|
The adoption by the Spanish Government of a law that equates the family with homosexual unions and that gives them the opportunity to adopt children, has been contested by broad sectors of society. At the same time, has been supported by others. Voices have been raised in favor and against it, also from specialized scientific fields. We offer below a list of arguments against these adoptions. |
| The psychologist Aquilino Ayshe Talay-Ongan (Professor of psychopathology of the Complutense University of Madrid, author of 50 books and hundreds of articles, among other things), writes in the Lexicon recently published in Spanish by the Pontifical Council for the Family (Ed. Word, Madrid 2004), the following on the adoption of children by gay couples: “There are many reasons to oppose this supposed right, as indicated below:
1.- Among children deprived of their parents, and then adopted, there is a higher incidence of psychopathological disorders (disorders of conduct, school failure, aggressiveness, separation anxiety, psychomotor retardation, hyperactivity, dyslexia, depression, antisocial behavior, suicide, psychopathies, psychosis, etc.), than in children who do not suffer this deprivation. 2.- The child has the right to acquire, to found and establish, in an appropriate manner, something as important and indispensable as their own sexual identity. This right is prevented or seriously threatened when the child is exposed to only models of behavior, such as the homosexual, in whom has precisely the same identity crisis. 3.- The child has the right to be protected from additional pathology derived from such exposure, which would add to the already aroused state by the mere fact of not living with their biological parents and having been separated from them. 4.- The boy and the girl have need of a father and a mother to identify with the person of the same gender, and to learn the respect, affection and complementarity that the person of the other gender must provide. The attachment and bonding that result from that relationship are essential to establish one’s personal identity. 5.- The child has the right to mature his affectivity, noting the link – the affective, cognitive and personal- that is set in the relationship between the father and the mother. This relationship constitutes the warp which locks and consolidates the maturity of his affectivity and his future personality. 6.- In the psychological profile of the homosexual is observed a higher incidence of psychopathological traits (self-centeredness, self-pity, affective immaturity, jealousies, infidelities, depression, etc.), which in no way contributes to the harmonious development of the child as well adopted and exposed to that model of conduct. 7.- The child who lives with homosexuals neither experiences nor learns the existing gender differences between men and women. On the contrary, he learns something that is false and unnatural: the irrelevance of the need and complementarity of the persons of the other sex and the differences that characterize them. 8.- The child that only lives together with the homosexual adopters would suffer a deficit in his socialization – not internalizing the genuine spirit of family that sinks its roots in the community between a man and a woman -, and an impoverishment in his self-esteem and a significant deterioration in his self-concept, for having been only partially structured. 9.- As a result, the child who was adopted by homosexuals, his identity would be battered, divided, incomplete, and partially deprived, mutilated, incorrect and therefore unsatisfactory. 10.- The child who was adopted by homosexuals does not meet the criteria that define adoption, and properly would result in a ” adoptio sine adoptione”, that is to say, in an adoption without adoption, in a legal fiction. So, at the end of the adoption the protection of the child is devalued and not the satisfaction of the adult without offspring. On the other hand, as argued in the old legal principle, “adoptio imitatur naturam”, the adoption must imitate nature. This means a family constituted by the adoptive father and mother, with stable relationships, so as to facilitate the growth and development of the adopted person.” Other arguments In addition to the above, it can be said that with the adoption by gay couples, it is violating the principle II of the universal declaration of the rights of the child, insofar as it establishes that the laws pertaining to the child will be exclusively the interests of this child as the objective. It is clear that the agitation on this subject responds to the desire of some homosexuals to be comforted with respect to the biological impossibility of being parents and that there is an insufficient supply of married heterosexual couples willing to adopt, as evidenced by the illegal trafficking in children. It is possible, even, to increase that traffic due to increased demand from the new gay couples wishing to adopt. We must not forget that in a normal family, conjugal love is clearly differentiated from the love father-child relationship and that this will help both the allocation of roles, such as father-mother, and the incest taboo. Now, with the differentiation of roles, together with the absence of the biological nexus, there is produced a progressive disappearance of the taboo of incest, which will result in an increase in the sexual relations between adoptive parents and the adopted, which means that most of the homosexuals become pedophiles. Although experts say that no serious studies can be done for at least 30 years, and that with children educated in an environment of a homosexual couple and not in a “family” in which one or the other has had a heterosexual relationship, and as a result of which has had a child. These are voices that speak, in one sense or another, with a so-called scientific authority. Thus, while a study prepared by the University of Seville on 28 cases in favor of these adoptions, because, says Maria del Mar González, its director, “it seems that the children were not shocked by love, because they do not have the prejudices that we have,” Mercedes Valcarce, Professor of Evolutionary Psychology from the Complutense, disqualifies, from a scientific point of view, the report prepared by the University of Seville, since, says: “The methodology used in the work is unacceptable.” For this doctor in Psychology, “the homosexual has a weak identity, he wants a relationship in the mirror, looking for a continuity of itself, and that is the worst for the development of a child in order to grow as a harmonic and independent person. Every adoptable child, he adds, already has problems because he has been rejected by the biological parents; it is a very bad starting point. Therefore, you need two parents in an excellent stable condition”. Do not forget, finally, that it is proven that promiscuity of the homosexual unions is broken four times more than heterosexual ones. |
