Obviously the AAP statement on same-sex adoption is going to be an
emotionally and politically charged one (I don't remember this amount of
debate over bicycle helmets or breastfeeding). I wish we could get as much
energy worked up over the number of children without health insurance. I
restrained myself from posting the first day for precisely this reason, but
after contemplation, have decided to offer my perspective (no mudslinging,
I promise).Obviously many people have strong feelings about sexuality based
on their beliefs, religion, and background and I respect those beliefs. I
think the debate here upsets so many because perhaps the AAP often takes
what most would consider to be a liberal view towards certain issues. I
don't always agree with their policy statements and guidelines and don't
always follow them, yet I still support the organization much in the way I
do the federal government, and democracy. Having said that, I'm grateful
for their support on this issue and here's why:
1) Many children need adoption. I don't think the AAP intended for "gay
couples" to steal away potential adoptees from heterosexual couples. To my
knowledge, most birth mothers have a choice when it comes to selection of
parents, and because of the stigma homosexuality carries in our society, I
doubt many birth mothers are going to choose a gay couple. Many overseas
agencies ban same-sex adoption as well. There are still, however, thousands
of children, many trapped in the cycle of foster care, that need help.
There are already an estimated 40,000 children in New York City alone
orphaned by the AIDs epidemic. Anything the AAP can do to improve this
situation I wholeheartedly support.
2) There may be certain same-sex couples who find parenting "trendy" at the
moment and have not considered all the ramifications of raising a child and
may not be cut out for parenting. These individuals have no more business
parenting than the 15-year-olds having sex without practicing
contraception. Just because you "can" do doesn't mean you "should" do it
when another potential human life is involved. In fact, I would argue in
2002 it will still be exceedingly difficult to raise a child in a same-sex
relationship (even moreso in conservative areas of the country and small
towns) and will put additional stress on the enormous amount of time,
energy, and compassion good parenting and a committed relationship already
demands.
3) The real debate is going to be the redefining of "marriage" and
"domestic partnership." Vermont is already an experiment. Maybe this
shouldn't be an AAP issue at present. But it will undoubtedly affect the
redefining of "family" and will involve children on some level.
Having said all this, I thank the AAP for their support of this policy. I
first came to terms with my homosexuality while in residency.
Discrimination still exists in the medical field as well as plenty of
others?don't let anyone tell you differently. I have plenty of firsthand
experience. I currently do not have plans to adopt. However, I hold these
truths to be self-evident:
--I have as much right to become a parent as anyone else.
--I have a right to a committed relationship with another person who may
help in parenting.
What role should this other person have? What rights should this person
have? I don't have the answers, but these are issues that are not going to
go away. Confronting them is going to engender controversy. In the
meantime, gay parents should be considered no less equal than straight
parents. Parents are parents. Their rights, and their children's rights
should not, and cannot be denied.
Gregory Plemmons, MD, FAAP
Assistant Professor, General Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, TN