Children sleep in an orphanage in Nepal. Courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons (

Karen Handel and the spurious Christian case against LGBT adoption

You know you've made it in American public life when you land on the cover of The New York Times. Republican Karen Handel secured that honor this week when she won a contentious special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District.

Most political commentators have spent the week parsing the implications of Handel's victory as a referendum for (or against) President Trump. But Handel's campaign raised another issue especially relevant for Christians that has been mostly overlooked in media coverage.

At a campaign event earlier this week, Handel told the mother of a lesbian that “my faith calls me” to oppose LGBT couples' ability to adopt. The news left some progressives clutching their pearls, but Handel’s comment was not all that shocking. After all, she stated that she was against LGBT couples' adopting children and pledged to “absolutely” consider outlawing it in 2009. Handel's comments are also unsurprising given that the candidate is an evangelical Christian. While Gallup reports that 63 percent of Americans now believe gay couples should have the right to adopt, 35 percent oppose it. Opposition among conservative Christians is presumably higher than the national average.

Handel's comments beg an important and timely question: Does the Christian faith call believers to prevent LGBT couples from adopting children? The answer, I believe, is a resounding "no." But some Christians have arrived at poor conclusions due to two myths that have become popular among believers.

The first myth is, simply, that the Bible prohibits LGBT couples from adopting. When news broke about Handel's comment, CNN's Kirsten Powers tweeted the story and contended that the Christian faith doesn't actually forbid such matters. The Christian Twittersphere immediately shot back. "You really don't understand what Jesus said or accomplished do you?" one person replied. Another claimed that Powers could only be right if she discounted the writings of the Apostle Paul.

But I've read the Bible dozens of times, and that's precisely the problem for people like Handel, because the Christian Scriptures never address the question of LGBT couples' adopting. Those ancient cultures were not asking such a question. If you scribbled down every Bible verse that directly addresses such matters, you would end up with a blank page.

If they are honest enough to cede the point, most conservative Christians will admit the Bible is silent on this matter. So these Christians often appeal to general principles about marriage and family found in the Bible. They claim the Christian Bible has only one model for marriage: "one man and one woman for life." But even a fifth-grade Sunday school student with a cursory knowledge of the Bible can tell you that this claim doesn't smell quite right.

The Bible often portrays — and yes, even blesses — a range of marital models in addition to what we call "traditional marriage." To wit:

  • Most marriages in the Bible are arranged and not the result of love. Interfaith marriages were forbidden by law.
  • Jewish law recorded in Deuteronomy claims that a male rapist should marry his victim (and pay the victim's father 50 shekels for damages, of course).
  • Moses commands in Deuteronomy and Numbers that the Israelites should slaughter the Midianites — men, women and children. But virgins should be spared, Moses said, and Israelite men were free to marry these prisoners of war.
  • Lots of Bible figures engaged in polygamist marriages — Esau, Jacob, Gideon. Solomon, who the Bible contends is the wisest person to ever live, had hundreds of wives.
  • In Exodus, a slaveowner was given the power to force his male and female slaves to wed.
  • In Genesis, a widow who had not given birth was required to marry her brother-in-law.

If you believe that adoption should only be permitted to couples in "biblical marriages,"  then you must also decide which version of biblical marriage you're speaking about exactly. Do you want a biblical marriage in the mold of David, who the Bible calls a man after God's heart, who had multiple marriages? I think most would not. The issue becomes even more complex when you consider that the Bible's many authors pen tens of thousands of verses, and yet never condemn these alternate forms of marriage even once.

We don't assume that something must be morally good just because the Bible doesn't condemn it, of course. But conservative Christians who have made "traditional marriage" their raison d'etre must surely reckon with why the many Bible writers never even once attempt to settle an issue of such paramount importance or even speak negatively about blatant deviations from what God intended.

This doesn't mean that anything should go when it comes to marriage or that the Bible doesn't offer principles for what a healthy marriage looks like. It does. And there is a respectable conservative case to be made for why a two-parent heterosexual marriage represents God's best design. But it's a far more complex and nuanced issue than some conservative Christians assume. A single straight line cannot be drawn from the Bible to the issue of gay adoption.

But while we're talking about the Good Book, it's important to note that the Bible speaks far more directly to the issues of child welfare and care. It speaks of children as a divine gift that should be protected and not harmed. Parents are instructed to not even provoke their children to anger. Orphans are listed along with widows, immigrants and the poor as one of the four groups of people that God especially values. And the elevation of children as a group of special concern to God intensifies in the New Testament.

We can construct a Christian framework for marriage by extrapolating various principles from the Bible and discerning the trajectory of the text. But constructing a Christian view of child welfare is not nearly as complicated. While Christians of mutual goodwill debate the Bible's vision for marriage, I can name none who disagree that God intends for every child to be protected, loved, cared for and nurtured. Period.

This leads to the second myth popular among many Christians: Allowing LGBT couples to adopt would mean placing children in environments that are less than ideal. If the most favorable environment for raising children is a home with a male and female parent, some argue, then gay adoption robs a child of a chance to experience God's best.

I actually don't disagree that a home with a mother and father is an ideal setting for children to be raised. Multiple studies have indicated that having regular exposure to both masculine and feminine presences in the home is healthy for children. In fact, I know many LGBT couples who have sought creative solutions to regularly expose their children to both genders. But let's be clear: The choice is not whether a child will be adopted by a gay couple or a straight couple. It is between being adopted by a gay couple or not being adopted at all.

There are more than 100,000 children waiting to be adopted in the American foster care system alone. Around the world, 17.8 million children are double orphans (have lost both parents) and millions more are single orphans. These children are made in the image of God and therefore deserve dignity and love. They are crying out from cribs, languishing in musty orphanages and passed around by a foster care system that often reinforces their preconceptions of being unwanted and unlovable.

Will Christians really argue that God would prefer a child to grow up malnourished in an overstuffed orphanage than in a loving home with parents of any gender mix? I can't imagine a good argument for such a position that is rooted in Christian ethics. So no, Karen Handel, I don't think your faith calls you to oppose LGBT adoptions.

And we cannot have this conversation without pointing out the gross hypocrisy of many Christians who make such arguments. Most conservative leaders I know who vocally oppose LGBT adoption are not lining up to register as foster parents. They are not opening their homes and parenting children in need of families. No, instead they are attempting to prohibit LGBT couples from addressing a social crisis that they've effectively washed their hands of. Those who aren't willing to help solve a problem are in no position to criticize those who are.

