Michael Roth Douglas English 1101-073 8 February 2014 Why Deny Orphans From Fit Parents?

In the United States we have orphanages to take care of children who have lost their parents and to try and find them new adoptive families. Standard practice is to give a child to a set of fit parents where the child will be fed, educated, clothed, generally cared for and loved. If a family meets these criteria and usually background checks, they can adopt a child. However, there is sometimes a caveat to these standards. In some areas, if the prospective parents are of the same sex their fitness as parents and right to adopt is questioned. Two authors tackled this fundamental question in a point/counterpoint segment. In Wilsons Point: Gay Couples Should be Prohibited from Adopting Children he argued against the emotional, societal and role risks he believes are present when same-sex parents adopt children. Wilson asserts gay couples want equality.(Wilson 2). To counterpoint, in Driscolls Counterpoint: Sexual Orientation Should Not Be a Deterrent to Adoption she counters by citing numerous studies and legislation after her assertion public policy should support the initiatives of gays and lesbians to adopt.(Driscoll 1) In her counterpoint, Driscoll points to numerous statements, studies and facts to convey her message. She tackles many stereotypes such as homosexuals being more likely to molest children (Driscoll 2), by citing the Child Welfare League of America and the American Psychological Association. According to these organizations the overwhelming majority of pedophiles (90%) are heterosexual males. (Driscoll 2) The most obvious support of same-sex

adoption is given Among same-sex couples, every child is wanted; there are no accidents or unwanted children. (Driscoll 3) Such common-sense statements as these render clear, logical support of her argument. The articles organization also creates a simple flow. The author presented a stereotype and then cited a credible source that convincingly contradicts those stereotypes. Nearly half the article addressed opposition and that, as a reader, makes it an even more convincing thorough argument. As the audience, it would have been preferable to hear an anecdote or story about a child who grew up from a same-sex couple. Obviously many exist; it just would have helped drive home the message. The article cites Supreme Court rulings, various studies from prestigious and respected sources, statistics, logical reasoning and numerous opposition stances. Within Wilsons article, the audience is left feeling in a cloud of smoke. There are many claims made that statistics supporting same sex adoption are questionable (Wilson 2). However, Wilson never seems to explain why these statistics are questionable. This leaves to reader to wonder if there really are any issues with these statistics. Wilson continually suggests homosexuals simply want to adopt children so they can have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Yet fails to see he has made no argument at all. Same-sex couples do want the same rights as heterosexual couples and singles. To deny that is a constitutional violation. The author notes there is a need for sound research showing that children with homosexual parents face serious emotional and society difficulties. (Wilson 1) The audience must logically ask if such research does not exist, then it simply could be an unsupported claim. These empty statements seem to continually damage Wilsons argument. The author also adds a section on family values and how theyre being damaged by single parent and same-sex adoption. Much of the article comes across as opinionated yet unsupported by any sound facts. This is troubling as a reader.

This could suggest those against same-sex adoption are generally unsupported by facts and simply are pushed by ideological influences. If this is the case, opposition to same-sex adoption is baseless and illogical. To those conservatives concerned with the status of family values this can still be a strong argument. Yet, to an academic this argument is generally weak and fragile. Same-sex adoption will likely be subject of debate well into the next decade, it hinders on legislation and attitudes toward same-sex marriage and rights. If same-sex marriage is federally legalized and recognized, same-sex adoption will closely follow. By far, Driscoll made a far more thorough, logical, supported and overall superior argument in her support of same-sex adoption. These articles enter the reader into an ongoing and evolving debate in the United States. The progressives and moderates supporting homosexual rights seem to be gaining momentum, yet in the South and other conservative areas across the nation opponents seem to be entrenched in their positions. The debate will likely rage on until clear, sweeping legislation is passed to finally silence both sides.

Works Cited Driscoll, SallyStingl, Alexander. "Counterpoint: Sexual Orientation Should Not Be A Deterrent To Adoption." Points Of View: Gay & Lesbian Adoption (2013): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 8 Feb. 2014. Wilson, Brian. "Point: Gay Couples Should Be Prohibited From Adopting Children." Points Of View: Gay & Lesbian Adoption (2013): 5. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.