Why do homosexuals want to become parents?
and imagine how many more books he would sell if he encouraged homosexuality.
just because you and the culture are becoming more hostile towards christianity does not mean that its dying. Many people around the world have faced death and torture because they wouldn't deny Jesus Christ, including the original disciples who knew whether or not Jesus is who he claimed to be. And please stop equating sexual orientation/preference with race. Which parent didnt you need growing up? Mom or dad? Obviously its more important to have a mom AND dad than a specific race.
It's unfortunate that you are so biased towards your sin that you reject anything that challenges your lust for what will keep you as a prisoner who is unwilling to objectively see reality and this social evil for its destructive consequences to both people and our culture. I pray that you move in a more healthy direction in the future...for your eternal future.
1- That's not to say that 100% of those species' populations engage in homosexual activity though, much less is it a 'lifestyle'.2- More critically, the animal kingdom also gives us plentiful examples of parents eating their young or abandoning them, or any number of behaviors that would be attrocious in human society.
The thinking that something is good for us because animals do it is naive to the point of being self-destructive.
Recent events refocused my attention on this debate. There's a part of me that sincerely wishes to see more than just emotional vitriol from the other side of the debate. This comment, however, is yet another example of an emotionally-based outburst without evidence or reason for the conclusion.
"Craig is pandering to his followers" ... on what evidence to you make this claim? This is obviously an assumption based on your extreme disapproval of his views. Is it so unpalatable to think a man sincerely believes in the views he expresses? Perhaps, instead of "pandering" to his fans, he - by his sincerity, determination and the strength of character, that many of us admire - accretes listeners and scholars as a natural by-product. Yes, that seems more likely.
I do not feel Dr. Craig "panders" to me...and I find the malignment of a good man's character disgusting.
Christianity is NOT failing around the world. Quite the opposite in fact. Are you so concerned about being pro-gay that you would make such an erroneous statement? Are you now not "cherry picking" just like you said the author was? Where are your facts? How did you even come to such a conclusion? Emotion and feelings do not equate to fact. And as for your "bronze age" reasoning. Okay. What if in 50 years society says being gay is a mental disease after all and they should be killed off one by one? Would you be for that simply because TIME (or even social trend/popular opinion) allowed for that mentality? You would not. You would even argue that one should look at the facts, statistics, study up or something other than "its a different time and age so the previous ways are completely irrelevant". Progress cannot happen when you do not take the time to understand your own position, lambaste others and make arguments based off of personal feelings and emotions. Just food for thought.
There also isn't any scientific evidence that being heterosexual is something of biology. We need man and woman to reproduce, but there is no gene. Being gay is unlike picking an outfit out in the morning; you don't consciously choose one way or another. No one wakes up and says "I will be straight today." If homosexuality is a choice, so is heterosexuality.
Dr. Craig thinks all gay people do is just engage in sodomy. As if they order a side of sodomy with their breakfast every morning. He completely forgets that millions of heterosexual couples engage in sodomy too, and as long as they don't do it in the presence of their children I don't think it's going to affect their kids one way or the other.
Imagine if a racist said that children adopted by African American parents have a higher tendency of dropping out of school and going to jail and being promiscuous. Would any of you accept that as a valid reason to ban ALL African Americans from being able to adopt children?
Craig has a habit of cherry picking pieces of information that suits his needs. And it is amazing in this day and age how ignorant many people are when it comes to sexuality. Religions like Christianity foster a Bronze Age concept of sexuality that has little to no place in today's post-enlightenment modern world.
It's a good thing that this Bronze Age mentality is becoming extinct like the republican party is. That's why Christianity is ultimately failing around the world, it is incompatible with reality.
I'll like to get the papers of sociologist Mark Granovetter used in this podcast
You obviously have a clear view of the issues at stake. Ithink you expressed the concerns of the Church well in your comment, thanks forsharing.
Look at the oldest studies of all, Sodom & Gomorrah. I know people who have been there and seen first hand the still scorched landscape of a city that supported the gay lifestyle; not the lifestyle God intended when he created man. God will not allow the land to heal because He wants us to remember just how much he hates man misusing our bodies (the temple) God created. That is why aids is the result. Sin = death.
Well, the children are being damaged nonetheless because they are being taught that sodomy and other same-sex behavior is okay. That can have eternal consequences.
Moover, what you understand by "contrary to the natural order" is not what I or my fellow natural law theorists understand by it. It is evident by the kind of argument you are making that you think something which is contrary to the natural order must be some kind of miracle or statistical aberration, which shows you're thinking of the wrong kind of nature- a mechanistic collection of statistics, rather than a nature with immanent functional teleology (in the Aristotelian sense) and irreducible capacities, which can and does fail to achieve those functional ends, and where capacities can fail to be actualized or become actualized in perverse ways.
