But isn't homosexual adoption better than foster care...

A reader commented asking whether I would not prefer a child be adopted by a homosexual couple than to live in foster care. To which I respond:

As for sodomite adoption as an alternative to foster care, one evil doesn't justify another. And no, I would not myself rather be adopted by a sodomite pair than to be in the home of a loving, Christian foster father and mother. Even a loving non-Christian foster father and mother. Even an unloving non-Christian foster father and mother. Even an unloving non-Christian foster father. Even an unloving non-Christian foster mother. Even an unloving non-Christian orphanage of ten-thousand. Even the streets of Rio de Janeiro.

Imagine growing up with every second of every day... week, month, and year having no escape from suffering the extreme discomfort of observing up close and most intimately one of the most shameful things known to man. It would be like the midwife yanking the umbilical cord from the inside and using it to turn a child inside out there in the birth room, then telling the child that this is his unique life, his diversity, his special gift. Heart and lungs and stomach and intestines and liver on the outside and mouth and eyes and nose on the inside. Imagine that!

But growing up a boy or girl within the shame of sodomite or lesbian coupling would be much, much worse. Unless, of course, the child came to see life inside out as normal and began to enjoy the smell.

That would be even worse, leading to the torments of Hell being perceived as the glories of Heaven.

And no, I'm not homophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear and I've never considered anyone's fear of sodomy, fornication, adultery, or bestiality the least bit irrational because I know and love men and women tempted by homosexuality.

Tim Bayly

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


You are insanely judgmental, preaching prejudice and speaking about a certain group of people as if they are inhuman and not deserving of love or family.

You sound like a Nazi or a member of the KKK. Imagine if Jesus read what you just wrote. You need to seriously re-read Jesus's RED WORDS in the New Testament. Jesus preached exactly opposite of pretty much everything you have mentioned above. You are referring to old dogma in the Old Testament. There is a reason why we have a New Testament: the new one represents Jesus and everything he stands for.

JOHN 13:34


God have mercy on your hateful soul.

Great, a Marcionite who invokes the KKK.  You don't find those every day.

Well, if you were a five-year old living on the streets of Rio de Janiero, you might not live to grow up. You'd certainly experience abuse, fear, starvation and illness. 

>>speaking about a certain group of people as if they are inhuman and not deserving of love or family.

The child certainly is human and deserves a loving family rather than society abandoning him to enslavement for the purpose of normalizing the perversion of sexuality that homosexual couplings are. Does anyone care about these children, or are we so militant for the normalization of perversion that we're willing to objectify children as instruments of our rebellion? God made fathers and mothers to unite in love and be fruitful; not to unite in a testube or by means of a turkey baster and force the offspring of that cold-hearted mix-up to act as if he's happy he doesn't know his father and mother.



Some of Jesus' red words include Matt. 5:17-20. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, or for that matter, any previous revelation that God Himself does not amend or abrogate in the New Testament. Trying to use Jesus' words against the rest of the Scriptures does violence to the oneness of God, and is certainly not of the Spirit of Jesus, who was about His Father's work (the same Father who said all of those "nasty" things in the Old Testament).

Also, unless you think yourself wiser and more loving than the apostle Paul, maybe read some of the black font that Paul laid down in Romans 1:18ff. Based on his description of homosexuals, and those societies that not only tolerate but also promote that sort of behavior, it appears that they aren't so lovely after all. Just read the description at the end of the chapter.


There are two groups of people out there. To one, this blog is perceived as everything from quaint to hate. To the other, it is like life-giving water leading to repentance and freedom from the tyranny of the devil. It isn't often that we hear a bold masculine speaker against sin and darkness. I'll take this any day.

Today, a fellow pastor wrote me about the progression of our American society's views on homosexuality in a breathtakingly short period of time. Homosexuality has gone from being ...

illegal -> unacceptable -> tolerated -> accepted -> affirmed -> promoted -> given special privileges.

My only addition was that now we have "advanced" to the place where the acceptance of homosexuality is mandatory. Exhibit A can be found in some of the comments to this post.

I have 2 questions:

1 - what is the moral difference for the child between homosexual foster parents and remarried (unbiblically) or unmarried foster parents. 