When it comes to adoption, it's time for Christians to put up or shut up. If believers want to oppose gay adoption, then they should begin helping the millions of children who need a home and a family. Imagine if conservative Christian leaders like Karen Handel stopped trying to close the door to LGBT adoption and began opening their homes and families to orphans. Now that would be news worthy of the front page.


  1. ” And there is a respectable conservative case to be made for why a two-parent heterosexual marriage represents God’s best design.”
    Correction. The case is not conservative, but conservative Christian. There is a world of difference. Nor is it respectable, not when it presumes…
    1) that heterosexuals can automatically parent, but gay people cannot,
    2) That there is evidence for this, when 40 years of respectable social research, 99 % of the time, shows just the opposite
    3) And the 1% that shows otherwise was bought and paid for by the religious reich, like regnerus was bought and paid for and tossed out of court on its complete lack of merit.
    4) The evbidence also hardly shows that a two parent heterosexual marriage is best for children, let alone god’s best design. The gangs, rehab centers, criminal syndicates, jihadist armies, prisons, orphanages, foster homes, and Congress are full of the products of two-parent heterosexual marriages.

  2. I commend Rep. Karen Handel, for
    (1) reminding Democrats that money can’t buy elections, and
    (2) just being an honest Christian who actualy agrees with her Bible and doesn’t back down from it under the spotlights.

    The Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior and gay marriage, so there isn’t ANY use pretending that the Bible is supportive or even neutral towards gay adoption. That’s a non-starter, period.

    The biblical “range of marital models” cited by Merritt, exclusively involve male-female gender complementarity. Not one of the examples is LBGT at all. Like Jesus said in Matthew 19: 4-5, marriage is “male” and “female” together — it’s NEVER same-sex.

    So Handel’s doing the right thing. The End.

  3. It may well be true that SIMILARLY SITUATED opposite sex parents (step or adoptive) are not superior to same sex parents — we don’t really know at this point. But on average children are far better off with their own married biological parents. We’ve known this since long before same sex marriage was ever on anyone’s radar.

  4. What you (or I) believe is irrelevant. Our Constitution forbids discrimination and most of the state laws passed or being considered will likely and eventually be struck down by federal courts for being what they are – discrimination disguised as religious freedom.

    Each potential couple, same-sex or hetero, should have to meet the same criteria in order to adopt. It’s selfish to deny the kids a loving home for reasons for which there is no evidence. It hasn’t been mentioned but what if the couple were hetero but atheists?

  5. Their only justification or reason is what they interpret from the bible. Evidence or common sense that contradicts their viewpoint is ignored or discounted.

  6. Hey, I’m needing to send a reply post to Jim Johnson, but his posts sometimes read “This user is blocked” even though I’ve never blocked him AFAIK (not to mention I don’t block anybody).
    So I am sending this reply as a stand-alone post for now.

    No, what you and I believe here, IS quite relevant. Invoking the U.S. Constitution doesn’t change that fact at all.

    First, Jonathan Merritt doesn’t even mention the U.S. Constitution anyway. Second, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about gay adoptions. Third, Rep. Handel has every right under the Constitution to oppose or even try to outlaw gay adoption. The courts haven’t said otherwise, nor have they promised anybody that they would in the future. So the Constitution really isn’t an issue here

    So that leaves the Bible’s teachings, which take up the majority of Merritt’s paragraphs but obviously & decisively oppose gay adoptions at ALL times. No escape hatches there.

    Meanwhile to answer your question, a “hetero atheist adopting couple” is automatically totally superior to gay adoption, because kids absolutely need to see that men and women are NOT interchangeable. Male-Female Gender-Complementarity, the basis of marriage and family, has always been vital to cultural and planetary survival across the millenia.

  7. That’s not necessarily so. Economically, sure. Otherwise? Depends on how you define “better.” If you desire children to be mindless conformists, sure.

  8. The Bible does not address adoption by same sex couples.

  9. What exactly is it you believe one gender can do that the other can’t?

  10. Can two mommies tell a young boy what it’s like to be a man?

    Can two daddies tell a young girl what it’s like to be a woman?

  11. Does the Bible address the issue of “same sex couples”?

  12. Yes, it is necessarily so. We’ve known for a generation now that outcomes tend to be much better for children raised by their own married biological parents. And those outcomes include not just poverty but academic perfornance, rates of delinquency, substance abuse, mental illness, suicide, unwed pregnancy and divorce in their own marriages. It’s also known that, contrary to popular belief, remarriage of a single parent (except of course to the child’s other bio-parent) on average constitutes no benefit to a child over single parenting, even when it increases financial resources, and indeed often amounts to a negative.

    Which is why I always take wild claims about gay parents being “just as good as” hetero parents with a grain of salt. I seriously doubt that gayness in and of itself turns step/adoptive parents (which ss parents are by definition) into the equal of married bio-parents.

    But thanks for your extremely odd conclusion. That is the very first time I’ve ever heard anyone assert that the natural biological family produces “mindless conformists.” I hope you don’t mind if I quote you on that.

  13. There is no such thing as a “same sex couple” as far as the Bible is concerned, because sexual relations between same sex partners was called an abomination according to Levitical law. Such a “coupling” or relationship would never be known publicly or tolerated/approved in a Jewish community in Old Testament times.

  14. I believe that males and females are psychologically different and therefore children have a psychological need to be loved by a father and a mother. Also i believe that the lacking of parental love of the same sex can cause a child in adolescence to mistakenly believe they are gay. I have noticed that many gay people i know did not have a loving parent of the same sex during adolescence.

  15. Marriage per se does not seem to confer advantages for children, as children in married stepfamilies fare worse than do those in two-biological-parent married families, instead appearing similar to those in single-mother families (Artis, 2007; Brown, 2004; Carlson & Corcoran, 2001; Manning & Lamb, 2003). — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih dot gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091824/#!po=45.2941

    One might assume that children generally are better off in step-families than in single-parent households. Studies consistently indicate, however, that children in stepfamilies exhibit more problems than do children with continuously married parents and about the same number of problems as do children with single parents. In other words, the marriage of a single parent (to someone other than the child’s biological parent) does not appear to improve the functioning of most children. Although the great majority of parents view the formation of a stepfamily positively, children tend to be less enthusiastic. dot com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=

  16. Sorry to be this blunt , my sperm donor (aka biological father ) removed himself from my life when I was two and died when I was 14 , my stepfather wasn’t much better because he preferred his biological children (why he ever married a woman with a 4 year old daughter is everybody’s best guess), try explaining that to a child . My pediatrician actually told my mother to leave him because some men can love with the heart and others only with some inches of their anatomy .
    So I was clearly lacking parental love by a father figure but because I’m female that just turned me into a heterosexual but if my mother had been absent I’d be gay today ?

