This ethics essay is about responsible parenting which leads to the well being of society and about the high potential risk of not achieving it. There is also shown a high potential risk of increasing social pathology. Parenting is hard to imagine without a family but responsible parenting is absolutely impossible without it. Need to repeat: It is hard to imagine not only parenting without family but also parenting without responsibility. Firstly, we should familiarize ourselves with the functions of the family. A good definition of the word “function” is: a contribution that a part of a system makes to the maintenance of the whole. This is also true when dealing with the functions of the family. Every member of a family contributes to the family unit as a whole, and every family unit contributes and adds to society. Talcott Parson, a well known structural sociologist said, “we need families in all societies because they do a special job for society” [1] and stated even more that the main functions of the family were: "to ensure that new babies actually survive to become adult members of that society, to regulate sexual activity, to ensure that children are satisfactorily socialized into the norms and values of society, to provide economic support for other family members, to satisfy our emotional needs for love and security," and finally, "to provide us with a sense of place and position in our society". [2] To make the family safe, our ancestors invented a social institution called marriage. Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition in the 2003 edition shows: “the mutual relation of husband and wife, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family”. The extended family or later nuclear family was the way humankind survived more than fifty five thousands of years.
However, at some point in history, human custom tradition and thoughts changed. The successful human survival strategy of society which was structured on a family base progressively deteriorated and ended. Destruction of successful western society had begun.
The Enlightment in the 18th century – the era of the fight with the Roman Catholic Church and Christian values, among many devilish things such masochism and sadism, brought Olympe de Gouges (born Marie Gouze). She was a French playwright and political activist whose feminist and abolitionist writings reached a large audience. Today she is perhaps best known as an early feminist who demanded that French women be given the same rights as French men. In her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen (1791), she challenged the practice of male authority and the notion of male-female inequality. She was executed by guillotine but the militant feminist idea unfortunately did not die with her. In Finland the Parliament Act in 1906 established the unicameral parliament of Finland and both women and men were given the right to vote and stand for election. Thus Finnish women became the first in the world to have unrestricted rights both to vote and to stand for parliament. The Pandora’s Box was opened. Other western countries irresponsibly followed Finland. Many people forgot about the value of an orderly society and embraced egoistic individualism and focused only on minority needs. Well being of society as a whole was lost. The Golden Age of social pathology has started.
A generation later, in October 1989, Denmark became the first country which recognize same-sex unions in the form of "registered partnerships". In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages.
Since July 1, 2009, same-sex couples are recognised as de facto partners in a wide range of legislation in every Australian government jurisdiction, including superannuation, social security, health care and taxation.
Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010) and Argentina (2010). In Mexico same sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated. 250 million people (or 4% of the world population) currently live in areas that recognise same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions.[3]
Howard Dean [born 1948] leader of Civil Liberties (2000) in USA, Democrat, Former Governor of Vermont said: “Well, when same-sex marriages take place in Vermont, legally it's called a civil union, because the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.”
In 2006 the Merriam-Webster dictionary changed the marriage definition by adding:
"the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage". So there we have it. I wonder who makes these decisions?
In 01.09.2009 Vermont became the first US state with relevant legislative.
But the issue becomes even more absurd. No one cares about a reasonable border, common sense. Marriage law and marriage status used to open a gate or a privilege for a couple, with a medical problem, to have a child by adoption. But when the words “marriage” and “family” became empty of meaning, adoption became a possibility everyone. Full joint adoption by same-sex couples is currently legal in the following jurisdictions: Australia: Western Australia (2002), Australian Capital Territory (2004), and New South Wales (2010). Canada: Ontario (1999), British Columbia (1996), Saskatchewan (2001), Nova Scotia (2001), Manitoba (2002), Newfoundland and Labrador (2002), the Northwest Territories (2002), Quebec (2002), New Brunswick (2007), Alberta, and Prince Edward Island. Mexico: Mexico City (2010). United States: the District of Columbia (1995), New Jersey (1998), New York (2002), Indiana (2006), Maine (2007), California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Florida and the unincorporated territory of Guam. [4]
Full joint adoption by same-sex couples is currently legal in the following countries: Andorra (2005), Argentina (2010), Belgium (2006), Brazil (2010), Denmark (2010), Iceland (2006), Netherlands (2001), Norway (2009), South Africa (2002), Spain (2005), Sweden (2002), United Kingdom: England and Wales (2005), Scotland (2009) and Northern Ireland (unclear), Uruguay (2009).