2 - you stated: "God made fathers and mothers to unite in love and be fruitful; not to unite in a testube or by means of a turkey baster and force the offspring of that cold-hearted mix-up to act as if he's happy he doesn't know his father and mother."

I've known some fine Christian married couples whose children came into the world that way due to infertility. - are they cold-hearted?

Dear Brandon,

I know you were probably directing this to Tim, and my answers will not be comprehensive. But...

1. One is considered perversion of one of the most heinous forms, and the other is not. They are both sin, but the degree of error from the law of God is a different. Without committing the sin of hypocrisy, and favoring some sins over another when all are damnable, we have to acknowledge that in the law of God, not all sins were punished in this life the same way. Not every crime was a capital crime, even though every sin deserves God's wrath and curse. Heterosexual fornication, if you will, is not a revolt against "the natural use", even though it is sexual sin for which we need forgiveness.

2. Doesn't the exception prove the rule? Married couples, who are barren, might use artificial insemination, or adoption, to have children. Two men or two women using the same means to create the illusion of a family as part of their illegitimate liaison is quite another matter.

Dear David,

I believe adultery was a capital offense under mosaic law. Which was why I asked. 

The response to number 2 doesn't really address what I am asking, but thanks for the dialogue thus far

Well - just wait until someone brought up in this sort of situation turns up in our churches. Actually, I imagine that that's happening already. How would we deal with it?

>>I imagine that that's happening already. How would we deal with it?

You're right, and we love them and do our best to lead their "parents'" into the repentance and faith that will provide the foundation of a godly home for the children who formerly suffered under the roof of perversion and rebellion and idolatry. Of such were some of us.


"A reader commented asking whether I would not prefer a child be adopted by a homosexual couple than to live in foster care."

One counter to that rhetorical ploy is to use some parallelism:

 "A reader commented asking whether I would not prefer a child be adopted by a neo-Nazi couple than to live in foster care."

 "A reader commented asking whether I would not prefer a child be adopted by a Stalinist couple than to live in foster care."

 "A reader commented asking whether I would not prefer a child be adopted by a   couple  whose hobby was bestiality than to live in foster care."

 "A reader commented asking whether I would not prefer a child be adopted by a  pederast couple  than to live in foster care."

   There are lots worse things than foster care. In fact, aren't kids in foster care to begin with because we think that's better than staying with their natural parents? 

Using a word like sodomite , while largely accurate , is not helpful or proper in dialog .  Here's why.  Many in the world ,especially young people are just cruel to homosexuals ,  calling them such names , showing no mercy or opportunity for God's repentance  .  So  'Gay' folk are conditioned by this verbage to see it as name calling .    And I don't see Jesus calling folk 'names', except for the religious hypocrites .     and thirdly ,  we don't like folk using names on us that we don't like -  haters ,   anti- choice , etc .     4)  Jesus was friend of such folk .    One of things I really like to do is go to a local gay pride type event .  These folk are used to Christ followers only heaping pointing fingers at them .  They really open up each year I go and just begin to friend them and dialog .   I met some deaf guys this year who still text me .     Who wants to go sometime and be 'friends of sinners '  ?

Wow. What was I even thinking of giving this article any time of day? I really hope Jesus can forgive you all for your sinful thoughts towards your fellow human beings.

Learn to live in peace and show love towards EVERYONE. Not just "certain STRAIGHT" people. 

You are expressing PREJUDICE, HATE, and JUDGEMENT. Only God has a right to judge, not you.

God bless you all and I'm outta here!


All I'm hearing is judgement from you. Scripture says in the same manner that you judge you will be judged. So we judge others with the same level of accountability and love that we would have others show us and Christ has shown us because he first loved us to call us out of darkness into his marvelous light.

So the pastors here do not judge - they apply standards of love and freedom from sin that they have been blessed by and that scripture calls all to obey.

When there are sheep who struggle they are very kind - but the message to the world is sharp because sodomy is a horrible sin where it is no kindness to leave such a one alone to be consumed by their sin and to hurt others by it.

