You’ve heard the arguments. Kids don’t need a mom and dad. They just need to be safe and loved. Have you ever asked yourself why same-sex couples need those lines to be true so badly?
Incredibly grateful for your tireless, passionate work. May God continue to give you stamina, courage and boldness to step into the lions den of the LGBTQ cult and tear down this idol.
When we talk about the "laws of nature and nature's God " with regard to children , commonsense and history both attest to the child's inherent need for their biological mother (female) and father (male) - Otherwise and when you mess with mother nature leaving the child with one biological parent absent, there is hell to pay, amen? Visit one of our prison systems for starters and ask the inmates about their family life. "Nuff Said "
I am a 59 year old woman who is adopted. Of course, back then we didn’t have these medical interventions. My parents tried for 10 years, but couldn’t have kids. They always told me my biological mom made her choice out of love, and she did! I had a great family and a great life. She would’ve been a single mom. So Im all for adoption. I feel like the families that do this want the children so badly … these kids are blessed. But I do understand wanting biological kids first.. when I had my own kids I could see myself in them. I feel like I was probably missing a connection, however, adoption is way more positive overall.
Im really squeamish, though, about mostly IVF. If I understand it correctly, you may have unused embryos? Im very pro-life and to me that is life - what happens to them? But im not in others shoes as I was able to have my own kids.
I just thought gay people were adopting kids, but this article contradicts that. I thought that was great … like a whole subset of people who had to adopt. I guess if gay people want biological children, then they are going to do what straight people do as well, as the technology is available. For me, it’s the technology that I have ethical and spiritual concerns with.
Going beyond the biological there's also the spiritual bond between the parents of having begotten the child, to which the child relates even more than she does to either the mom and the dad. That's why divorce is so harmful... It breaks that invisible line that the child relates to. Read Paul Vitz on this.
Thanks for sharing this! As a pro-lifer who grew up deeply in the movement, I find myself wanting to understand how this perspective fits alongside some of the convictions that have always mattered to me.
If the core claim is that children are necessarily deprived when they are not raised by both biological parents, does that concern extend to adoption more broadly? Would the natural conclusion be that we should discourage young mothers from placing children for adoption? That is where I start to feel some tension, because in my experience we were always careful not to cast judgment on women in those situations (sometimes considering abortion). Adoption was often spoken of as an act of courage and love, and for couples struggling with infertility it was frequently seen as an answer to prayer.
I am also a bit of a scripture nerd, and when I look at biblical narratives I see repeated examples of family bonds forming beyond biology. Moses was raised in Pharaoh’s household. Esther was taken in by Mordecai. Jacob claimed Joseph’s sons as his own. David brought Mephibosheth into his care. Those stories shaped my understanding that covenantal love and responsibility can exist even when biological connections are fractured.
No need to comment on biblical musings if you're not religious, I think I am just trying to understand where the distinction is being made here. If biology is indispensable to a child’s flourishing, how does that square with the traditional pro-life affirmation of adoption?
The biggest difference in what Josh is laying out and adoption is that we don’t kidnap kids and put them up for adoption with government and society’s approval. (Yes, I’m sure there’s been instances of this across time and country, but in 2026, with everyone’s cheering it on? NO.)
So adoption is when a child loses mom and dad and adults ( who have paid a ton of money to be screened, to have every detail of their lives investigated to see if they’re safe and worth being allowed to raise children who aren’t biologically related to them) sacrifice and step in to give children parents.
Egg selling and buying, sperm selling and buying, and surrogacy...IVF processes...these are all adults paying thousands to *get a product*. And the product better match exactly what they want and how they want it. And they don’t want to adopt, as Josh laid out in the stats, because biology is important TO THEM. So LGBT adults (or single adults) will pay thousands for a product that is biologically related to them and simultaneously deny the child biological mom or dad because “love makes a family.”
You said “when I look at biblical narratives I see repeated examples of family bonds forming beyond biology. Moses was raised in Pharaoh’s household. Esther was taken in by Mordecai. Jacob claimed Joseph’s sons as his own. David brought Mephibosheth into his care. Those stories shaped my understanding that covenantal love and responsibility can exist even when biological connections are fractured.”
Moses went up for “adoption” because the Pharoh was mass murdering all the babies. His mom put him in the water for a desperate attempt for survival and when he’s plucked from the water by Pharaoh’s daughter, Moses’ sister’s quick thinking gets Moses back in the arms of his own biological mother to be raised the next few years. Yes, to not be murdered he was raised in the home of the Egyptians. And then he rejects that culture and family for the people he was taken from. Interesting example there for sure. Esther was taken in by a biological relative, we assume after her parents died. Jacob claims Joseph’s sons (his biological grandsons) as his own? This was an elevation in status and inheritance if anything. David brought in the blood relative of one of his best friends to care for, yes.
