Adoption laws vary widely from state to state. According to the Human Rights Campaign, laws vary from allowing adoption by gay couples, allowing gay individuals to adopt as a single parent, or straight out being banned. Currently, there are only two states that do not allow same sex couples to adopt--Utah and Mississippi (1). Parenting rights are usually made on a case-by-case basis, however there are no federal laws in place denying same sex couples to adopt. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, therefore an individuals sexual orientation should not be taken into account when dealing with adoption laws (2).
According to the Associated Press of CRUX in Montgomery, Alabama, A House Committee voted Wednesday for a bill that would allow private adoption agencies to turn away gay couples on religious grounds the House State Government Committee approved the bill Wednesday. It now moves to the House floor.The bill says groups could not be forced to participate in adoptions and foster care placements that violate their religious beliefs. It would prohibit the state from refusing to license, or contract with, agencies and children"s homes that refuse the services on religious grounds(AP, 2015). These religious backgrounds should be respected. This will only cause confusion for the child. To have a stability you have to have a father and mother in the child's life. A woman cannot teach or train a boy how to be a man, and a man cannot teach or train a girl how to be a woman. The two just do not mix.
Now that homosexuality and bisexuality are becoming more widely accepted, it is important to acknowledge that other issues tend to follow suit that don't necessarily follow the current law. Issues such as adoption are one of the most important to address since kids are such an important aspect of a person's life. When a same-sex couple gets married, and is recognized as such legally, they should be allowed to adopt children just like any other couple. We wouldn't tell a heterosexual couple that only one of them is allowed to adopt the child--they come as a parental unit and therefore should be seen as such. According to Beatrice Bourges, "To give same-sex couples the opportunity to adopt is discriminating against the child, because the mother or father is withheld deliberately. To decide that a child will have two fathers means that it will grow up without a mother. Is the hug of a father the same as that of a mother? I do not think so. Let"s face it: men and women are different and a child needs both" (1). Unfortunately this argument is discriminatory against so much more than just homosexual couples, it also speaks against single or divorced parents. The fact of the matter is that kids who are up for adoption have either been given up by their biological parents or have lost their parents, so why not give them a chance to be loved by two people rather than grow up thinking that they were not wanted. I wouldn't go as far to say that being able to adopt is a right, however I believe that same-sex couples should be given the same screening as other adoptive parents do regardless of their sexual orientation.
According to a article by David Hogberg the objection to gay marriage is that it represents a major change in family structure. It means, quite simply, that families will again expand beyond the traditional structure in which a family is headed by a man and a woman, to now include families being headed by two men or two women. This is potentially harmful for the children involved in gay adoption. There is the very real possibility that such children will develop emotional problems, sexual-identity confusion, and depression. Again, this is not because gays and lesbians are naturally bad parents. It is due to the fact that children are unlikely to adjust as well to being raised by same-sex couples as opposed to heterosexual ones. It is possible that the children involved in gay adoption would suffer no noticeable long-term negative effects. But it is not worth the risk. Given what we know about the results of one major change in family structure, our society should be, at the very least, reluctant to tolerate another one. The experience of single-parent families demonstrates that children are generally much better off in a household headed by a man and a woman. Since gay adoption deviates from that, it should be banned. It really amazing the everything this country once stood for everyone now wants to do the complete opposite.
What should be done in order to change adoption policies in the United States to included same-sex couples? While many states have already conformed to the norms of today's lifestyles, there are still some states (like Utah and Mississippi) who have outlawed homosexual couples from adopting. The best way to fix this is to make sure the screening process isn't gender biased. For example, it shouldn't matter if it is a heterosexual couple trying to apply or a homosexual couple. As long as the couple has a stable environment for the child and can pass the regular screening process they should be able to adopt children who are looking for a family. Many children nowadays don't even see the problem with having parents who are the same sex, as long as they feel like they are loved and cared for!
What should be done to change the law of adoption by same sex couple?
This Nation once stood for One Nation Under God. America has definitely fallen far away from that statement. If we were still living and operating under that statement there would never be a issue concerning same sex marriage or adoption because it would never happen. According to a CNN report Russia is in full effect of banning all same sex adoption and stated that it will not take place in their country. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has signed a decree banning foreign same-sex couples -- as well as single people from countries where same-sex marriages are legal -- from adopting Russian children. The move comes about a year after Russian lawmakers passed a bill banning adoptions to the United States. The move was widely seen as retaliation for a law the United States passed in 2012 on human rights abusers in Russia. It just goes to show that when you stand for what is right you will be criticized, that's why in order to promote change you have to set the law and stand behind it even if you have to stand alone.
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was ok from both. Spelling and grammar was ok from both sides. Only pro provided sources. The arguments were weak. Con didn't show *how* adoption is harmful as he claimed. He could have provided some studies. Pro mentioned that this subject is being more accepted, but that's not the reason it should be allowed. Pro brought some (but could have done more) examples where it infringers on their human rights. He could have argues the definition of the families. Pro wins for providing sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.