Than the question must appeared: Who are the potential parents? The existing findings shown the ralationship between sexual orientation and mental health problems leads to suicidality in young people. Research of David M. Fergusson, PhD; L. John Horwood, MSc; Annette L. Beautrais,PhD (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:876-880). The study examines the extent to which gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors using data gathered on a New Zealand birth cohort studied to age 21 years. Data was gathered during the course of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch, New Zealand. At 21 years of age, 1007 sample members were questioned about their sexual orientation and relationships with same-sex partners since the age of 16 years. Twenty-eight subjects (2.8%) were classified as being of gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientation. Over the period from age 14 to 21 years, data was gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders that included major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and substance use disorders. Data was also gathered on suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. The study found that gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression (odds ratio [OR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-9.3), generalized anxiety disorder (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.5), conduct disorder (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.7-8.7), nicotine dependence (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 2.3-10.9), other substance abuse and/or dependence (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-4.2), multiple disorders (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.4-14.8), suicidal ideation (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.4-12.2), and suicide attempts (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 2.7-14.3).
The findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder. [5]
It is a social issue so how does one build an opinion? Most people form their opinions based on IGNORANCE and mass-media daily INDOCTRINATION but some people do it by gathering a social science knowledge. We have epistemological “cold knowledge” from textbooks, formal studies: tutorials, lectures and in addition ontological “hot knowledge” from our own experiments and life experience where we are involved personally or people we know, it both creates together a power of human intelligence. We have a moral duty to be responsible for our community and the next generations.
What is Ethics? It is an act of judgment. We have to decide. Is it right or is it wrong? Is it good or is it bad? We ought to see the dialectic between individualism and communalism, be wise and choose the right balance! There is an important issue: Irresponsible parenting vs. the well-being of society. From a bio-historical critical sociology ethics point of view one-sex adoption should not be legal. A healthy society ought to eliminate existing family pathologies, rather than, generate new ones. Note, if evolution had not been to create a human being as a social animal living in a group there would not have been such a thing as ethics and this topic dilemma.
We need therefore an axiom. Let us reframe this socio-political matter in a larger human bio-history based on the facts of biology and the facts of history, which is more or less an evolutionary approach. [6]
“The concept of individual sovereignty as formulated by John Locke and others is a fiction that we have invented. Humans are never independent, autonomous individuals – sovereign nations unto themselves. We are always dependent on a web of social relations that form our identities and enhance our survival but let us think for a moment of individual sovereignty as a useful fiction, one that has productively spawned a discourse about human rights, legitimacy, and justice. This discourse hoped to help make the world a better place. Even if it was not ontologically true, it seemed pragmatically useful. The dialectic between individualism and communalism, which we can add to the dialectic of competition and cooperation”.[7] Some called this the dialectic between individual rights and social obligations, instead of individual obligations and social rights. It is dichotomy of hell and heaven. Do we really want to live in an egoistic hell for antisocial pathologic individuals on earth?
“Humans have natural dispositions towards living in groups. It hardly needs to be said, but no human is self-created. There is no such thing as a fully autonomous individual human. We speak languages we did not invent; we use tools that we did not design; we benefit from a vast library of knowledge that we did not discover; and we are nurtured as infants and children into “individuality” by families and societies that we did not choose. As humans moved from small, intimate hunter-gatherer tribes into larger social groups and spanning numerous settlements and geographical regions, it was largely the “BigMan” model of social organization that succeeded and prevailed. In this form of social organization a dominant human, typically a male, would serve as the leader of the group, extracting surplus production from others, while ensuring social harmony and organizing common defense, as well as, waging wars against neighbors in order to expand the territory, wealth, and population of the tribe, city-state, kingdom, or empire. We need think about how these scale up from the level of the tribe to the dynamics of a nation state. It is no simple evolutionary trick to get individuals to cooperate and to sacrifice their own well-being, or that of their immediate offspring, for the benefit of the group. And yet, we cannot imagine that a human society would long endure if it could not 1) organize its members to cooperate and 2) in extreme instances, ask individuals to sacrifice their well-being for the benefit of the group. It can be understood as an evolutionary outgrowth of our natural tribal passions and rationalities, which were imprinted in the human psyche and genome over millions of years. Humans are profoundly social animals with a highly evolved capacity to engage in symbolic thought. One of the fundamental challenges in social species is how to ensure cooperation within the group and sacrifice on behalf of the group. The well-being and survival of the group depends on this cooperation and sacrifice. In humans, this is accomplished by a mix of evolved primate behaviours, as well as, newer cultural adaptations in the realm of religions, ideologies, and cultures.”[8]
If that is the case, the law must protect children and the Australian society against the social chaos and destruction in general. The law must guard the rights of children to rise in a natural family environment which can only occur in a heterosexual couple. This is a law of biology. It is the only one healthy and natural pattern for human society. Erikson’s developmental psychology will help us better understand it.[9] What can we learn from developmental psychology evidence?
The Erikson’s life-stage virtues, in the order of the stages in which they may be acquired, are:
1. hope - Basic Trust vs. Mistrust - Infant stage. Does the child believe its caregivers to be reliable? Baby needs here woman body, woman breast, woman voice, woman sensitive care [up to a year old]. The male low tone of voice is not physically recognized by baby ears at this stage.
