Twizzlers, Twitter, and Televison

From birth until adulthood all children have the basic human right to a loving, nurturing, and permanent family. Yet their circumstances do not always offer them such positive life. Imagine a child living in foster care waiting for weeks, months, even years waiting for a couple to adopt them and genuinely care for them. Sometimes, that couple finally arrives only to turn out to be abusive parents. Along the way, the child becomes a victim of molestation, exploitation, and fear. Eventually he ends up back in foster care and the cycle repeats. Finally after a long journey of heartbreak and loneliness a stable family does come for the child. These two people want to give the child a home, and they have all the means to properly do so: they have secure well-paying jobs, a stable home environment, no criminal records, and all the love this child deserves. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, these “picture perfect” parents are deemed to be improperly fit to care for this child. Why, you may ask, is this child once again at a loss for the opportunity to be raised in an exceptional family: Because the loving parents are two men.

In the past few decades, homosexuality has become more widely accepted and integrated into society. However, when it comes to child rearing a problem is posed:  Would homosexual parents really be in the best interest of the child? On one side of the debate certain United States citizens believe that homosexual adoption should be legal nationally.  While on the contrary, some people believe that it should be banned everywhere or in particular states. I believe that legislation that prevents discrimination against same-sex adoptive parents should be enacted on a federal level.

While there are many logical reasons why gays should be able to adopt children, logic seems to fall short in certain legislatures. According to the 2011 report issued by the National Center for Lesbian Rights there are currently 18 states that allow same-sex couples to adopt. States like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Colorado allow homosexual couples to adopt children either through a domestic partner adoption, a civil union, or a second parent adoption in which one person is the immediate parent, while the other is the second guardian.¹ It seems quite surprising that in a country based on equality for all people, 32 states contain inviduals who are still highly irrational and hateful in their beliefs. The question that seems to arise is how these opponents of gay adoption  justify their unwillingness to accept an action that appears so selfless. Following, are the three most common places associated with opponents of gay adoption rights’ beliefs, as well as arguments rebbuting the principels stated in their points.

Children Need a Male and Female Role Model

Some anti-gay adoption supporters believe that every child needs a motherly and fatherly figure in their life. They argue that when a child does not get to see how a man and women fit together from an early age, they never get the chance to know how a “normal” family works. By these standards, they argue that this type of household is what nature intended and same-sex adoption is no more than a social experiment. Essentially, no matter how much culture pushes to normalize homosexuality it will always go against the real social norms imbedded in our socierty. ²

These people are firm believers in developmental psychologist Erik Erikson’s theory of the distinction between maternal and paternal love. Erikson explained that fathers love more dangerously because their love is more instrumental than a mother’s natural love. A father brings unique contributions to the job of parenting a child that no one else can replicate.³ Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School explains that by 8 weeks of age infants can tell the difference between a male and a female interacting with them and this distinction clearly grows with age. In his work Pruett describes that fathers push limits, while mothers encourage sincerity. Either of these parenting styles by themselves can be unhealthy. A father’s style alone encourages taking risks without consideration of consequences which can be quite harmful to a child. On the other hand, a mother’s style tends to avoid risk completely which can fail to build independence, confidence, and progress. When they are joined together the diverse parenting styles tend to keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their confidence and promoting their abilities.⁴

While these types of arguments are quite convincing, I argue that Pruett is explaining an ideal mother-father stereotype. Sometimes a mother can be much colder than a father , and the thus their roles are somewhat reversed. There have been many stories in which mothers sexually abuse their children with the fathers having no idea. I would consider such actions to be quite harmful, and may cause their children to follow in the same reckless behavior. On the other hand, Pruett’s theory does not justify why single mothers and fathers are able to successfully raise brilliant children. Research shows, that single parents are equally as successful at raising children. A study done at Ohio State University compared a sample of 456 15 and 16 year olds who lived in single father households with 2,583 teens who lived in single mother households. The results suggested that researchers should rethink their assumption that the sex of a parent plays a critical role in the development of children. They showed that the two groups shared similarity in terms of deviance, behavior at school, relationships with others, and school performance. While there was no correlation between sex of a parent and proper development of a child, there was indeed a connection between a parent’s education and organization and a child’s performance. ⁵

