By By Craig Ziemba
Feb. 17, 2002
The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a recent policy authored by Dr. Joseph I Tagan, Jr., has endorsed homosexual adoptions, claiming that homosexual couples can successfully parent children. The academy further urges doctors to lobby legislators to adopt laws approving "co-parent" adoptions, claiming that having two legal parents would give the children of homosexuals equal access to health and survivor benefits.
From news accounts, it appears that a few self-described experts in behavioral pediatrics have conducted some dubious research to support their views on the subject. No mention was given on the actual number of cases studied, what was used as a control group, or who decided what constituted a healthy, emotionally stable childhood.
I guess the nice thing about sociological research is that you can pick and choose your subjects and use anecdotal evidence to prove your point, particularly if you have a sympathetic listener (like the national media).
The usual battle lines are forming. The homosexual lobby claims that the time has come to end all forms of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, to legalize homosexual marriages, and to remove the barriers preventing them from becoming parents. The traditional family lobby argues that these demands fly in the face of our Judeo-Christian heritage and will undermine the foundation of our society. "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," etc., etc…
Curiously enough, the question over whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children can be adequately answered without bringing religion or politics into the debate at all. Nature herself has spoken.
The laws of Nature clearly dictate that procreation only occurs as a result of a heterosexual union. No matter how you look at it, it takes a man and a woman to have a child. This is an undisputable fact of Nature. People may disagree on whether or not that is ideal. They may use artificial fertilization or surrogates to circumvent Nature's plan. But ultimately, they cannot deny that the natural state of reproduction begins with the union of a mother and a father. Children adopted into heterosexual families might not be the offspring of that couple, but at least they have the chance to grow up in a natural environment.
So, the question becomes, "Should the government overrule the laws of Nature and decree that homosexual couples be allowed to assume the role of parenthood that Nature denied them'?" Usually breaking the law of Nature carries a heavy penalty. Try, for instance, breaking the law of gravity by jumping from a tower or breaking the law of penetration by driving into a tree. In those examples, you might be the only casualty of your foolishness. The problem with homosexual adoptions, however, is that innocent children are the casualties when Nature's laws are broken.
When did forcing children to live in an unnatural home become a legitimate role of government? I'm no lawyer (thank the Lord), but my copy of the U.S. Constitution says nothing that would indicate to me that the government has the power to intervene in the very laws of Nature. So, if the homosexual lobby wants to pursue a perceived right to adopt, they need to propose an amendment to the Constitution giving the government the power to nullify the laws of reproduction.
They might as well do away with gravity, entropy, and mortality while they are at it.