2. will - Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt - Toddler stage. Child needs to learn to explore the world. Bad if the parent is too smothering or completely neglectful. Baby needs here in addition a “rough” man without fear who will neutralize female overwhelm care.[1- 2,5 y.o.]
3. purpose - Initiative vs. Guilt - Kindergarten - Can the child plan or do things on his own, such as dress him or herself. If "guilty" about making his or her own choices, the child will not function well. Erikson has a positive outlook on this stage, believing that most guilt is quickly compensated by a sense of accomplishment. A child needs some autonomy whilst copying both a male and female features [3 – 5 y.o.] Natural judgmental male attitude may be a significant danger here.
4. competence - Industry vs. Inferiority - Around age 6 to puberty. Child comparing self worth to others (such as in a classroom environment). A child can recognize major disparities in personal abilities relative to other children. Erikson places some emphasis on the teacher, who should ensure that children do not feel inferior. Full access for a child to familiarize with both role models (male and female) is critical for further mental development.
5. fidelity - Identity vs. Role Confusion - Teenager. Questioning of self. Who am I, how do I fit in? Where am I going in life? Erikson believes that if the parents allow the child to explore, they will conclude their own identity. However, if the parents continually push him/her to conform to their views, the teen will face identity confusion. Lack of one role model at this stage (female or male) leads to emotional and personal disturbance and even in some cases to mental disorder.
6. love (in intimate relationships, work and family) - Intimacy vs. Isolation - Young adult. Who do I want to be with or date, what am I going to do with my life? Will I settle down? This stage has begun to last longer as young adults choose to stay in school and not settle. From this stage start to be broad social visible consequences (e.g. act of suicide) of previous badly passed developmental stages.
7. caring- Generativity vs. Stagnation - the Mid-life crisis. Measure accomplishments/failures. Am I satisfied or not? The need to assist the younger generation. Stagnation is the feeling of not having done anything to help the next generation. S. Freud – father of psychoanalysis said: “A child is a parrent of an adult”.
8. wisdom - Ego Integrity vs. Despair - old age. Some handle death well. Some can be bitter, unhappy, and/or dissatisfied with what they have accomplished or failed to accomplish within their life time. They reflect on the past, and either conclude at satisfaction or despair.
9. On ego identity versus Role Confusion; ego identity enables each person to have a sense of individuality, or as Erikson would say, "Ego identity, then, in its subjective aspect, is the awareness of the fact that there is a self-sameness and continuity to the ego's synthesizing methods and a continuity of one's meaning for others" (1963). Role Confusion, however, is, according to Barbara Engler in her book Personality Theories (2006), "The inability to conceive of oneself as a productive member of one's own society". This inability to conceive of oneself as a productive member is a great danger; it can occur during adolescence when looking for an occupation.
Another science which can help us in better understanding the topic issue is sociology of the family and its “role model”. Children must have a chance to grow up in a fully functional social environment, where the child can observe both a male and female role model in traditional gender role, otherwise the child will grown into a dysfunctional youth and eventually a dysfunctional adult.[10] Another very helpful science is neurophysiology. It is the study of nervous system function. Primarily, it is connected with neurobiology, psychology, neurology, clinical neurophysiology, electro physiology, biophysical neurophysiology, ethology, neuroanatomy, cognitive science and other brain sciences. It teach us that man and woman have different brains. Nature shaped us in different sexes for some reason, our brains are programmed differently and function differently. [11]
Precursor of brain differences researches was Francis Gatton (London 1882) and Herbert Landsell (1960s), [12]
And now let me give you more examples of the destruction of society which came from a parenting model with only one-sex parent, generally females – survey shows.
Hugh Mackay, one of Australia's foremost social researchers described Generation Y as having – no values, but hedonism, with 1 out of 4 grew up in a single-parent household. About Generation Z he's even less confident about, saying “their overzealous helicopter parents, obsessed with the "art of parenting", will create a burden for their offspring. "These kids are overindulged, with a towering self-esteem - as opposed to self-respect - which won't be healthy". He warns "We are facing the most rebellious and obnoxious group of teenagers ever." [13]
Single-Parent Kids More At Risk - a 2003 Swedish study, stated that those living with a single parent were about three times more likely to kill themselves or end up in the hospital after an attempted suicide by the age of 26 than children living with two parents, however this only happened to 2.2 percent of girls and 1 percent of boys. [14] The 2003 study from Sweden - the biggest, most convincing ever done on the subject - that says children in one-parent homes are twice as likely as those in two-parent families to develop serious psychiatric problems and addictions later in life. Published in The Lancet's Jan. 25 issue, the research showed, among other things, that 2.5 percent of girls and 1.5 percent of boys in single-parent families were hospitalized with problems ranging from severe depression to paranoid schizophrenia, compared to just 1 percent of girls and 0.5 percent of boys in two-parent homes. Similar risk differences were seen for alcohol problems, and the increased risk for drug addiction was even higher than for other problems. Because researchers looked only at those hospitalized, experts said many more children suffer emotional problems, though perhaps not so severe. Experts did not dispute the findings because the study involved almost 1 million children over nearly a decade. They also said the results were similar to those seen in smaller studies elsewhere, including those in countries much more heterogeneous than Sweden.