This is why there are some things worse even than Foster Care.

the pharisees of our day include sodomites, feminists, and the totalitarians of tolerance.

I've gone on what amounts to a "double date" with a sodomite couple while in college. Does that count for anything? They had no problem talking to me and my current wife...of course, we weren't pointing fingers or calling them to repent. We just wanted to "hang" and be friends. You know; "love them as human beings". They're still sodomites, btw.

Wearing a glow stick at a rave doesn't count as shining the light in the darkness.

>>Using a word like sodomite , while largely accurate , is not helpful or proper in dialog .

Dear Chuck,

I've posted a response to you under the title, "Hey Tim, why do you use the word 'sodomy'...".


"You're right, and we love them and do our best to lead their "parents'" into the repentance and faith. . "

Repentence? Repentence that a child was born? Remember, God wanted that child to be born and made it happen. I wouldn't say that someone should repent about something that was God's will. All children are blessings.

>>Repentance that a child was born?

No, of course not. A child is a gift from God whether conceived in a lab through in vitro, or in a womb through rape, incest, adultery, or monogamous, heterosexual, covenantal, Christian marriage. As a grunt fighting in Viet Nam once put it, "A baby is nobody's enemy."

It's the rape, incest, fornication, adultery, multiple embryo in vitro, and turkey baster conceptions we must repent of.


I've been mulling over M. Karin's first comment--about not growing up due to the poverty of the Rio barrio--and the response that comes to me is if indeed certain parents will necessarily attempt to hang a millstone around a child's neck (Matthew 18), it literally is better for that child to suffer in the barrio and perhaps even die there than to have their faith destroyed. 

With all other liberals, most half-Christians are complete materialists who believe that this world is all there is and there's no world to come. You can see it in their entire disregard of the soul and its immortality. So poverty is to be avoided at all cost. End of discussion.

Enticements to Hell, though, are bugaboos and making mention of them is simply one of the scare tactics of the insecure religionist who's unwilling to love anyone but himself. Thus the bario is bad and the emotional black-holeism that is two lesbians playing house with a turkey-baster bastard playing doll to them is good. He's fed generously and sheltered and warm, he's getting his well-baby checkups on schedule and they'll provide him a good education; ergo pro voc, erge pincers illegitimum dar Salam.

Things are amazingly clear to the naif.


I'll ask again, what is the moral difference between homosexual foster parents and adulterous foster parents. Doesn't the church have the same message for both situations. If not, why not? I mean biblically of course.

Dear Brandon, I'm sure much could be written about the difference, but the essential one is that no one is arguing for the placement of children in adulterous homes, making it a matter of public policy and demanding our approval. It's that I was addressing. I was not trying to recommend a definitive checklist of the relative evils of this or that home with implications of each of the sins for this or that child.


But is it not true that no one is arguing for that because no one is opposing it? Meaning it's a commonly allowed practice in society and even within our churches.

Dear Brandon, In my lifetime, all I've seen are adulterers fleeing children and responsibility—never ever trying to pick up more as a naked attempt to promote the acceptance of their sin. And I've never ever heard anyone suggest that adulterers should be given children to raise because they have a right to a child, too.

Gotta go now, dear brother. Maybe someone else will pick up the discussion for me?


I must say we've experienced very different worlds then. I can think of numerous families who did not have biblical (re)marriages, yet were allowed to adopt. In some cases these were members in good standing of evangelical churches. Obviously there are countless more who have biblically illegal marriages and bring children into their families through natural means.

Do you not think there is a significant divorce and remarriage problem within and without the church? And do you not think the partners of those marriages seek after children in numbers proportionate to those of homosexual couples? Surely homosexuals aren't the only sinners who seek to have children.

And I would rather that no one pick up the discussion on your behalf. I'm perfectly content to wait for you to respond in your own time. I'm not interested in the consensus opinion, but in yours as the author. -Blessings

Dear Brandon,

If you're willing to listen, I'd be happy to respond for my father. Otherwise I won't take the time. Let me know.


Dear Joseph, Just go ahead and respond. You're my son and what you say I would say worse. Love,

Well certainly I'll be willing to listen. I only meant by my last comment that I very much wanted Tim Bayly to respond in time, even if others chimed in during his absence. My first comment got lost in the shuffle, and I just didn't want that to happen again. So Joseph Bayly, I would be happy to listen, but Tim Bayly please do circle back around when you have the time.

