The claim that same-sex parenting households are just as good as married, biological parents, is not supported by any substantial evidence and is almost certainly false. Empirical studies indicate some problems with same-sex parenting, and inductive reasons give further cause for concern.
More About This Issue
All orphaned, unwanted or unborn children deserve loving homes, and there is no shortage of married couples eager to adopt them. But in our relativistic age, where marriage is seen as passé and gender confusion abounds, some cohabiting couples want to adopt in order to create a family.
When the state becomes involved in the “creation” of that family, the vulnerable children who cannot be cared for by their biological parents need as stable an environment as possible.
A stable home environment is “in the best interest of the child.” Generally speaking, nontraditional couples do not provide the stability and the basis for development of a proper gender identity to the same degree and in the same way as married moms and dads.
Experience shows that while moms and dads aren’t perfect, they provide the optimal conditions for a child’s spiritual, psychological and personal development. With so many married couples today on waiting lists to adopt unwanted unborn children, there is no need to conduct a risky social experiment with children by placing them with two parents who have not made a marriage commitment.
The United States alone has a fertility industry that brings in $3.3 billion annually. Meanwhile, “fertility tourism” has taken off as a booming global trade. In the U.S., an estimated 30,000-60,000 children are born each year through sperm donation, but this number is only an educated guess. Neither the industry nor any other entity in the U.S. is required to report on these vital statistics. While donation may create the baby that an adult desires, is it in the best interest of the child so conceived? The data seems to indicate that it is not.