LGBT advocates have finally admitted what we’ve been saying for years … children of LGBT couples are not faring as well as children in traditional families. Now, how LGBT advocates get to that point, what they blame the misfortune upon, and their suggestions for fixing the problem are still the complete opposite of our Christian worldview, but at least we can agree – children are better off in a mother/father family than in LGBT households. An article written by the Secular Coalition for America and published Friday in the Secular News Daily reports, “children raised in LGBT families are more than twice as likely to live in poverty” adding “the children are being harmed” and “children in these families are failed.”
Their reasoning as to why? They write, “These families struggle due to religiously-based laws aimed at promoting ‘family values’ while pushing more children into poverty.” That statement is where our disagreement begins with the Secular Coalition for America. The article continues, “Children raised in LGBT families are more than twice as likely to live in poverty and safety net programs often do not extend to same-sex families. These services include access to Social Security, Food Stamps, Public Housing, health care, early childhood education programs, inheritances and tax benefits that can cost same-sex couples thousands more a year than heterosexual families.”
The Secular Coalition for America is correct – there ARE government benefits for marriage – marriage between one man and one woman. But what LGBT advocates are missing is WHY there are benefits. The government seeks to do what is in the best interest for society. And what is in the best interest for society is the health and wellbeing of children. And as the Secular Coalition for America has already addressed, the health and wellbeing of children is not maximized in LGBT households. The health and wellbeing of children is maximized in a one-mother, one-father married household.
There are very few areas in which the overwhelming majority of social scientists agree, but this is one of them. The evidence abounds … children reared in non-traditional homes are two to three times more likely to experience negative outcomes ranging from suicide to drug abuse to depression to delinquency to crime, teenage pregnancy, educational failure, poverty, material hardship and the list goes on and on. These reasons are why the government incentivizes what is best for children.
If the Secular Coalition for America has the best interest of children at heart, then they are forced to admit that their reasoning is muddled. Why would they ask the government to incentivize what is not in the best interest of children or society? It’s time to put selfish interests aside and focus on what we agree upon and what social science says – let’s do what is best for the children of our society.