Sample argumentative essay Every Child Deserves a Family As we enter the holiday season, take a moment and reflect on what it is you remember most about seasons past—the memories made, the moments shared. For many of us what makes the holidays so sentimental and so memorable is the time spent with family, celebrating, reminiscing, and creating new memories. These special moments are not afforded to all though—many children living in the foster care system would like nothing more than to be placed with a family of their own and have the opportunity to begin building some of these memories for themselves. To this end, it is imperative that every loving family that is willing and able to adopt and foster children is permitted to, without regard to whether that family happens to be constituted of a same-sex couple. Passage of the Every Child Deserves a Family Act (ECDFA) seeks to ensure that same-sex couples have uniform and equal access to the adoption and foster care system, replacing the existing state-by-state patchwork of laws that at times discriminate against these couples and deny them the opportunity to create families and provide those children waiting for a loving home with one and the lasting memories that come along with having a family to call their own. In 2015 the landmark Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states, acknowledging that same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Much of the reasoning in the decision focused on the importance of marriage as the foundation for family creation, as Justice Kennedy stated in the ruling “Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser” (Khimm). While the rights of same-sex couples to marry were affirmed under the decision, and their equal footing was acknowledged, there was left unanswered several questions regarding the rights of these couples to creating families—specifically through surrogates and adoption. In the absence of explicit guidance from the Supreme Court states and localities took varying tracks on the matter. Between 2011 and 2013, bills were passed in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, and Virginia that included specific language that allowed faith-based adoption agencies the right to refuse service to same-gender couples or to give preference to heterosexual couples (Montero). As recently as February 12, 2014, Kansas House Bill 2453 was passed prohibiting sanctions on religious groups that refused services to gays and lesbians (Montero). The bill would allow religiously affiliated adoption agencies the right not to place children with same- gender couples. Texas House Bill 3959 was passed in 2017 and signed into law, permits this type of discrimination not only against same-sex couples, but also those of other faiths and single-parents—using the pretext of religious freedom (Re.

1. Sample argumentative essay
Every Child Deserves a Family
As we enter the holiday season, take a moment and reflect on
what it is you remember most about seasons past—the memories
made, the moments shared. For many of us what makes the
holidays so sentimental and so memorable is the time spent with
family, celebrating, reminiscing, and creating new memories.
These special moments are not afforded to all though—many
children living in the foster care system would like nothing
more than to be placed with a family of their own and have the
opportunity to begin building some of these memories for
themselves. To this end, it is imperative that every loving
family that is willing and able to adopt and foster children is
permitted to, without regard to whether that family happens to
be constituted of a same-sex couple. Passage of the Every Child
Deserves a Family Act (ECDFA) seeks to ensure that same-sex
couples have uniform and equal access to the adoption and
foster care system, replacing the existing state-by-state
patchwork of laws that at times discriminate against these
couples and deny them the opportunity to create families and
provide those children waiting for a loving home with one and
the lasting memories that come along with having a family to
call their own.
In 2015 the landmark Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges
legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states, acknowledging that
same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights as their
heterosexual counterparts. Much of the reasoning in the
decision focused on the importance of marriage as the
foundation for family creation, as Justice Kennedy stated in the

2. ruling “Without the recognition, stability, and predictability
marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their
families are somehow lesser” (Khimm). While the rights of
same-sex couples to marry were affirmed under the decision,
and their equal footing was acknowledged, there was left
unanswered several questions regarding the rights of these
couples to creating families—specifically through surrogates
and adoption. In the absence of explicit guidance from the
Supreme Court states and localities took varying tracks on the
matter.
Between 2011 and 2013, bills were passed in Arizona,
Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, and Virginia that included
specific language that allowed faith-based adoption agencies the
right to refuse service to same-gender couples or to give
preference to heterosexual couples (Montero). As recently as
February 12, 2014, Kansas House Bill 2453 was passed
prohibiting sanctions on religious groups that refused services
to gays and lesbians (Montero). The bill would allow religiously
affiliated adoption agencies the right not to place children with
same- gender couples. Texas House Bill 3959 was passed in
2017 and signed into law, permits this type of discrimination
not only against same-sex couples, but also those of other faiths
and single-parents—using the pretext of religious freedom
(Reynolds). Same-sex adoption is currently legal in all 50 states
as of 2016, when Mississippi’s ban was struck down. However,
there exists no federal legislation mandating that foster-care and
adoption agencies receiving federal funding extend their
services to same-sex couples. This state-by-state uncertainty is
the most urgent reason that federal legislation should be passed
to ensure that all citizens are treated equally in the eyes of the
law. Opponents of same-sex adoption have seized on this gap to
attempt to pass several pieces of discriminatory legislation that
would allow foster-care and adoption agencies that are faith-
based to deny their services to same-sex couples—as well as