So, to come back to the question, while a two sex parental environment is considered the “norm” for proper child rearing is it really the best option? Personally, I believe instead of trying to succumb to such a stereotype based society, people as a whole need to start seeing the big picture. Two homosexual parents who are stable and provide an excellent growing environment outweigh two parents whom are constantly fighting and who do not pay enough attention to their child. According to provisional data from the Census Bureau, in the states that recognize or perform gay marriages the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages, while in states where it is still illegal 50.3 percent of all marriages ended in divorce.⁶ Although our society has drastically progressed, lately, we have become too static. While we are willing to take a few steps in the right direction, we are still fearful of leaping a mile at a time.

Children Should Not Be Victims to Prejudice

In the past four decades, United States citizens as a whole have grown to be overall more accepting of homosexual relationships. Then, I ask, why are people still considering same-sex homes as types of social experiment? These types of close minded people are firm believers that these environments are simply ways that homosexuals can fulfill their adult wishes to parent without regarding the effects it has on their child. ⁷ In our modern society, bullying is quite prominent. Although many children’s moral foundation is based on treating others with respect and under no circumstances teasing them, when it comes to such controversial issues, these children often abandon their prior teachings. Children can be cruel, and especially  so to other children whose lives are unusual in some way. Non-gay adoption supporters  believe that as early as grade school, children that are adopted by homosexual parents will face struggles much greater than simple arithmetic.   If these children are being bullied because of their home-life situation,  they may grow weak and unhappy. Children often feel unworthy when they find out that they have been adopted. They often feel as though something is wrong with them because their biological parents give them up.  And so being teased about their new, loving parents will cause children even greater emotional instability and make them feel unwelcome in a “safe” school environment.

While many people agree that children of gay men and lesbians are vulnerable to teasing and  harassment the question that arises is whether this behavior is likely to cause lasting psychological damage. In custody cases involving gay or lesbian parents, courts have considered the fact that a child might be teased as  reasoning to reject the adoption in the  best interests of the child. They argue that the stigma attached to having a gay or lesbian parent will damage a child’s self-esteem.⁸ Recently this has been refuted in many studies. Researchers have  found that although children with homosexual parents do report experiencing teasing because of their home life, their self-esteem levels are no lower than those of children with heterosexual parents. ^In Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.⁹

Psychologists also argue that same sex couples should be given a chance to build a home. They believe they may be more prepared to handle any discrimination their children might face compared to heterosexual parents. Abby Ruder is a therapist, lesbian, and adoptive mother who acknowledges that children will be teased. But Yet she   believes that gay and lesbian couples are well aware of the difficulties that a child may face because they have been facing them for most of their lives. Ruder takes great measures to prepare her homosexual clients for some of the problems their children will deal with. She believes that families need to have a plan for dealing with society’s attitudes towards them. She states, “Children with gay or lesbian parents need to be taught when it’s okay to tell people and when not to. A family doesn’t have to be ‘out’ all of the time. My 9-year-old … has become very adept at knowing when to tell people that she has two mommies.”⁸

In modern society, same-sex couples have endless amounts of resources available to them which can help them and their kids  feel comfortable. These include psychologists, support groups, and special interest groups fighting for their rights. Even though these adopted children will possibly  face bullying among their peers, homosexual parents can be  prepared to help them deal with their  child’s discomfort. Additionally, by having to face consistent discrimination, these children will eventually grow somewhat immune to the harsh comments and build up a stronger backbone. In the long run, they will be more self –confident and will be more likely to disregard other people’s negative opinions.

