Is Same-Sex Adoption Better Than No Adoption? A Lutheran Response
The claim that “children being adopted by same-sex couples is better than no adoption at all” is often framed as compassionate and practical—but this appeal is geared towards sentiment rather than truth. It asks us to prioritize feelings over God’s design: “Isn’t it better for a child to be loved by someone rather than by no one?”
At first glance, it sounds noble. But a compassionate lie is still a lie. And still dangerous. Prioritizing adult feelings and political validation over the child’s well being led to a terrible arrangement. When ideology outruns discernment, children suffer.
When Christians oppose this arrangement, they are not just talking about it. They are taking action as well. Here's a reality often ignored by many: Christians are, and always have been, one of the world’s most consistent leaders in orphan care, compassion, and mercy ministry. As an example, Protestant and evangelical networks lead global responses to the needs of orphans, with the Christian Alliance for Orphans (CAFO) reporting over 190 member organizations and 650+ churches serving vulnerable children in 130 countries.¹
What becomes clear here is that this isn’t about love versus hate. It’s about truth versus sentimentality. It’s about what truly serves the child and what honours the God who created that child.
The Created Order Matters
God established marriage as a union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). This is not merely for reproduction—it is the foundational structure for human developments. It reflects the relationship between Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:31–32) and provides the necessary complementarity—male and female—that every child deserves.
To place a child in a same-sex household prevents that child from having the lived experience of both a mother and a father. More than that, it institutionalizes something that is not biblical nor humanly sustainable: that sex, gender, and parental roles are interchangeable or irrelevant. But this isn’t a neutral arrangement—it’s an environment that teaches by its very structure that God’s design is disposable.
Compassion and Truth
We must grieve the real and tragic reality of orphans and unwanted children. But the emotional urgency of their need must not blind us to what is good, true, and right.
Saying “any family is better than none” is a false dichotomy. Would they hand a baby to a family that attends a cult? To a family that teaches hate as they construe it? To one that refuses medical care, or treats children like adults? To a family that allows a child to choose surgical intervention to change their biological sex?
But there's more. Many who defend same-sex adoption also support legalized abortion—demonstrating that their concern for vulnerable children has clear limits. Also, they might get outraged if an adopted child would be sent to a home that:
-refused to send the child to school at all
-don't vaccinate children
-doesn't push the climate change theory
-voted for the candidates they hate
-allowed sugar before the child was 3 years old
These contradictions reveal that “any family is better than none” may not be a real principle, but just a convenient slogan. There's more than one angle to this question and that it isn't really loving to answer tragedy with moral compromise.
Christians must not allow themselves to be manipulated by false compassion. We must reject the narrative that necessity trumps theology, or that sentiment replaces Scripture. As Luther said, “You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the Word which the Lord Who receives sinners preaches to you.”
The Church Must Not Abandon the Orphan—or the Truth
One of the most tired but dangerous arguments used to justify same-sex adoption is: “Well, at least they’re stepping up. Where are the Christians?”
First, on the topic of social action, there’s a recurring argument that
the Church only “preaches love” without acting on it. This is false, as
the essay demonstrates. Critics often exaggerate to the point of
absurdity: if the Church helps one child on First Avenue, but another
suffers on Second Avenue, then supposedly it has done nothing. That
implies that unless we solve all
problems, we are solving nothing at all. The question that always
remains unanswered is: how much should be done to meet the requirements? If a benchmark is set
and the Church reaches it, critics often lose their ideological
argument— but since the Church never reaches it, the critique continues
indefinitely.
Now, while brokenness will be always present in a broken world (regimes that try to "fix it" usually end up very badly), our solution is what it has always been: Church and Society can always do more. But this doesn't mean that much has already been done. Churches and Christian organizations are already doing this work worldwide, but we can always intensify and expand it. While again, we will never be able to meet every single need, we strive to meet them in ways that honour God's design. The modern West did not teach the Church to care for the vulnerable—we taught them. We do not owe secular culture a compromise, but the truth. And in word and deed, the Church will continue to act faithfully, showing love without abandoning God’s design for family.
Where are the Christians? They are already leading. And they have been for centuries.
From the early Church rescuing discarded Roman infants in the Roman Empire (Stark, The Rise of Christianity, 1996), to the founding of the first orphanages, hospitals, and care homes (Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity, 2009), Christian compassion is not reactionary—it is faithful to God’s Word. Today, the global Christian community provides billions of dollars, volunteers, homes, and institutions to care for orphans, foster children, widows, the poor, and the suffering (Pew Research Center, 2014).