3. Candelas 2
single parents and those of other faiths. In order to ensure that
the number of children waiting for families are placed is
maximized, and to ensure that the spirit of Obergefell is fully
realized passage of the ECDFA is imperative.
Imagine that you just celebrated your first wedding anniversary
and you find out the same day that your spouse received the
promotion they’d been waiting for at work. Along with this
you’d both discussed starting a family and decided that as
adopted children yourself, you wanted to adopt to build your
family and pay all of the love and kindness you received
forward. With your partner’s new job, you will finally be able
to afford a bigger home and the hefty costs associated with the
adoption process. Your spouse’s promotion is moving you all
from California to the company headquarters in St Louis—you
make the move and begin the adoption process, only to find that
all of the local adoption agencies refuse to work with you
because you are a same-sex couple. You consult your attorney
friend only to have him tell you that, under Missouri law and
recently passed legislation, faith-based adoption agencies have
the right to deny service to you based solely on your sexual
orientation. Living in a conservative state and with the near
monopoly that Catholic-affiliated agencies have in your area
you are little with no recourse. This is the potential reality for
many same-sex couples seeking to access adoption services in
conservative states that have passed so-called religious liberty
laws.
In considering how impactful having a family is for the well-
being of children it is important to remember that numerous
studies have found that there is no significant difference in life
outcomes between children that are raised by same-sex couples
compared to those raised by heterosexual ones. In his New York

4. Times article Daniel Victor cites research from Columbia
University showing that “75 of 79 scholarly studies that met
their criteria
Candelas 3
concluded that the children faced no disadvantages” (Victor).
Children are inarguably better off when they are placed in a
loving family—regardless of the sexual orientation of the
parents. Public sentiment would seem to echo academic
research, as more and more of the population believes that
same-sex individuals and couples deserve equal treatment under
the law. Darrel Montero’s “America’s Progress in Achieving the
Legalization of Same-Gender Adoption: Analysis of Public
Opinion, 1994 to 2012” illustrates how public sentiment has
changed, with only 28% of respondents in 1994 supporting
same-sex adoption, to 61% of respondents expressing approval
in 2012. This growing public support for extending equal
treatment to LGBT citizens in the adoption and foster care
system does not always seem to be mirrored at the state
legislative level. Americans understand inherently what some of
their elected representatives do not—that a family that is
willing and able to shelter and provide for children in a loving
environment should have the opportunity to do so, without
regard to sexual orientation. Without evidence that children are
harmed by allowing equal access to LGBT couples to the
adoption process, there is no reason for state legislative
officials to try and create a system that is biased and
exclusionary and there does exist a moral and ethical imperative
to extend equal treatment to all citizens by taxpayer-funded
government entities.
There are those whose will contend that compelling adoption
and foster-care agencies receiving government funding to
extend their services with no regard to sexual orientation,

5. causes a dilemma for those groups with an expressly religious
founding or charter. Namely, some will say that by doing so and
granting equal rights to the LGBT community that we trample
the religious rights of these faith-based groups by compelling
them to make decisions contrary to their beliefs or risk losing
government funding. The title of Jamie Dean’s article in
Candelas 4
The World says it all: “Adoption Defense: A Wave of New
Laws Provides Vital Protection for Faith-based Adoption
Agencies—but LGBT Advocates are Putting Up a Fight.” In her
view, if faith-based agencies are compelled to extend their
services to LGBT couples many will instead choose to withdraw
from the system completely, resulting in fewer placements.
Dean envisions individuals making choices based on their
Christian faith and seeking out agencies that are able to place
their children in Christian homes and being unable to find such
entities as equal treatment legislation is passed and enforced.
Even though civil rights groups who have brought forward
litigation to challenge discriminatory practices have explicitly
said they are only targeting those groups receiving public
funding and not private agencies, Dean and those who feel as
she does think that there is something far more nefarious at
work and see their religious convictions as being assailed. In
response, faith-based groups have advocated federal legislation
of their own in the form of the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion
Act that would ensure that faith-based agencies could
discriminate against any group they choose, based solely on
their religious convictions.
What those on the other side of the argument fail to realize is
that federal funding has always come with strings attached—and
there is no one compelling them to accept funding— but if they
choose to, they must accept the restrictions placed on them. The