We’re not denying that non-biological ties and bonds can be formed. But every example of that, including scripture, is because of the loss of the ideal, the loss of biological mother and father.
Adults need to be able to hold the two views at once: the ideal for a child is to be raised by his/her biological mother and father, married, in the same home. Sometimes that cannot be met, but that’s a tragedy. We don’t celebrate it. We don’t justify it. We don’t do it intentionally as a billion dollar industry.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully! I really appreciated your point that adults need to be able to hold two views at once. That idea has stayed with me, because I think it gets at the heart of what I have been trying to wrestle through.
I do want to say up front that I hear the concern you are raising about intentionality and about the commercialization you see in surrogacy, IVF, and related practices. I understand that you are not simply talking about non-biological bonds, but about a broader objection to IVF itself, even in cases where a child would be raised by their own biological parents, and about adults intentionally structuring family formation in ways you believe raise moral concerns from the outset. I share the instinct to think carefully about any system involving children, especially when it risks treating them like outcomes to be managed rather than people to be received. I can also understand why the idea of human ingenuity stepping into something as intimate and mysterious as the creation of life raises deep moral alarms for you, especially when it begins to feel transactional or market driven.
Where I find myself still wrestling is in what it really means to hold those two views together in a broken world. I agree that the biological family is an ideal worth honoring. At the same time, the reality we live in is full of circumstances where that ideal cannot be fully realized. In the pro-life spaces I grew up in, the response to that tension was not only to name the loss, but also to speak with gratitude about the faithful relationships that emerge afterward. Adoption, for example, was never described to me only as a tragic concession. It was often spoken of as something meaningful that God works through, even though the circumstances that led to it were painful.
That is part of why I keep returning to scripture. Again and again, we see God working within situations that fall short of the original design, not by denying the brokenness but by bringing covenantal responsibility, belonging, and even redemption through people who step into those gaps. Those stories make me cautious about speaking of every non-biological bond primarily in terms of deprivation alone, because the biblical narrative often treats those relationships as places where faithfulness is actively lived out.
I think that is also where my question about internal consistency comes in. If we say that children have a right to be raised by their biological mother and father whenever possible, and that intentionally structuring families otherwise is unjust, how do we apply that principle without unintentionally undermining the way adoption has historically been affirmed within pro-life theology? Because if biology is the defining moral line, it seems like the logic would eventually extend beyond reproductive technologies and raise difficult questions about adoption itself in situations where a biological parent is capable but chooses another path. I am not asking that rhetorically. I am trying to understand how we hold both truths at once without collapsing into either sentimentality or rigidity.
So I think what I am really asking is this: what does it look like for us, as adults, to speak about family, biology, and brokenness with the kind of nuance that acknowledges the ideal while also recognizing that God’s grace often meets people precisely in the places where life does not unfold according to that ideal? I want to hold together a pro-life ethic that takes biological reality seriously and also reflects the compassion and theological depth that shaped me.
Tim I think the point to be made is don't put yourself in a position where something bad can happen. What does that look like when it comes to children and family? Ideally our vision as a nation when it comes to family should be = One biological born male (father), and one biological female (mother) in a lifelong, committed monogamous relationship with their children biological and yes even adopted children. Sticking close to natural laws is always the best route. https://naturalfamilystrong.com/
Thanks for the response. I can appreciate the simplicity of a philosophy like “don’t put yourself in a position where something bad can happen.” My natural instinct when I encounter any sort of philosophical statement like that is to begin stress testing it. Are there times when putting yourself in a position where something bad can happen might actually be advisable? I get in a car to go to work every day because I need to pay my bills, even though I’m more likely to get into an accident on the road than sitting at home. Are there times when doing so might even be honorable? Many of the saints and martyrs come to mind. Christian tradition has always recognized that love and responsibility sometimes call people into risk, which is why I tend to hesitate before treating risk-avoidance itself as a moral absolute. So for me, that kind of advice doesn’t seem able to function as a foundational principle on its own.
That same stress test is what I’ve been trying to apply to both the original post and some of the responses. If the desire for biological children is understood within natural-law thinking as something good and God-given, I find myself wondering why it is framed negatively when it appears in LGBT folks. If statistics are used to suggest that biological parents are more likely to treat children well, couldn’t that same logic begin to sound like an argument against adoption too? I don’t think any of us actually want to go there, which is why I keep coming back to consistency in how principles are applied.
Essentially, if the real concern is exploitation, weak regulation, or the commodification of children, then it seems more coherent to address those specific practices and laws directly rather than drawing broad conclusions about entire categories of families. There are bad actors across the board, including within traditional biological families, and the existence of harm in some homes does not erase the good that exists in others.
That’s simply the lens I use when I’m trying to think through philosophical claims carefully and consistently.