I'm very sorry men. I thought I had time, but I can't respond the rest of today or tonight.

Brandon, I'm not Joseph, but my take on the difference lies in the Bible's picture of God and the Church.  The adulterous family portrays to their children that the love of Father God for his Church is temporary and conditional, and therefore ought to be discouraged from adopting.

The homosexual "family", on the other hand, portrays either two competing "gods" or two competing "churches", and therefore attacks the doctrine of an actual God. 

I'd argue that "Adam and Steve" would be hanging a bigger millstone around the child's neck than "Adam and Lilith" because the implicit attack on the nature of God is more comprehensive. 

And if you'd respond "I'm not too keen on either millstone.", yeah, I'm right there with you.  Tell me what you know about how to help adoptive couples, brother.

Brandon brings up the neglected, important, and hard issue of unjustified divorce and remarriage. A big difference is that such a marriage---or even a more conventionally adulterous one--- looks like a normal marriage, and the husband and wife try very hard to make it look like one. I don't think an adoption agency or a church would allow adoption by a couple where the man's adultery was flaunted. 

   Also, another reason to see why that sin is not as serious as sodomy is that the Old Testament actually regulates divorce, indicating, as Jesus said, that while it may be a sin, it is lower on the scale-- adultery in one's heart is not as bad a sin as actual adultery, though both are sins. 

We could also reexamine the church's traditional understanding of divorce and the remarriage of divorced people which, conveniently, is also that of scripture. 

Dear Eric,

Yes, the question rests, as I said, on the center of the household being given over to the promotion of perverted sexual immorality--what Scripture refers to as "gross immorality" and "strange flesh" and "degrading passions" and "unnatural functions." The child produced through mechanical means or the adoption of a child both attempts to lie about the nature of that "gross immorality" and "strange flesh" and "degrading passions" and "unnatural functions," presenting it in a kinder, gentler light with child. Then that child is enslaved throughout his life to giving credence to the lie, that his mom and mom, dad and dad, love and live in oneness just like all other moms and dads; and that he is living proof of their normalcy.

Not only that, but picture the kitchen scene where Mom kisses Mom on the way to work, and this stuff is constant throughout his life. He is forced to watch perversion moment by moment, day by day, week by week, month after month and year after year, and he has no choice in the matter--his sexual identity is in bondage to the perversion of his mom and mom or dad and dad. Then too, he is robbed of any genealogy--did anyone read the rabbi's piece?--and any model of what his manhood should look like. 

Honestly, to try to make the slightest link between the evil of a child growing up in this "gross immorality" and "strange flesh" and "degrading passions" and "unnatural functions" and in an adulterous remarriage is beyond the ken. Something about those words 'gross' and 'strange' and 'degrading' and 'unnatural' Scripture applies to homosexuality.

Must we really join the boys of the band in seeing fornication and adultery and unbiblical divorce as same-level sins as sodomy? Then will we move on to saying the same about bestiality? Pederasty?

Being sold into the slavery of growing up watching two women make love each day as if they are a man and woman is analogous to growing up watching a man kiss a sheep or a goat. It's not analogous to growing up knowing your dad committed adultery with your mother, left his first wife and divorced her, left his church and they excommunicated him, remarried your mother, she gave birth to a child who died, she and your dad went back to church and repented, publicly, she gave birth to another child which was you, she and your dad live together in love, etc.

These are normal immoralities--immoralities in the right direction, as it were.

David's child died. David's next child was made king. By God.

So as I said in the beginning, no child should be sold into the slavery of laboring his whole life to deny the nature of sexuality and marriage, of lacking a genealogy, of being given no father or mother, of not being taught how to be a man who loves a woman. This is worse than the streets of the slum and that some can't see that is only indicative of the ignorance of the meaning and purpose of sexuality pervasive across the most conservative churches today.

When divorces are Biblical (porneia and abandonment) and how they should be dealt with by sessions are normal work-a-day questions we deal with all the time in the church. Questions of homosexuality within the Christian home, also, are not unknown to us. We've dealt with them multiple times.