6. government has an imperative to treat all of its citizens equally
under the law, and in the history of our country, extending
rights and freedoms to previously discriminated classes of
people has never led to negative outcomes. These agencies are
free to practice their faith and make choices in keeping with
said faith; I would contend that this does not preclude them
from being able to extend their services without regard whether
those seeking their services share their convictions. The
Candelas 5
diversity of America is reflected in its religious communities as
well, and whether they are aware of it or not it is almost certain
that these agencies have worked with individuals whose beliefs
have not aligned with their own. In order to do the most good,
by way of having the most number of children possible placed
in loving homes, I think it is possible for faith-based groups to
extend their services to those of a different mindset, belief
system or sexual orientation without explicitly endorsing those
contrarian beliefs.
Throughout the course of American history there have been
times when our collective moral consciousness has compelled us
to realize when the time has come to extend freedoms that were
once restricted to disenfranchised classes of citizens. Civil
rights issues of the 20th century including women’s suffrage,
segregation, and same-sex marriage have all called upon us at
various points to acknowledge when we as a people have been
wrong and wake up to the new reality present to us. That time
has come for the same-sex adoption movement. When there is
so much at stake that is so impactful and emotionally
compelling with an issue like creating families, I think it is
paramount for us to acknowledge the occasion and rise to it by
swiftly passing the ECDFA.

7. Candelas 6
Works Cited
Beitsch, Rebecca. “Despite Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, Gay
Adoption Rights Uncertain in Some States.” Stateline.Org, 19
Aug. 2015, Newspaper Source Plus, www.ebscohost.com.
Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.
Dean, Jamie. “Adoption Defense: A Wave of New Laws
Provides Vital Protection for Faith-Based Adoption and Foster
Agencies--but LGBT Advocates Are Putting up a Fight.” World
Magazine, June 2018, pp. 40–43. Academic Search Complet,
www.ebscohost.com. Accessed 29 Oct. 2018.
Khimm, Suzy. “The New Nuclear Family.” New Republic, Fall
2015, p. 8. MasterFILE Complete, www.ebscohost.com.
Accessed 4 Nov. 2018.
Montero, Darrel M. “America’s Progress in Achieving the
Legalization of Same-Gender Adoption: Analysis of Public
Opinion, 1994 to 2012.” Social Work, vol. 59, no. 4, Oct. 2014,
pp. 321–328. Social Sciences Full Text, www.ebscohost.com.
Accessed 2 Nov. 2018.
Reynolds, Daniel. “Are LGBT’s Under Attack in Texas?: The
State Guts Rights and Endangers Kids under the Guise of
Religious Freedom.” Advocate, Aug. 2017, p. 10. MasterFILE
Complete, www.ebscohost.com. Accessed 5 Nov. 2018.
Victor, Daniel. “Kentucky Judge, Citing Conscience, Declines
to Hear Same-Sex Adoption Cases.” The New York Times, 1
May 2017, Newspaper Source Plus, www.ebscohost.com.
Accessed 5 Nov. 2018

8. Questions instructions!!
For this assignment, you will be assessing the effectiveness of
the presentation of an argument by examining specific writing
elements of a sample argumentative essay.
1. Select
two
of the following elements to comment on in your post:
- Introduction
- Thesis statement
- Topic sentences
- Paragraphing/organization
- Supporting Claims/Evidence
- Counterargument
- Clarity of ideas
- Grammar
- Conclusion
In your post, reflect on the effectiveness of the elements you
have selected, examining the strengths and weaknesses (if any)
of these within the essay. Be
specific
.

9. 2. Select a
third
element from the list above and pose a question about it for
discussion with your peers.