  17. Melanie, sorry to hear all of that. I believe when parental love of the opposite sex is missing the child might have a very strong attraction to the opposite sex. The film about Caroline Warmus seemed to portray her as man-mad and at the end of the film to imply that the reason for that was that she didn’t feel loved by her father.

  18. Many gay couples take the “hard to place’ children that Evangelicals (and others) shun. Evangelicals want healthy white newborns. Gay couples take the minority children, the children with medical and mental health issues, and the older kids that Evangelicals have left languishing for years in children’s homes.

    I do contract work for a state children’s home, and it’s more often than not gay people who are stepping up and adopting children that no one else (including Evangelicals) will take.

    State children’s homes are overwhelmed with children, particularly with special needs children, and are constantly starved for funding. Instead of worrying about gay people, why don’t Evangelicals do something about the poor funding for children’s homes across this country?

    Evangelicals have no room to complain until the tens of thousands of kids who want nothing more than a real home are adopted, no matter what that child’s life circumstances are.

    As always, thank you Jonathan Merritt for your simple human decency. It’s too and the same can’t be said for the likes of floydlee and Shawnie5 who regularly spew their anti-gay hatred day after day on here.

  19. I don’t believe any family structure is “natural.” The patriarchical nuclear family is a social construct. Comparing single parenthood to LGBT parenting is to compare apples and oranges. The bulk of single mothers are poor, and the results you catalogued are the results of poverty, not of not having married parents. Research has shown boys raised by lesbian mothers tend to be less likely to turn out to be perpetrators of domestic violence. I don’t think heteronormativeness produces mindless conformists, but it seems that is what people like you want.

  20. Sure. Certainly better than het couples where there’s domestic violence.

  21. “I don’t believe any family structure is “natural.” The patriarchical nuclear family is a social construct. ” You’re certainly welcome to your opinion, unsupported though it may be. Flat-earthers are, too.

    “Comparing single parenthood to LGBT parenting is to compare apples and oranges.” I was not comparing LGBT parenting to single parenthood. The comparison is between step/adoptive parents and married biological parents.

    “The bulk of single mothers are poor, and the results you catalogued are the results of poverty, not of not having married parents.” The bulk of single mothers may be poor, but the bulk of stepfamilies are not. Remarriage vastly improves the financial situation of single mothers and their children. It does not, however, contrary to popular belief, do anything to improve outcomes for the stepchildren.

    “I don’t think heteronormativeness produces mindless conformists” Then you shouldn’t have said that it did.

  22. What does that have to do with anything? You think domestic violence doesn’t exist in same sex marriages???

  23. The author presents a number of so-called alternate family structures that occurred in the Old Testament. Two questions: What do you rely on in terms of scripture that indicates that these alternatives are God approved? Do any of these alternatives include an exclusively same-sex arrangement?

  24. What you believe and what is true are quite different.

    I and every single gay person I have ever known were raised by heterosexuals.

  25. From what I’ve seen, not so many men can tell a boy what it’s like to a man, or so many women can explain anything to a girl. Instead of attacking people you know nothing about on a subject you know nothing about, how about praise for the people who are raising children at all, especially those gay people who adopt that cast off, unwanted products of irresponsible hetero reproduction?

  26. Jonathan Merritt has already given the call (and correctly so), for MORE Christians to adopt more kids and rescue them from “the system”, a bad system, truly & clearly damaging to kids. It’s a crisis, like Merritt said.

    But that call and that crisis, doesn’t provide ANY argument against Rep. Karen Handel’s correct and Scriptural decision to oppose gay adoptions. She’s still doing the right thing, even though we’re all in a crisis.

    Readers, please consider: Like gay marriage, gay adoptions are **inherently** wrong for America — inherently spiritually wrong, and ALSO inherently damaging to the kid (even if the kid is of no religion). (See addendum below).

    So Merritt is supporting an outright disaster, in an attempt to solve another outright disaster. That don’t work. Karen Handel is doing the right thing.

  27. Shorter: I hate gay people, and don’t think they are quite human. You should too.

  28. Please reply to the specific points offered in my posts. I’m typing the addendum now, and it will appear in just a few minutes.

  29. ADDENDUM: I previously wrote, “Like gay marriage, gay adoptions are inherently wrong for America — they’re inherently spiritually wrong, and ALSO inherently damaging to the kid (even if the kid is of no religion).”

    First, here’s the “inherently spiritually wrong” part. That’s biblically, absolutely true. It’s NOT a “maybe”, folks. Here’s the true dish:

    Second, gay adoption is “inherently damaging to the kids”, no matter what the kids’ belief-systems are. Gay man Doug Mainwaring said it best:

    To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.
    …Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch ‘deprivation’ on their hearts.”

  30. Ben i know only know one gay man raised by heterosexuals but he was a ‘Mammy’s boy’. Unfortunately she kept him closely under her wing and seemed to swamp him with love and pushed his dad out of the picture and his dad wasn’t a very strong person anyway. My own dad wasn’t really there for me, i remember one day as a small kid walking up the road with him and putting up my hand for him to hold my hand but he walked quicker and i remember understanding that he didn’t want to hold my hand as we walked along. But i was lucky though because i had a brother 10 years older and my relationship with him was more like father and son. One day when i was very small i woke up at home and i felt totally alone because there seemed to be no one at home so i went from room to room searching for some family member and eventually found that brother asleep in the last room of the house. In him i found a substitute father-figure. I think gay men often seem to be effeminate because they were raised by their mums.

  31. No, there’s nothing in there about couplehood or marriage. The first is widely misused to oppressed when the catalog of sins includes things you and I have done and continue to do. The other, more of the same. These and a handful of others serve those who cherrypick the Bible to justify their own reprehensible behavior.

  32. Sure it does. It’s just an example of how heteronormativity is just nonsense. There’s many kinds of families. It’s not your place to judge them.

  33. I didn’t. I said it’s what you want. They said the same thing about interracial marriages.

  34. “Judging” is neither here nor there. The overall merits of different family forms have been the subject of a great deal of study and research for a generation now.