In conclusion, from consequentialism perspective (Utilitarianism approach) it is clear that the Commonwealth cannot benefit from same-sex couple marriages because they cannot produce offsprings and if they raise adopted children they produce dysfunctional adults to the community similar to one-sex parents which create many additional unnecessary social problems, such: a less cohesive society; generation Y and Z: nihilistic, anarchistic and narcissistic individuals; increased crime and vandalism in public spaces; more various and complex mental problems, more identity and personal disorder, lack of self-discipline in people, more addictions, more suicides; social chaos; anomie and alienation, etc., etc., etc.[15]
We have a moral duty to be responsible for our community where we all live and the next generations.
The dialectic between individualism and communalism should put rights of the society first and subsequently what rights are available to the minorities and individuals. We ought to be wise and choose the right balance and remember: if we destroy own society, we will destroy ourselves as individuals as well. What is your opinion now? Yes or No for one-sex parenting or adoption?
Co-author: .... (educational counsellor, pedagogist)
Editing support: Leanne Gordon
References:
1. Parson, Talcott; Robert F. Bales and James Olds; Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, 1955
2. Ibidem
3. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage viewed on 08.11.2010 at 10:00 (GMT+10)
4. http://www.ask.com/wiki/LGBT_adoption viewed on 08.11.2010 at 10:00 (GMT+10)
5. From the Christchurch Health and Development Study (Dr Fergusson and Mr Horwood) and the Canterbury Suicide Project (Dr Beautrais), Christchurch School of Medicine, New Zealand. Vol. 56 No. 10, October 1999 Archives of General Psychiatry.
6. Boyden, S., Culture as a threat to humanity and the biosphere: A biohistorical perspective; International Journal of Anthropology, Volume 6, Number 3, 207-214, 1991
7.Grassie, William; Nationalism, Terrorism, and Religion: A Bio-Historical Approach. Creating a Best Case Scenario for Sri Lanka; Presented Thursday, May 15, 2008; BMICH Committee Room B, Colombo; Senior Fulbright Fellow in the Department of Pali and Buddhist Studies at the University of Peradeniya; http://www.grassie.net/pdfs/2008_A_Biohistorical_Approach.pdf pp. 3- 10; viewed on 29.10.2010 at 13:53 (GMT+10)
8. Ibidem
9. Erikson, Erik; Childhood and Society (1950); Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968); Adulthood (edited book, 1978)
10. Arlene Skolnick and Jerome Skolnick, eds. Family in Transition, 14th edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 2007
11. Andrew S. Blum, Seward B. Rutkove, "The Clinical Neurophysiology Primer", Humana Press, 2007
12. Moir, Anne & David Jessel, “Brainsex”, Mandarin, London 1991 (First published by Michael Joseph Limited, 1989)]
13. Mackay, Hugh, Advanced Australia... where?, Sydney 2008
14. The Lancet, January 25, paraphrased by CBS News' Emma Ross, "Single-Parent Kids More At Risk" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/health/main539283.shtml viewed on 08.11.2010 at 10:00 (GMT+10)
15.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/2261b?ijkey=6nlcW4RtRpiao&keytype=ref&siteid=aapjournals viewed on 25.10.2010 22:10 (GMT+10)
LGBT parenting biography (refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender):
· Dale O’Leary, About addoption danger by same-sex couple. Vox Domini, 2004.
· The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children: In Reply. Pediatrics, 2006.
· American College of Pediatricians. Homosexual parenting: is it time for change? 2004. Available at [viewed on 25.10.2010 22:10 (GMT+10)]: www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?cat=10005&art=50&BISKIT=3835427889&CONTEXT=art
· McWhirter DP, Mattison AM. The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1984:252, 253
· Saghir M, Robins E. Male and Female Homosexuality. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1973:225
· Peplau LA, Amaro H. Understanding lesbian relationships. In: Weinrich J, Paul W, eds. Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1982:233–248
· Pollak M. Male homosexuality. In: Aries P, Bejin A, eds. Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times. Forster A, trans-ed. New York, NY: B. Blackwell; 1985:40–61. Cited by: Nicolosi J. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc; 1991:124, 125
· Tasker F, Golombok S. Adults raised as children in lesbian families. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1995;65 :203 –215
· Bailey JM, Bobrow D, Wolfe M, Mikach S. Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Dev Psychol. 1995;31 :124 –129;
· Tasker F, Golombok S. Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Dev Psychol. 1996;32 :3 –11
· Stacey J, Biblarz TJ. (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? Am Soc Rev. 2001;66 :159 –183
· Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Beautrais AL. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56 :876 –880
·http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/10/876?ijkey=1eeacd478fd3dd3b6d6ed000292d46922470db7f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha viewed on 25.10.2010 22:10 (GMT+10)
· Schneider B, Atteberry A, Owens A. Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes. Birmingham, AL: Alabama Policy Institute; 2005:1–42. Available at: www.alabamapolicyinstitute.org/PDFs/currentfamilystructure.pdf viewed on 25.10.2010 22:10 (GMT+10)
It was presented to the audience on 10.11.2010 at Mission Australia, Surry Hills (Sydney),
Catalyst University Program, Introduction to Ethics.
