Same-sex vs Opposite-sex Parenting – Just How ‘Natural’ is it all?

Jerry Mahoney, of Mommy Man fame, mentioned that an article he had written had been re-blogged (Feb 24th) by an Australian site called  After reading the comments that followed Jerry’s re-posted blog, I was rather appalled at the degree of negativity I found in them (well, until I realized that this site has affiliations with Fox).  The general mood of the comments seemed to be that parenting by same-sex couples was wrong, because it was ‘unnatural’.  Here’s a selection of what those who commented had to say:

  •  “nature intended a male and a female to raise offspring”, or
  • “kids need their biological mother and biological father”, or simply
  • “(gays) are not meant to have children because it’s unnatural”

Yes yes – in general, I do know better than to read such comments, but like seeing a car crash, I sometimes can’t stop myself.  Anyways.  My biggest beef about these comments is that their argument is confused… though understandably so.  These people have equated HAVING children with RAISING children.  So in this, their argument is correct; same-sex fertilization is not natural, nor possible.  However, same-sex parenting – or parenting of any kind for that matter – is a completely separate issue.

Fact: stick any two sexually mature humans of the opposite sex together and poof – you’ll eventually get a kid, once they find the right holes and all.  But DO NOT try to tell me that this automatically makes them the best parents for said kid.  Because those two breeders may have been a 14 year old girl, and a 45 year old pedophile.

Let’s have a closer look at that word ‘natural’, as it relates to reproduction and parenting:

1.  Opposite-sex reproduction is ‘natural’.

Well, no.  Life has been around for about 4 billion years – 3 billion of which nobody had any sex whatsoever (ie: all life reproduced asexually).  Which means that sex is relatively new.  Sort of like gay marriage.

Or, let’s talk actual lifeforms, rather than time-frames.  Of all the life that exists – or existed – on Earth, tens of millions of species reproduce(d) asexually.  Only 2 million or so do/did it with sex.  So once again, sexual reproduction is clearly in the minority, if you look at the overall diversity of life on our planet.

2.  Opposite-sex parenting is ‘natural’.

Again, nope.  Most animals don’t even raise their young – they lay their egg(s), then crawl/hop/fly/squirm away.  It’s mostly just mammals (dogs, mice, humans, horses, whales, etc.) who even deign to stick around after the little tykes are born.  And of all the 5500 or so species of mammals, only 200 or so practice any degree of social monogamy (ie: they act as a couple.  Notice I mentioned nothing about sexual monogamy…).

same-sex fertilization does not equal same-sex parenting

opposite-sex fertilization does not equal opposite-sex parenting!

3.  Same-sex parenting is not ‘natural’, and therefore wrong, and henceforth to be avoided.

Well, I agree that it’s not common.  Yet.  But here are a few other things that aren’t ‘natural’, and I’d bet you my last penny (oops – never mind – Canada just got rid of those!) that every single person who finds same-sex parenting ‘unnatural’ is more than happy to embrace:

-polyester clothes;



-air conditioning;

-cell phones;


-processed foods; and hey – let’s not forget

human rights

.                             …need I go on?

what's natural, indeed?