Incredibly grateful for your tireless, passionate work. May God continue to give you stamina, courage and boldness to step into the lions den of the LGBTQ cult and tear down this idol.
It is very obvious that the LGBTQ Movement had been deliberately created, hyped, pushed, and publicized to depopulate human.
When we talk about the "laws of nature and nature's God " with regard to children , commonsense and history both attest to the child's inherent need for their biological mother (female) and father (male) - Otherwise and when you mess with mother nature leaving the child with one biological parent absent, there is hell to pay, amen? Visit one of our prison systems for starters and ask the inmates about their family life. "Nuff Said "
LGBT adults: "Biology for me, not for thee, little child!"
I am a 59 year old woman who is adopted. Of course, back then we didn’t have these medical interventions. My parents tried for 10 years, but couldn’t have kids. They always told me my biological mom made her choice out of love, and she did! I had a great family and a great life. She would’ve been a single mom. So Im all for adoption. I feel like the families that do this want the children so badly … these kids are blessed. But I do understand wanting biological kids first.. when I had my own kids I could see myself in them. I feel like I was probably missing a connection, however, adoption is way more positive overall.
Im really squeamish, though, about mostly IVF. If I understand it correctly, you may have unused embryos? Im very pro-life and to me that is life - what happens to them? But im not in others shoes as I was able to have my own kids.
I just thought gay people were adopting kids, but this article contradicts that. I thought that was great … like a whole subset of people who had to adopt. I guess if gay people want biological children, then they are going to do what straight people do as well, as the technology is available. For me, it’s the technology that I have ethical and spiritual concerns with.
Going beyond the biological there's also the spiritual bond between the parents of having begotten the child, to which the child relates even more than she does to either the mom and the dad. That's why divorce is so harmful... It breaks that invisible line that the child relates to. Read Paul Vitz on this.
Thanks for sharing this! As a pro-lifer who grew up deeply in the movement, I find myself wanting to understand how this perspective fits alongside some of the convictions that have always mattered to me.
If the core claim is that children are necessarily deprived when they are not raised by both biological parents, does that concern extend to adoption more broadly? Would the natural conclusion be that we should discourage young mothers from placing children for adoption? That is where I start to feel some tension, because in my experience we were always careful not to cast judgment on women in those situations (sometimes considering abortion). Adoption was often spoken of as an act of courage and love, and for couples struggling with infertility it was frequently seen as an answer to prayer.
I am also a bit of a scripture nerd, and when I look at biblical narratives I see repeated examples of family bonds forming beyond biology. Moses was raised in Pharaoh’s household. Esther was taken in by Mordecai. Jacob claimed Joseph’s sons as his own. David brought Mephibosheth into his care. Those stories shaped my understanding that covenantal love and responsibility can exist even when biological connections are fractured.
No need to comment on biblical musings if you're not religious, I think I am just trying to understand where the distinction is being made here. If biology is indispensable to a child’s flourishing, how does that square with the traditional pro-life affirmation of adoption?
Hey Tim,
The biggest difference in what Josh is laying out and adoption is that we don’t kidnap kids and put them up for adoption with government and society’s approval. (Yes, I’m sure there’s been instances of this across time and country, but in 2026, with everyone’s cheering it on? NO.)
So adoption is when a child loses mom and dad and adults ( who have paid a ton of money to be screened, to have every detail of their lives investigated to see if they’re safe and worth being allowed to raise children who aren’t biologically related to them) sacrifice and step in to give children parents.
Egg selling and buying, sperm selling and buying, and surrogacy...IVF processes...these are all adults paying thousands to *get a product*. And the product better match exactly what they want and how they want it. And they don’t want to adopt, as Josh laid out in the stats, because biology is important TO THEM. So LGBT adults (or single adults) will pay thousands for a product that is biologically related to them and simultaneously deny the child biological mom or dad because “love makes a family.”
You said “when I look at biblical narratives I see repeated examples of family bonds forming beyond biology. Moses was raised in Pharaoh’s household. Esther was taken in by Mordecai. Jacob claimed Joseph’s sons as his own. David brought Mephibosheth into his care. Those stories shaped my understanding that covenantal love and responsibility can exist even when biological connections are fractured.”
Moses went up for “adoption” because the Pharoh was mass murdering all the babies. His mom put him in the water for a desperate attempt for survival and when he’s plucked from the water by Pharaoh’s daughter, Moses’ sister’s quick thinking gets Moses back in the arms of his own biological mother to be raised the next few years. Yes, to not be murdered he was raised in the home of the Egyptians. And then he rejects that culture and family for the people he was taken from. Interesting example there for sure. Esther was taken in by a biological relative, we assume after her parents died. Jacob claims Joseph’s sons (his biological grandsons) as his own? This was an elevation in status and inheritance if anything. David brought in the blood relative of one of his best friends to care for, yes.