From the early Church rescuing discarded Roman infants, to the founding of the first orphanages, hospitals, and care homes, Christian compassion is not reactionary—it is faithful to God's Word. Today, the global Christian community provides funds, volunteers, homes, and institutions to care for orphans, foster children, widows, the poor, and the suffering.
To say “Christians aren’t doing enough” is not only unfair—it’s factually false. Could we do more? Yes. And we must. But we do not accept that the solution to our failures is to bless a structure that denies the very image of God in family.
The Church is not behind in compassion. She is the engine of it. But compassion must never be divorced from confession.
Every child comes from a mother and a father. To be raised without one or the other due to tragedy, difficult circumstances, problems, is one thing. To be raised intentionally without either is something else entirely. This is supported not only by the Bible, but also by basic human biologic and behavioural studies. Children raised by their married mother and father consistently fare better on measures of well-being and stability (McLanahan & Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent, 1994; Regnerus, Social Science Research, 2012).
Whenever possible, children need both male and female role models—not as a matter of personal preference, but as a matter of divine design. Male and female are not interchangeable. They are distinct, complementary, and together reflect the fullness of God’s intent for family.
To say that a same-sex couple can raise a child “just as well” is not only a denial of Scripture—it is a denial of nature, experience, and common sense.
The Heart of the Gospel: Truth in Love
Jesus never affirmed sin. He loved sinners—yes—but called them to repentance and new life. He didn’t tell the woman caught in adultery, “You’re fine as you are.” He said, “Go and sin no more.”
Likewise, the Church must speak clearly. To bless a same-sex household as a legitimate context for raising a child is not an act of love—it is refusing to speak the truth because we fear being labelled unloving. But the most loving thing the Church can do is hold up God’s design for family, for human life, and for children—and to embody it.
So when we speak against same-sex adoption, it is not because we hate—it is because we love too fiercely to accept less than what God has said is good.
Conclusion
So no—a child adopted by a same-sex couple is not “better” than no adoption at all, if that adoption means forming them in a setting that is contrary to God's creation. Love without truth is not love.
The Church must continue to lead in compassion, action, and mercy. But she must also hold the line on truth. Because what’s at stake is not just policy or opinion. What’s at stake is the soul of the child—and the glory of the Creator.
Better than nothing is not the same as God’s best—and the Church is always in the business of seeking God’s love and truth - the best for Her children.
_____________________
Notes & References
-
Christian Alliance for Orphans (CAFO), www.cafo.org.
-
Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, HarperOne, 1996.
-
Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2009.
-
Pew Research Center, Religion and Charitable Giving, 2014.
-
Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent, Harvard Univ. Press, 1994.
Mark Regnerus, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?” Social Science Research 41, no. 4 (2012): 752–770
Questions & Answers – A Confessional Lutheran Perspective
Q1. Aren’t you being harsh instead of compassionate?
A. It may sound harsh to say “no” to someone’s desire to adopt. But true compassion always seeks what is best for children, not simply what adults want. We do not deny the real suffering of orphans or the sincere desire of adults who want to help. We give thanks for every heart that longs to care for a child. Yet Scripture teaches that the best gift for a child is to be raised, where possible, by a father and mother (Genesis 1:27–28; Psalm 68:6). Speaking this truth is not cruelty but love.Q2. Aren’t you exaggerating Christian orphan care?
A. Yes, Christians have failed at times, even grievously. But it is also true that Christians pioneered orphanages, hospitals, schools, and relief efforts across history. Acknowledging sin in our past does not erase the consistent witness of Christian mercy that has blessed millions. Failures must be confessed, but they do not erase the Church’s ongoing primary role in orphan care.Q3. Aren’t you oversimplifying, saying “God’s design or chaos”?
A. We recognize reality is complex. Some children in same-sex households may have material stability compared to those in abusive heterosexual homes. But that does not mean same-sex parenting matches God’s design. The comparison is not “perfect vs. disaster,” but “God’s design vs. deliberate departure.” Broken heterosexual homes are also a problem, but the solution is not to normalize another distortion.Q4. Aren’t you misusing social science?
A. Social science on this topic is contested, often politicized, and limited by small sample sizes. Some studies claim “no difference,” while others show clear differences. Christians are not bound by shifting data, but by God’s Word (Isaiah 40:8). Still, where science is done carefully, it often confirms the wisdom of God’s design: children flourish best with both mother and father.Q5. Aren’t you just imposing religion on society?
