Turns out children adopted by lesbian couples aren't OK after all...

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers.

The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish. (Psalm 1)

Everyone who knows anything will tell you global warming is true; or at least likely enough to be true to justify a plate-tectonic shift in all the world's economies. Everyone agrees. Science doesn't lie.

Everyone who knows anything will tell you literalists are embarrassing to the young, restless, and Reformed entrepreneurial enterprise. It's time to climb on Jack Collins' and Tim Keller's bandwagon. It's time to join all the brilliant genomists and brilliant exegetes and embrace evolution. Everyone agrees. The high priests of the Human Genome Project and scientific exegetes don't lie.

Everyone who knows anything will tell you Scripture is stupid--an ancient collection of myths. Take, for instance, that very old myth that man was created first, then woman; and that the meaning of this fact is that woman is not to teach or exercise authority over man. Also, that same-sex intimacy is an abomination before God and that God abandons men and women to receive in their own bodies the fair or just penalty of their perversion. Everyone agrees this is not true. God's Word is a lie.

Everyone who knows anything will tell you gay parenthood is good for the children; or at least good enough to justify a plate-tectonic shift in artificial insemination, adoption, and family law. Everyone agrees. Science doesn't lie.

Then a social scientist does a study of the emotional and mental health of adult children of same-sex parents... and this is what he finds:

...28 percent of the adult children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships are currently unemployed, compared to 8 percent of those from married mom-and-dad families. Forty percent of the former admit to having had an affair while married or cohabiting, compared to 13 percent of the latter. Nineteen percent of the former said they were currently or recently in psychotherapy for problems connected with anxiety, depression, or relationships, compared with 8 percent of the latter. And those are just three of the 25 differences I noted. ...While we know that good things tend to happen—both in the short-term and over the long run—when people provide households that last, parents in the NFSS who had same-sex relationships were the least likely to exhibit such stability. The young-adult children of women in lesbian relationships reported the highest incidence of time spent in foster care (at 14 percent of total, compared to 2 percent among the rest of the sample). Forty percent spent time living with their grandparents (compared to 10 percent of the rest); 19 percent spent time living on their own before age 18 (compared to 4 percent among everyone else). In fact, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mother and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.

Will this study change anything? 

No--the world is hell-bent on normalizing the sodomite perversion as it's also normalized fornication and adultery and serial polygamy. And we should acknowledge the church has led the way in the normalizations of each of these sins--sometimes by refusing to discipline her children and sometimes by promoting the rebellion.

You know how they say "we're not going to turn back the clock." Look around and realize the next domino to fall will be incest and child molestation. The Sandusky trial is the final gasp of dying standards. Having run our morality play up the flagpole for all to see, we'll finally be free to give in and change our age of consent laws so they allow children to be as sexualized as we've already made them through our computers and television screens and cheerleader camps and Barbie Dolls. The social scientists will prostitute their discipline to the lusts of our culture on pedophilia and age of consent just as they have with fornication and (no fault) divorce and sodomy. Their scientific studies will prove that little boys lucky enough to be introduced to sex by a sort of Athenian gentleman who's enlightened and caring and responsive and kind grow up to show greater stability in their adult marriage and family life than little boys who lack such a wholesome introduction to sexual intimacy.

Dear brothers in Christ, don't ever believe authorities who are cited by rebels against God and His Word. It matters not a whit whether those authorities are in a pulpit and sit on the Old Testament committee of the ESV and run NIH, or whether they are Hugh Heffner and Lady Gaga. Like authority, rebellion is of a fabric.

God is true though all men are liars.

Love the Word of God. Eat it and taste how it's sweeter than honey. Submit to it and experience the Benevolent Authority Who is its Author. Heaven and earth will pass away before a single apostrophe or period of the Law passes away. He said it and He is our Savior and Lord.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


Hey, Tim, you forgot polygamy. That's coming, too. And polyandry (can't discriminate, you know).

What's also important to note is that even if every adopted child of a lesbian couple were steadily employed, emotionally-stable, and faithful to his or her spouse, that still wouldn't make same-sex relationships or gay adoption right. Even if you accepted every peer-reviewed study about homosexuality at face value (which, of course, you should never do), that's no reason to ditch the Bible. I'm sure there are some competent gay parents out there, just like there are probably happy atheists, successful Hindus, friendly Muslims, etc. Isn't a major facet of the Gospel the fact that these good works mean nothing if a person has rejected Christ?

