In Favor of Gay Adoption

This will be an argumentative essay. I'm in favor of gay adoption the argument would be with people that are against it. I MUST need you to use the 6 sources below, i wasn't able to link them all because is a school program but i copied and pasted the article expect the SIX which it has the link there. I will also need 2 other sources against gay adoption. Thank you for the help............................
*1.ARTICLE*
Title:Why Catholic church is against gay adoption 
Byline: Cardinal Keith O'Brien
Should gay and unmarried couples be allowed to adopt? The Scottish executive is in favour; but here Cardinal Keith O'Brien responds with a firm no
Four years ago the Scottish executive launched a review of the adoption system.
Last June an expert group produced a report containing more than 100 recommendations and suggestions for improvement. The majority are reasonable and sensible. Some, including proposals to allow joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, are highly questionable.
The executive supports the majority of the recommendations including those on unmarried and same-sex couples and has launched a consultation, inviting responses by October 31.
The proposals aimed at addressing and improving adoption will rightly be analysed by professionals, including Catholic adoption agencies, which will comment in detail. For most people, however, this will be another exercise by experts for experts.
There is no doubt that the current system fails to meet children's needs.
According to official figures, adoption applications in the past 20 years have fallen from 1,000 a year to less than 400, while 6,500 children are in the care of local authorities. Many are in care for long periods. Sadly these statistics highlight a growing insularity within our society and an unwillingness on the part of couples and families to look beyond their settled lives and ask "what can I give to society?"
Many answer the call to public-spirited action in other areas, as blood donors or members of children's panels.
Perhaps it is time to remind families of the enormous benefits they could provide for vulnerable children by adopting.
To Scotland's 250,000 Catholic families and the thousands of Catholic couples married in our churches every year I send a plea: consider sharing the love and stability that fills your homes with a child who has little or no experience of either.
To all Christians and people of goodwill I ask, consider these words from St Matthew's gospel: "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."
Accepting these words means acting to meet the needs of others, always remembering God's promise: "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me".
Were more families to consider adopting, there would be no need to widen the definition of suitable adopters. The proposal to extend joint adoption to unmarried and same-sex couples is at least in part based on the report group's view that it "could make a contribution to extending the potential pool of adoptive families".
I cannot understand this view. A mass of evidence attests to the instability of unmarried relationships and the chronic instability of same-sex partnerships, yet worryingly our "experts" ignore it.
Since unmarried couples have opted not to legally entrench their relationship in any recognisably permanent way, why assume that the entrenched permanence of adoption would appeal to them? Similarly, since less than 2% of the population is homosexual and a minority of this group are in "stable" relationships, very few might consider adopting.
It is difficult to see how the changes advocated can have any meaningful impact on "the potential pool of adoptive families".
Even if the proposed changes were to result in a greater number of couples considering adoption, careful consideration would have to be given to the implications of allowing them to adopt.
Unmarried and same-sex relationships can reasonably be described as existing on a sliding scale of instability. Only 7% of adults are in cohabiting relationships, while 60% go on to marry, 40% dissolve within 10 years, the median length of such relationships being three years. The instability inherent in homosexual relationships is even more marked.
In Norway and Sweden one study found that the rate of breakdown in same-sex relationships was far higher than in marriages. In Sweden, where the rate of divorce is already high, homosexual males were 1.5 times more likely to split up, while lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely to break up. This is to say nothing of the widely documented promiscuity which accompanies the homosexual lifestyle.
Ostensibly it is the "needs of children" that Scottish ministers claim are paramount. Accordingly, it is difficult to understand why anyone would consider placing children in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development and is gravely immoral.
We ignore a wealth of global evidence and place innumerable children in peril if we forget certain immutable human truths: children need a male and a female role model in a permanent relationship. Marriage alone at all times and in virtually all cultures can claim to have provided this. Ministers insist that nothing in these proposals undermines marriage, yet they advocate the removal of incentives to marriage such as the need for adoptive parents to be married.
Aside from the dangers of introducing children familiar with instability into situations likely to become unstable, they may also suffer long-term behavioural change.
Many studies have looked into the significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children, particularly the likelihood that these children may become involved in homosexual behaviour.
Patricia Morgan, a sociologist, has written the largest review of the research ever published in Europe. Her book, Children as Trophies, considers 144 academic papers including 50 on same-sex parenting. She concluded: "If public policy is based on clear research, there is no case for changing the adoption law to allow same-sex couples or unmarried couples to be able to adopt children."
A report for the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy concluded that the majority of studies in favour of same-sex parenthood betrayed an egregious lack of scientific rigour.
Among children raised by same-sex couples, a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, increased mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, sexually transmitted infections and homosexual behaviour was recorded.