A. When critics say “the Church has become political,” what we notice is actually that reality is reversed: secular ideology has been politicizing moral truths, attempting to redefine marriage and family. What happens is quite the opposite: Christians are responding to the encroachment of ideology and secular pressure that seeks to redefine God’s design for family. We are not forcing religion on society; rather, we are witnessing faithfully to what God has revealed in Scripture and creation. God’s design for family is visible in nature, confirmed by biology, and affirmed across history. Speaking God’s truth is not political activism—it is a pastoral, faithful response to the moral confusion society promotes.Q6. Why focus on same-sex adoption when heterosexual homes are also broken?
A. We must address all distortions of God’s design—divorce, abuse, neglect, cohabitation, and same-sex adoption alike. This is not singling one group out. It is one part of a broader calling: to hold up God’s good order, repent where we have failed, and point to the healing grace of Christ, who welcomes all sinners to forgiveness and new life.Q7. But what about the child aging out of foster care right now? Isn't a same-sex home better than that?
A. This question assumes only two options exist: same-sex adoption or institutional neglect. But this is a false choice that reveals our failure, not God's. The right response is not to compromise God's design but to ensure that faithful Christian families and churches rise to meet the need. When we ask "what's better for this one child today?" we must also ask "what builds a culture where children don't fall through the cracks tomorrow?" Normalizing what Scripture calls sin does not serve children long-term, even if it seems compassionate short-term. Our calling is not to manage brokenness with more brokenness, but to expand the reach of gospel-shaped families and communities that reflect God's design.
This framing assumes the foster care crisis exists because Christians aren't doing enough—and that the solution is to normalize sin. Both assumptions are false. The foster care system is broken, and reasons for that would include: governments have replaced the family and the Church with bureaucracy, the sexual revolution destroyed marriages, and a culture of abortion and convenience has abandoned responsibility. Christians have been responding to this type of collapse for centuries. The answer is not "compromise your convictions to manage the secular cultural disaster." The answer is to seek to restore God's design for family, support marriage, do not support the idea that same sex parents can replace a mother and father, and let the Church do what she has always done—care for the vulnerable without sacrificing truth on the altar of sentiment.Q8. What if the research shows no difference in outcomes for children?
A. First, the research is far from settled, and much of it suffers from small samples, short time frames, and ideological bias. But more importantly, Christians do not determine right and wrong by social science studies. Research can inform prudence and confirm God's wisdom, but it cannot overturn it. Even if studies claimed identical outcomes, the question remains: does this arrangement honour God's created order? Does it teach the child that mothers and fathers are interchangeable? Does it normalize what Scripture calls sin? A child's statistical "outcome" measured by grades and income does not capture the formation of their soul, their understanding of God's design, or their relationship with their Creator. We care about the whole child, not just sociological metrics.Q9. Doesn't your rhetoric (comparing same-sex adoption to cults, etc.) undermine your credibility?
A. The comparisons are meant to expose inconsistency, not to equate same-sex couples with cults. The point is this: everyone draws lines about what constitutes an acceptable home for a child. Those who say "any loving home is better than none" do not actually believe this—they would object to many kinds of homes. So the real question is not "should we have standards?" but "what standards are we using?" Christians use Scripture. Others use their own moral intuitions, which they often claim are neutral but are not. If the rhetoric sounds sharp, it is because the stakes are high and the thinking is often muddled. But the core argument stands: we all make judgments about what is good for children. Ours are grounded in God's Word.
The sarcasm reveals what many will not admit: everyone makes moral judgments about what is acceptable for children. We simply don't concede that our judgments are neutral or harsh while others seem to be compassionate.
Q10. Are you saying a child is better off in a broken system than in a stable same-sex home?
A. We are saying that Christians must work so this is never the only choice. But if forced to answer directly: a child in a difficult situation that does not institutionalize sin is in a different moral position than a child placed deliberately in a structure that teaches them God's design is disposable. Both are tragic. But one does not add theological confusion to material hardship. Our task is not to rank tragedies but to labour so that children are raised, wherever possible, in homes that reflect the image of God—male and female, mother and father. Where that is not possible due to death, abandonment, or disaster, and other circumstances, the church can step in as family. But we do not resort to distortions and call them solutions.
Comments
Post a Comment