Not only is it sad that Christians will so readily accept "scientific" studies at face value. It's also sad that they've come to see things such as physical health, friendliness, financial stability, and happiness as indicators of salvation. If they didn't, then who would care what those studies say? Who cares if a gay couple and their adopted children are stable and well-to-do? That's not what's going to matter in the end, and the end is what Christians need to focus on.

>>It's also sad that they've come to see things such as physical health, friendliness, financial stability, and happiness as indicators of salvation. If they didn't, then who would care what those studies say?

Well said, dear brother.


I commented on this one a couple of days back, too.  One thing that struck me--beyond the clarity of the differences in results--is the fact that few if any of the studies the APA used in their statement on the matter were controlled in any meaningful way.  In short, the APA's top people, as well as the reviewers of the 59 studies they cited, all failed in the most basic matter of peer review; was a valid test conducted?

And we ought to shudder to think that it is committees like these which are producing the results by which we are being governed by the nanny state. 

College Jay, you're absolutely right. But it's worth pointing out that God is merciful in giving us consequences. He designed a universe where sins have their natural consequences. The wise man sees the consequences and is warned away from sin; but the heedless fool blunders ahead and is pierced through with many woes. The conspiracy of our day is to all be ostriches, to stick our heads in the sand, and to say "Sodomy is perfectly benign, and there are no negative consequences--not for the sodomite, not for his victims, not for his family, not for the church, and not for society." We should glorify God's mercy by pointing out the natural consequences of sin which are designed to warn us, and then pass that warning along to those who have never heard it.

It's the one that supports whatever point you're trying to make.

You're right. Perhaps the usefulness of earthly consequences extends mostly to societal debates about homosexuality and its impact on culture. I question their use when talking to individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction, but I'll be the first to admit that that's largely due to personal experience.

I suppose I do know many actively homosexual -- as opposed to celibate and struggling -- men and women who appear to have bypassed the natural consequences. Or, alternately, those consequences haven't caught up to them yet. That's why I try to focus on the spiritual consequences. If someone says that he's monogamous, happy, kind, and stable, I won't argue with him about it. It could very well be true for him. I'll just point out that those things are filthy rags, and they won't cover his sins.

I guess the problem with statistics is that they tell you about trends, not the individual. If a study said that 65% of all homosexual men would die before 40, but the other 35% would live to be in their eighties, then many people would just assume that they would be part of the 35%. You see this with cigarette smokers all the time. Everyone can point to a lifelong smoker who has inexplicably made it to their nineties, just like it's becoming more common for people to point to a happy, healthy homosexual couple.

The difference is that with homosexuality, we don't need statistics. Whether or not a person has reaped natural consequences for their sin -- and we have to accept that they sometimes don't -- the spiritual consequences have a mortality rate of 100%. While other studies might be very useful in terms of the societal debate about same-sex marriage, I think when dealing with individual sinners about their sin, we should focus on what God has said. Because trust me, quitting homosexuality can be about a million times harder than quitting smoking, and most people aren't going to do it just to avoid becoming a statistic. Christ, not earthly stability, is what compels us to live chastely.

You're absolutely right.

I got into a discussion with a coworkers who wanted to tell me all about her gay cousin, how he loves his boyfriend and how they've been together and 'monogamous' for so many years. I told her, "That's just not true. How many other men has he been with during that time?" To which she got very offended and defensive. After some other talk, I ended up saying, "Ok, maybe your cousin is the one-in-a-million case who is actually 'monogamous,' but the epidemiology doesn't lie: promiscuity is the norm, not the exception." She then wanted to tell me about how much these two men love each other, and I said, "That's not true either. It's not love, it's mutual exploitation." At that point she got so angry that she couldn't talk about it any more and left. Maybe I was wrong on both counts. But she was trotting out the same tripe that you always hear, and I know that it's a lie most of the time...

All that to say: The more I read, and the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that every last piece of homosexual propaganda is a lie. When I hear it, I immediately think "That is a lie, and the opposite of it is probably true." I think that the lies need to be exposed for what they are. In a one-on-one conversation with someone who is trapped in the sin, statistics probably aren't helpful. But I think that pointing out the lies is important.

With all due respect, I question your saying, "You're absolutely right" to me, because the rest of your comment seems to have contradicted almost everything I was trying to say. We might just be misunderstanding each other.

When talking to an individual, please have the respect to take them at his or her word. While I definitely understand your emotions and I share your convictions, that conversation -- as you described it -- sounded rather rude and disrespectful on your part. Even I, someone who recognizes the sin of homosexuality and struggles against my own same-sex attractions, would be very uncomfortable and defensive if someone came at me with that kind of attitude. If you make it clear to another person that you've already made up your mind about them, then how will you get them to listen to you? It certainly wouldn't work for me.

