Child development not hindered by same-sex parents, policy says

Child development not hindered by same-sex parents, policy says

All children need a good home where they can thrive physically, emotionally, mentally and socially.

The family environments that offer this holistic picture of health, reports the online March edition of Pediatrics, have “secure and enduring relationships with committed and nurturing adults”—no matter the sexual orientation of the parents.

A new policy statement announced last week from the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) rallied for support of same-sex couples having full adoption and foster care rights.

“If a child has two living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interests of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” the statement said.

The policy also cited research that revealed the sexual orientation of the parents does not affect their children’s development.

This policy announcement comes just as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments this week challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law enacted in 1996 that defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

The 2010 U.S. Census reported 2 million children in the United States were being raised by lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender parents. And many of these families live in states where same-sex partners are not legally allowed to wed.

Dr. Ellen Perrin, co-author of the policy statement said in a release, “The AAP has long been an advocate for children, and this updated policy reflects a natural progression in the Academy’s support for families.”


Related Posts



  1. I am truly saddened by the AAP's decision to rally behind same-sex couples for raising kids. God created marriage to be of one man and one woman coming together. If God determined that this is the best way to raise kids/family, then who are we to question God?

  2. Stephanie Johnson March 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm · Reply

    The goal of the health enews site is not to endorse or promote either side of the argument. We are committed to reporting on valid media stories that people across the country are talking about…in an effort to give our readers an oportunity to weigh in and engage in the conversation.

  3. What should truly sadden us in the medical community is when a respected organization of professionals issues a statement based on empirical and impartial information is then attacked by someone, or anyone, with God's will as their main argument. There are many things that we as humans may never understand, God’s will being one of them, but the fact that children do better with two loving parents, regardless of sexual orientation, is NOT one of them. Perhaps it is not wise to demagogue their position as political and realize that it is based on the experienced reputations of medical professionals.

  4. The problem with this article is that it is a policy statement surrounding a controversial subject which lacks supporting evidence in the article. It never tells us how the study was conducted, what the results were, and how those results were interpreted. It may be based on a valid study and solid evidence, or flimsy evidence and a poorly designed study, or a biased interpretation of the results. Children may do well in families that are lead by homosexual couples, but you will find that It is well documented in mental health literature that children always do the best in a family with heterosexual parents, and preferably their biological parents. By putting out an article with only this view, Advocate, by default, implies a bias. You and I would not go to a physician and be satisfied with them if they do no harm to us, but fall short of providing the best treatment for us. Should we not promote the same with regard to family, and especially our children, who rely on our wisdom and maturity to raise them. As a faith based organization, which incentivizes it's providers to achieve the best outcomes, should we not promote the same? Posting an article with the countering view and evidence, would have been a better choice.

  5. First, one needs to understand that this article was not written in defense for or aggression towards the statement that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. It is also an extremely larger leap of logic to believe that this article was then a platform for advocate, as a whole, to be in favor of such a position. As read, this article simply states what the American Academy of Pediatrics position on the matter is. Second, the idea that AAP is so cavalier in its review process that it would include articles with “flimsy evidence and a poorly designed study” is troubling. This topic really has to do with the wellbeing of our children and if we can’t trust one of the major medical governing bodies on that particular subject, than how do we ask everyday patients to trust us with our opinions. You certainly wouldn’t give opinions to patients based on just your personal beliefs, but on clearly reviewed material from a reputable source. The AAP, in my belief, being just one of them.

  6. Lastly, I would like to say I am proud to work for an organization that dedicates a great deal of resources to a set of corporate morals. I am proud of the fact that they would issue a story from an upstanding medical organization that is not 100% synergistic with its Christian faith based foundation. It is wisdom that has prevailed here to provide this newsletter’s readers with the most current, reliable, and defensible medical article sources. I believe I am only one of many who appreciate that candor.

  7. Marc – my last line did not finish well. I meant to convey that both this article and one supporting the other view should have been posted at the same time because of the nature of the issue. I would disagree with you that because the APP is a well respected professional organization, that their policy statement by default is based on good research and does not contain bias. Any person or an organization's leadership can be baised and create policy that is not the best for people. My whole point was that we do not know any of this from the article and because of that, an article with the countering view should have posted along with it, or it not been posted at all. This is constructive criticism and not a denigration of Advocate which I have worked for for 32 years. I appreciate this organization as you do.

Subscribe to health enews newsletter

About the Author

health enews Staff
health enews Staff

health enews staff is a group of experienced writers from our Advocate Health Care and Aurora Health Care sites, which also includes freelance or intern writers.