In the first place, only in seven countries around the world the law considers the possibility of marriage for same sex couples (2010 data). Furthermore, these countries have regulations on assisted reproduction and a regime of open affiliation. But this is a small container for all the gay community expectations. To begin with this controversial issue, the essential point is to set the situation within context. The reality now for homosexual couples that want to start a common life, exercising all their rights, is extremely difficult in a great number of countries.
The most important disadvantage is those people who are against these laws claim that children need a father and a mother for their integral development. It is often suggested that homosexuals’ adoption would be detrimental to the upbringing of these children. In fact, to contradict this argument, the real situation is that a great percentage of abuses to children (psychical, sexual, etc…) are being done by their heterosexual parents or relatives. Another argument that they use is that it would create chaos in the adoption registry. Many people argue that it is not necessary to approve gay marriage or adoption, because most of the benefits of a marriage can be regulated through legal agreements (inheritance, transmission of goods, properties, etc.). Last but no least for people who are against the establishment of these laws is that they consider marriage as an essentially heterosexual institution, and the application of these rights for homosexual people imply the distortion of this concept and its perversion.
Taking everything into account, I can conclude that marriage is only a word that means “the state or relationship, the act or legal contract, the civil o religious ceremony during which this act is performed, a joining together as a union” and adoption means “to take a child into the family through legal means, to educate and take care of her or him as one's own child”.
On the other hand, people who agree with these laws illustrate another category of arguments, like the right of everyone to be happy, be free and have equality according to the rules. For them, laws should grant everyone rights, no matter your sexual orientation. One point of view in favour is that the current adoption law does not require being heterosexual to adopt. In fact, many gay couples raise their children, adopted by one of the members, or conceived through assisted fertilization methods. This is one of the aspects that people who are in favour of this change in the law feel as a great disadvantage, because the parent has no hereditary link with the children, and cannot take care of them in the case of death of the adopter. People in favour also note that the family, as a social institution, is a product subject to changes, and is permeable to the cultural and environmental modifications, so the rules and laws must change with the objective of accompanying cultural and social changes. Finally, we must also take into consideration the rights of millions of orphan children that are waiting for a family, living in extremely bad conditions and without any hope, who could have an opportunity to be adopted with these changes in the laws.
All of these changes in attitudes, types of families and welfare state, which mirror our current society, have to have their reflection in laws, and changes in the rules must be done. And who has to do this, am I wondering? It is the responsibility of our political representatives in the Parliaments. They are elected to defend our rights and propose the development of laws that do not fit with the current reality. Because of the reasons expressed in favour of the changes in the law that will allow homosexual couples to marry and adopt, it is high time our sexual orientation was not used by slick politicians in order to avoid their job as representatives of all the citizens. The politicians have the obligation to develop laws that grant the same rights for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment