Public debate in Hong Kong has resurfaced over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Too often, this discussion rests on a simplistic assumption: that unless a family fits the “one man, one woman” model, it is inherently harmful to a child’s development. That claim is outdated, contradicted by decades of research and by the lived reality of families worldwide.

Public policy cannot be built on isolated anecdotes or emotionally charged narratives; it must be grounded in robust evidence. On the question of children’s well-being in same-sex parented families, the evidence is remarkably consistent.

A 2023 systematic review published in BMJ Global Health, drawing on decades of research across multiple countries, found no disadvantages in physical health, mental well-being, educational outcomes or social adjustment.

On some measures, outcomes were even slightly better. This conclusion reflects not a single study, but an accumulation of longitudinal and cross-sectional research conducted in diverse social contexts.

See also: Partners in Pride: The Hong Kong same-sex couples pursuing their dreams of parenthood

The findings are hardly new. A 2017 article in The Medical Journal of Australia stated unequivocally: “The consensus of the peer-reviewed research is that children raised in same-sex parented families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as children raised by heterosexual couple parents.” 

Professional bodies, including the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have long affirmed the same position.

Across disciplines — psychology, paediatrics, sociology and public health — the conclusion remains stable: what matters most for children is the quality of parenting. Warmth, stability, consistency and security are the critical determinants of healthy development, not the gender or sexual orientation of parents.

Opponents often cite a handful of studies, most prominently those associated with researchers such as Mark Regnerus or Douglas Allen. Yet these works have been widely scrutinised and discredited within the academic community.

In the case of Regnerus’ 2012 study, only two of the nearly 3,000 respondents surveyed were raised by same-sex couples throughout their childhood — a methodological limitation that fundamentally undermines its relevance to stable same-sex households. 

The American Sociological Association criticised the study, and the journal that published it later commissioned an independent audit that found significant flaws, concluding the article should have been “disqualified immediately.”

As researchers Jan Kabátek and Francisco Perales observed in 2021, the Regnerus study is an “outlier”; the overwhelming majority of research points in the opposite direction.

More broadly, decades of research suggest that it is discrimination that hurts children. When societies deny legal recognition to certain families, children may face uncertainty regarding guardianship, medical decision-making and parental authority. Legal invisibility can create real vulnerabilities.

See also: Partners in Pride: A new generation of LGBTQ couples juggling parenthood, life and law in Hong Kong

Another argument suggests prioritising heterosexual couples in adoption queues. But this ignores the realities of adoption systems worldwide.

Older children, those with disabilities and those with special needs often wait years for permanent placement. Excluding capable same-sex couples reduces the pool of loving homes available, leaving vulnerable children without stability. 

Adoption is meant to find suitable parents for children, not ideal children for parents. If a couple is willing and able to provide a safe, loving, permanent home, exclusion based solely on sexual orientation cannot be justified.

Hong Kong is not dealing with hypotheticals. Same-sex couples here are already raising children. The children in these families attend local schools, participate in community life and grow up within our legal and social systems.

The policy question is therefore not whether such families exist, but whether the law will recognise them and protect the children within them.

To deny legal recognition is to deny children equal protection, security and dignity in matters as basic as medical consent and parental authority.

Supporting adoption by same-sex couples is not a radical departure from child welfare principles. It is a rational, evidence-based policy choice consistent with international research and professional consensus.

Invoking child protection while denying recognition to some families presents a contradiction. If children’s best interests truly guide policy, then decisions must align with empirical evidence rather than assumptions about gender roles.

The data are clear: children flourish in environments characterised by love, stability and support. Those qualities are not confined to any single family model.

The question before us is straightforward: Does excluding same-sex couples from adoption serve children’s welfare? The accumulated research suggests it does not.

On the contrary, inclusive policies expand opportunities for vulnerable children to find permanent homes and ensure that those already growing up in same-sex households receive equal legal protection.

If we are serious about placing children first, then all children – regardless of family structure or their parents’ sexual orientation – must be afforded the same security, dignity and protection under the law.

Equal adoption is not a matter of ideology. It is a matter of evidence, fairness and the consistent application of the principle that every child deserves a stable and loving home.