  35. You said if I want children who are mindless conformists, married biological parents are better. If you did not mean that, why did you say it?

    They said what about interracial marriages? That their children display poorer outcomes than homogeneous families? I’m not aware of any research on thst subject –perhaps you are.

  36. Research shows there’s no signfignant qualitative difference.

  37. The argument was made against interracial marriages because the children would be troubled.

  38. Again, any studies done on that, as have been done with natural, single and step families?

  39. There are plenty of single parents who can’t do that either… should their kids be in orphanages too?

  40. Nope. No orphanages. But you’re totally wrong about that first sentence.

    You see, single parenthood is absolutely NOT the same as doing gay marriage or gay shacking-up. You can still teach the vital necessity, the natural law, of Male-Female Gender Complementarity to your kids, even as a single parent.

    My own parents divorced when I was 12. It hurt us kids, of course. (It was Dad’s fault). But Mom validated our feelings of loss, and she continued to teach the importance of Gender Complementarity for family & marriage. NO pretending that two “mommies” could do the job. She continued to teach us to ACCEPT, not reject, the Bible’s gender complementarity, God’s design for marriage & family.

    Nor was it just her: there were helpful resources — her brothers (my uncles), the pastor, the youth leaders, supervised friendships both male and female. And indeed, Dad himself demonstrated Complementarity even after the divorce. He at least visited when needed (at Mom’s insistence), and that helped out too.

  41. If you do a little research, you will find that Karen Handel is a Roman Catholic, not an evangelical.

  42. Not at all. Right now there is a generation of young adults who were the first to be legally adopted by gay couples. If there was anything to demonstrate how allegedly ill suited gay couples were for raising children, they could be cited as examples. But you don’t.

  43. Gay families are by definition step or adoptive families. Step and adoptive families, on average, demonstrate worse child outcomes than families headed by children’s own married biological parents. It isn’t a popular fact or a well-known fact among ordinary people, but that is what a generation of research shows. Gayness in and of itself isn’t going to transform these families into the equal of natural families.

  44. Sometimes this type of attitude is described as “Whip ’em until they bleed, then fine ’em for bleeding.”

  45. This is the same old “vampire theory of homosexuality” peddled by quacks like James Dobson. It has no validity despite what you believe to be anecdotal evidence. When you speculate about what supposedly causes homosexuality, you ignore what causes heterosexuality.

  46. Sure. Do you know how to use search engines?

    Here’s one: ttps://

  47. That’s because of the tax advantages of marriage.

  48. Wrong. Read about the centurion and his servant in Matthew 8. Read about the Disciple Phillip baptizing the eunuch in Acts 8. Contrary to what you’ve been taught erroneously same sex couples have existed throughout time. Only with the emergence of the modern Religious Reich are there ignorant folks who believes there’s ever been concerted efforts to oppress LGBTs that have succeeded in eradicating them. Kill them all today and in another generation there’ll be just as many, Nathaniel Hawthorne even storified the existence of communities of women who exclude men in Puritan Massachusetts of all places.

  49. The concept that some families are “natural” and some are not indicates the people that believe in it have no idea what “natural” means.

  50. Geez, stereotype much?

    The late author Joe Baegant wrote about growing up in rural Virginia in “Deer Hunting with Jesus” and said a similar experience happened to him (finding nobody else in the house) at age 10 so he believed “the rapture” had happened.

  51. Apart from conventional contemporary mores, Jonathon Merritt knows diddly-squat about biblical exegesis. All his references are from the Old Covenant, which, even in that context taught that the ideal was a marriage between one man and one woman, the predominant scheme throughout history. All other options listed in the text were a measure of God’s patience, not His desire. Both David and Solomon provided painful examples of what can go wrong when God’s preferred plan is rejected. Jesus clearly reinforced that in all His teaching on marriage if one reads the text plainly. Christians operate under the prescription of the New Testament. As to the question of LGBT adoption, while certainly not my ideal, or I program I would endorse, it would seem children raised in a caring and stable environment might well weather the socio-cultural dissonance that is likely to surround them in such a case. No more of a crap shoot than a dysfunctional heterosexual home or the sterile environment of institutionalism.

  52. I don’t understand the questions. I do not believe “God” approves or disapproves of any particular household combinations. Marriage customs are social constructs.

  53. LOL! Remarried families have all those tax advantages, yet their children show no better outcomes than children in single parent homes. You’re still not getting it. This is not primarily a matter of money.

  54. There is no scripture to support any of those alternatives as God approved, merely God tolerated, and to your last question, none of those alternatives cite same-sex arrangements

  55. They are perhaps at no disadvantage over children of heterosexual step or adoptive parents. But neither are the equal of married biological parents. If you believe that gayness by itself erases the disadvantage, I have a bridge to sell you. ?

  56. It is a scientific fact that nature gives each child one biological mother and one biological father. Sorry if you find that offensive.

  57. Nobody “whips” step or adoptive families. On the contrary, they receive a great deal of popular adulation.

  58. Geez, thanks for the invalid link ?

    But no matter. A quick search shows that, according to some studies but not others, while biological children of interracial marriages demonstrate limited evidence of poorer outcomes in some areas, but not others, the difference is neither significant nor pervasive. The studies are of limited value because they do not differentiate between the kinds of racial mixtures involved.

  59. Well, God stated in the OT that He joins men and women in marriage because He desires godly offspring from their union, and He hates divorce. And He stated in the NT that He disapproves of remarriage.

  60. Oh please. The Centurion again, seriously? That old canard has been debunked so many times it’s a laughingstock.

  61. So you are pulling something out of your posterior since the study you cited has no actual relation to your claim concerning gay parents. That is some Plastic Man level bending and twisting to pretend there is so e relevance there.

    Especially since being raised by two biological parents isn’t even an option here. You aren’t making a coherent point. But you are showing what lengths you will do to pretend your anti gay agenda isn’t just some personal prejudice.

  62. Meaning absolutely zilch here. You have no point to make.

  63. You are full of crap. We have a generation of adults who were raised by gay couples. If you had facts, as opposed to prejudice and false generalizations, you would be able point to them as concrete examples. But you can’t.

  64. You’re not having a good reading comprehension day either, are you?

    The research is about step and adoptive parents. Gay parents are step and adoptive parents by definition.

  65. This is B.S. This is simply not borne out in my admittedly limited experience. But a citation of statistics would bolster your claim if I am mistaken.