However, at some point in history, human custom tradition and thoughts changed. The successful human survival strategy of society which was structured on a family base progressively deteriorated and ended. Destruction of successful western society had begun.
The Enlightment in the 18th century – the era of the fight with the Roman Catholic Church and Christian values, among many devilish things such masochism and sadism, brought Olympe de Gouges (born Marie Gouze). She was a French playwright and political activist whose feminist and abolitionist writings reached a large audience. Today she is perhaps best known as an early feminist who demanded that French women be given the same rights as French men. In her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen (1791), she challenged the practice of male authority and the notion of male-female inequality. She was executed by guillotine but the militant feminist idea unfortunately did not die with her. In Finland the Parliament Act in 1906 established the unicameral parliament of Finland and both women and men were given the right to vote and stand for election. Thus Finnish women became the first in the world to have unrestricted rights both to vote and to stand for parliament. The Pandora’s Box was opened. Other western countries irresponsibly followed Finland. Many people forgot about the value of an orderly society and embraced egoistic individualism and focused only on minority needs. Well being of society as a whole was lost. The Golden Age of social pathology has started.
A generation later, in October 1989, Denmark became the first country which recognize same-sex unions in the form of "registered partnerships". In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages.
Since July 1, 2009, same-sex couples are recognised as de facto partners in a wide range of legislation in every Australian government jurisdiction, including superannuation, social security, health care and taxation.
Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010) and Argentina (2010). In Mexico same sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated. 250 million people (or 4% of the world population) currently live in areas that recognise same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions.[3]
Howard Dean [born 1948] leader of Civil Liberties (2000) in USA, Democrat, Former Governor of Vermont said: “Well, when same-sex marriages take place in Vermont, legally it's called a civil union, because the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.”
In 2006 the Merriam-Webster dictionary changed the marriage definition by adding:
"the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
In 01.09.2009 Vermont became the first US state with relevant legislative.
But the issue becomes even more absurd. No one cares about a reasonable border, common sense. Marriage law and marriage status used to open a gate or a privilege for a couple, with a medical problem, to have a child by adoption. But when the words “marriage” and “family” became empty of meaning, adoption became a possibility everyone. Full joint adoption by same-sex couples is currently legal in the following jurisdictions: Australia: Western Australia (2002), Australian Capital Territory (2004), and New South Wales (2010). Canada: Ontario (1999), British Columbia (1996), Saskatchewan (2001), Nova Scotia (2001), Manitoba (2002), Newfoundland and Labrador (2002), the Northwest Territories (2002), Quebec (2002), New Brunswick (2007), Alberta, and Prince Edward Island. Mexico: Mexico City (2010). United States: the District of Columbia (1995), New Jersey (1998), New York (2002), Indiana (2006), Maine (2007), California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Florida and the unincorporated territory of Guam. [4]
Full joint adoption by same-sex couples is currently legal in the following countries: Andorra (2005), Argentina (2010), Belgium (2006), Brazil (2010), Denmark (2010), Iceland (2006), Netherlands (2001), Norway (2009), South Africa (2002), Spain (2005), Sweden (2002), United Kingdom: England and Wales (2005), Scotland (2009) and Northern Ireland (unclear), Uruguay (2009).
Than the question must appeared: Who are the potential parents? The existing findings shown the ralationship between sexual orientation and mental health problems leads to suicidality in young people. Research of David M. Fergusson, PhD; L. John Horwood, MSc; Annette L. Beautrais,PhD (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:876-880). The study examines the extent to which gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors using data gathered on a New Zealand birth cohort studied to age 21 years. Data was gathered during the course of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch, New Zealand. At 21 years of age, 1007 sample members were questioned about their sexual orientation and relationships with same-sex partners since the age of 16 years. Twenty-eight subjects (2.8%) were classified as being of gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientation. Over the period from age 14 to 21 years, data was gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders that included major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and substance use disorders. Data was also gathered on suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. The study found that gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression (odds ratio [OR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-9.3), generalized anxiety disorder (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.5), conduct disorder (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.7-8.7), nicotine dependence (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 2.3-10.9), other substance abuse and/or dependence (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-4.2), multiple disorders (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.4-14.8), suicidal ideation (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.4-12.2), and suicide attempts (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 2.7-14.3).
The findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder. [5]
It is a social issue so how does one build an opinion? Most people form their opinions based on IGNORANCE and mass-media daily INDOCTRINATION but some people do it by gathering a social science knowledge. We have epistemological “cold knowledge” from textbooks, formal studies: tutorials, lectures and in addition ontological “hot knowledge” from our own experiments and life experience where we are involved personally or people we know, it both creates together a power of human intelligence. We have a moral duty to be responsible for our community and the next generations.
What is Ethics? It is an act of judgment. We have to decide. Is it right or is it wrong? Is it good or is it bad? We ought to see the dialectic between individualism and communalism, be wise and choose the right balance! There is an important issue: Irresponsible parenting vs. the well-being of society. From a bio-historical critical sociology ethics point of view one-sex adoption should not be legal. A healthy society ought to eliminate existing family pathologies, rather than, generate new ones. Note, if evolution had not been to create a human being as a social animal living in a group there would not have been such a thing as ethics and this topic dilemma.
We need therefore an axiom. Let us reframe this socio-political matter in a larger human bio-history based on the facts of biology and the facts of history, which is more or less an evolutionary approach. [6]
“The concept of individual sovereignty as formulated by John Locke and others is a fiction that we have invented. Humans are never independent, autonomous individuals – sovereign nations unto themselves. We are always dependent on a web of social relations that form our identities and enhance our survival but let us think for a moment of individual sovereignty as a useful fiction, one that has productively spawned a discourse about human rights, legitimacy, and justice. This discourse hoped to help make the world a better place. Even if it was not ontologically true, it seemed pragmatically useful. The dialectic between individualism and communalism, which we can add to the dialectic of competition and cooperation”.[7] Some called this the dialectic between individual rights and social obligations, instead of individual obligations and social rights. It is dichotomy of hell and heaven. Do we really want to live in an egoistic hell for antisocial pathologic individuals on earth?
“Humans have natural dispositions towards living in groups. It hardly needs to be said, but no human is self-created. There is no such thing as a fully autonomous individual human. We speak languages we did not invent; we use tools that we did not design; we benefit from a vast library of knowledge that we did not discover; and we are nurtured as infants and children into “individuality” by families and societies that we did not choose. As humans moved from small, intimate hunter-gatherer tribes into larger social groups and spanning numerous settlements and geographical regions, it was largely the “BigMan” model of social organization that succeeded and prevailed. In this form of social organization a dominant human, typically a male, would serve as the leader of the group, extracting surplus production from others, while ensuring social harmony and organizing common defense, as well as, waging wars against neighbors in order to expand the territory, wealth, and population of the tribe, city-state, kingdom, or empire. We need think about how these scale up from the level of the tribe to the dynamics of a nation state. It is no simple evolutionary trick to get individuals to cooperate and to sacrifice their own well-being, or that of their immediate offspring, for the benefit of the group. And yet, we cannot imagine that a human society would long endure if it could not 1) organize its members to cooperate and 2) in extreme instances, ask individuals to sacrifice their well-being for the benefit of the group. It can be understood as an evolutionary outgrowth of our natural tribal passions and rationalities, which were imprinted in the human psyche and genome over millions of years. Humans are profoundly social animals with a highly evolved capacity to engage in symbolic thought. One of the fundamental challenges in social species is how to ensure cooperation within the group and sacrifice on behalf of the group. The well-being and survival of the group depends on this cooperation and sacrifice. In humans, this is accomplished by a mix of evolved primate behaviours, as well as, newer cultural adaptations in the realm of religions, ideologies, and cultures.”[8]
If that is the case, the law must protect children and the Australian society against the social chaos and destruction in general. The law must guard the rights of children to rise in a natural family environment which can only occur in a heterosexual couple. This is a law of biology. It is the only one healthy and natural pattern for human society. Erikson’s developmental psychology will help us better understand it.[9] What can we learn from developmental psychology evidence?
The Erikson’s life-stage virtues, in the order of the stages in which they may be acquired, are:
1. hope - Basic Trust vs. Mistrust - Infant stage. Does the child believe its caregivers to be reliable? Baby needs here woman body, woman breast, woman voice, woman sensitive care [up to a year old]. The male low tone of voice is not physically recognized by baby ears at this stage.
2. will - Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt - Toddler stage. Child needs to learn to explore the world. Bad if the parent is too smothering or completely neglectful. Baby needs here in addition a “rough” man without fear who will neutralize female overwhelm care.[1- 2,5 y.o.]
3. purpose - Initiative vs. Guilt - Kindergarten - Can the child plan or do things on his own, such as dress him or herself. If "guilty" about making his or her own choices, the child will not function well. Erikson has a positive outlook on this stage, believing that most guilt is quickly compensated by a sense of accomplishment. A child needs some autonomy whilst copying both a male and female features [3 – 5 y.o.] Natural judgmental male attitude may be a significant danger here.
