Introduction
The end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century are prominent in the evolution and empowerment of the LGBTQ movement. In the last several decades, the movement made great strides to promote human rights for members of the LGBTQ communities in many countries in the world, with the most prominent progress having been made in Western Europe and the USA (Reamer, 2013). One of the most socially polarizing issues regarding LGBTQ rights are the rights for the adoption of children, which are heavily opposed by various conservative, political, and religious groups. The majority of these groups are motivated by prejudice and opinions that homosexuals and homosexual couples are unnatural, ungodly, and inferior to heterosexual couples.
However, some of the opposition lies in the realm of sociological and scientific issues. According to these claims, homosexual couples provide a one-sided environment with a lack of proper role models and gender diversity, which affects the child’s perceptions of self and others, as well as modeling behavior. These claims deserve to be thoroughly investigated, as they offer insights on present and future challenges to social work.
The alternative, however, is the child remaining in an orphanage, which comes with its own set of social issues, such as a lack of attachment to parents, lack of family, lack of material support after 18, and various social disorders associated with orphanages. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the issue of gay and lesbian adoption through the prism of utilitarianism, determining how effective it is in relation to adoption by heterosexual couples, and compare the negative effects of homosexual adoption with negative effects of orphanage stay. It will help advance the field of social work by proposing utilitarian criteria for child adoption.
Theoretical Approach
The debates surrounding the issue of gay adoption usually utilizes religious and moral ethical frameworks to decide whether or not the child should be given to a same-sex family for adoption. The majority of them focus on the perceived moral image of the adults while usually keeping the interests of the child outside of the main argument. These kinds of scenarios are inherently flawed in that they do not treat the child as the main stakeholder in the situation. Therefore, this paper will use the child’s perspective as the main criteria for supporting or rejecting a particular premise.
Rights ethics would also have an influence on the debate about gay and lesbian adoption, as there are several rights that come into play: the right of the child to have parents as well as the right of a family to adopt children (Reamer, 2013). However, these points will not play an essential role in the discourse, as neither of these is essential rights, which are thus subject to the law of the land. In the majority of the world, gay and lesbian marriages do not hold any rights to adopting children.
Thus, the argument will be based solely on the perceived benefits for the child, be that material, emotional, or psychological benefits. This benefit analysis best fits utilitarian ethics (Reamer, 2013), which were first conceived and laid out by Jeremy Bentham in 1789. The following analysis will focus on the satisfaction and happiness of the child and ignore any potential backlashes/unhappiness levels in the rest of the society, as their approval or disapproval of the situation is not as relevant.
Literature Review
The main arguments offered by the opponents of gay and lesbian adoption based on the social and psychological perspective revolve around some of the following statements (Shireman, 2015):
- A child raised by homosexual parents is at greater risk of becoming gender-confused, especially when the child is of a different gender from their parents.
- Diversity is a greater stimulus to development when compared to equality.
- The child is at greater risk from parents practicing promiscuity.
- The child will not have any role models in regards to gender roles, contributing to wrong opinions and impressions of others.
These claims all point to a conclusion that the adoption of children by gay or lesbian couples would lead to various psychological and developmental issues. The amount of research on the matter is very small, some of the studies have reportedly been methodologically flawed (Shireman, 2015). Those that are not, however, provide contradicting results. For example, a study performed by Cameron and Cameron (2002) state that the offspring of homosexual couples have greater issues at adaptation when compared with heterosexual couples.
Namely, their research states that out of 213 issues of concern detected in children 94% were one way or another, related to homosexuality. The issues included confused gender, social, and sexual identities, sexual orientation, psychological and behavioral problems, personal narrative, moral judgment, delinquency, and substance abuse (Cameron & Cameron, 2002).
These findings are offset by more recent research performed by Patterson (2009), who found that children raised in homosexual homes do not show drastic differences in any of the aforementioned criteria. In addition, she points out that children raised in homosexual families are less likely to fall victim of domestic violence and sexual abuse, given that the majority of perpetrators are heterosexual males (Patterson, 2009). It is possible that the discrepancy in findings is motivated by outside conditions, rather than inside family factors. The society’s views on homosexuality have improved since 2002, which could have reflected positively on child development.
The research by Averett, Navalany, and Ryan (2009) supports Patterson’s findings, as its purpose was to directly compare the results of parenting outcomes in homosexual and heterosexual families with children between 5 to 18 years of age.