But as I said and will say one last time, the adoption of a child into a Christian home where adultery has occurred and maybe even formed the foundation of the marriage is never an attempt to enslave the child to spending his life justifying that adultery. The adoption of a child into a homosexual home is nothing other than that.

Read the rabbi's article, please.


>>what is the moral difference for the child between homosexual foster parents and remarried (unbiblically) or unmarried foster parents. 

>>you stated: "God made fathers and mothers to unite in love and be fruitful; not to unite in a testube or by means of a turkey baster and force the offspring of that cold-hearted mix-up to act as if he's happy he doesn't know his father and mother."

>>I've known some fine Christian married couples whose children came into the world that way due to infertility. - are they cold-hearted?

Mr. Morgan,

Explicitly, the moral difference is normal immorality versus what God says is "gross immorality" and "strange flesh" and "degrading passions" and "unnatural functions." Also the robbing of the child's innocence by the pervasive perversity he lives in and is intended, by his presence, to justify. Also the robbing of his model for parenthood, manhood, and womanhood. All he gets is what the waif on the street lacks, and with it comes horror upon horror forced upon him that is enough to make a grown man vomit. Of course, there are few grown men today, so little vomiting.

I mean, as I write simply quoting Scripture, I can easily here readers judge me for these words of Scripture and my limning their necessary implications. So you'll not balk at hate speech laws and you'll end up gagging God and His servants, the prophets. "This is just like this and we're all used to that so you must not say this and that—you judgmental heterosexual!"

As to whether couples struggling with infertility should use turkey basters and test tubes to try to have children, my post was about lesbian and sodomite adoption. When nice Christian couples use in vitro, usually they aren't so nice since they almost always lock a little man in a fridge and don't let him out. Again, enslavement of children is almost always the result of parents demanding children as a right to end their suffering; or in the case of homosexual couples, to justify their grossly and unnaturally immoral life.

So concerning mechanistic methods of getting a baby used by nice Christians, there's a lot of "stuff" that needs to be talked about before doing anything of this sort. For instance, do you know how...

But I blush to write of it in public.

In my own family we have nice Christian couples who have been quite sophisticated intellectually and medically, and therefore who would not use test tubes to demand their child because of the not nice things involved.


Tim Bayly, thanks for your response. While I process it, would you mind providing me a clarifying answer. Could you place for me on a continuum these four sins in order from greatest to least in degree: homosexuality, adultery, polygamy, prostitution.

And it would be helpful to compare apples to apples. We're agreed that homosexuality is an ongoing unrepentant sin. So let's compare it to that form of adultery, not the repentant kind. The most common adultery narrative is: "I was not meant to marry my first spouse, we fell out of love and divorced. We have both since remarried, and we are happy now."  So when I ask about adultery, that is what I have in mind. The unrepentant ongoing form of adultery which pervades our culture.  

Or perhaps you don't consider that to be ongoing adultery, which would explain our difference of opinion.

As to the turkey baster pregnancies in "nice heterosexual" couples. I confess not to be familiar with the mechanics of, but it didn't matter for my question. I wasn't arguing the merits of the practice, but simply asking if you would levy the same degree of rebuke for "normal" infertile couples.


Dear Brandon,

It sounds like you are in a church where there is no discipline. At Clearnote Church our elders are active and we don't have such people as you desribe in our church. They're repentant or gone. And if while a part of the fellowship they fall into this sinful trajectory, they are lovingly disciplined. So this hypothetical is not something we would allow. It might happen, but it would be after excommunication if hundreds of hours of work prior to excommunication had not produced the fruit of repentance.

As to whether public policy should allow this and that, I'm only interested in pointing out why it should never ever ever allow that. I've made my case, Biblically, and if you disagree, God bless you. Work excoriating the perversion of sodomy does not minimize the wickedness of other sins. If so, we would be judging the Holy Spirit insensitive in His inspiration of these words. For myself, I think His inspired words are useful and never would accuse Him of minimizing the weight of other sins. So I suggest you try to sort your list after putting appropriate words before each sin, starting with the Holy Spirit's words about sodomy.

