts and feelings to these children for life, with such a traumatic load to reaffirm socially gay rights. The intention of adoption is clearly to provide a child with a home as well as the education with a broad and wide approach of the "traditional" values of the society for his/her care, protection and welfare.

Second, it is proven the most promiscuous homosexual unions, breaking four times more than heterosexuals. Imagine again the impact on children, much-needed stability. How many fathers and mothers could have a single child?

Also, for a good development of his personality, children need to have models of male and female identity. How can they come to understand the complementarity between the sexes? How to live your own sexuality?

Like it or not, homosexual unions will always be a minority, and these children, as much as they say, may never feel equal to others. Do you find an adequate answer to the simple question: "why my friends have mom and dad" or "what is a mom"?

In short, children can not be used as an instrument for claiming social rights of a particular group, or adoption is an institution that can be guided by the criteria of political trendiness or fashion ideas seeking political votes. Nature created male and female to be complementary to each other in countless ways that enhance not only the couple's relationship, but the healthy and stable development of the children they produce. It is well known that fatherlessness is responsible for many of the ills of children in our society. There are few bodies of research where the evidence is so clear: children need both a mother and a father. Homes with a married mother and father are, all things considered, far better for raising emotionally stable children.

Yet there are things it's not fair to deny and they are social values of a modern society: the human dignity that every homosexual has as a person, the existence of homosexual unions in our society. But recognizing the right of union and the effect of identify with the natural and legal institutions as marriage and family is another thing. It is also true that not all the gay shows his "gay pride" trying to generalize their way of life and extend the influence of a minority behavior to the rest of society. But children are the most vulnerable in our society, worthy of protection and care. Are we going to mortgage its development by advancing the political agenda of a minority?

In my opinion, and I could be mistaken, gay couples desperately want to be viewed just like "normal couples." But they are not normal i.e. they do not follow the rules and they cannot physically produce children. So in their desperate attempt to be recognized and accepted as "normal", they want to be allowed not only to get married like normal couples but also to have children. But here is the problem- gays cannot have biological children, so they turn to adopting as their only option in an attempt to be viewed by others as "normal". But the reality is that in some foreign countries do not allow international adoptions by gay couples. So gay people try to go around that obstacle and fill out the application as a single person instead of gay couple.

In this writing there is no a single word mentioned about Christian Morality, Theology, God, The Book of Genesis or any other religion influence at all: which clearly rejects the homosexuality behaviour right from the beginning. The arguments are stated and based in simple scientific reasons and approach, as well as common social queries. All the works and questions being carried out are focused in the best interest of Child Care and Protection. It's about time that people insist on seeking the truth, but the answer is not in trendy new fashion politics which is in clear favour of minority groups just for the sake of getting few votes here and there.

In recent history, politicians have offered and promised just about everything to please a disappointed and frustated voting population. Nowadays they tend to play cynicism but we ought to remember that "a cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and ignores even the value of a single". Oscar Wilde. Unfortunely, this lead us to another important matter about human nature: "What is the only creature that creates a need to escape from reality making up lies? the reality that it causes suffering." Friedrich Nietzsche

Equality does not imply uniformity. Gays and Lesbians deserve comprehension, understanding and complete tolerance of their nature and feelings as well as their sexuality, but based on what homosexuality is about. But by mixing up and patching up the issue to the standards set by the "traditional" heterosexual families with "christian values" is by far the biggest mistake to start off with. And I am afraid, I happened to be heterosexual and I was always very clear about my sexuality and my tendencies. To me, the most wonderful and rewarding thing is loving a woman and being corresponded by that woman. The whole sensation of two being one is the most desirable and unexplainable feeling and mistery.

As far as Gays and Lesbians wanting to have children. I do consider that they are capable and they surely have a right to do so. But I deeply regret to say that the instructions of the reproduction system are very clear and we are all equally provided with the necessary tools for that objetive. Hermaphroditism is not known to be part in human design!

carloslimongi@yahoo.com

.
NOTES
.
(1) "Group Backs Gays Who Seek to Adopt a Partner's Child," New York Times, 04/02/2002; "vs Pediatrics. Children," Washington Times, 12.2.2002, Armstrong Williams, www.townhall.com, 18.3.2002.
(2) "Spain this year will be the second country in the world with more adoptions," El Mundo, 23.05.2002.
(3) www.europarl.eu.int / Charter
(4) "Children As Trophies", a book by Patricia Morgan which includes 144 academic studies on parenting by homosexuals (published by Civitas, Institute for the Study of Civil Society, www.civitas.org . uk). "Researchers FindDifferences Children of Gay Parents in" Los Angeles Times, 27.4.2001, commenting on the publication of the study at the University of California in the journal "American Sociological Review" (April 2001).
(5) "Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth", G. Remafedi et al. Journal "Pediatrics" 1991, 87, p. 869-875, "Adolescent Homosexuality: Psychological and Medical Implications", Pediatrics 1987, 79 p. 331-337; Bell A.P. & Weinberg M.S. "Homosexualities", Simon & Schuster, NY, 1978; www.virtualcity.com / youthsuicide / vigil / suicide-Bagley-tremblay-bell-weinberg.htm www.lesbianinformationservice.org / suicide.htm

Sources:
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/childrenastrophies.pdf
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/4580,news-comment,news-politics,pros-and-cons-gay-adoption
http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/gay-lesbian-bisexual-and-transgender-adoption/149/1.html
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=51
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/bpv02.pdf
http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_6619.shtml
http://www.colegaweb.org/index.php/reportajes-noticias-114/1468-ms-familias-de-dos-paps-y-dos-mams

.