Is Same-sex Parenting Better for Kids?

Children are a large piece of the puzzle in the debate over marriage and its expansion in the United States.  What is best for children?  The law requires for any decision about children to focus on their best interests (and you can read more about that at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1957143. The question many are asking seems to be how do parents affect children. 

Should we rethink Mom and Dad?  I've written an article on that subject entitled just that, "Rethinking Mom and Dad," available for free download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2462112.  Dr. Mark Regnerus at U. Texas recently wrote an article called Is Same-sex Parenting Better for Kids? which is posted at http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/churches-and-politics/is-same-sex-parenting-better-for-kids/.  These are important questions for our time, particularly for a culture struggling with family strength.

The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission is sponsoring an important conference on ministry in a post-marriage culture.

Find out more about that conference at the ERLC National Conference: "The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage."  Designed to equip Christians to apply the gospel on these issues with convictional kindness in their communities, their families and their churches, this event will be held at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville, TN on October 27-29, 2014.  Events like these go a long way in restoring families.


  1. Is same-sex parenting better for children? Better than what? Same-sex parenting is not better than traditional parenting--one man and one woman in a monogamous, life-long, Christ-centered relationship. My religious conviction is that homosexuality is an abomination before God, the Father of Jesus Christ. Homosexuality has and always will be against the law of nature, regardless of what the Supreme Court rules. Even the Romans, in all their national debauchery, saw fit not to openly condone it. Finally, all three major world religions--Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--teach against it. But I have seen stable homosexual couples. So for me, I have to ask a secondary question: When I child cannot receive traditional parenting or be placed in a Christ-centered orphanage, would it be better for the child to potentially rot away in a dilapidated orphanage, run the streets, or be adopted by a stable homosexual couple? In that situation, I would prefer the child be with a stable homosexual couple. My views are not contradictory. The first option would be for all children to be in a traditional home. The second option would be placement in a Christ-centered orphanage. If neither one of those are a possibilities, a stable homosexual couple is better than leaving the child in a dilapidated orphanage or to fend for himself on the streets. Personally, I pray for all children who have homosexual parents that God's grace would intervene by showing them the truth of Scriptures and giving them the strength to follow it: the story of Moses provides a biblical precedent for this position.

    1. I entirely agree with this comment. Homosexuality has been shown time and time again throughout history to tear apart family values and cultures. I also agree with the tiered options. There are many aspiring foster parents that wait interminably for a child--I believe this would be a more stable environment for the child. There is a reason half that child's DNA is male and half is female; no matter how loving the homosexual couple is towards that child, the child's development will be severely stunted by not having the influence of the unrepresented gender.

      To use the best interest of the child standard, I believe one must look at the instability of homosexual unions. A common argument made by those supportive of homosexual unions is: "I know a homosexual person, and he/she is the nicest person." Or, "I know a homosexual couple and they would make great parents." Yet, very few people can actually point to a homosexual couple that has been together for an extended period of time (unfortunately, a similar argument can be made about heterosexual couples, but that only serves as more evidence of the destructive effect upon a child who lacks a mother and father--two wrongs do not make a right). Thus, I believe same-sex parenting should be a last resort.

    2. The difficulty I have with the comments this question has generated is that it focuses attention on only one of the issues that is faced, adoption. The sentiment seems to be that same-sex couples are bad because it’s “an abomination” and not proper “family values” or “stable”. While yes, same-sex couples aren’t what I picture when someone says, “these are my parents”, I do not agree that they should be viewed as a “last resort” before homelessness or improper facilities. In my own experience, I am of the belief that people who are willing to adopt should be welcomed and absent barrier crimes or truly worrisome situations should be given a chance. The main reason I feel this way is that the majority of my experience has been with children who are available for adoption due to life atrocities that have taken them away from their biological parents and families [not one of which were a same sex couple]. Before becoming involved with the Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services last year, I, like many others, pictured cute babies when I thought of adoption. In reality, the majority are kids who have been bounced around foster care, or born to drug addicts, or given up because of some “special need”. At the risk of sounding harsh, society seems to picture adopting children like adopting dogs. Everyone wants the puppy but no one want the stray that has gone grey at the muzzle. Sadly enough, the average adoptable dog and the average adoptable child are probably the same age.
      As for same-sex couples being an “abomination” or “unstable”, an abomination and unstable would be a step up for some of these kids. I’m not championing giving kids away to anyone who will take them, that would be absurd. And I’m not weighing in on the opinion of the church on homosexuality. I’m merely saying love, structure, and permanency are more needed by most of these kids than parents with different sets of plumbing. The rest the kids are going to figure out themselves in their own time.

      As a sidenote,:

      The process of adoption is extensive. Its not like they are just handing kids out like free samples at the mall. Couples, even straight ones, have to jump through hoops to get kids (even the ones that “no one wants”) If the “parents” get approved, they are most likely very stable.

      And “teaching them the wrong values”, I’d be willing to bet, a lot, that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals had heterosexual parents.

  2. I have found a news article, “children of same sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/)

    The report shows that children from same sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion. These kind of nonsense reports are trying to persuade people that there are basically no deference at all compared with children from the general population.

    Claims like “no differences” or “happier and healthier than” are not valid, because this survey was done by non-random sample basis which reflects those who actively pursued participating in the study. Also, the researcher used internet, same-sex marriage community ad, and media to recruit the sample. This cross-sectional survey is not appropriate to say that A is happier than B, or A is healthier than B. We should remember that not every news tell the truth.

  3. I think that same sex couples in a loving, committed relationship can offer more stability, love, and support than a significant portion of heterosexual parents.