According to the results of the study, a child’s development was not internally or externally affected by their parents’ sexuality and was associated with other variables. The results regarding family income and family functioning were proven similar. In addition, Averett et al. (2009) claimed that risk factors for both families were roughly similar as well. These results indicate that differences and challenges in child development for both families do not depend on the sexual orientation of families as much as Vonholdt wanted to believe.
While the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of gay couples as parents and adoptive caregivers remains partially inconclusive, there is plenty of information regarding institutionalized orphans and their psychological issues. According to Bhat, Rahman, and Bhat (2015), over 13% of orphans are diagnosed as bipolar, and almost 7% have suicide tendencies, which is almost two times above the norm for this patient group.
The prevalence of other psychological irregularities, such as agoraphobia, depression, separation anxiety, social phobia, PTSD, and others, were also detected. These psychological conditions were associated with the prolonged stay in orphanages, competition, and conflicts among children, lack of attachment to adults providing care, and lack of parental figures. Bhat et al. (2015) state that only a small percentage of children manages to leave the orphanage without a long-term psychological problem.
Lastly, orphans have a plethora of socioeconomic issues ranging from quality of education to housing and employment due to lacking any familial financial backup. After they become of age and are released from orphanages, they are very likely to become homeless, unemployed, and engage in crime and delinquency (Gega, 2016). While governments tend to provide support to orphans who have come of age, it is often not enough to facilitate a decent standard of living.
To summarize these findings, there are some sources that indicate the presence of psychosocial disorders in children with gay or lesbian parents. They conflict with similar researchers performed 7 years later. The state of knowledge in this matter is relatively uncertain because gay and lesbian couples were allowed to adopt children relatively recently, therefore there is no large body of statistical data to rely on. The issues of orphans during and after their stay in the orphan houses, however, are well-known.
Orphans represent a very vulnerable segment of population, which is one of the primary concerns for social workers. In relation to the research question and the purpose of the study, it has been thus proven that there is no conclusive evidence about psychosocial deficiencies in children raised by gay or lesbian couples, there is no evidence of heterosexual parenting being superior to homosexual parenting. In addition, there is plenty of evidence of orphanage stays being associated with psychosocial and socioeconomic issues during all stages of development.
Professional Development
As it was already stated, adaptation and accommodation of orphaned children are one of the most complicated issues in social work. Orphans face numerous issues both inside and outside of the orphanage. They develop various phobias and psychological issues due to a lack of parental figures and a more cold and hostile environment of the orphanage and are later faced with issues in education, housing, and employment. In contrast, gay and lesbian couples prove to be equally decent adoptive parents as heterosexual couples are.
If we use utilitarian ethics to analyze the situation, it becomes clear that allowing homosexual couples to adopt children removes a large number of social issues mentioned above. Adoptive children are provided with a family environment, better education, familial resources, and as a result, higher chances of finding employment. Adverse effects, in some cases, include alleged gender confusion.
However, these issues do not have enough scientific evidence to support their widespread existence. Contributions of a functional family to a child’s happiness are enormous, whereas potential downsides are negligible at best. Therefore, the analysis concludes that homosexual adoption offers far more pros than cons on a utilitarian level.
This experience enriched my understanding of the issues surrounding gay and lesbian adoption in the USA as well as countries abroad. It has become clear to me that opposition to such motions is largely based on bias, prejudice, and outdated religious views. While as a social worker, I must ready to deal with any issues surrounding children in homosexual families, I will also wholeheartedly support the LGBTQ struggle to acquire adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples in other countries. This research enriched my knowledge about this group’s struggle to obtain basic human rights as well as informed me about various social issues surrounding orphans.
References
Averett, P., Nalavany, B., & Ryan, S. (2009). An evaluation of gay/lesbian and heterosexual adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 12(3-4), 129-151.
Bhat, A. A., Rahman, S., & Bhat, N. M. (2015). Mental health issues in institutionalized adolescent orphans. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(1), 2349-2429.
Cameron, P., & Cameron, K. (2002). Children of homosexual parents report childhood difficulties. Psychological Reports, 90(1), 71-82.
Gega, O. (2016). Challenges and difficulties of young orphans in Tirana in search of employment. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(2), 137-144.
Patterson, C. J. (2009). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy. American Psychologist, 64(8), 727-736.
Reamer, F. G. (2013). Social work values and ethics (4th ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Shireman, J. F. (2015). Critical issues in child welfare (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.