4. competence - Industry vs. Inferiority - Around age 6 to puberty. Child comparing self worth to others (such as in a classroom environment). A child can recognize major disparities in personal abilities relative to other children. Erikson places some emphasis on the teacher, who should ensure that children do not feel inferior. Full access for a child to familiarize with both role models (male and female) is critical for further mental development.
5. fidelity - Identity vs. Role Confusion - Teenager. Questioning of self. Who am I, how do I fit in? Where am I going in life? Erikson believes that if the parents allow the child to explore, they will conclude their own identity. However, if the parents continually push him/her to conform to their views, the teen will face identity confusion. Lack of one role model at this stage (female or male) leads to emotional and personal disturbance and even in some cases to mental disorder.
6. love (in intimate relationships, work and family) - Intimacy vs. Isolation - Young adult. Who do I want to be with or date, what am I going to do with my life? Will I settle down? This stage has begun to last longer as young adults choose to stay in school and not settle. From this stage start to be broad social visible consequences (e.g. act of suicide) of previous badly passed developmental stages.
7. caring- Generativity vs. Stagnation - the Mid-life crisis. Measure accomplishments/failures. Am I satisfied or not? The need to assist the younger generation. Stagnation is the feeling of not having done anything to help the next generation. S. Freud – father of psychoanalysis said: “A child is a parrent of an adult”.
8. wisdom - Ego Integrity vs. Despair - old age. Some handle death well. Some can be bitter, unhappy, and/or dissatisfied with what they have accomplished or failed to accomplish within their life time. They reflect on the past, and either conclude at satisfaction or despair.
9. On ego identity versus Role Confusion; ego identity enables each person to have a sense of individuality, or as Erikson would say, "Ego identity, then, in its subjective aspect, is the awareness of the fact that there is a self-sameness and continuity to the ego's synthesizing methods and a continuity of one's meaning for others" (1963). Role Confusion, however, is, according to Barbara Engler in her book Personality Theories (2006), "The inability to conceive of oneself as a productive member of one's own society". This inability to conceive of oneself as a productive member is a great danger; it can occur during adolescence when looking for an occupation.
Another science which can help us in better understanding the topic issue is sociology of the family and its “role model”. Children must have a chance to grow up in a fully functional social environment, where the child can observe both a male and female role model in traditional gender role, otherwise the child will grown into a dysfunctional youth and eventually a dysfunctional adult.[10] Another very helpful science is neurophysiology. It is the study of nervous system function. Primarily, it is connected with neurobiology, psychology, neurology, clinical neurophysiology, electro physiology, biophysical neurophysiology, ethology, neuroanatomy, cognitive science and other brain sciences. It teach us that man and woman have different brains. Nature shaped us in different sexes for some reason, our brains are programmed differently and function differently. [11]
Precursor of brain differences researches was Francis Gatton (London 1882) and Herbert Landsell (1960s), [12]
And now let me give you more examples of the destruction of society which came from a parenting model with only one-sex parent, generally females – survey shows.
Hugh Mackay, one of Australia's foremost social researchers described Generation Y as having – no values, but hedonism, with 1 out of 4 grew up in a single-parent household. About Generation Z he's even less confident about, saying “their overzealous helicopter parents, obsessed with the "art of parenting", will create a burden for their offspring. "These kids are overindulged, with a towering self-esteem - as opposed to self-respect - which won't be healthy". He warns "We are facing the most rebellious and obnoxious group of teenagers ever." [13]
Single-Parent Kids More At Risk - a 2003 Swedish study, stated that those living with a single parent were about three times more likely to kill themselves or end up in the hospital after an attempted suicide by the age of 26 than children living with two parents, however this only happened to 2.2 percent of girls and 1 percent of boys. [14] The 2003 study from Sweden - the biggest, most convincing ever done on the subject - that says children in one-parent homes are twice as likely as those in two-parent families to develop serious psychiatric problems and addictions later in life. Published in The Lancet's Jan. 25 issue, the research showed, among other things, that 2.5 percent of girls and 1.5 percent of boys in single-parent families were hospitalized with problems ranging from severe depression to paranoid schizophrenia, compared to just 1 percent of girls and 0.5 percent of boys in two-parent homes. Similar risk differences were seen for alcohol problems, and the increased risk for drug addiction was even higher than for other problems. Because researchers looked only at those hospitalized, experts said many more children suffer emotional problems, though perhaps not so severe. Experts did not dispute the findings because the study involved almost 1 million children over nearly a decade. They also said the results were similar to those seen in smaller studies elsewhere, including those in countries much more heterogeneous than Sweden.
In conclusion, from consequentialism perspective (Utilitarianism approach) it is clear that the Commonwealth cannot benefit from same-sex couple marriages because they cannot produce offsprings and if they raise adopted children they produce dysfunctional adults to the community similar to one-sex parents which create many additional unnecessary social problems, such: a less cohesive society; generation Y and Z: nihilistic, anarchistic and narcissistic individuals; increased crime and vandalism in public spaces; more various and complex mental problems, more identity and personal disorder, lack of self-discipline in people, more addictions, more suicides; social chaos; anomie and alienation, etc., etc., etc.[15]
We have a moral duty to be responsible for our community where we all live and the next generations.