  66. In as much as you put God in quotations I don’t think you care one way or the other about what my point is. Hopefully you will acquaint yourself with the God of the Holy Bible – you would then discover that the marriage covenant being discussed in this thread has a very particular definition despite the smoke and mirrors the author of this article is attempting to use as distractions from the Truth. Scripture does in fact lay bare the sinfulness of its “heroes”. This should not be misinterpreted and/or misrepresented as God-blessed behavior.

  67. I spent the weekend out of town with my parents, my kids, my brother, my sister, and their kids. I stayed up deep into the night talking with my parents and my brother on Friday night. Both of my parents talked about growing up in a home with an alcoholic father and the impact it had on them. Later in life both got to witness them stop their drinking. Before that both my parents had already resolved to not continue that kind of behavior as parents of their own children. That is good parenting that started before they ever had kids. As their child I can tell you they made plenty of parenting mistakes, those mistakes happened after they had kids. They have not always been smart after kids, but they have always cared, and still do.
    People are smarter before they care for kids. Good parents care for kids. I believe God’s intent for children is for people to care for them. All people, all kids. It is also his intent to care for parents. All parents, of all kids. It’s the arc of the Bible, that is my scripture reference.

  68. I would like to know what you are talking about. It seems both this post and the previous one are riddles wrapped in enigmas. Why not just say what you mean?

    I put “God” in quotations because I dispute the premise marriage customs are ordained by any god. they are human creations entirely.

  69. By every hatemonger, true. Anyone with an undergraduate level of understanding of culture knows otherwise.

  70. y I don’t believe that is literally so. The priestly writers added that after the Babylonian exile to reconstitute what they believed to be the politicically correct version of Israeli culture.

  71. “Poorer outcomes” = judgmentalism..

  72. So you’re one who believes the made-up nonsense about Roman centurions not being “allowed” to have relationships with women???

  73. No, they reserve that for LGBT families.

  74. You have yet to say what these “disadvantages” are.

  75. I don’t. That say nothing however about social organization.

  76. Sure it is. Remarriage often includes child support for previous children. there’s often an economic disadvantage.

  77. Wherever you think it came from, it was the view endorsed by Jesus.

  78. LGBT families ARE step or adoptive families.

  79. And yet we know which “social organization” produces the best environment for children on average.

  80. Remarriage improves the financial situation of children over single parenting. There is no question about that; research addresses it directly. Yet contrary to all expectations it produces no improvement in child outcomes. And adoptive families on average have even MORE financial resources than biological families, yet still their children have poorer outcomes. It can not be reduced to money — that much we know.

  81. I’ve already stated those — how did you miss it? The disadvantage consists in poorer school performance, more behavioral problems, higher rates of mental illness, substance abuse, delinquency, early pregnancy, tendency to cohabit rather than marry, and higher divorce rates when they do marry. Also children living in step-families are at a vastly higher risk of physical and sexual abuse than children living with their own biological parents.

  82. And how. Witness Exhibit A above. We have an entire generation of solid and unambiguous research into child outcomes associated with various family arrangements, and all that’s offered in rebuttal is an airy “Oh, I don’t belieeeeve all that — it’s too judgmental.” Sigh.

  83. Instead of attempting to enrich us by taking us on a long winded walk down your memory lane, why didn’t you just state, “I believe God’s intent for children is for people to care for them.”

  84. Padraic was expressing her opinion and observations, yet you call her full of crap?? Quite immature of you, wouldn’t you say Spuddie?. Psst, why on Hanuman’s green Earth would you suggest someone provide anecdotal evidence in support of a claim??

  85. Floyd sweetie, it’s a safe bet everyone reading this thread knows that your mother’s brothers are your uncles. Smarten up please.

  86. Please Spuddie, tell your readers why on Earth you would actually suggest someone provide you anecdotal evidence in support of a claim? If you want to hide your fear and immaturity behind your “ultra-angry, aggressive, immature youngster” persona, at least learn how to fight fairly. You fight dirty, everyone sees that so you’re not fooling anyone. Everyone sees you spew incredibly immature, poorly considered, rage whichever way you can. For starters, try learning what “anecdotal evidence” is and how it’s use is fallacious.

  87. Thanks. You indeed got the point. ?

  88. Not a crap shoot at all, Edward. That’s the problem, thinking that it is. You don’t need an obviously dysfunctional heterosexual home; the covertly dysfunctional home is common enough, and will do just fine.

  89. And yet you would deny that gay people have exactly the same resources as your mother did.

  90. Can a widow of a deceased husband tell her son what it’s like to be a man? I bet she does the same thing same-sex parents do: expose their children to role models.

  91. Why then did God bless the issue of the “sinful” union of Abraham and Hagar?

  92. 1 Corinthians 7: 2 “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.”

  93. ‘We [children of same-sex ­couples] want our mothers and ­fathers,’ Millie Fontana

  94. When we limit who can adopt, do we understand that we are limiting children to an overwhelmed foster care system? Is it really better for children to be left to difficult foster care situation when they could have a home in which they are loved and cared for? If Christians, of which I am one, really do not want LGBT to adopt the they should all be lining up to help those children condemned to languish in foster care. My daughter is a therapeutic foster mother and I am aware of the how bad the system is.

  95. Yes, but it’s “exactly the same resources” to effectively:

    (1)“teach the importance of Gender Complementarity for family & marriage.”

    (2)“teach us to ACCEPT, not reject, the Bible’s gender complementarity, God’s design for marriage & family.”

    All the resources I mentioned, are designed to teach (in both words and deeds), those specific items #1 and #2.

    But there’s the conflict. You can’t affirm Items #1 and #2, while supporting gay marriage and gay adoption at the same time. A gay couple would have to break up in order to live out items #1 and #2. And as we both know, such breakups are rather painful (although necessary).

  96. Context! Paul was trying to build communities and this was part of how he went about it. He also made the rich Xians support the poor ones. What happened to his own wife?

  97. Paul was teaching what Christ revealed to him through revelation – God’s wishes.
    As far as the wife, ask him.

  98. While the last – risk to abuse – is certainly true, the entire litany just begs the question. It’s like saying don’t move to California because there’s earthquakes, don’t move to Mississippi because there’s hurricanes, don’t move to Missouri because there’s tornadoes, and don’t move to North Dakota because there’s blizzards. All you are doing is blaming people and scapegoating those you don’t like. There’s no such thing as a perfect family and never will be. You need to be looking in the mirror rather than out the window.

