Most likely there is a possibility that you have come across the term LGBT adoption. This is a comprehensive term that refers to the adoption of children by either lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender people, hence the acronym LGBT. Though this kind of adoption is prohibited and even illegal in a majority of the countries mainly due to the lack of acceptance of mostly the Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual people. This is usually fostered by the traditions, culture or religious affiliations of the people concerned. This is an area that has aroused impassioned and vigorous debates and recently we find quite a number of jurisdictions allowing this practice. Through out the whole paper, the discussion will address the issues raised by both the proponents and opponents, the legislations put in place to help propagate the even realization of the adoption process and the impact of the parents societal and sexual orientation with regard to the adopted child (Sage, 2010).
For instance, in the United States, the adoption of children by LGBT people is an issue facing censure, praise and in addition aroused a very contentious debate. Legislations meant to hamper and stop or even reverse the practice have been introduced in several jurisdictions but such efforts have faced landslide defeat with the only rare and unique exception of Arkansas Act 1. Amid the contentious issues is the social welfare of the children under discussion as this ought to have precedence and should therefore dictate the policy (Belge, 2010, 1-4).
In addition supporters of the LGBT adoption support their stance by suggesting that many children are in a dire and immediate need of homes. Further more they base their premises on the claim that the parenting ability is in no way related to one’s sexual orientation. This ives them a clear lee way to interdict the law into allowing them to go on with the process of adopting children.
On the other hand, opponents of the practice have their own suggestions. They argue that the greater lesbian and gay families are most of the time associated with the heightened prevalence of depression, use of drugs, promiscuity, and suicide among homosexuals in addition to the greater pervasiveness of domestic violence. In light of the above evils, they object to the practice as this will affect the adopted children negatively. Furthermore, the absence of the male and the female role models in foster home could also impact negatively on the children leading to a condition known as maladjustment (Gandossy, 2007, 1-8).
Major professional organizations have not been left aside, with some advocating for or against the adoption practice. They have issued comprehensive statements mostly in the defense of adoption of children by couples of the same sex. For instance, the American Psychological Association has been on the front line supporting the adoption of children by couples belonging to the same sex. The association cites the denial for adoption as an example of social prejudice and injustice acts to propagate the harm on the psychological health of lesbians and gays while expounding on the fact that there is no substantial evidence that their parenting causes any harm.
On a similar wavelength and with the same opinion is the American Medical Association which has issued a similar position in support of the same sex adoption. The association states that while there is little or no evidence against the practice, the absence of formal recognition may be the source of disparities among the children belonging to parents with the same sex.
According to Charlottte & et. al (2007), the existing body of research is limited in its studies as it addresses only specific case of adoption. More ever where such studies do mention adoption they most of the time fail tom differentiate the various outcomes concerning unrated children verses those children that have their original families or step families. This has led to the research on the more general case LGBT parenting to be used as a weapon to counter claims of LGBT opponents.
One such study assisted in addressing the situation head on. The research involved the evaluation of adoptees less than 3 years old and who had been in one of the 56 gay or lesbian households since infancy. Well despite the magnitude of the sample being small and also the fact that children had not yet come to term with regard to their adoption status or concerning the dynamics of gender development, the study found no significant associations between the sexual orientation of the parents and the child adjustment (Charlotte, & et. al., 2007, p.2)
This made the results consistent with the notion that two parents having the same gender can be able to raise children and their sexual orientation is in no way related to parenting skill or further more to child adjustments. This finding portrays the great potential and the positive capabilities of both lesbian and gay couples as adoptive parents.
In culmination, as reported by Crooks & Baur (2008), either a gay, lesbian or straight couple, the issue in the US is no longer attached to the sexual orientation of the parents but rather to the welfare of the child. The child should not be denied the right to have a family and neither should a couple be denied the right to adopt a child just because of their sexual orientation (Crooks & Baur, 2008, p.255).