If two gay men adopt a child, then this would be a valid reason to have “gay marriage” as a child is a significant financial commitment and a contract should be in place. However, gay adoption should be opposed for statistical and emotional reasons.
First, gays are far more likely to be involved in child sexual abuse than a heterosexual couple. I don’t support celibate priests in the Catholic Church being around young altar boys. I don’t support putting drug rehabilitation centers next to crack houses. I don’t support putting politicians near unspent money for the same reasons.
I don’t support two gay men in their 30’s adopting 12 year old boys. If you do, then you are statistically supporting sexual abuse. In fact the statistics are so bad that some activists are taking a new tactic and saying that sex between adults and minors isn’t abusive.
Celibacy came to Catholic Church formally in 1139 because many “Holier than God” folks were taking 1 Cor. 7:1 “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” a little too literally. Early in Church history unmarried men and women often emulated Paul. Over the years, these men and women started organizations. The organizations started making rules. And after a few centuries those rules became Catholic doctrine. Paul’s original point was this – if you find yourself unmarried don’t stress out. Christianity wasn’t going to view a woman without a husband as a bad thing or shameful as many religions before Christianity. Instead a single person should consider going into God’s work full-time. It is amazing how a nice encouragement became a perverted doctrine that has broken the lives of young boys and broken the hearts of their parents. Celibacy for celibacy’s sake was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. The Catholic Church needs to repent over this one and change their ways. Repentance is a good thing and they would not be the first Church that had to correct an error or two.
There are a number of studies that show at-risk children placed in gay homes doing as well as at-risk children placed in heterosexual homes. However, these studies and their conclusions carry a fatal “activist flaw.” Here is an illustration of what I call the “activist flaw.” Over the past decades dozens of educational programs have been proposed as the answer to America’s poorly performing primary education system. The programs are proposed by highly motivated educators who have done a great job in a district with documented positive results. As the new program is rolled out in other districts the same great results are rarely duplicated and the program ends up in failure along with the prior initiatives. This is because the real reason for success was not the program but rather the highly motivated teachers. The original teachers could have successfully run any program. Likewise, any program run by an unmotivated teacher results in failure. So the point is this: two highly motivated gay activists, according to some studies, do as good of a job raising an at-risk child as an average heterosexual couple. On the other hand, broad studies comparing gay and heterosexual parenting report a strong correlation between a gay parent and sexual abuse. The highly negative results are very alarming.
Second, statistically children benefit greatly from having both a male and a female raising them. A mother is better able to relate to, set proper expectations, communicate female emotions, and explain biological changes to a daughter. A father becomes a better parent when discussing child rearing with the mother and vice versa.
It is time to stop socially experimenting and begin the hard process of cleaning up the societal wreckage caused by the atheistic left over the past 100 years.
 How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study by Mark Regenerus of the Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118, United States