This was sent to me by my friend Robb. The caller asks Greg whether he has ever taken in any foster children, since he is pro-life. She apparently thinks that Greg cannot be pro-life unless Greg is willing to adopt every crisis pregnancy child who is allowed to be born.
This is the greatest amount of ass-kicking that has ever been accomplished in 10 minutes. I have never heard Greg Koukl lose his temper, but he is clearly a little annoyed with the caller.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Nothing satisfies these people because they don’t want to make people take responsibility for their actions. If there’s even one woman out there who feels upset or inconvenienced by her unplanned pregnancy and doesn’t get help (in the form of someone taking the baby off her hands or giving her everything she needs to raise the child), they will point to that one woman and scream that she ought to be able to abort to prevent the interruption in her life. They have absolutely no regard for unborn human life and think only of the convenience and life goals of born women, never about the child. They see babies as the enemy and see killing them as an acceptable choice when they get in the way of what women want. I still can’t fathom how anyone can think this way.
LikeLike
Do you have to invite every Jew into your home in order to have standing to say it’s wrong to gas them??? Nuts.
LikeLike
Good for Greg. That is one of the all-time stupid pro-abortion arguments. When people use that I like to ask, “What if the gov’t was going to “solve” homelessness by killing homeless people? Would you be obligated to take the homeless into your house before you could speak out against that gov’t policy?”
While pro-lifers do many things with their own time and money to help the poor (go visit a crisis pregnancy center and see all the things they do for free), protesting an immoral act does not obligate you to take care of its victims. Just as you can protest child abuse without having to adopt all the children, you don’t have to adopt children before you can protest the crushing and dismembering of innocent human beings in the womb.
LikeLike
Wow! A 10 minutes well-spent. Thank you, WK! The sad thing is that this woman got her ass kicked, and she still doesn’t know it. And she may never know it. She really did NOT get the analogy to slavery and wife beating – two issues which, presumably, she would speak out against.
The only thing Greg could have pressed her more on is by asking her how much she is doing for these women she claims to care about. He explored this a little, but could have pressed her more. He also restrained himself much better than I could have.
LikeLike
You can almost hear her thinking, “Crap! He’s going to answer the question! He’s not supposed to actually ANSWER the question!”
Greg is awesome.
LikeLike
I am having a hard time with religion beliefs on gay marriage. There are many gay people that would provide good homes to unwanted children. I do not understand how this is unacceptable to The Lord. If a couple is in love isn’t that all that matters? It just seems a bit cruel to me. It is hurtful for a lot of Gay people I am friends with and they are truly great people. I read why this is a sin, it is sad.
LikeLike
Gempen7,
This will be a long reply, but that’s because you are approaching the issue from such a different perspective that I need to shovel away at some background issues.
If you don’t believe that there is anything seriously wrong with homosexuality then naturally you will not find anything wrong with a homosexual couple adopting children.
However, if your’e trying to understand the Christian perspective on the issue of homosexuality and adoption then you have to start with our beliefs on the wrongfulness of homosexuality and, subsequently, it’s harmful effects on the individual and those around him/her.
There is secular evidence we could present which shows a homosexual life-style is not healthy physically (e.g., anal sex) and psychologically and that homosexual parenting doesn’t seem to be as good an environment for children as (heterosexual) married parenting. But that route usually leads to a lot of other debate and the point can be understood from a purely religious perspective, which is all I’m concerned to communicate here, since that should be sufficient to help you understand religious beliefs here.
So, homosexuality is sin. It’s a serious sin that is often a result of God’s giving a person up, so to speak, to judgment (Rom. 1:26-27). The result, of course, like all sins, is hell (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Given that, homosexuality doesn’t exhibit love. It exhibits a perversion of love. This doesn’t mean a homosexual person can’t love, but it means that their love, insofar as it is love, isn’t homosexual in character. Furthermore, those living a homosexual life-style today are in a pretty unique position as regards other sins. They take a special pride in flaunting their sin and justifying it.
So why would a Christian, who believes homosexuality is wrong and, often, a result of God’s judgment, want a child to be placed in a situation where he or she will be raised to think homosexuality is normal and acceptable? That makes no sense.
I don’t doubt that you’ll disagree with this, but at least you should be able to understand that Christians, if they are correct about the nature of homosexuality, are rational to not want children placed into a home that exemplifies it and holds it up as a model of love.
Having laid that out, I’ll respond to the specifics of your post:
>>There are many gay people that would provide good homes to unwanted children.
“Good” in what sense? They may provide food, shelter, clothing, and education to a child. Those are certainly good things. But those are good things that orphanages can provide too. What does a homosexual couple provide that is good which, say, an orphanage or adoption agency can’t provide? Presumably you’ll think it’s a family environment. But it’s at this point that I would disagree. A family is constituted by a married man or woman or by some relation naturally stemming from that. A homosexual couple is modeling a perversion of a family environment. And that’s not good either for those modeling it or for the children being molded by it.
>>I do not understand how this is unacceptable to The Lord.
It’s contrary to his design and intention for the family.
>>If a couple is in love isn’t that all that matters?
When you call it “love” you assume the very point in dispute between the religious person and yourself. Would you call pedophilia love? I’m sure you wouldn’t. And my point is not to say that homosexuality equals pedophilia. My point is that some people have a perverted view of love (I watched a documentary on YouTube a few years ago where a pedophile claimed to “love” his child victims). And just as you would want to strenuously object to a pedophile casting his perversion as “love” so I would want to object to your characterization of homosexuality as “love.”
>>It just seems a bit cruel to me.
Actually, it’s loving. By properly categorizing homosexuality as sinful we can help the homosexual orient himself properly to God and to society. We can help those who might be deceived by it (the children) properly orient themselves to it.
>>It is hurtful for a lot of Gay people I am friends with and they are truly great people.
Sometimes love hurts. Getting stitches hurts. Having your friends and family confront you a bout your drug problem hurts. But it hurts because we love our sin and don’t like to hear that we’re not as good as we thought or that we’re not okay.
A homosexual person may be a great person in many respects, but with respect to their homosexuality they are not great and that’s where they need to strive for change.
LikeLike
I am just learning the Bible and I again apologize if I offended you. There is much to learn I value your input. In order not to offend you or anyone I will continue with my learning and keep an open mind to all feedback. God bless
LikeLike
There are plenty of single mothers that work and provide for their children. This is awful and offending to many single mothers that play the role of absent fathers. The woman on the phone knows more than any man on the planet about single motherhood regardless if she is one herself. This is cruel and such a stereotype topic. God loves all.
LikeLike
>>There are plenty of single mothers that work and provide for their children. This is awful and offending to many single mothers that play the role of absent fathers.
Their also plenty of single fathers that work and provide for their children. And they are playing the role of the absent mothers. Granted, there are probably more absent fathers than absent mothers. But some of that is the fault of our society and legal which tends to assume the rights of the mother over the father. So fathers aren’t entirely to blame for that scenario.
>>The woman on the phone knows more than any man on the planet about single motherhood regardless if she is one herself.
That may be true only in the trivial sense that Greg Koukl knows more than any woman on the planet about single fatherhood, regardless if he is one himself.
>>This is cruel and such a stereotype topic.
To be honest, you seem to be following a stereotype yourself in regards to mothers are as the de facto victims.
>>God loves all.
Agreed.
LikeLike
I apologize if I offended anyone in any way. I understand your point and you are correct there are a lot of single fathers that deserve more credit for providing for their children. Agreed. Thank you for your insight I value all there is to learn. God bless.
LikeLike