This House Supports Rainbow Parenting

It’s an old plotline that’s always guaranteed a few sympathetic tugs at the viewer’s hearts, or even a few leaked tears caused by the scene on the projector. An orphaned child that seems to stand out from the rest—longing for their history or to be taken into a loving home. That is the driving force of the story, and the entire movie focuses on said child’s adventures, misdemeanors, and the friends and enemies he or she makes along the way, whose plans are either to aid or to sabotage. They all end happily, those films, with reunited families or finding one that would provide for them. It’s the unspoken desire that lives in the dreams of children living in an orphanage, then and now.

But that’s how it’ll remain—a fantasy—for the current reality depicts more and more children losing their biological caretakers, whether it is by diseases, accidents, marital disputes, or unfit parenting. This results in overpopulation in orphanages, since there aren’t enough couples looking to adopt them, and even then these institutions aren’t able to cater to the overflow of children. Lacking beds, limited meals supply, and overall insufficient resources cannot even ensure a good childhood.

Now, addressing another related issue at hand, there are hundreds, even thousands of willing couples who are looking for a child to care for. But there’s a little problem: instead of a mother and father figure, they’ll get either two mothers, or two fathers. Technically, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that, but sometimes people insist on having a dirt speck stuck in their eye, and refuse to have it taken out.

It’s a subject that’s been debated about for ages, even having mentions of it in the Bible, in the tale of wicked twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, with inklings in Greek myths from the gods and goddesses’ escapades with mortals of both sexes, and countless other stories from ancient cultures. Homosexuality is certainly not unheard of, but that doesn’t entail that it’s widely accepted. The world is in divided on this matter, and it will be for as long as terms like ‘gay’ or ‘dyke’ or ‘faggot’ is tinged with negative connotations. Homosexuals are subject to hate crimes and public ridicule—and, in terms of taking in children, are at the mercy of courtrooms and adoption agencies.

To clear things up, same-sex couples are those who are either married or staying in the same residence, and adoption necessitates that they become the legal guardians of the child.

The issue here, really, is the welfare of the child. What both parties are arguing about is the method, or, in this case, the kind of upbringing that would be more beneficial for the child. The side that says that same-sex couples should not be ruled out as potential adopters do so on the grounds that: 1) it would give legal rights to a successful, if but informal family model, 2) it would guarantee the quality of the child’s life, and 3) it would prevent further discrimination to the homosexual society.

The first contention deals with the idea of the ‘nuclear’ family, also known as the traditional archetype with a mother, a father, and their children. The opposition point out the need for balance in the child’s life because each heterosexual parent socializes their children differently and children have to view this variation for themselves. They digress that if there is a disparity then the child will never learn to identify with the one sex that is absent from their life. This would seem valid, until one realizes that this issue has never been proved, and ignores many examples that contradict it. For example, there can be the relaxed sex type play that occurs in many homes, like the father being the cook or the mother being the breadwinner, or the anti-stereotypical careers of parents, like a pilot mother or a male secretary. These are instances that are less common and not always perceived by the public, but they happen anyway, amidst being against the ‘nuclear’ family paradigm. Another illustration would be single-parent homes, which provide the child with only one gender role to look up to. They aren’t conventional, but they’re real, and for the most part, they work out all the same.

Now, the first point for the pro-side assures that it would give legal rights to a successful, if but informal, family model. There are many where gay couples are raising children responsibly, where one of the partners is the biological parent. Another case would be the good turnout of children who are put in the temporary foster care of homosexuals. There is no reason to believe that same-sex parents wouldn’t be as good parents as heterosexual ones, so why not widen the pool of willing parents and lessen the number of children living in orphanages?

Another argument of the opposition deals with whether the children will turn out to be gay themselves. It’s not a matter of homophobia, they claim, but more of how the children didn’t have a choice since they were influenced by their homosexual parents. They compare this to how alcoholic or abusive parents also rear alcoholics and abusers as children. As if homosexuality is a disease, a mental disorder, or a moral deficiency—but besides that point, studies have shown that the sexual orientation of the parents have no effect on the gender preference of their children. A heterosexual couple can end up with a gay son or daughter, and it is simply beyond their control. There are many other factors to consider, both biological and environmental, that can determine whether the children will also be homosexual.

So, to move on with the second point of those in favor of gay adoption, this would the quality of life that these homosexual couples can provide for the children they will be taking into their custody. The fact that they fought so long and hard to be able to adopt ensures that the children will be taken into homes that will love and care for them, and convince them that they’re actually wanted. This is certainly a better alternative to being raised as products of forced unions, or to be treated as ‘accidents.’ Emotional stability proven, these couples wouldn’t be exempt from the existing laws for adoption, and the state of their finances, workplaces, and ability to afford keeping a child would still be taken in consideration. They wouldn’t be so different from heterosexual couples in that aspect, as anywhere else.

One of the biggest and questionably strongest arguments of the resistance is the how having gay parents would be harmful to the child. It is not a secret that homosexuality still isn’t accepted in many parts of the world, or society in general, and that the child would be subject to unnecessary hatred and ridicule because of his or her parents. This alone is a marginally large hole in their case, because the fault lies not in the parents themselves, but how society sees them as unfit and accursed. They would prefer to raise children with this same narrow-minded and prejudiced viewpoint, whereas if a child grows up with two homosexual parents, he or she will be more sensitive to issues concerning it, and in turn will be more tolerant of diversity. It would be better to train children to embrace this part of society, and not reject it because everyone else said so.

Which then leads to the most encompassing point of gay adoption’s supporting parties; it would prevent further discrimination against homosexuals, because instead of working to cut them off from their rights, it would result in greater steps in overcoming homophobia. It would not totally and completely wipe out this phenomenon, but at least the government would now recognize the capabilities of same-sex couples as parents, and even children would be informed of this shift in the global scale. It would not only benefit the children who will be adopted by these potential parents, but also the other half of the equation—the parents themselves, and the homosexual culture as a whole.

At the end of the day, one must ask: does the sexual orientation of the parents really matter when it comes to adopting a child? The facts broadcast that it doesn’t. There has been no significant evidence that proves that gay parents are any less fit as straight parents, so why does this drama continue to exist?

If gay adoption is an answer to the current overpopulation in orphanages, and established to be advantageous to society in general, why must the same-sex couples suffer under the harsh and unfair treatment of the law when all they want is a child to care for? Especially when they have the means to do so, with bigotry and misconceived notions as the only things stopping them? These are the questions that must be answered by the opposition, if they are to be logical and decisive—especially if it’s the future of the children that are presently at stake.