Government Values are based on Traditional Christian Beliefs

In general, the current United States government is based off of religious beliefs and biblical teachings. We are considered a ‘Christian’ country, and  even if few go to church Christian values remain.¹⁰ According to the American Religious Identification Survey, 76% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.¹¹ Many of these Christians follow the holy book very strictly. Therefore, because of certain passages in the Bible, many Americans believe that same-sex adoption is a sin. Leviticus 20:13 states “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. There bloodguiltness is upon them.” In this type of Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination. They believe that God made man and woman with the intention of them getting married to each other and eventually producing children. Because of this, Christians believe that homosexuality is simply a perversion, not a life choice. Therefore, in short, homosexual partners should not be able to adopt because they would be raising their children in a sinful environment. ¹⁰

Although many of Christ’s followers interpret the Bible exactly how it was written, they often fail to notice their own hypocritical nature. We, as United States citizens, pride ourselves on equality and freedom of expression. Sincerely, we like to believe that our foundation agrees with Romans 2:11 which says, “For one man is not different from another before God.” ¹² In addition, we see ourselves as the melting pot of world culture. And considering all these commendable principles that our nation stands for it seems quite ironic that when it comes to adoption by same-sex couples many of us refute our former beliefs. Essentially, while we preach for the equality of all men, many of us unanimously discriminate against those who are unique. It is time that these traditionalists stop following such Christian “ideals,” and begin trying to open up their minds on such topics. Via the first amendment same-sex couples have the human right to express themselves, thus it is unlawful to ban their right to adopt.

the topic of adoption by same-sex partners is quite controversial, although it is evident that many of the cons associated with the debate are products of bias. Due to the progressiveness of our society, I believe it is appropriate to take this topic of discussion to the federal level. While a number of states have already passed laws allowing homosexual couples to adopt, the time has come to expand the argument. legislation to prevent discrimination against same-sex adoptive parents must be addresed in the 2014 legistlatuire . Unfortunately, with such an aggressive approach come two major questions: How would the government be capable of implementing such a policy? How can public opinion on a grand scale be changed?

Basis of Legislation

As previously stated, the First Amendment of the Constitution allows for the freedom of expression of all people. Therefore, it is safe to say that homosexuals should be granted this same right. It is completely unfair that other citizens are responsible for the unhappiness of these same-sex couples, not to mention unconstitutional.

From birth until adulthood all children have the basic human right to a loving, nurturing, and permanent family. Yet, their circumstances do not always offer them such blissful living. Imagine a child living in foster care waiting for weeks, months, even years for a couple to adopt him and genuinely care for him. Sometimes, that couple finally arrives only to turn out to be abusive parents. Along the way, the child becomes a victim to molestation, exploitation, and internal fear. Eventually, he ends up back in foster care and the cycle often repeats. Then, finally after a long journey of heartbreak and loneliness, a stable family does come for him. These two people want to give him a home, and they have all the means to properly do so: they have secure well-paying jobs, a stable home environment, no criminal records, and all the love this child deserves. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, these “picture perfect” parents are deemed to be improperly fit to care for this boy. Why, you may ask, is this child once again at a loss for the opportunity to be raised in an exceptional family? Well, because the loving parents are two men.

In the past few decades, homosexuality has become more widely accepted and integrated into society. However, when it comes to child rearing, a problem is posed:  Would homosexual parents really be in the best interest of the child? On one side of the debate, certain United States citizens believe that homosexual adoption should be legal nationally, while on the contrary, some people believe that it should be banned everywhere or in particular states. Personally, I believe that legislation that prevents discrimination against same-sex adoptive parents should be enacted on a federal level.

While there are many logical reasons why gays should be able to adopt children, they seem to fall short in certain legislatures. According to the 2011 report issued by the National Center for Lesbian Rights there are currently 18 states that allow same-sex couples to adopt. For instance, states like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Colorado allow homosexual couples to adopt children either through a domestic partner adoption, a civil union, or a second parent adoption in which one person is the immediate parent, while the other is the second guardian.¹ It seems quite surprising that in a country based on extreme progress, overall freedom, and equality for all people, 32 states contain people who are still highly traditional in their beliefs. The question that seems to arise is how these traditionalists justify their unwillingness to accept an action that appears so selfless. Following, are the three most common places associated with these traditionalists’ beliefs, as well as arguments retracting the notions stated in their points.

