For those who shouted “That’s just fearmongering, nothing more!” Or worse….
Three gay men in a polyamorous relationship adopt a three year old child in Quebec, Canada. One of the ‘fathers’ said:
“[Quebec’s Youth Protection Services] learned that we are a little different because we’re three, but we’re not different from any other family.”
Video link here: https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1971944709804511583
and here:
I want to begin by saying: any child deserves love, protection, and stability. The vulnerable children waiting for adoption deserve careful, conscientious decisions — not experiments in social engineering. What’s at stake is not ideology alone, but a child’s well-being, her development, her sense of identity and belonging.
So when I read the news that a threesome of men — a “throuple” — was recently allowed to adopt a three-year-old girl in Quebec, I was deeply disturbed. From my vantage point, this is not a neutral act of inclusion; it is a deliberate reshaping of family norms, undertaken in the name of “equity,” “diversity,” or “acceptance” — above all, an assertion that adults have the right to arrange families however they choose. But that should not be the overriding criterion. The question must always be: What is best for the child?
1. Children are not props in a social experiment.
Children are not placeholders in a public relations campaign or ideological manifesto. A child places trust in her caregivers to orient her to life, to guide her, to mirror her humanity. She needs anchors of stability, especially in early childhood. In these formative years, a child gains meaning from how her caregivers love her, relate to her, discipline and teach her, and model human flourishing.
When states give priority to novel family configurations — beyond what biological, psychological, and the historical evidence of human (and specifically Judeo-Christian) history says is optimal — they risk treating children as instruments in a culture war. And that is dangerous.
2. Sexual dimorphism and the complementarity of male and female roles matter.
We are a sexually dimorphic species. Males and females differ, broadly speaking, in temperaments, hormonal patterns, relational inclinations, modes of emotional expression — and these differences matter in child raising. To deprive a child of exposure to both male and female perspectives is to limit the richness of her growth. This is not about rigid stereotypes or denying individuality; it’s about acknowledging that children benefit from the balance and healthy tension that arises from complementary parental roles.
Yes, many single parents do fine and provide love. But, we would be wrong to suggest this is optimal. It certainly doesn’t mean all configurations are equal in every regard — and we ought not abandon the principle that the best possible environment includes as much balance as possible. To say otherwise is to pretend biology, psychology, and embodied identity don’t matter.
3. The “necessity” argument is weak and disingenuous.
I hear this often: “Well, perhaps this little girl had no better options. Perhaps no heterosexual couple was willing or available.” But that is a slippery slope. Do we accept every claim of “lack of alternatives” as justification? I find it implausible that Quebec’s adoption system — with its reach, its networks, its profession of safeguarding children — could not find a stable, married man–woman couple ready and capable of adoption. To assume otherwise diminishes those many couples who wait, who are screened, who abide by strict adoption criteria. It also elevates an ideological preference — “we must allow this novel family form” — above the practical task of matching children with the most suitable homes.
One is left to wonder: how many qualified heterosexual couples were considered and rejected? Why were they rejected? Why, then, was a “throuple” prioritized? This reads like a political priority masquerading as child welfare.
4. The slippery slope: Where are the limits?
Once you concede that children may have three, four, or more legal “parents,” what stops us at five or six? Or children adopted by collectives? Or children raised by rotating adult pods with shifting authority? If the only criterion is adults’ preferences or relational arrangements, any boundary is arbitrary and vulnerable to ideological redefinition.
We must have limiting principles — principles grounded in what promotes a child’s flourishing, not what affirms adult desires. And those limits must respect biological, psychological, and moral realities, not yield entirely to social engineering.
5. Misplaced Priorities: Ideology over Children
My concern is not that these 3 men intend harm — my concern is that the adoption system has placed on this child a responsibility she did not consent to: to become a poster child for a new regime of family life. She is not theirs to baptize into ideology; she is first and always a child.
The vulnerable children who come into the system deserve better guardrails — clearer commitments to what children truly need, not what adult ideologues want to normalize. The marriage of one man and one woman provides balanced perspectives, anchor points in sexed reality, relational tension and complementarity. We ought not abandon that standard.
At the end of the day, this is not simply about “tolerance” or “inclusion.” It is about human nature, the dignity of the child, and moral responsibility. When we subordinate what is best for the child to what affirms an adult ideology, we risk doing the very thing we pretend to oppose: injustice against a voiceless one.
Companion Posts
+++
“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’“
Jesus
(Mark 10:6)