It is interesting to note that in Denmark, which has had same-sex civil partnerships for 16 years, homosexual couples are not allowed to adopt. In Sweden only a limited entitlement to adopt exists, where one of the same-sex partners is the birth parent, while France and Germany do not give homosexuals adoption rights.
The executive's document accepts "there are no reliable studies of same-sex adoption". Most are concerned with same-sex parenting of children born in heterosexual relationships that have broken down and "do not point to any consensus".
The document concedes that "the studies do seem to indicate some differences in the behaviour and attitudes of children raised in families headed by gays and lesbians". Yet it concludes by asserting, "there is no strong evidence which suggests that gays and lesbians should be excluded from consideration for adoption". This is a staggeringly untenable conclusion.
If, as the report acknowledges, the available research is inconclusive, a cautionary approach would be wise.
Scotland's adopted children must not become guinea pigs in some distorted social experiment aimed at redefining marriage, subverting the family and threatening the good of society.
Denying them the benefits of a mother and a father in a committed marriage will cause great harm to a weak and vulnerable minority we should strive to protect.
CITATION:
"Why Catholic church is against gay adoption." Sunday Times [London, England] 4 Sept. 2005: 2. Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Apr. 2015...................................
*2.Article*
Title: Colombia grants gay couples adoption rights
Colombia has taken a major step in recognising the rights of same-sex couples, after the country's leading court granted limited adoption rights to gay and lesbian couples.
The Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday that a lesbian woman,could adopt her long-time partner's daughter, since the child in question was the biological child of one of the two partners.
The court said Ana Leiderman, who underwent artificial insemination to conceive her daughter, and raised her with Veronica Botero, had the right to request an adoption by her partner regardless of sex.
The Colombian Family Well-being Institute had earlier rejected Botero's adoption application.
"The court considered that the discriminatory criterion the administrative authority had used to deny the adoption procedure ... was unacceptable in this case, which involves a consensual adoption in which the biological father or mother consents to an adoption by his or her permanent partner," magistrate Luis Ernesto Vargas said.
However, the ruling does not not allow gay couples to adopt if neither person is the child's biological parent, and even couples covered by the ruling will have to meet certain conditions, such as having lived together for at least two years.
But legal experts said it could indicate a willingness by the high court to extend adoption rights to all same-sex couples, and sets a precedent for all similar cases in the South American country.
The verdict comes after a number of gay-friendly rulings in Colombia and other parts of Latin America.
The decison also comes on the heels of Cecilia Alvarez, the commerce minister, speaking publicly about her lesbian relationship with fellow cabinet member Gina Parody.
During an interview on local radio station RCN, Alvarez dismissed a question on the implications of having a lesbian couple in President Juan Manuel Santos's government.
"I give thanks to the president because he has never, ever gotten involved in personal issues. Instead he has seen our professional qualities," Alvarez said.
CITATION: "Colombia grants gay couples adoption rights." Al Jazeera America 29 Aug. 2014. Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.......................................
*3.ARTICLE*
TITLE: More happy families
When Julian Sanchez outlined "the looming battle over gay parenting" ("All Happy Families," August/ September 2005), his prime example was Florida, the only state with an explicit, uniform rule against adoptions by homosexuals. As of October, when Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said he would not challenge a state appeals court decision overturning the ban, the law was officially a thing of the past.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
The month before, Florida's
3rd District Court of Appeal had agreed with Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman that discriminating against adoptive parents based on their sexual orientation violates the state constitution's guarantee of equality before the law. The court found that the gay adoption ban could not satisfy even the highly deferential "rational basis" test because it was not "based on a real difference which is reasonably related to the subject and purpose of the regulation."
Under Florida law, the court noted, "homosexual persons are allowed to serve as foster parents or guardians but are barred from being considered for adoptive parents. All other persons are eligible to be considered case-by-case to be adoptive parents, but not homosexual persons--even where, as here, the adoptive parent is a fit parent and the adoption is in the best interest of the children."
The case, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, involved two brothers, currently 6 and 10, who have been raised by Martin Gill and his partner in North Miami since 2004, when the boys were removed from their home because of neglect and placed in foster care. As the appeals court noted, "all parties agree ... that [Gill] is a fit parent and that the adoption is in the best interest of the children." Furthermore, "the parties agree 'that gay people and heterosexuals make equally good parents.'"
In light of these concessions, the court found the testimony of the state's expert witnesses, only one of whom actually supported barring gay people from adopting, inadequate to establish a rational basis for the law.
Since Sanchez's article appeared, the fight against unequal adoption laws also has made progress in Colorado, Delaware, and the District of Columbia, which have enacted legislation making adoption easier for gay applicants. By contrast, a 2007 Utah law gives preference to married heterosexual couples as foster parents, and a 2008 Arkansas ballot initiative, deemed unconstitutional by a state judge last April, bars "unmarried individuals in cohabiting relationships" from becoming foster or adoptive parents.
