Should the American Academy of Pediatrics have endorsed same-sex marriage?

  • If their members felt they should then yes.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics is its own entity with its own members and rules. If the members of this society wanted to endorse same sex marriage then they have every right to support it. Now, this does not mean that they should force this view down everyones throat, just let it be known you feel this way and drop it after that.

  • Everybody should be

    It's bigoted and behind where we are as a society to do anything different, so props to them for doing the right thing. There are legal rights to marriage that civil unions do not provide, support of same-sex marriage is support of equality, being against it is not. Everybody should endorse it.

  • Yes they should

    I think that the American Academy of Pediatrics should endorse same sex marriages. I think that everyone should endorse same sex marriages though. It is ok if someone wants to exercise their right to free speech and not want gay marriage. But I still think that same sex marriage should be legal because everyone deserves to marry the one that they love.

  • The American Academy of Pediatrics should have endorsed same-sex marriage.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics should have endorsed same-sex marriage. They had their own views on the topic but I think that they should have endorsed it. They should know that we do choose our sexuality to be straight or gay. I think once people start looking into gay marriage they will realize that it is not such a bad thing.

  • Yes They Should

    I believe by definition, the American Academy of Paediatrics, should have its moral and ethics in line with what is best for children. Since some parents identify as homosexual, the organization should support the products of these households just as much as others. In other words, children from homosexual parents have just as much worth and value, as children from heterosexual parents.

  • Yes I think they should.

    Since they are a medical organization that talk about the health and well being of children and they talk about parenting, they should talk about same-sex adoption, same-sex parenting and the effects on children. They should say it doesn't matter whether the role models of children are gay or straight as long as children have healthy role models. And since the American Academy of Pediatrics is a children's health organization they should talk about that.

  • Yes, they should have endorsed same sex marriage.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics should endorse same sex marriage as an example that same sex relationships are not a detriment to health and that it should be set as a role model for other organizing. While serving to help which infant and children's health, the academy should offer support towards adolescents who are sexually active as well. Many gay teens will refuse to tell their doctor that they engage in sexual activities due to the possible criticism their doctor may give. That is why it is imperative that the Academy of Pediatrics support same sex marriage so that the children pediatricians treat will be more willing to be treated without fear of being judged.

  • This is the "healthy" thing to do.

    Same-sex marriage couples produce or adopt children, and pediatricians care for those children. Pediatricians also see children who are not so lucky to be adopted or wanted, so it's reasonable to think that the Academy supports loving couples who will be caring for their own children. These could also be children that others don't want.

  • They can if they want.

    I don't think there is anything that is inherently wrong with the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsing same sex marriage. They are an organization that is free to spread their views in whatever way that they see fit. We are free to ignore their views as well, such is the life of freedom.

  • A medical organization should not endorse something that is not natural.

    Homosexuality is not genetic. If there was a "gay gene," every time it showed up, the person with the gene would be gay. Therefore, they would not have kids (as this requires a man and a woman). Thus, the trait would not be passed on. Natural selection, an important part of the theory of evolution states that: those traits that improve a species' ability to survive and reproduce will become more common in a population over time, while traits that inhibit survival or reproduction will cease to exist. As gays cannot naturally have children, homosexuality can't be seen as natural (which it obviously isn't because genetics makes it impossible). Thus, homosexual behavior is contrary to natural (as well as biblical) law. They should not encourage people to choose to be gay.

  • No, they're a medical organization.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they support gay marriage, but I don't really think that it's an appropriate thing for them to do. They are an organization of people who medically treat minors, and while I am glad that they are supportive of such issues, I do not feel that it is appropriate for them to use their respected position to make political statements.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.