Children Need a Male and Female Role Model

Traditionalists believe that every child needs a motherly and fatherly figure in their life. They argue that when a child does not get to see how a man and women fit together from an early age, they never get the chance to know how a “normal” family works. By these standards, they argue that this type of household is what nature intended and same-sex adoption is no more than a social experiment. Essentially, no matter how much the media pushes to normalize homosexuality it will always go against the real social norms imbedded in our culture. ²

These people are firm believers in developmental psychologist Erik Erikson’s theory of the distinction between maternal and paternal love. Erikson explained that fathers love more dangerously because their love is more instrumental than a mother’s natural love. A father brings unique contributions to the job of parenting a child that no one else can replicate.³ Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School explains that by 8 weeks of age infants can tell the difference between a male and a female interacting with them and this distinction clearly grows with age. Additionally, he describes that fathers push limits, while mothers encourage sincerity. Either of these parenting styles by themselves can be unhealthy. A father’s style alone encourages taking risks without consideration of consequences which can be quite harmful to a child. On the other hand, a mother’s style tends to avoid risk completely which can fail to build independence, confidence, and progress. When they are joined together the diverse parenting styles tend to keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their confidence and promoting their abilities.⁴

While these types of arguments are quite convincing, I’d argue that Pruett is explaining an ideal mother-father stereotype. Regardless to popular belief, often times a mother can be much colder than a father and the roles are somewhat reversed. There have been many stories in which mothers sexually abuse their children with the fathers having no idea. I would consider such actions to be quite harmful often causing the children to follow in the same reckless behavior. On the other hand, Pruett’s theory does not justify why single mothers and fathers are able to successfully raise brilliant children. Research shows, that single parents are equally as successful at raising children. A study done at Ohio State University compared a sample of 456 15 and 16 year olds who lived in single father households with 2,583 teens who lived in single mother households. The results suggested that researchers should rethink their assumption that the sex of a parent plays a critical role in the development of children. They showed that the two groups shared similarity in terms of deviance, behavior at school, relationships with others, and school performance. While there was no correlation between sex of a parent and proper development of a child, there was indeed a connection between a parent’s education and organization and a child’s performance. ⁵

So, to come back to the question, while a two sex parental environment is considered the “norm” for proper child rearing is it really the best option? Personally, I believe instead of trying to succumb to such a stereotype based society, people as a whole need to start seeing the big picture. Two homosexual parents who are stable and provide an excellent growing environment outweigh two parents whom are constantly fighting and who do not pay enough attention to their child. According to provisional data from the Census Bureau, in the states that recognize or perform gay marriages the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages, while in states where it is still illegal 50.3 percent of all marriages ended in divorce.⁶ Although our society has drastically progressed, lately, we have become too static. While we are willing to take a few steps in the right direction, we are still fearful of leaping a mile at a time.

Children Should Not Be Victims to Prejudice

In the past four decades, United States citizens as a whole have grown to be overall more accepting of homosexual relationships. Then, I ask, why are people still considering same-sex homes as types of social experiment? These types of close minded people are firm believers that these environments are simply ways that homosexuals can fulfill their adult wishes to parent without regarding the effects it has on their child. ⁷ In our modern society, bullying is quite prominent. Although many children’s moral foundation is based on treating others with respect and under no circumstances teasing them, when it comes to such controversial issues, these children often abandon their prior teachings. Children can be cruel, especially to other children whose lives are unusual in some way. Traditionalists believe that as early as grade school, children that are adopted by homosexual parents will face struggles much greater than simple arithmetic.  By being bullied because of their home-life situation, these types of children will grow weak and unhappy. To start, children often feel unworthy when they find out that they have been adopted. They often feel as though something is wrong with them because their biological parents give them up. To add to that, being teased about their new, loving parents will cause children even greater emotional instability and make them feel unwelcome in a “safe” school environment.