We’re not denying that non-biological ties and bonds can be formed. But every example of that, including scripture, is because of the loss of the ideal, the loss of biological mother and father.
Adults need to be able to hold the two views at once: the ideal for a child is to be raised by his/her biological mother and father, married, in the same home. Sometimes that cannot be met, but that’s a tragedy. We don’t celebrate it. We don’t justify it. We don’t do it intentionally as a billion dollar industry.
Hi Jenn,
Thank you again for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully! I really appreciated your point that adults need to be able to hold two views at once. That idea has stayed with me, because I think it gets at the heart of what I have been trying to wrestle through.
I do want to say up front that I hear the concern you are raising about intentionality and about the commercialization you see in surrogacy, IVF, and related practices. I understand that you are not simply talking about non-biological bonds, but about a broader objection to IVF itself, even in cases where a child would be raised by their own biological parents, and about adults intentionally structuring family formation in ways you believe raise moral concerns from the outset. I share the instinct to think carefully about any system involving children, especially when it risks treating them like outcomes to be managed rather than people to be received. I can also understand why the idea of human ingenuity stepping into something as intimate and mysterious as the creation of life raises deep moral alarms for you, especially when it begins to feel transactional or market driven.
Where I find myself still wrestling is in what it really means to hold those two views together in a broken world. I agree that the biological family is an ideal worth honoring. At the same time, the reality we live in is full of circumstances where that ideal cannot be fully realized. In the pro-life spaces I grew up in, the response to that tension was not only to name the loss, but also to speak with gratitude about the faithful relationships that emerge afterward. Adoption, for example, was never described to me only as a tragic concession. It was often spoken of as something meaningful that God works through, even though the circumstances that led to it were painful.
That is part of why I keep returning to scripture. Again and again, we see God working within situations that fall short of the original design, not by denying the brokenness but by bringing covenantal responsibility, belonging, and even redemption through people who step into those gaps. Those stories make me cautious about speaking of every non-biological bond primarily in terms of deprivation alone, because the biblical narrative often treats those relationships as places where faithfulness is actively lived out.
I think that is also where my question about internal consistency comes in. If we say that children have a right to be raised by their biological mother and father whenever possible, and that intentionally structuring families otherwise is unjust, how do we apply that principle without unintentionally undermining the way adoption has historically been affirmed within pro-life theology? Because if biology is the defining moral line, it seems like the logic would eventually extend beyond reproductive technologies and raise difficult questions about adoption itself in situations where a biological parent is capable but chooses another path. I am not asking that rhetorically. I am trying to understand how we hold both truths at once without collapsing into either sentimentality or rigidity.
So I think what I am really asking is this: what does it look like for us, as adults, to speak about family, biology, and brokenness with the kind of nuance that acknowledges the ideal while also recognizing that God’s grace often meets people precisely in the places where life does not unfold according to that ideal? I want to hold together a pro-life ethic that takes biological reality seriously and also reflects the compassion and theological depth that shaped me.
Tim I think the point to be made is don't put yourself in a position where something bad can happen. What does that look like when it comes to children and family? Ideally our vision as a nation when it comes to family should be = One biological born male (father), and one biological female (mother) in a lifelong, committed monogamous relationship with their children biological and yes even adopted children. Sticking close to natural laws is always the best route. https://naturalfamilystrong.com/
Hi JR,
Thanks for the response. I can appreciate the simplicity of a philosophy like “don’t put yourself in a position where something bad can happen.” My natural instinct when I encounter any sort of philosophical statement like that is to begin stress testing it. Are there times when putting yourself in a position where something bad can happen might actually be advisable? I get in a car to go to work every day because I need to pay my bills, even though I’m more likely to get into an accident on the road than sitting at home. Are there times when doing so might even be honorable? Many of the saints and martyrs come to mind. Christian tradition has always recognized that love and responsibility sometimes call people into risk, which is why I tend to hesitate before treating risk-avoidance itself as a moral absolute. So for me, that kind of advice doesn’t seem able to function as a foundational principle on its own.
That same stress test is what I’ve been trying to apply to both the original post and some of the responses. If the desire for biological children is understood within natural-law thinking as something good and God-given, I find myself wondering why it is framed negatively when it appears in LGBT folks. If statistics are used to suggest that biological parents are more likely to treat children well, couldn’t that same logic begin to sound like an argument against adoption too? I don’t think any of us actually want to go there, which is why I keep coming back to consistency in how principles are applied.
Essentially, if the real concern is exploitation, weak regulation, or the commodification of children, then it seems more coherent to address those specific practices and laws directly rather than drawing broad conclusions about entire categories of families. There are bad actors across the board, including within traditional biological families, and the existence of harm in some homes does not erase the good that exists in others.
That’s simply the lens I use when I’m trying to think through philosophical claims carefully and consistently.