  99. There you go again, “child outcomes” is a highly subjective measure. It is true adopted children often have crises, but, that’s no reason to ban adoption. You’re just looking for an excuse to denigrate people.

  100. No, not all of them. I don’t know the statistics other than that 1/4 of gay men and 1/3 of lesbians have biological children. Most I’m sure were conceived in the usual way. Some though are turkeybaster babies, in vitro fertilizations, etc. Some are results of surrogacy. These options are likely to increase and more options developed.

  101. So you say. But it’s nothing but hand-wringing in search of an excuse to denigrate others.

    On the other hand, most school shooters are children of married heterosexuals. Klebold and Harris were. The shooters in Jonesboro, Arkansas, weren’t induced to shoot fellow students and teachers due to values from West Hollywood – they exercised the values they learned right at home. They got their weapons from one of ’em’s grandfather’s gun safe. Look in the mirror.

  102. That cannot be verified. Unless you’re one of those conspiracy nuts who believe Charlemagne and such were descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

  103. Matthew 19, Kangaroo. It is essentially a restatement of Malachi’s words on the subject.

  104. Adoptive children are the “freest of want” of all. It doesn’t pull their outcomes up to the level of children living with their own married bio-parents.

  105. They aren’t subjective. They’re easily listed and measured. And who wants to ban adoption? I don’t — oftentimes the best has to be made of a bad situation. I simply want everyone to be honest about what we’re dealing with here.

  106. Those are all step-parent situations; they all consist of one biological parent and one unrelated adult. And surrogacy is not even legal in many places — and deservedly so, because it is in effect human trafficking.

  107. What a ridiculous response. Perhaps we should all stop making our kids wear their seatbelts, since the vast majority of them will survive to adulthood without them and they’re not guaranteed to save lives in accidents anyway. All the statistics are good for is denigrating parents who don’t require them.

    That’s exactly what you sound like.

  108. Don’t confuse me with the facts; i’ve made up my mind.

  109. And it’s the only “sane” conclusion. 😀

  110. You missed his point. Zoom – it walked right by you.

  111. Of course it is the “right” thing, but when will she do the sane, compassionate, correct thing? You say she is doing the scriptural thing. Can you show that?

  112. I’m disappointed, Shawnie5, you usually are good about going to the point with insight, but here you have dodged the point altogether. Of course, gay couples are adoptive/step families. That is exactly the matter at hand. All of the orphaned children adopted will go into some kind of adoptive/step family, without exception (not likely step). The question is the equality of adopting gay parents to adopting hetero parents.

  113. I don’t dispute that Handel’s “faith” (belief system) calls her to oppose same sex adoptions, but mine calls me to support laws that allow it.

  114. Because it wouldn’t carry the same impact as coming from one who has experienced what GJ has claimed. It’s called testimony.

  115. Judging by the zero upvotes his comment received compared with other comments on this thread, I believe the impact was negative. It’s called a long-winded, me me me, boring, irrelevant, anecdotal, comment.

  116. That is what the article is about, certainly. But when people pipe up with claims about gay parents being “just as good” as hetero parents, as Ford did, then it is necessary to step in and clarify exactly what that means. At best, it means only similarly situated hetero parents. No family combination, statistically speaking, is the equal of married biological parents and their children.

  117. Well, clearly, children abandoned and abused and yanked from their homes are starting behind socially and psychologically. Few remedies could possibly equal the stability and nurture of a good biological beginning and continuation. I was looking at the equivalence stated in the parameters of that situation. Still, I wonder if the study you cited looked at neonates placed in adoptive homes and how those would compare between same-sex and hetero upbringing.

  118. I recently read a new study comparing adopted kindergartners with kindergartners living with their birth parents, which found about a 20 percent higher incidence of behavior and attention problems in adopted children despite adoptive parents tending to have more education and financial resources. No specifics are given about age at adoption, but of course they would necessarily have to be very young adoptees.

    https://www.theatlantic dot

  119. In my opinion the eventual adopted child is not being in question in this case. But he also has rights, and the first right of a child is a father – male and a mother – female. Any other consideration is, according to my, least important opinion.
    But if I have to give a religious opinion, it seems to me, that for a person of faith it is clear almost an evidence, “man and woman created them” the more are options of life that have nothing to do with parenthood.

  120. Those two things are not exactly alike. Seatbelts save lives, whereas your concern trolling is all bull. So kids of LGBT parents statistically are x, y, and z. They’re still better off than your issue if they turn out like you.

  121. I don’t think the advocates of relief for victims of real human trafficking would appreciate the comparison. So’s employment, as you continue to beg the question.

  122. No, they are entirely subjective impressions of outcomes. I was speaking of banning adoption by LGBTs like Handel wants to do. Read the story again after you finish your GED.

  123. Well that is very true in that those who adopt tend to be affluent, including the LGBTs who adopt. But adopted children are often troubled. My cousin is adopted and she functions better than most but she’s a “Daddy’s Girl” in her 40s with no capacities for long-term relationships except with her parents. I’m not using her to inform my opinions; I used to work in adoption services primarily of older kids. I had to go to the wall with managers who believed adoption was the be-all and end-all in advocating for kids who didn’t want to be adopted.

  124. Since I’ve not heard of it I can’t comment.

  125. Try reading a Bible. Galatians 1:11-18.

  126. Oh I don’t agree. It’s the shameless exploitation of poor women and their wombs by selfish westerners with money that has led many countries, as well as some states, to ban surrogacy outright. That and a number of such children simply abandoned by buyers who backed out of the agreed-upon purchase because they changed their minds, usually because the product didn’t turn out to be exactly what they desired or because their own marriage deal fell through.

  127. People forming and sustaining intact homes for their own children saves lives, no doubt about it.

  128. If you’ve not heard of it then you have no idea what the so-called “centurion” argument is about, and you probably shouldn’t have bothered to bring it up.

  129. LOL! Um, no, it’s not a metaphor. It’s a straightforward answer about marriage directed to a question about marriage.

  130. Academic performance and behavioral issues can be measured — schools invest a lot of time and expense in keeping such records. Abuse, addiction, mental illness, suicide, and early pregnancy can be measured (medical records). Delinquency can be measured (police records). Divorce and cohabitation can be measured as well if you follow your subjects into adult life as Judith Wallerstein amd her colleagues did during the 80s and 90s.

