As an adoption advocate, I am always happy to see the profile of adoption raised in a favorable story.  However, I must admit that there are instances when I cringe.  One such instance is single-parent adoption.  I’m not talking about the case when a child’s parents are killed in an accident, and the only surviving relative is a single women (or similar instances).  I’m talking about the single adult who simply chooses to adopt children in spite of the fact that they are unmarried.  When I hear about a single parent adopting children, I find it difficult to be excited for at least three reasons.  First, call me a Neanderthal, but I believe both mothers and fathers are important.  I reject the current cultural notion that men are optional features that are often more trouble than they’re worth (I’m not aware of similar sentiments toward mothers).  God designed the family, and he did so with mothers and fathers in mind.  Unfortunately, this is no longer the accepted norm. 

    With the rapid increase of divorce and promiscuity, the single-parent home has become an accepted norm.  In fact, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the United States recently reached an astonishing forty percent!  As a result, most people have become jaded, and don’t think twice about issues like single-parent adoption.  Add to this the very public adoptions of wealthy, popular and famous single women, and it’s easy to see why this issue virtually goes unchallenged.  Most people don’t give it a second thought, and if they do the Political Correctness police are always nearby.  However, this is no small matter.  As the World Association of Children and Parents has noted:

Some professionals report that single-parent adoption is the fastest-growing trend in the adoption field. WACAP works in five countries (Russia, Ethiopia, India, Kazakhstan and the United States) that accept single applicants. From those countries, about 15 percent of the children we have placed in the last four years are in single-parent families.

And the trend appears to be growing.  The last 20 years has seen a steady, sizable increase in the number of single parent adoptions.   In fact, single-parent adoption may be “the fastest growing trend in the adoption field.” (ibid.) 

    This is a recent trend that would never have found approval in days gone by.  As the WACP noted:

In 1970, if you had gone to an adoption agency as a single person and applied for a child, you would have, unfortunately, been turned down-it just wasn't done. In fact, in some States, there were laws against single parent adoption. Now, thousands of children in the United States and other countries are living with single men and women who have chosen to become parents and who have been given the opportunity to provide a loving permanent home for a child.

Don’t miss the last stetement.  “Thousands of children.. are living with single men and women.”  This brings me to my second objection to single-parent adoption.  I object to the fact that single-parent adoption must necessarily include single men.  This is a tremendous problem.  And the most obvious problem is adoption (and subsequent abuse) by homosexual males.  As Paul Cameron has written, aside from instances of abuse, children adopted by homosexuals are:

1. 1. more apt to report sexual confusion;
   

2. 2. more apt to be socially disturbed;
   

3. 3. more apt to abuse substances;
   

4. 4. less apt to get married;
   

5. 5. more apt to have difficulty in attachment and loving relationships; and
   

6. 6. more apt to have emotional difficulties.
   

    A recent case of an openly gay Duke University couple should be a wake up call for anyone who has not thought through this issue:

The on-line rape of his 5-year-old adopted son by Duke University's openly-gay, Frank Lombard, is no anomaly. Instead, Lombard's molestation fits the pattern that emerged in the latest review of the scientific literature about gay fathers.  Children [of homosexual males] were more frequently exposed to parental molestation and more apt to adopt homosexual interests and activities. "The Lombard case fits the pattern.  While every gay parent does not molest his child, the scientific literature records a much higher incidence of molestation by gay parents or foster parents."

For those who believe this is just an isolated incident, I invite you to pay closer attention to the data (and common sense).  This is a real problem.  Moreover, those who argue otherwise are in fact placing children at great risk.  As Cameron continues:

"The chant that 'gay parents are no more likely to molest' is not based on evidence but liberal ideology... By endorsing gay adoption, President Obama, the state of North Carolina, and Duke University share blame for this tragedy. These policy makers let dogma blind them to evidence that has been in the literature for years. Why would anyone who cared about children endorse adoption by members of a group which had 23% of its members admit to sex with boys or had 19% say they felt 'positive' about sex with them?"

   Unfortunately, the availability of gay adoption is a natural and necessary extension of the single-parent adoption trend.  If single women are allowed to adopt, the privilege must also be extended to single men.  Further, with our culture falling in line with the same-sex marriage agenda, it won’t be long before denying adoptions to homosexual “families” is considered unlawful discrimination (or perhaps a “Hate Crime”).  While there are some agencies that only place children in healthy, two-parent homes, the fact remains that most agencies find such policies unacceptable.  Even some “Christian” agencies refuse to draw a line in the sand on this issue.  

      I realize this argument is politically incorrect.  And I am sure there are readers out there seething as they think about the cild (or children) who found a home with some sweet, single, godly woman who gave them a wonderful life.  However, we cannot make policy based solely on anecdotal ‘success’ stories.  The fact that God can use ‘less-than-ideal’ circumstances is an argument for his providence, not an excuse to “put the Lord your God to the test.” (Matthew 4:7 ESV)  God intends for children to have mothers and fathers.  While he can and has, in his providence, allowed children to reach maturity and come to faith in spite of the absence of one of their parents, it does not negate his model for the family. 

    Compromise on this issue has resulted in children being brought up in intentional hardship (even the greatest single-parent advocates acknowledge the additional hardship of raising children alone), the promotion and extension of the daycare/nanny culture (most single-parents rely on daycare/nannies extensively), a devaluing of the significance of fatherhood, and an open door for homosexual pedophiles. 

    This leads to a final objection to single-parent adoption.  Single-parent adoption not only denies the importance of both parents, and opens the door for adoptions by homosexual males, it also serves as another means of strengthening the pro homosexual marriage argument.  This happens in at least two ways.  First, when we support single-parent adoption we are unwittingly admit that the family has no set definition.  In other words, it becomes difficult to say (with a straight face) that “we believe marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman” if we turn around and say both parents aren’t necessary to form a suitable adoptive family.  How can we stand for the “nuclear family” on one hand and celebrate it’s negation on the other?

    The second way single-parent adoption strengthens the pro homosexual marriage argument is by establishing a pattern of establishing homosexual “families” through adoption.  If you don’t believe me just look at the Iowa Supreme Court decision.  They site these “families” as support for their argument in favor of homosexual marriage!  The decision reads:

Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons.  Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples.  Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples.  Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.

While the court does not mention adoption directly, I ask you, how do you think these “families” are constituted?  Sure, there are instances where lesbian couples use outside donors, or gay men hire surrogates, but many of these “families” (especially among homosexual men) are contrived through adoption.  And since homosexual marriage is illegal in most states, these would necessarily be single-parent adoptions.  The issues are linked inexorably.

    Some will argue that the great need for adoptive families won’t allow for such selective practices.  However, there are a growing number of in-tact Christian families waiting to adopt children (including our family as we contemplate our fourth adoption).  There is no need to compromise on the single-parent issue.  Moreover, if there was a need for more families the proper response would be to call healthy, in-tact families to step up and meet that need. 

VB