The dialectic between individualism and communalism should put rights of the society first and subsequently what rights are available to the minorities and individuals. We ought to be wise and choose the right balance and remember: if we destroy own society, we will destroy ourselves as individuals as well. What is your opinion now? Yes or No for one-sex parenting or adoption?
Co-author: .... (educational counsellor, pedagogist)
Editing support: Leanne Gordon
References:
1. Parson, Talcott; Robert F. Bales and James Olds; Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, 1955
2. Ibidem
3. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage viewed on 08.11.2010 at 10:00 (GMT+10)
4. http://www.ask.com/wiki/LGBT_adoption viewed on 08.11.2010 at 10:00 (GMT+10)
5. From the Christchurch Health and Development Study (Dr Fergusson and Mr Horwood) and the Canterbury Suicide Project (Dr Beautrais), Christchurch School of Medicine, New Zealand. Vol. 56 No. 10, October 1999 Archives of General Psychiatry.
6. Boyden, S., Culture as a threat to humanity and the biosphere: A biohistorical perspective; International Journal of Anthropology, Volume 6, Number 3, 207-214, 1991
7.Grassie, William; Nationalism, Terrorism, and Religion: A Bio-Historical Approach. Creating a Best Case Scenario for Sri Lanka; Presented Thursday, May 15, 2008; BMICH Committee Room B, Colombo; Senior Fulbright Fellow in the Department of Pali and Buddhist Studies at the University of Peradeniya; http://www.grassie.net/pdfs/2008_A_Biohistorical_Approach.pdf pp. 3- 10; viewed on 29.10.2010 at 13:53 (GMT+10)
8. Ibidem
9. Erikson, Erik; Childhood and Society (1950); Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968); Adulthood (edited book, 1978)
10. Arlene Skolnick and Jerome Skolnick, eds. Family in Transition, 14th edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 2007
11. Andrew S. Blum, Seward B. Rutkove, "The Clinical Neurophysiology Primer", Humana Press, 2007
12. Moir, Anne & David Jessel, “Brainsex”, Mandarin, London 1991 (First published by Michael Joseph Limited, 1989)]
13. Mackay, Hugh, Advanced Australia... where?, Sydney 2008
14. The Lancet, January 25, paraphrased by CBS News' Emma Ross, "Single-Parent Kids More At Risk" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/health/main539283.shtml viewed on 08.11.2010 at 10:00 (GMT+10)
15.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/2261b?ijkey=6nlcW4RtRpiao&keytype=ref&siteid=aapjournals viewed on 25.10.2010 22:10 (GMT+10)
LGBT parenting biography (refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender):
· Dale O’Leary, About addoption danger by same-sex couple. Vox Domini, 2004.
· The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children: In Reply. Pediatrics, 2006.
· American College of Pediatricians. Homosexual parenting: is it time for change? 2004. Available at [viewed on 25.10.2010 22:10 (GMT+10)]: www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?cat=10005&art=50&BISKIT=3835427889&CONTEXT=art
· McWhirter DP, Mattison AM. The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1984:252, 253
· Saghir M, Robins E. Male and Female Homosexuality. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1973:225
· Peplau LA, Amaro H. Understanding lesbian relationships. In: Weinrich J, Paul W, eds. Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1982:233–248
· Pollak M. Male homosexuality. In: Aries P, Bejin A, eds. Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times. Forster A, trans-ed. New York, NY: B. Blackwell; 1985:40–61. Cited by: Nicolosi J. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc; 1991:124, 125
· Tasker F, Golombok S. Adults raised as children in lesbian families. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1995;65 :203 –215
· Bailey JM, Bobrow D, Wolfe M, Mikach S. Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Dev Psychol. 1995;31 :124 –129;
· Tasker F, Golombok S. Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Dev Psychol. 1996;32 :3 –11
· Stacey J, Biblarz TJ. (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? Am Soc Rev. 2001;66 :159 –183
· Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Beautrais AL. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56 :876 –880
·http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/10/876?ijkey=1eeacd478fd3dd3b6d6ed000292d46922470db7f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha viewed on 25.10.2010 22:10 (GMT+10)
· Schneider B, Atteberry A, Owens A. Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes. Birmingham, AL: Alabama Policy Institute; 2005:1–42. Available at: www.alabamapolicyinstitute.org/PDFs/currentfamilystructure.pdf viewed on 25.10.2010 22:10 (GMT+10)
It was presented to the audience on 10.11.2010 at Mission Australia, Surry Hills (Sydney),
Catalyst University Program, Introduction to Ethics.
1 comment:
8 Stages of Development by Erik Erikson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYCBdZLCDBQ
Post a Comment