Can Christian Adoption Agencies be Defended? - Part I

Recently I read about some efforts by the ACLU in Michigan to challenge the status of Christian adoption agencies.  Many similar programs have been shut down across the country because of their practice of only adopting children to homes with a mother and father.** That is to say, not because they have bad track records or unacceptable waiting periods, but because their opponents claim they are employing arbitrary bigotry and bronze-age superstitions.

That’s what I want to look at today.  Is there a defense to be made for these Christian adoption programs?  Is there a way to challenge the assertion that they employ bigotry?

**(Wait a minute… abortion-rights-supporters always say Christians don’t care about children after they’re born.  Why do all these Christian adoption agencies exist?  That’s odd... )


Avoiding the Straw Men...

Now, the first thing you typically encounter when entering into this discussion is a massive amount of disgust and anger.  And then the accusations pile up:

“Are you saying every kid who is raised by same-sex parents is psychologically scarred and unable to function?!  Because they DON’T! 

Gay people can be just as loving as any other parent!  YOU ARE A MEAN BULLY AND AN IGNORANT BIGOT!!”

So the first thing I'd want to do is calm the person down and carefully define the position being defended.  That means first defining what's NOT being defended:

“I am aware that people who are same-sex attracted are capable of responsibility and loving affection.  I am not saying they aren’t.  Nor am I saying each child raised by same-sex parents inevitably becomes a dysfunctional basket-case.  So let's not act like I did.” 

With that out of the way… what exactly is being defended?

Let’s use an analogy.  Suppose you had two restaurants – Bob's and Bill's.  To justify a preference Bob's, you don’t need to prove that Bill's is total garbage.  You just need a clear reason why Bob's is preferable to Bill's.   

Same goes here.  You don’t need to say that same-sex parenting is the worst thing ever.  You just need to a logical reason why opposite-sex parenting is preferable given the nature of adoption.  A reason which doesn't boil down to arbitrary bigotry.


Changing the Stakes:

Now, you need to understand how your interlocutor likely sees things.  It generally goes like this:

• Premise 1: Preferences for opposite-sex parenting is just a form of bigotry.
• Premise 2: I'm a good person and oppose bigotry.
• Therefore: I am against preferences for opposite-sex parenting.

If that’s as far as one thinks about it, the position can seem obviously true and highly virtuous.  Only a monster could oppose it.  But there is more to it than that.  There is a logical corollary to the person’s position which he/she probably doesn't realize.

Saying same-sex parenting is just as good as mom+dad parenting logically entails some drastic conclusions about motherhood and fatherhood.  Let me phrase it this way:

It certainly sounds less noble when stated in the fashion in the right side, but these really are equivalent statements.  Asserting one means asserting the other. Therefore, the position your interlocutor is defending really means this:

“There is no distinct value brought into a child’s life by a father or mother.  These roles are all interchangeable and - of themselves - unnecessary.  And to believe otherwise is a form of bigotry and/or superstition.”

That’s what you need to put before him/her. You must insist if someone is going to say the Catholic adoption agencies have no justification, said person must defend the whole enchilada.

That means contending that motherhood and fatherhood - contrary to the intuitions of every human culture ever - are actually indistinct, interchangeable, and fully replaceable.


Putting it into Words:

So I'd say something like:

"I don't think it's bigotry at all.  Do you really think an adolescent girl who is experiencing her monthly cycle for the first time is just as well off being raised by two men?  You really think there's no value for her having a mother?   

Or do you really think a boy - wondering what it means to be a man - is no better off having a father in the house?  Both of these cases seem to defy common sense.

Look, you can either believe that motherhood and fatherhood are distinct and valuable relationships in a child’s life, or you can assert that a child loses nothing in a same-sex parenting situation.  These are mutually exclusive claims and you don’t get to have it both ways.  

But if you're willing to admit that motherhood and fatherhood are distinct and important in a child's life - and that it's desirable for a child have both - then we're in agreement that the Christian adoption agencies have a valid, rational justification for always choosing mom+dad homes."

That's where we'll leave it today.  Next time, I want to wade into the various "studies" which are proposed to overrule our common sense.


*Note:  If a Christian adoption agency places kids with single-parent household, it forfeits the strength of the argument made above.