In the United States citizens have the privilege of equal rights. Every citizen has the freedom to do as they please with their own lives as long as one is not violating the laws that are in place. Some of the rights every citizen has are stated within the constitution and there are also rights extended to everyone beyond this. Some of our rights within the Bill of Rights are freedom of religion, speedy trial, petition, speech; furthermore our rights beyond this are freedom of privacy, occupation, marriage, and residence. A person literally can map out their entire life and how they would like to spend each day. When ethical dilemmas conflict with these freedoms, the law tends to intervene. Sometimes, when one uses his or her rights in an ethically wrong way, one suffers the repercussions of the law because the action is considered ethically wrong. Such as one using his or her freedom of religion as means to justify murdering someone, or if one delivers a hate speech. These are both obvious examples of how one is violating their rights in order to satisfy their beliefs. I will present something a little more challenging. Are same-sex couples using their equal rights to violate moral codes? Ought same-sex couples be permitted to adopt?.
To discover the moral relevance of this question, Immanuel Kant's perspective of Kantianism will be applied. In Kantianism, an ethical action involves two stages. First he would look at the action to determine if it is the categorical imperative. Then he would look at the motivation of the parties performing the action. If the same-sex couples who plan on adopting are rational and present goodwill, then their actions can be determined as moral. A person with the motive of goodwill will always point them in the direction of the morally correct action. "One's motivation to become a mother or a father may occur regardless of one's sexual orientation."; in fact, research shows 10% of gay women and 20% of gay men are already parents (Knight & Pennington, 2010).