While many people agree that children of gay men and lesbians are vulnerable to teasing and such harassment the question that arises is whether this behavior is likely to cause lasting psychological damage. In custody cases involving gay or lesbian parents, courts have considered the fact that a child might be teased as contrary to the best interests of the child. They argue that the stigma attached to having a gay or lesbian parent will damage a child’s self-esteem.⁸ Recently, this has been refuted in many studies. Research has found that although children with homosexual parents do report experiencing teasing because of their home life, their self-esteem levels are no lower than those of children with heterosexual parents.Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.⁹

Psychologists also argue that same sex couples should be given a chance to build a home. They believe they may be more prepared to handle any discrimination their children might face compared to heterosexual parents. Abby Ruder, a therapist, lesbian, and adoptive mother who acknowledges that children will be teased, believes that gay and lesbian couples are well aware of the difficulties that a child may face because they have been facing them for most of their lives. Ruder takes great measures to prepare her homosexual clients for some of the problems their children will deal with. She believes that families need to have a plan for dealing with society’s attitudes towards them. She states, “Children with gay or lesbian parents need to be taught when it’s okay to tell people and when not to. A family doesn’t have to be ‘out’ all of the time. My 9-year-old … has become very adept at knowing when to tell people that she has two mommies.”⁸

In current day society, same-sex couples have endless amounts of resources available to them which can help both them and their children feel comfortable. These include psychologists, support groups, and special interest groups fighting for their rights. Even though these adopted children will most likely face bullying among their peers, homosexual parents are prepared to help them deal with their discomfort. Additionally, by having to face consistent discrimination, these children will eventually grow somewhat immune to the harsh comments and build up a stronger backbone. In the long run, they will be more self –confident and will be more likely to disregard other people’s negative opinions.

Government Values are based on Traditional Christian Beliefs

In general, the current United States government is based off of religious beliefs and biblical teachings. We are considered a ‘Christian’ country-even if few go to church their values remain.¹⁰ According to the American Religious Identification Survey, 76% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.¹¹ Many of these Christians follow the holy book very strictly. Therefore, because of certain passages in the Bible, many Americans believe that same-sex adoption is a sin. Leviticus 20:13 states “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. There bloodguiltness is upon them.” In this type of Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination. They believe that God made man and woman with the intention of them getting married to each other and eventually producing children. Because of this, Christians believe that homosexuality is simply a perversion, not a life choice. Therefore, in short, homosexual partners should not be able to adopt because they would be raising their children in a sinful environment. ¹⁰

Although many of Christ’s followers interpret the Bible exactly how it was written, they often fail to notice their own hypocritical nature. We, as United States citizens, pride ourselves on equality and freedom of expression. Sincerely, we like to believe that our foundation agrees with Romans 2:11 which says, “For one man is not different from another before God.” ¹² In addition, we see ourselves as the melting pot of the world- our country contains a diverse group of people living together in harmony, or so we like to say. By considering all these commendable principles that our nation stands for it seems quite ironic that when it comes to adoption by same-sex couples many of us refute our former beliefs. Essentially, while we preach for the equality of all men, many of us unanimously discriminate against those who are unique. It has come time that these traditionalists stop following such Christian “ideals,” and begin trying to open up their minds on such topics. By the first amendment same-sex couples have the human right to express themselves; therefore, it is unlawful to ban their right to adopt.

As a whole, the topic of adoption by same-sex partners seems to be quite controversial, though it is evident that many of the cons associated with the debate are products of bias. Due to the progressiveness of our society, I believe it is appropriate to take this topic of discussion to the federal level. While a number of states have already passed laws allowing homosexual couples to adopt, the time has come to expand the argument. With the approach of 2014, legislation to prevent discrimination against same-sex adoptive parents must be issued. Unfortunately, with such an aggressive approach come two major questions: How would the government be capable of implementing such a policy? How can public opinion on a grand scale be changed?