    Science isn’t your forte, is it? Neither is reading or history, evidently. What is? “Insurance in some capacity,” perhaps?

  131. The error in Shawnie5’s logic is that she is assuming that simply because X is endorsed then anything that is Not X is condemned. Jesus may have endorsed sea food but that does not mean that beef is unacceptable.

  132. Perhaps metaphor isn’t the right word but Shawnie5 is displaying the same faulty logic. The fact that G-D made man and woman one flesh does not mean that S/He can’t do the same for same gender couples. There are also ways that offspring can come into the world other than the vagina of one of the parents. Otherwise, adoption would be equally bad for the heterosexual couple as the homosexual couple. And the fact that G-D hates divorce does not explicitly exclude the divorce of same sex couples. One could make the argument that since G-D has so many rules for opposite sex couples and none for same sex then it is the former that S/He thinks is most need of guidance.

  133. Evidence indicates that there is a wide range of “psychological makeup” of both men and women. The range is such that if you plot out scores for both males and females there would be considerable overlap. What that means is that it is entirely possible that in any individual couple there is no psychological difference, that the male may exhibit female psychological characteristics or the female exhibit male characteristics.

    I have noticed that many heterosexual people did not have a loving parent of the same sex during adolescence or any other time. I’ve also noticed that most murderers drank milk as children. What the data do show is that children of same sex couples grow up as healthy as those of alternate sex parents–the common variable between the two is the quality of the nurturance within the family.

  134. Rep Handel doesn’t have that right if that right is based on discrimination. Regardless of that fact, there is no way that we can conclude that “that leaves the Bible’s…” It also leaves the Koran, the Bagvagheta (sp), or any other holy book. In terms of what our country is based on there is no statutory preference for the Bible.

  135. yes
    Can a maternal single parent tell a child what it’s like to be a man? Certainly.

  136. Again, nothing but blaming. Your entire position is based on your conviction you are better than others.

  137. It most certainly is. Even if it were designed to be taken literally it says nothing about marriage equality.

  138. It was you who brought it up. But I understand your confusion. When one person in a conversation is slinging around assertions about how she is better than others it’s easy to get distracted.

  139. What is an “intact home”? One without foundation problems? If you mean a household consisting of biological parents, that’s an argument that only consists of an assertion, not verifiable and not effective.

  140. Now, internationally, that’s a valid argument. People in places like Nicaragua and Thailand object to wealthy First World whites seeking children and/or surrogates. Haiti was especially exploited after its earthquake a few years ago by (supposedly Christian) Americans who brought orphans back with them (and in some cases, kids whose parents were still alive) and used them as servants and let them sleep in cardboard boxes and such. But in America, not so much, unless you’re also arguing against blood donations, most of which are obtained by cash payments to the down and out.

    My point was people involved in one cause do not appreciate their premises being applied to another group, because this waters down the message they want to impart.

  141. This position has nothing to do with me. It is all based on a generation of social science research.

  142. What about the passage indicates that it is not to be taken literally? Are you under the impression that “marriage” here is “symbolic” of something else? The context is not a parable. Jesus was asked about actual marriage and divorce in its actual legal and scriptural sense, and answered in the same.

    If God makes people one in marriage because He created them male and female, which Jesus says directly, then that doesn’t leave much room for other combinations in the original creation design which Jesus came to restore.

  143. Um, no, you brought up the centurion. I was merely surprised that anyone would take the notion seriously enough at this point to introduce it as some kind of scriptural argument for ssm. I am not confused in the slightest — I know exactly of what the argument consists (as well as all the other arguments that have been offered) and why it fails. If you can not answer the question I asked you, then you do not even understand where the argument comes from.

    Wouldn’t it be better to find out what you’re talking about before wading into a discussion blindly?

  144. It is both verifiable and effective. Children who live in households with unrelated adults are 50 times as likely to die of maltreatment as children who live with their married biological parents.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih dot

  145. Do you live under a rock? Most blood donations are NOT paid for in cash (unless used merely for research purposes), and haven’t been since the advent of the AIDS crisis almost 40 years ago. More importantly, how is it even possible to compare giving away a mere pint of blood with the commercial sale and transfer of a human being which has been carried in a woman’s body for nine months and formed a primal sound and scent-related bond with her?

    You progs’ inability (or unwillingness) to deal with reality never fails to astonish.

  146. Her “faith” tells her whatever she wants it to.

  147. OK. Since most child abuse and neglect is not fatal, that’s a highly misleading statistic, and not applicable to the issue at hand. Most failure to thrive cases are in families with married biological parents.

  148. Try it sometime. You sure haven’t here.

  149. You still haven’t answered my question. I’ll be happy to educate you, but only afterward.

  150. Meaning you are out of answers. OK. That’s as good an ending as any.

  151. Um, no. Cause is not deduced but stated directly in the passage.

  152. Didn’t learn much in school about statistical averages, did you? There is nothing whatsoever misleading about any of these figures. Statistically speaking, the safest place for children, by far, is with their own biological parents.

    And I actually agree with you that this is not relevant to the issue at hand. But it is important that everyone understands exactly what is going on when someone makes claims about gay parents being “just as good” as hetero parents. It is entirely possible that they may be “just as good” as hetero step or adoptive parents, but that is all. We are talking about class of children who are already very much at a statistical disadvantage through the loss (by death, divorce, or removal) of one or both of their own parents.

  153. Well, its always comforting to find things and people in the world who will confirm our diseases.

  154. research can obtain correlations, but not causes.

  155. I don’t answer presumptuous questions.

  156. [facepalm]

    Pay attention. We are not talking about research at the moment. We are talking about Jesus’ words about marriage in Matt.19. He states directly that the reason for marriage, the CAUSE of it, is God’s division of humanity into male and female. Marriage reunites the two into one — and literally one when they produce the “godly seed” that Malachi spoke of.

    Kangaroo, your reading comprehension is so abysmal that talking with you is very like talking with a mis-coded robot. You’re understanding almost nothing, your responses are mostly non-responsive, and now you are mixing up subject matter. I have other things to do and see no reason to continue with you. Good-bye.

  157. You’ve already answered in effect. You don’t understand the question, meaning you don’t understand the centurion argument and probably have only heard third-hand that there is one. So why on earth would you stick your neck out by bringing it up? Didn’t you know someone would call you on it and you would come up empty?

  158. Darned if I can remember the exact reference, but a famous Russian author once wrote in one of his novels (loosely translated), in essence; “Every family has its miseries, but each family is miserable in its own unique way.”