I also suggest you meditate on Jesus' words:

Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:19

"Least" in reference to God's commandments necessarily implies greatest, middling, etc., so that word 'least' is the word I think you'll find helpful—although the other words are instructive related to all your questions, also.

That's all for now, dear brother. If you disagree with what I've written, God bless you.


It's a shame that you are retreating from discussion. It makes it difficult for my generation to fight the good fight and at the same time defend against society's charges of hypocrisy if the loudest voices about homosexuality can't explain why they single it out while whispering softly about all other sexual deviancy.

I do intent to abandon the discussion as you have asked, but I should note for the sake of my local church that it has no undisciplined cases (that I know of). I was speaking about adultery in society, and you took me to mean society in my church. I would consider it a kindness if you could edit the original comment to remove that particular point. I wouldn't want my church's name sullied on account of my poorly communicating myself.

Dear Brandon,

Prior to this comment, a number of men have answered you using 2,273 words in all, of which 1,538 are my own. For you to complain that this constitutes "retreating from discussion" seems uncharitable.

Sodomy is worse than the other sexual sins society has legitimated. It is a step—a very large step—down the sewer hole. And this is because sodomy, let alone sodomite marriage, is a sin against nature in a way adultery is not. In what way?

Well, if I saw evidence you agreed with Scripture in its emphases documented above, I'd encourage others to help you see why. (My time is limited.) Instead, I see a succession of questions all aiming at minimizing this unique wickedness of sodomy with no indication of agreement with the original proposition amply defended from God's words in God's Word.

But to put your heart to rest, of course I'd encourage you to speak against the placement of wards of the state in any home publicly promoting sexual immorality as sodomites' homes do. If you know of homes where a man and woman are living in adultery and demanding their adultery be validated by the state through the placement of wards of the state in it for foster care or adoption and you want to be a city father by opposing it, go to it! It would be good work.

But if you do so, you ought to fight even harder against the placement of wards of the state in homes with the promotion of bestiality and sodomy at their heart than you fight against homes given over to fornication or adultery.

I'll let your statement above clarify that your church does not have homes given over to adultery or fornication that are left alone by the elders of your church.


Brandon, perhaps this is a point where the wise pastor leaves the ordering of the severity of homosexuality, adultery, prostitution, and polygamy to the reader.  I hope we would both agree that any of these among one's parents would be hanging a millstone around a child's neck, though.

(and I'm serious here; there are times when I've got a question of my pastor, and his response is "what do you think about it?", because at a certain point, my view of whether polygamy is worse than adultery is not as important as whether I learn to exegete the Scripture well)

Brandon, it would be helpful to know whether or not you are Marine Sgt. Brandon Morgan.

I had to google it: yes that would be good thing to know. I am not. I'm 28 I grew up in the PCA and live in Mississippi.

Three children were recently placed in foster care. One of them were put with two men homosexuals. I took one of the children because it's all I can afford to take in. One of them are in a Christian couples home. Recently at a visitation, the one that lives with me told me that their 8 year old sibling was told to call one of guys "dad" and one of guys 'mom'. First of all as foster parents, we should be trying to help reunite these children with one of their original parents, not convince them we're the new mom and dad. These kids are not puppies, they're human beings. Here you have a child who's life is already counseling due to what they've been through and to tell them they have call some guy 'mom' is not right at all.

I find your comment to be judgmental. Practice what you preach.

Joe, you use the word "sodomite" within the first three sentences.  Twice.  At least have the courage to admit that you hate gays.

All this talk about Pharisees leads right back to the three fingers pointing back at you when your accusatory index is sticking out.  Nuance escapes you guys completely, it seems--and this lack of nuance in an increasingly complicated world is condemning you to irrelevance.  You're failing to convince Middle America.

Joe, you use the word "sodomite" within the first three sentences.  Twice.  At least have the courage to admit that you hate gays.

God refers to homosexuals the same way Joe does.  I think that leaves Joe on very good ground...

God is fiction.  Take it all for what you will.  The delusions of Evangelicals are becoming apparent to a growing portion of the population--it's about time.


Add new comment