When natural law theorists speak of the natural order, we're talking about what follows from the intrinsic functional end of sex and the sexual faculties- the end which sexuality has insofar as it is sexual, which it has "by nature," rather than merely "in nature."
In human beings, this sexual functionality is both procreative and unitive, and the human being has sexual faculties that are intrinsically functionally directed at a comprehensive union at the physical and emotional level. That the sexual faculties may happen to fail to achieve these ends, and so be poorly exemplified, or become misdirected towards ends contrary to their nature through biological mishap or conscious perversion is irrelevant to whether they have the sexual faculties have these functional ends intrinsically. That other animals display some defect in the sexual function is not relevant to such an analysis, either.
In the same way, we might say that limb development in humans is intrinsically directed at a particular kind of result, from which the natural law theorist concludes that it is contrary to the natural order that deformed limbs occur. Thus, you can see that simply pointing out that other animals' limbs get malformed, or perhaps that such limb malformations sometimes confer this or that survival advantage, would not detract from the case at hand. Your argument, then, should take this into account, and either deny that there is such teleology (in which case you would have to deny the fact of harm and disorder per se), or you could argue that the innate functional teleology of sexuality is other than reproductive union.
(before you start along the lines that humans don't choose to use sex for reproduction, and animals don't choose to do it either, consider that I'm talking about intrinsic functional directedness, not that either humans and animals are always consciously motivated to achieve these ends.
Whether a dog hunts for fun or for nourishment, and whether or not it was successful, it remains true that its hunting instinct is functionally directed toward acquiring nourishment, and its capacity for having fun hunting is part of a larger process directed at acquiring food, whether the dog knows it or not. If this process becomes perverted, then the dog to some degree has an intrinsically defective hunting instinct, whether it is aware of this defect or not.)
Patrick Casanova As a christian who happens to be gay, reading many of your comments put a smile on my face. Needless to say, I appreciate the thought, time, and effort you put into your comments.
Patrick, stop trying to reason with Matt, you raised extremely good points and cited some valid critiques but it's like talking to a brick wall.
homosexuality is not contrary to the natural order. Research shows that it happens in nature as well, there are over 1500 animal species display homosexual behaviour.
dp = double post.
"Homosexuality would be predicated on the attraction to the same sex not a sex act."
I agree entirely! Perhaps you can tell Pete that because he seems to be confused on this point.
"Arguing the point would be negated because both straight and gay can do it is illogical."
It would, though I'm not aware of anyone who has done it here.
"Why would that be mind boggling? You honestly believe that there are straight couples that only have anal sex?"
Sure, why not? There are a lot of straight couples in the world -- perhaps some of them, for one reason or other, only have one kind of sex to the exclusion of everything else. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If not, you are not entitled to make such a sweeping claim.
As for your incoherent rant on anal sex, I have no idea what it's pertinent to the initial point I made.
"My point stands"
Homosexuality would be predicated on the attraction to the same sex not a sex act. Arguing the point would be negated because both straight and gay can do it is illogical.
"Moreover, your sweeping claim that "heterosexual couples do not engage in that sex act exclusively" is, simply, mind-boggling"
Why would that be mind boggling? You honestly believe that there are straight couples that only have anal sex?
"Oh, so people can get AIDS from one and only one particular sex act??"
That is a red hearing and not what I meant. If someone has AIDS there is a 95% chance that they are gay, bisexual, or a heroine addict. Despite media horror stories that there will be an HIV/AIDS explosion in the straight population, HIV/AIDS has been mainly confined to the gay population. You did not address my point and you are arguing about semantics.
Why is it that HIV/AIDS has been mainly isolated to the gay male population? The answer is because of the sex act that most gay men engage in. That is also the reason why the disease is so bad in Africa.
There are also other health issues associated with anal sex. It causes the rate of colon cancer to sky rocket. There are a myriad of infections associated with it. If this was a nonpolitical issue the overwhelming response would be human beings were not meant to do this.
"The discinction here is that heterosexual couples do not engage in that sex act exclusively. There are also heterosexual couples that do not engage in that particular sex act."
My point stands: it's NOT the case that the "distinguishing factor between LGBT community and the Heterosexual community centers around the sexual act," for the very undeniable FACT that the "particular sex act" - whatever that means - can be performed by BOTH straight and gay couples.