Basis of Legislation

As previously stated, the First Amendment of the Constitution allows for the freedom of expression of all people. Therefore, it is safe to say that homosexuals should be granted this same right. It is completely unfair that other citizens are responsible for the unhappiness of these same-sex couples, not to mention definitely unconstitutional.

I haven’t exactly had the chance to get started on my essay, because this week sucks, but I’ve been able to research a little bit and find some websites that I believe will be useful. I believe it is important that in my paper I thoroughly show the problems going on with women in the medical field and their lower standing than men, as well as, show in what ways an equal pay act should be enacted. Hopefully I can get a lot of research together and make this paper a solid one.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-lgbt-rights-religion-belief/our-journey-not-complete-equal-pay-requires-passage

http://www.aao.org/yo/newsletter/200806/article04.cfm

Moderator Philosophy

Throughout studies in the field of psychology it has been proven that humans as a whole are generally driven by their internal need to explain and to understand. This inherent fact of the human psyche lends well to opinionated philosophies and frequently causes the division of society altogether. Rarely is there a moment at which one person chooses to stand alone and simply deviate from peoples’ distinct ideologies, but in areas such as politics, people, known as moderators, choose to adopt this type of behavior. Moderators are extremely important in the current day United States whose political foundation is based on rhetoric and deliberation. Overall, the role of a moderator is to ensure mutual comprehension of the issue in discussion as well as drive the conversation forward while maintaining an impartial stance. Over the past few weeks, I tried to embody this role when I was given the position of moderator in our class issues forum on sustainability. I employed my own personal moderating philosophy which includes not forcing a consensus, being supportive, and encouraging active participation. I believe I efficiently led the group in an effective deliberation.

As the moderator for the conclusion of the in-class deliberation my role was not necessarily to present direct questions to the group as was the case with other moderators, but rather to help them reflect on the vast amount of information discussed throughout the deliberation. The key principle behind my moderating style was to not force a consensus. When it comes to such controversial issues, such as sustainability, there is often no one approach that is superior to all others. In addition, what one group member would agree is the best solution  another might argue would cause for more destruction. Instead, my strategy was to focus my group’s attention on the main areas that must be addressed to promote a more sustainable world as well as the major themes associated with the sustainability debate.  To do this, I briefly reviewed with my group each area that we discussed in the prior days, and specifically asked each of them whether they believed it could be classified as one of the five most extreme problems and why. After a list was formulated I once again called on every person in the group to share their opinion on how each problem could be solved. By implementing this strategy I was not only able to involve every person of the group, but I was also able to push the focus in one direction and lead the conversation to an acceptable close.

Another element of my moderating style was encouraging my group members to participate in discussion by instilling confidence in their abilities. At this point of the deliberation, the conversation was becoming dull; many people were disinterested and were running out of things to say. Part of my role as the moderator was to keep my peers on track and promote enthusiasm in regards to the deliberation.   For this reason, I wanted to ensure that each group member felt comfortable sharing their thoughts, therefore, I specifically created an atmosphere based on acceptance and understanding. While I was moderating, I believe that most people in the group felt confident and free of judgment which was definitely helped certain people speak up. For example, while Tori was confident in expressing her opinions frequently throughout the conversation, Alyson would shy away because she said she was “ignorant to the topic and didn’t know anything.” I made sure that Alyson knew she was being heard and eventually she had some really great opinions which drove the conversation forward and made for a more enthusiastic deliberation.

Unfortunately, I also had some weaknesses while being a moderator. The most difficult aspect for me during the deliberation was maintaining an unprejudiced opinion towards the topic. It was very difficult to be deferential towards the issue after just having been a biased participant in the debate two days prior. Often times, I found myself almost giving my own opinion through my questions instead of simply being a conductor of the discussion. In the future, I believe that asking more general questions may help in remaining impartial in the deliberation. In the same way, it may be of use to write most of the questions down and make sure that they remain unbiased.