Marriage Argument

Recent research indicates that more than 10 percent of same sex couples are raising children (Olsen, 2006). This implies that more gay and lesbians now have a chance to start a family of their own. In this regard, most gay couples believe that they have a right to adopt and raise kids as their own. Legally, married gay couples have a right to adopt a child just like the traditional families. Recent scientific reports indicate that gay parenting is as effective as heterosexual parenting. This research indicates that children raised by gay parents have psychological health and good behavior just like the children who have grown up in single or heterosexual families. Gay couples can become parents through various ways. These include adoption, co-parenting and foster care. However, in my opinion, the gay couple described in the article should not be allowed to have children.

The gay couple has not entered into a civil partnership. Therefore, their relationship is not recognized as having any legal standing despite the fact that the couple has lived together for more than three years. If such couples are allowed to raise kids without any legal agreement binding their relationship, these children’s future will be compromised (Olsen, 2006). As matter of fact, if the relationship is no longer fulfilling, each one of them will have to go on separate ways. In this regard, the ownership of children and responsibility will be a matter of contention. As illustrated by the article, one of the couple has a professional job enabling him to have health coverage. In this consideration, it will be inappropriate for the couple to adopt a child since they will not only be unable to provide appropriate health coverage for the child, but also one of the couple will have to do without a health insurance cover.

As asserted by the sociologist, children raised by cohabiting couples are less likely to flourish compared to those in legally married families. It is an established fact that cohabiting couples are less committed and have fewer resources to sustain their children unlike in the case of married couples (Blankenhorn, 2007). Similarly, evidence suggests that children raised by cohabiting individuals are likely to encounter emotional and sexual abuse as compared to the children raised by married couples (Blankenhorn, 2007). It is for this reason that the couple mentioned in the article should be restricted from adopting or raising a child until they formalize their union.

Get 15% OFF

You can get limited discount for your first order

Code: special15

Get it now

Get a price quote:

Type of service
Type of your assignment
Academic level

New customer 15% OFF

Order total: 00.0000.00

Similarly, the couple’s careers will determine the amount of time that each one of them avails to the family (Blankenhorn, 2007). As illustrated, the partner with a post-graduate degree will have to spend more time with the kids, unlike his counterpart who has a rigid work schedule. The degree holder will become the family’s breadwinner and caretaker. In the end, family pressures and demands may force him to terminate the relationship as he seeks a well-paid partner. In such instances, the child’s future is compromised (Blankenhorn, 2007).

As depicted in the article, there exists a huge disparity between the couple’s careers with one having a postgraduate degree and a professional job. On the other hand, the other partner does not have a college degree and has a job in the service industry where work is unstable. Due to these differences, the couple relationship might not last because the partner with a stable job will be under pressure to meet the needs of the other partner and the child. If this situation persists, a breakup will be eminent since there are no legal means bounding couple. In such a case, the child adopted by the couple will not only suffer emotionally but may also be abandoned since from the onset of the relationship the couple had not entered into any civil partnership that could have guaranteed the child’s future. As a result, the couple should be restricted from raising any children until there is guarantee of their future.

Similarly, both couples’ educational qualifications and background considerably vary compromising on their compatibility. Research has indicated that couples with varied educational qualifications are more likely to break up in the future than those constituting of individuals with similar educational qualifications (Blankenhorn, 2007). This affirms that before individuals get married, their educational qualification significantly matters as it determines, to some extent, the compatibility of the couple. In this regard, the educational qualification of the couples cited in the article considerably varies with one having a postgraduate degree while the other has no college education. Because these considerations might negatively affect the couple’s compatibility, the couple should not have a child for now until they are sure that their educational differences are not going to be a major factor in their future marriage.

Another major factor that may challenge the couple’s parenting ability is that the duo is an interracial couple. One partner is non-Hispanic white while the other is African-American (non-Hispanic). In this consideration, the two should not raise a child until they are sure that their cultural difference will not undermine their relationship, parenting roles and responsibility. As per now, the couple has been cohabiting for more than three years. Thus, their interracial differences coupled with lack of formal marriage bond may undermine their parenting roles in the future. This would significantly affect the welfare of their children (Grimm, 1995). In conclusion, all the factors undermining the couple from raising children will be considerably insignificant once the partners cement their relationship through the appropriate means.

Discount applied successfully