Moreover, your sweeping claim that "heterosexual couples do not engage in that sex act exclusively" is, simply, mind-boggling. How do you know? And what do you mean by "that" sex act? Are you talking about anal sex? If so, how do you know there aren't straight couples who engage exclusively in anal sex?
"We know how people get AIDS. People get AIDS from one particular sex act If we applied the same rationale to AIDS that we do to cannibalism, the sex act would be deemed unnatural."
Oh, so people can get AIDS from one and only one particular sex act?? Please read up on the causes of AIDS, since you clearly have learning gaps in your reproductive education. In case you didn't know (which would be astonishing), one cannot get AIDS *merely* from engaging in sexual activity -- one of the partners must have the virus to begin with.
So as you are stating the gays in their study which are the gays they could find are a product of instablility in the home and the heterosexual couples are a product of intact homes. Why I don't agree with you I find it interesting that you site the instability of the home life as the reason for these individuals who are gay. One could conclude from your argument that sexual experimentation, divorce and instability in the home, were the contributing factors which lead to the gay lifestyle in the sample.
"This is patently false.Many heterosexual couples, like many homosexual couples, engage in the SAME kind of sexual activity"
The discinction here is that heterosexual couples do not engage in that sex act exclusively. There are also heterosexual couples that do not engage in that particular sex act.
There is a disease that cannibals get from eating other people. Most people would extrapolate it is unnatural for humans to eat other humans. Why? Because when humans eat other humans they get a disease.
Apply the same reasoning to another subject and the activists get upset and start name calling. We know how people get AIDS. People get AIDS from one particular sex act. If we applied the same rationale to AIDS that we do to cannibalism, the sex act would be deemed unnatural.
You seem to forget one little fact-when Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church--this includes taking a biblical stand against the perversion of homosexuality. They went out from us because they were not of us. As for the "monogamy" you seem to think exists in the same-sex world, they have redefined that as well along with every other deconstruction they have imbibed in http://vitalsignsblog.blogspot... . Besides, according to Genesis 1:27 and Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:2-11, gender distinction is another primary ingredient in making a marriage and marriage. You can't bake a cake with half a recipe.
As Mathew suggests below, don't confuse the fact that parental gender is not the only influence doesn't mean it is an influence. POint being.. "Men are better at tennis than women".. Evidence.. "Roger Federer or Andy Murray would beat Serena Williams or Venus Williams".. Argument against.. "Serena or Venus Williams would beat me at tennis.. easily!".. So what we're saying is that the best male tennis stars would beat the best female ones.. true. That a random selection of non tennis playing males would beat similar selection of females.. also true I suspect. All things being equal, men are better at tennis. Are all men better at tennis than all women? NO! So is a child brought up by two loving gay parents probably better off than a child brought up by a drunk mum and an absent and whenhe's not absent, violent dad? ALmost certainly.. but that's not the question. Is parenting by two people of same sex the 'gold standard' of parenting? No.. I don't think it is.. and thay doens't mean that same sex parents wouldn't do their best.. but a mother and a father are the ideal, and this is not possible with a gay couple for obvous reasons.. Forgive lack of citation.. it's nearly 2am here in Britain.. I'll dig someout for you tomorrow.. promise!
St Paul was well aware of the reality of long term homosexual relationships which were present in the ancient gentile world.. and yet still chose to condemn homosexual behaviour without exception. His use of the Greek word, 'aresenokotai' is a direct reference to the Levitican law against same sex unions. The idea that the Bible, whatever your view of it, does NOT contain the clear prohibition of any sexual same sex relationship is, in my view, wishful thinking on behalf of those who would wish it so. I've yet to see a decent argument put to suggest the clear Biblical command against homosexual practice is anything but that which it seems to be.
My point was only that Corvino is openly gay and has based most of his career around defending homosexual behavior and thus is probably biased in regards to whether or not homosexual behavior is detrimental to society.
If you want to apply that same reasoning to Dr. Craig, then by all means do. It makes no difference to me.
Personally, I still don't see the issues brought up by the people you're citing as flaws since I'm primarily interested in whether or not homosexual behavior is detrimental to children either directly or implicitly. So I welcome the diverse sampling of parents who have participated in homosexual behavior.
I must say that this issue is quite the hot topic. In referenceto the adoption issue or homosexuals parenting children, I must say that thereare clear disadvantages for the child, the reason these disadvantages are notso apparent is because of the current state of the heterosexual home. Studies showthat children are greatly impacted when a child lacks a father or mother; bothare needed to provide a clear balance.