  159. Exactly.

    Interesting experience a few weeks ago, Father’s Day.. A bunch of my friends came over to celebrate one person’s birthday. I had been thinking about my father, whose birthday was yesterday. He wasn’t a great father, but he was far from a bad one. Whatever my issues with my father were, I recognize he did the best he could with what he had, and I came out fine: happy, productive, successful, plenty of friends. (MY two brothers, OTOH, not really).

    So I acknowledged father’s day, my dad’s birthday, and that I was grateful to him, whatever the problems had been. Not one other person wanted to talk about their fathers, or even drink a small toast to them.

    Some wounds just don’t seem to heal for some people.

  160. Yes, I have seen the same thing, and in my own case, sometimes I have to re-visit the healing process. My father passed away when I was quite young, he was idolized by my older siblings, even as they remembered him as a stern taskmaster. I believe I have suffered from not having a fatherly presence in my life when young. Essentially on whom I could model my behavior. My mother loved me, but was not loving in character, and without ever being angry with her, I have had to “forgive” what I have always felt was her emotional coldness, and am compelled to continue to do so, though I hope someday there will no longer be such a need.

  161. I would highly recommend a book called “making peace with your parents.” Harold Bloomfield. It made a huge difference in my life 35 years ago. It doesn’t matter whether your parents are alive or dead, because it is all about you, not them.
    Interestingly enough, much the same thing happened. I recommended it to a lot of people as a help for them to deal with their parents. Not one person would read it, even though I kept telling them how much it would help them. I asked them all why they refused to read it. One finally said that the subject was just too painful, even if taking it up would help her get rid of the pain.
    So, I offer it to you. Good luck,.

  162. My thanks, I will jot a note to myself to explore it.

  163. You just described what happened to you.

  164. What you’re talking about is all over the map. What Jesus is quoted as saying is not the same as what he said, and it’s by no means any divine command for ever’body ta git marryed. What about Mary and Martha and Lazarus AKA “the beloved disciple”? He never flat out told them, “Dudes, you need to get yo’self marryed!” now, did he? One would think if he was concerned it’d be there and since he wasn’t it wasn’t there. You fundies’ citation of that is just cherry-picking. ,

  165. Opening line of Leo Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina.” One of my all-time favorites.

  166. Thank you, I tend to get Tolstoy and Dostoevsky confused, which tells you how interested I am in Russian Lit., but both are frequently cited as being sympathetic to the precepts of Christianity, which Is why I occassionally reference them.

  167. Except for God offering David more wives.

  168. For my edification, please cite your scriptural source. If such an example of an offer from God exists, it is clearly an exception to the general rule. Such an offer to David must fall under the category of God’s toleration rather than His preference.

  169. But certainly, the standard practice among Christians has been monogamy. As a friend of mine put it just the other day, human marriage symbolizes the relationship between Christ (the Groom) and His Church (His Bride). This is amply demonstrated in scripture by many examples, and in fact there are few notable examples of polygamy listed in the Bible and they are confined to the Old Testament.

  170. That’s one interpetation of what marriage is but I believe it has extra biblical origins. While Christ and the church are symbolically described as a Groom and Bride, what people need to know is that the church isn’t the building nor temple, but the people gathered there. It’s the people who are the bride of Christ.

    The way I see it, you can probably read polygamy into it to, since the one groom (Christ) has multiple brides (the church/the people), and if you want to take it a step further a bisexual marriage considering not all of the bride are the same gender.

    And finally, from what I’ve researched at the time of Christ polygamy was simply something the fell out of practice. It was a piece of culture that simply passed with the practices of the jews; think of it how cultural practices changed over the centuries. As far as morality goes, God is neutral or indifferent to polygamy or monogamy.

  171. I can’t agree, but I can at least be civil in my disagreement. Cheers.

  172. You’re comparing children who experience divorce to those who don’t. That’s not what’s under discussion. We’re talking about children of gay couples versus children of straight couples. Are similarly situated kids any worse off because their parents are gay or better off because their parents are straight? The overwhelming scholarly evidence answers “no”.

  173. No, I am not talking about children who experience divorce and those who don’t. I am talking about step and adoptive children. IOW, children in family arrangements with unrelated adults. This is a disadvantage in and of itself. Children of “gay couples” are step/adoptive children by definition. They may not be any worse off than step/adoptive children of straight couples but they are worse off than children with married bio-parents. When making claims about gay parents and straight parents, you ought to make that distinction clear.

  174. «We’ve known for a generation now that outcomes tend to be much better for children raised by their own… biological parents.» I believe you are right. Whether the parents are gay or straight there is something wonderful that happens to parents when a baby is born to them. It’s called «bonding». There is a mutual understanding of relation that make separation difficult – and destructive for both parents and child.
    In Quebec and in Sweden paternal leave in the months has strengthened this bond so that fathers there get more involved in all aspects of child care in the subsequent years. I suspect this is the cause of the better outcomes noted in the scientific literature.
    I doubt that this has anything to do with marriage. Parents are LESS likely to be officially married in Quebec or Sweden than almost anywhere else on earth, yet fathers there are MORE involved.
    Of course gay parents- I am one- benefit from the same kind of bonding if they live with their children without disruption of their couple.
    However the question in the original post is about who makes the best adoptive parents when the parents die or have been removed from the custody of their natural parents.
    There the scientific studies are very clear.
    There is no difference in outcome between gay and straight adoptive parents. In many families around the world it is often gay uncles and aunts who assume the responsibity for childen whose biological parents are no longer there. These families may even profit from bonding parent-child without the problem of jealosy or preference between biological and adoptive childen.
    But the Bible is clear we are all – gay and straight – called to look after the orphan.
    Which children are more likely to end up on the street – or worse ?
    The children raised by gay parents or those raised by non-affirming Christian parents ?

  175. I don’t see « Exhibit A». It this a reference to the studies of child outcomes ? I would like to see the links.
    It is important that we be able to reference our claims.

  176. The links are already in this comment thread. You must read the whole thread to find them. And Exhibit A being referred to here is our poster who dismisses all the research on the subject because it doesn’t validate her feminist and gender-neutral worldview.

  177. In Canada gays have been adopting children for at least the past 10 years. No disaster !
    In fact neither Catholics or evangelical Christians or Muslims or orthodox Jews or anyone else for that matter is even talking about it.
    It’s just not an issue.

Leave a Comment