THIS HOUSE BELIEVES HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE ABLE TO

ADOPT.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender), same-sex, or gay (for
short) adoption is the adoption of children by LGBT parents,
either individually, or as a couple. LGBT adoption is a complex
legal issue, involving several considerations. 14 states in the
world have laws on the books specifically giving gay couples the
right to adopt. Several other states have jurisdictions where
same-sex couples are legally allowed to adopt, while not having
a national law on the issue. For example, several States in the
US allow gay couples to adopt, a few specifically prohibit it, and
the rest have no specific right or prohibition against it. But
there is no federal (nation-wide) law settling the issue for all
States. A few other countries, like Finland and Iceland, allow
one partner in a same-sex union to adopt the other's biological
child. This is especially relevant for lesbian couples where one
partner gives birth to the child, gay male couples who use a
surrogate with the sperm of one of the partners, and
individuals who enter a gay relationship after having or
adopting children in a hetereosexual relationship (essentially
same-sex step-parent rights). In other countries, gay people
may petition individually to adopt, while gay couples cannot.
The majority of countries in the world, though, have laws
specifically prohibiting adoption by gay couples. In others, like
the majority of African states, being gay is in itself illegal, so the
point of adoption is moot. Many gay and lesbian couples
emigrate from countries where it may be unsafe for same-sex
couples to raise a family to those which allow for gay marraige
and adoption. Given the multitude of scenarios this debate can
cover, it is useful to restrict it to a specific case. The debate
usually focuses on the right of gay couples, rather than
individuals to adopt children.
Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal
rights as opposite-sex households.

POINT
There are still many ways for gay people to become parents.
Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a
natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and
then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law
does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal
rights over a child they may already be raising together. These
kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If
being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would
the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as
parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such?
COUNTERPOINT
Because no democratic government should ever attempt to
regulate people's reproductive rights and dictate who is or isn't
allowed to have children. And unless a massive harm can be
shown to the child, the government usually doesn't take
children away from their parents, as that might be more
harmful. But the government is allowed to define what a family
is or should be, under the law.

There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.

POINT
The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue
have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are
certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1.
Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of
this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature
of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in
2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the
ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the
differential treatment of one group, it is only based on
prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a
democratic society.

1 Carey, Benedict. "Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption

Issue". New York Times. 29 January 2005. (accessed 2 August
2011).

2 Wikipeida. "LGBT adoption status around the world".

(accessed 2 August 2011).

3 Foster Care 1999 Statistics. Adoption.com .(accessed 2 August

2011).
COUNTERPOINT
The scientific debate is not as settled as proponents of gay
rights claim. The studies, while positive in their conclusions,
have generally been based on very small samples, not more
than a dozen families. Some experts claim that there is also a
volunteer bias, with the subjects of these studies usually
supportive of the gay rights agenda and therefore keen on
reporting positive results. Lastly, the researchers themselves
can be biased and willing to find evidence to back a political
agenda1.

1 Parke, Mary. "Are Married Parents Really Better for

Children?".Center for Law And Social Policy. May 2003.
(accessed 2 August 2011).

Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination

against gay people.

POINT
Discrimination is the practice of treating people differently
based not on individual merit but on their membership to a
certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather
than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assumed
that they would all make bad parents because they are gay,
while straight couples are assessed based on their individual
merit. This breaches the fundamental right of all people to be
treated equally under the law and it should be stopped. This
principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights; article 1 "All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights."1 And also many other national and regional
legal texts (e.g. The US Constitution,2 The European Convention
on Human Rights).

1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration

of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)

2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States,

(accessed 2nd August 2011)

COUNTERPOINT
States place many restrictions on adoptions. China, for
example, does not permit adoptions by couples who are too
old, have disabilities or are obese1. It doesn't mean that there
is anything wrong with being overweight, old, or disabled. But
the Chinese authorities are trying to decrease the likelihood of
the adopted child losing a parent before the age of 18, which
for these kids can be especially traumatic. If the parents being
gay can be shown to be inherently harmful or less desirable for
a child than straight parents, then such a ban would not
constitute discrimination. It would be a decision based on a
relevant and valid criterion.

1 Belkin, Lisa. "An End to Gay-Adoption Bans?". New York

Times. 28 July 2010.(accessed 2 August 2011)
Gay people have the right to a family life.

POINT
Getting married and raising a family is considered in most
societies one of the most important and fulfilling experiences
one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human
right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
states "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life, his home and his correspondence."1) It is considered
so important for people to be able to become parents that
some governments (the UK, for example) fund fertility
treatments for couples who are reproductively challenged, and
a majority of the population supports that policy2. But
members of the LGBT community are stopped from pursuing
this human right by repressive and discriminatory laws.

1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human

Rights, 4th November 1950,( accessed 2nd August 2011)

2 Schwartz, John. "Florida Court Calls Ban on Gay Adoption

Unlawful". New York Times. 22 September 2010.(accessed 2
August 2011).

COUNTERPOINT
Just because the government will protect people's right to have
a family from outside interference, and will publicly fund the
treatment of a medical condition, such as infertility, it doesn't
mean the government has to give children to those who don't
or are unable to have any in order to protect their right to a
family life.

反对
Gender roles.