Sullum, Jacob
CITATION: Sullum, Jacob. "More happy families." Reason Feb. 2011: 18. Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Apr. 2015................................................
*4.ARTICLE*:
TITLE: Victory for families
A state appeals court in Florida toppled a monument to bigotry last week, declaring unconstitutional a 33-year-old state law that prohibited gay people from adopting children. The animus behind the ban is unmistakable. Its sponsor in the Florida State Senate, Curtis Peterson, declared in 1977 that its purpose was to send a message to the gay community that ''we're really tired of you'' and ''we wish you'd go back into the closet.''
The unanimous decision by three judges on Florida's Third District Court of Appeal -- Republican appointees -- found ''no rational basis'' to the state's approach of banning adoption by gay men and lesbians while allowing them to be foster parents. The court said it violated the State Constitution's equal protection clause.
The case was brought by Martin Gill, a gay man seeking to adopt two brothers he took in as foster children more than five years ago. When they arrived, at ages 4 years and 4 months, they were in bad shape. Both had ringworm; the younger brother also had a raging ear infection while the older one did not speak for a month. Today both boys are thriving.
Mr. Gill's side provided extensive evidence at trial to show there is no difference in the well-being of children raised by loving gay parents versus loving heterosexual parents. Reviewing that evidence, as well as Mr. Gill's efforts, the appeals court agreed, and praised Mr. Gill for being ''an exceptional parent.''
The state had nothing credible to offer to justify the adoption ban. It presented only two expert witnesses, noted Judge Gerald Cope Jr., who wrote the main opinion. One witness undercut the state's case by saying adoption decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. Opposing experts quickly discredited the state's second witness, Dr. George Rekers, a Baptist minister and clinical psychologist (subsequently caught up in a sex scandal) whose pseudo-scientific research was laughable.
The court's decision is a victory for Mr. Gill and his family and for many hundreds of foster children in Florida in need of a good home. In recent months, there have also been several major federal court rulings voiding other discriminatory laws against gay people on equality grounds. That is heartening progress.
CITATION: "Victory for families." New York Times 27 Sept. 2010: A22(L). Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Apr. 2015...............................................
*5.ARTICLE*
TITLE: Adoption Advice for Gay and Lesbian Employees
Byline: David W. Hanson
The decision to have children can be made in so many different ways: traditional two-parent conception, surrogacy, foster care, adoption. And the types of adoption are varied, too. For many gay and lesbian employees in academe, adoption is a commonly chosen course.
Over the past month, I interviewed several gay and lesbian professors and staff members about the adoption process. Some are in the midst of it. Some have been through it. And some, like me and my partner, have decided to forgo adoption for a mix of personal and professional reasons. (We had a surrogacy agreement with a birth mother several years ago that didn't work out.)
The people I interviewed told emotional stories and offered candid advice, but they also offered hope. Some issues in adoption are specific to gay and lesbian adoptive parents (single and couples), but our conversations made clear that institutions can easily develop programs -- without significant cost -- to assist all employees through the adoption process. Those institutions that make the effort will attain an advantage in the hiring and retention market, as well.
An abundance of advice is available about what to expect in the adoption process -- before, during, and after -- but little of it is organized in ways that deal with the issues specific to gay and lesbian parents. So my first piece of advice for prospective parents is to take the time to do a lot of research, and don't be afraid to ask any questions. Factors to consider:
Legal issues. The legal landscape for gays and lesbians pursuing adoption varies considerably by state and even at times by county. For example, Florida law bars "homosexuals" from adoption, and Utah law disallows unmarried, cohabitating couples from petitioning to adopt, thus preventing gay and lesbian partners in a relationship that is not a legal marriage from adopting. Other states are far more liberal and progressive.
In some states, such as Georgia, the chances of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people adopting may depend, in part, on the county of residence. Georgia law does not specifically permit same-sex couples to adopt jointly or prevent them from doing so, and no statewide court has held one way or another, leaving it up to the lower courts (by county) to grant or deny adoption petitions.
Two of the gay and lesbian adoptive parents I met (one single mother and the other in a partnership) admitted that they relocated to a different county where gay adoption was more likely to be granted. The single mother said that because she lives in Georgia, it was important to "get the right judge" and on "the right docket" and know which lawyers to hire so she would not have to "hide her gayness."
The legal issues are not confined to the adoption process. For instance, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act allows a parent to take time off to care for a child, but if a state does not grant second-parent adoption or recognize parental rights, then a same-sex partner may not be a "legal" parent under state law to take advantage of FMLA leave after the baby arrives or if the child falls ill.
Understanding the legal environment on a state and county level took tremendous effort for some of these parents. The single mom suggested that her institution could have provided helpful information on a Web site or could have created an e-mail discussion group for gay and lesbian adoptive parents.