If someone says he's monogamous, believe him. As someone who has many friends and acquaintances in the homosexual community, I don't think it's all just propaganda. Yes, active homosexuals are likely to cover up the more shameful parts of their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean that they're always lying. Truly monogamous couples might indeed be a rarity, but "one-in-a-million" is obvious hyperbole, and outright telling someone they're lying the second they talk to you isn't going to win a listening ear. You sounded more like you were angry and wanted to be right, instead of actually spreading the Gospel message.

In terms of "love," that comes down to definitions. How we Christians define love is very different from how the world defines love. You could make the "mutual exploitation" comment to almost all non-Christian couples -- heterosexual or homosexual. When a non-Christian talks about love, he's talking about warm feelings, mutual affection, mutual care, and even a degree of self-sacrifice, but there's also a large degree of unabashed selfishness in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships these days. All of it is outside of a Biblical worldview, of course, so even the good parts are mostly meaningless to God, but that doesn't mean we should outright say that at the start of a conversation. As believers, we're operating on a different level with different definitions, and we need to make that clear in a conversation before we keep going.

What if the woman's cousin truly was monogamous? What if he loved his partner to the best of his capacity, as an unbeliever, to love? Was it worth doubting her and making her angry? Because to me, the best response would have been, "I'm sure that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that it's sinful. If he truly loves his partner, they'll come to Christ and end their relationship, lest they both die."

When you're talking to a homosexual or their loved one, you're not entering a debate with the entire homosexual community. You're talking to one person. (And believe it or not, the homosexual community isn't a monolith -- many gays are quite conservative and against the usual propaganda, but I digress.) It's not the time or the place to wage a war against the lies of gay activism as a whole. It's better to listen, and instead of arguing and pointing out the lies, perhaps point to the Truth of the Gospel instead. That's always going to be relevant and necessary, no matter how monogamous and loving a homosexual might be.

I say this all with love, humility, and respect, lest my intent be misunderstood. I know I comment a lot about this subject, but it's something that I feel passionate about, and I just hope that my experience is useful. I don't want to sound arrogant, because I also know that I have much to learn.

The study, if I have read it correctly, looks at children in these situations who for the most part are the natural children of one of the people involved in the gay or lesbian relationship. This distinction matters because this is quite apart from the adoption issues; children in which are likely to have even more challenges than what we see here.

College Jay - thanks for your comments.

Well, in this case I don't think that it's wishy-washy or pomo to say that you and I can both be right at the same time.

I may not have given an adequate synopsis of my conversation: this coworker is a vocal, brash, militant evangelist and apologist for all causes of the left-fringe of the Democrat party, and needed to be oppossed and told that she was promulgating lies. I may have been wrong on the details--which I admitted to her--but in the context of "Your God is obviously the fiction of insecure homophobes, and my loving, monogamous gay cousin proves it so," I'm convinced that what I said was appropriate. This came after 15 or 20 minutes of lead-up conversation, with the context of "my cousin is representative of all sodomites, and I defy you to question my anecdotal evidence." In the situation my options were either, "I've seen the light: sodomy is perfectly benign, and God must have been confused when He said that it's not," or "No, that's a lie," and risk being thought rude and disrespectful.

What I did is very, very different than calling someone tempted by sodomy to a life of purity. The Holy Spirit has blessed different members of the church with different gifts. I am very grateful that men like you have the discernment and compassion to call men tempted by sodomy to lives of purity. But that might not be my gift. I am a repentant liar; and having repented of lying, now I look for lies everywhere they can be found, and do what I can to expose them. The gifts of the Spirit are not in conflict or competition with each other. But they're like tools: you need a hammer to drive a nail, not a screwdriver. You need a spade to dig a hole, not hedge-trimmers. There are situations where what's needed is someone saying "No, that is a lie; this is the truth;" and there are situations where what's needed is a gentle rebuke and a sympathetic ear; and there are situations where both are needed.

I hope that you are encouraged and persevere in the good work that you are doing, and that you will be encouraged to see fruit from your labor.

"Well, in this case I don't think that it's wishy-washy or pomo to say that you and I can both be right at the same time."

This made me chuckle. Thank you for the kind words. I definitely understand, and sympathize with, your context. Sorry about the late reply. I don't quite know how to get notifications of responses.

Add new comment