POINT
Children raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn
appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female
role-models. Although not an exact match single parents
provide a similar case where there has not been someone of
the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not
nearly as conclusive as is often claimed1 there have been many
studies that have shown that two parents from different
genders is beneficial to the child in its development2. Similarly
it is often claimed that boys develop negative attitudes to study
because there are very few male teachers in primary schools3.

1 Flood, Michael, Fatherhood and fatherlessness, The Australia

institute, Discussion Paper Number 59, (November 2003), p.xi ,
(accessed 2nd August 2011)

2 Sarkadi, Anna et al., 'Father's involvemen and children's

developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal
studies, ActaPaediatrica, 97 (2008) pp.153-158, p.155 (accessed
2nd August 2011)

3 Gerver, Richard, 'Lack of male role models a primary concern',

The Telegraph, 22nd March 2009, (accessed 2nd August 2011)

COUNTERPOINT
These kids won't be completely deprived of models from the
opposite sex to their parents'. They will still have contact with
grandparents, teachers, friends, etc. But even if they didn't,
why would the opposition just assume that gender roles are a
valuable thing to learn? Why would we want to teach children
to act and think differently based on being a boy or a girl?
Parents should help them develop as individuals, based on their
own interests and propensities.

The government's interest in protecting traditional families.

POINT
Numerous studies have shown that children do best when they
are raised by two married, biological parents1. In the case of
adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is
the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best
environment to raise children, the government has to
encourage and promote these traditional unions, not
undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become
parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and
society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted
already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their
difference, placing them in same-sex households will double
their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed
in an opposite-sex household.

1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human

Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)
COUNTERPOINT
These studies often confuse correlation and causation. The
reason why children do best in these unions is not because
there is some type of magical component to traditional
marriage. It is the quality of the relationship not the form of it
that benefits children. The government should encourage
people to be stable, committed, loving parents, regardless of
their marital status or gender. The stability of a relationship is
what causes children to thrive, and it is merely usually
correlated to heterosexual marriage, not produced by it. Also,
there are more children up for adoption than there are
opposite-sex couples willing to adopt, in this sort of a world it is
clearly better for children to get out of the foster care system
and into a loving home. Gay parents have also faced more
discrimination and exclusion than most straight parents, which
makes them especially able to help children who feel unwanted
or out of place in the world.

The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the

state.

POINT
The focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on
what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption
process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child,
not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being
raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best
environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who
are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with
substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the
state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that
environment.

COUNTERPOINT
Even if it were true, that the ideal environment for a child is a
mother and father, which studies show it isn't, that still
wouldn't justify a flat-out ban. Most governments still allow
single people to apply for adoption, and even single gay
people1. That is because there won't be an 'ideal' family
available for every child who needs a home. So other options
should be considered. After all, a child is better off with 'non-
ideal' parents than with no parents at all. With adoptions, there
is generally great demand for babies and toddlers, but older
children are generally unwanted2 and end up in foster care
until they're 18.

Proposition fails to tell us what studies they are referring to

which does leave the question open whether these studies
have taken into account other factors such as whether or not
the biological parents were drug users. The heritage left by the
biological parents needs to be remembered.

1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration

of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)

2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States,

(accessed 2nd August 2011)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Katz, David. "China Restricts Adoption Policies". ABC News. 21
Dec. 2006.(accessed 2 August 2011)

Jenkins, Julian. "Public Awareness of Infertility and Views on

Provision of NHS treatment".BioNews. 10 July 2003. (accessed 2
August 2011)

Belkin, Lisa. "An End to Gay-Adoption Bans?".New York Times.

28 July 2010. (accessed 2 August 2011)

Farr, Rachel; Forssell, Stephen; Patterson, Charlotte."Parenting

and Child Development in Adoptive Families. Does Parental
Sexual Orientation Matter?" Applied

Developmental Science.14(3). 2010. (accessed 2 August 2011)

Schwartz, John. "Florida Court Calls Ban on Gay Adoption

Unlawful".New York Times. 22 September 2010. (accessed 2
August 2011).

Carey, Benedict. "Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption

Issue".New York Times. 29 January 2005. (accessed 2 August
2011).

Wikipeida. "LGBT adoption status around the world". (accessed

2 August 2011).

Foster Care 1999 Statistics. Adoption.com. (accessed 2 August

2011).
Parke, Mary. "Are Married Parents Really Better for
Children?".Center for Law And Social Policy. May 2003.
(accessed 2 August 2011).

United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, , (accessed 2nd August 2011)

James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States,

(accessed 2nd August 2011)

Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights,

4th November 1950, ( accessed 2nd August 2011)

Gerver, Richard, 'Lack of male role models a primary concern',

The Telegraph, 22nd March 2009, (accessed 2nd August 2011)

Flood, Michael, Fatherhood and fatherlessness, The Australia

institute, Discussion Paper Number 59, (November 2003), p.xi,
(accessed 2nd August 2011)

Sarkadi, Anna et al., 'Father's involvemen and children's

developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal
studies, ActaPaediatrica, 97 (2008) pp.153-158, p.155 (accessed
2nd August 2011)

FURTHER READING
General:

LGBT Parenting. Wikipedia.

Proposition:

Family Equality Council.

Cooper, Leslie; Cates, Paul. Too High a Price. The Case Against
Restricting Gay Parenting. American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation NY. 2006.

Opposition:

Family Research Council.

Printer-friendly version Cite