Financial issues. No question, the cost of raising a child in our country is significant. But gay and lesbian parents may face particular financial issues -- especially single gay parents who want to adopt. For example, a single parent must provide a "single-income analysis" to adoption agencies or officials in certain foreign countries, and the scrutiny may be higher for gay and lesbian single people seeking to adopt.
International and cultural bias. Interviewing those who have progressed all the way through the adoption process was informative, especially concerning the bias that older gay and lesbian parents may face. They may be slated for "nonprime" children, and certain countries may specifically refuse to allow them to adopt at all. Interestingly, many foreign adoptions are most successful when managed by Christian-based organizations. Those groups tend to be reputable, but more than one person I interviewed said that some of them will not represent gay and lesbian singles or couples in foreign adoptions.
Human resources. Consistently high on the wish list of people I interviewed was for their institution's human-resources office to assign a staff member to serve as an "ombudsman" on adoption issues for gay and lesbian employees. Some suggested hiring an expert in the adoption process to serve all faculty and staff members, while others simply suggested that a staff member be assigned the job of starting an e-mail discussion group on adoption and keeping a list of resources and contacts.
Others recommended that someone in human resources be intimately familiar with state laws and "know how to work around them." One faculty member suggested that it would be helpful for someone at the institution to provide information about local neighborhoods, including the best locations friendly to families with gay and lesbian parents. Many suggested that colleges develop an adoption guide with a section about issues that could affect gay and lesbian employees differently than other adoptive parents. It would help, for example, if the human-resources office could provide a list of reputable adoption agencies that do not discriminate.
Employee-assistance offices. One recommendation I heard that some colleges are already doing is to build an adoption "community" through their employee-assistance office. Those who are adopting need to understand the before, during, and after of bringing a child into their lives and, if the adoption is cross-cultural or cross-racial, they need to understand what to expect in their academic and geographic communities.
Campus benefits. When asked what institutional benefits would be most helpful to gay and lesbian adoptive parents, the list of expectations included many common-sense ideas that would be equally appropriate for straight parents: on-campus child care, health benefits, adoption counseling.
But some ideas were specific to the gay and lesbian parents, such as creating an institutional-climate survey with questions about campus perceptions of gay and lesbian parents and families. If a campus is progressive and accepting, that survey will provide data to validate the environment, but the data could also reveal gaps where additional training and programming could be helpful.
One interviewee suggested offering programs on "how to make parenting easier" for all parents, but having breakout sessions for gay and lesbian parents to talk about issues pertinent to their children's lives, including how to handle anti-gay discrimination.
More than anything, gay and lesbian employees I interviewed wanted a way to connect with other adoptive or prospective parents via programming and communications sponsored by their college or university. Finding "others in the system who will know our reality" is often the biggest help of all.
Faculty versus staff members. A lesbian couple -- one a tenure-track faculty member and the other a staff member -- agreed during an interview that while both jobs are all consuming, the faculty member is up against a tenure clock, and adoption for her could have an early-career impact. Many institutions extend the tenure clock for adoptive parents.
The couple said the faculty member's department is particularly progressive with gay and lesbian parents, but that was not necessarily the case across the campus.
The couple noted that higher education is a "bubble" for many people -- more progressive toward gays and lesbians than other sectors of society. But within academe, a hierarchy exists among faculty and staff members that can present positive and negatives when it comes to adoption and child rearing.
For instance, professors tend to have more flexible schedules than staff members and may be able to be at home with a child more easily.
On the other hand, staff members don't face publish-or-perish pressures or a looming tenure vote, so their jobs may, in some ways, be more stable. This couple suggested it would be helpful for institutions to have counseling for couples in faculty/staff relationships.
Getting good local advice. The Internet provides abundant resources for those seeking to adopt. The problem for future adoptive parents is that there may be too much information available and it is not always clear if it's reputable or accurate. To fully understand what lies ahead, your best bet is to connect with other gay and lesbian adoptive parents and talk about the many challenges and ways to surmount them. Institutions can be helpful by providing a simple Web page where people can "opt in" to a community of similarly situated employees.
While an ombuds officer with expertise and understanding about the many legal and financial issues of adoption would be ideal for all university employees, the best advice I heard was for institutions to simply create a platform, formally on the Web or informally, in which support among adoptive parents can build and grow.
By David W. Hanson
CITATION: Hanson, David W. "Adoption Advice for Gay and Lesbian Employees." The Chronicle of Higher Education56.29 (2010). Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.....................................................
*6.ARTICLE*
http://www(dot)nytimes(dot)com/2001/09/08/opinion/is-no-adoption-really-better-than-a-gay-adoption.html
CITATION: Savage, Dan. "Is no adoption really better than a gay adoption?" New York Times 8 Sept. 2001: A2.Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.