Recently in an article entitled, Gay Adoption: The Real Agenda, Steve Chapman (not to be confused with Steven Curtis Chapman) wrote in favor of allowing gays to adopt children.  He used a common argument: Isn't it best for children to have someone love them, especially those children who wouldn't otherwise be adopted, regardless of the sexual preference of the parents?

Emotionally this argument carries some weight.  I fear this argument could persuade some conservative Evangelicals.  Perhaps, however, there are some greater issues at stake.  The emotional argument that Chapman uses reminds me of a similar argument that homosexuals use about their lifestyles: Why should everyone else be allowed to get married but not us?

Both arguments are based on a wrong premise.  The wrong premise is--that the homosexual lifestyle is good and acceptable (and that it should never, under any circumstances, be condemned).  But, what if God says it's wrong, and always wrong, under all circumstances?  If this lifestyle is wrong, then we can safely assume that same-sex relations harm those who engage in them, and they also harm those strongly influenced by those relationships, like children reared by homosexuals.  The very nature of homosexuality rejects what heterosexual relationships could, under normal healthy conditions, give--children.  Since the very essence of same-sex relationships closes the door to children, why should anyone care to make children adoptable to them?

In his article, Why Homosexuals Should Not Adopt or Teach Children, Mike Adams offers some insight worth pondering when he talks of homosexuals adopting and teaching,

"The job of raising a child is important--as is the job of teaching a child. Both require dealing with emotionally immature beings that require constant supervision and guidance to ensure they will develop into mature adults.

"There is nothing wrong with discriminating against a class of people who are afflicted with an emotional or mental illness that is relevant to the completion of a given task--especially if that task is crucial to the well-being of the society at large. That is why I am opposed to the idea of gays adopting or teaching our children."

It wasn't long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness.  Perhaps the PR from the homosexual community has persuaded many that such thinking belongs in the world of slavery and Jim Crow.  But maybe the thought (that homosexuality is an abnormal condition) is worth revisiting again, especially as the group who has always claimed opened-minded liberal thinking, seems to be more intolerant than most groups.  After all, is this sort of bigoted intolerance really a good environment for children?