I have an amazing mother who was and is always there for me,I cannot truly express the amount of sacrifice she went through to ensure thatmy brother and I were taken care of. She instilled in us the value of love,discipline and family, she is also gay. Although she did her very best to raiseus there was always something missing, a positve male father or father figure.
I am a husband, father of two beautiful girls and a Pastor,and although I love my mother I can be honest and say there is a clear differencebetween being raised by heterosexual parents and homosexual parent.
Grace and peace
I did already. For a lengthy discussion, please scroll through the thread until to see my lengthy reply to Matt. For a shory version, here's what I wrote in the "update on homosexual parents" thread:
Regnerus’ “gay” sample included single parents who engaged in some kind of same-sex activity at some point in the past for a variety of reasons (some of whom were not even gay!), children whose parents were divorced (for a variety of reasons), and stepfamilies. That mixed sample was then compared to a “straight” sample comprised of intact two-parent biological families *without* divorce. The result? The “gay” sample was worse off. Well, duh; OF COURSE unstable couples and single parents with baggage are worse for children than stable couples. We didn’t need a study to show that.
Flip this around. Let’s say that Regnerus’ study looked at a“gay” sample comprised of stable and committed same-sex parents who raised children since infancy and never got divorced. And let’s say that Regnerus’ “straight” sample was comprised of children raised by divorced parents and single parents with a broken past. Further, let’s say that some of the kids in the “straight” sample spent the majority of their youth with one parent before moving in with their other parent and his/her spouse. Well, the result would be that the “gay” sample was *better* off than the “straight” sample.
How about we be *fair*? How about studying stable, committedand monogamous same-sex couples (including male-male couples) and their effects on children? Well, the studies that actually did address that question show that such same-sex couples are just as good for raising children as committed and monogamous opposite-sex couples, and this has been shown repeatedly in studies that didn’t include non-overlapping and non-analogous samples.
"But the distinguishing factor between LGBT community and the Heterosexual community centers around the sexual act."
This is patently false. Many heterosexual couples, like many homosexual couples, engage in the SAME kind of sexual activity (in case you didn't know, straight people have anal sex too).
Against nature? By the very definition of the word, if something is possible within the framework of nature, it is defined as natural. Yet another bigot who hasn't given these issues a moment's thought.
You've clearly read absolutely nothing on this matter. If you want some basic literature to get you started (not that you should even need somebody to spoonfeed you the names of these scientists), check out some papers by Qazi Rahman, Simon LeVay and Jacqeus Balthazar. This should give a solid introduction to the scientific investigations into this matter, and should act as a springboard for you to find more specific papers.
Please list the flaws in Rednerus' study.
Homosexuality = attraction to the same sexHomosexuality =/= lack of desire to fulfil a parental role
Come on, this is basic stuff here. If you can't even grasp this, what makes you think you have anything interesting to add to the discussion?
If what you're saying about the length of gay relationships is true (a source would be nice), that's to be expected a little bit because it's hard to find a compatible partner with such a tiny dating pool (single figure % of a population). One story about a jealous relationship gone sour, really? Obviously there couldn't be lots more similar stories with heterosexual couples... /s I know plenty of heterosexual people who have tens of partners every year, so what? Just as with heterosexual couple who are committed to each other homosexual couples should be free to commit to each other too.
This is not "courage" this is pandering. Courage is standing up for what you believe in despite others opinions. Craig is pandering to his followers to sell more books and solidify his fanbase.
I find it disgusting.
Against nature? Homosexuality is found in 450+ species in populations that are otherwise non-pathological, so that can't be what you mean by "against nature". Of course, the fact that other animals do it doesn't automatically make it okay. I just mean that homosexuality IS natural.
Perhaps you mean that same-sex eroticism and intercourse won't lead to procreation. But so what? Procreation also won't occur in infertile opposite-sex couples. It also won't occur in opposite-sex couples who engage in oral sex and other non-procreative sexual acts - and, yes, many male-female couples also engage in anal sex (and many male-male couples don't)... The non-procreative part is not *morally* relevant IMO.
So what exactly do you mean by "against nature". Perhaps you mean "sinful" and/or "not what God intended to occur in nature". If so, why didn't you just say that? This is not the place for an extended debate on that topic, but I think the anti-gay Bible proof-texts are generally misinterpreted by Christians.
Of course, Christianity also teaches that it's a sin to deny the resurrection and divinity of Christ, but plenty of male-female couples who are *atheist* or *Muslim* adopt kids without any fuss from Christians, despite the fact that they raise kids to deny Christiany. In contrast, *many* same-sex couples are actually Christian and actually raise their kids to be Christian.... (not all, of course, but many)
I could re-phrase your comment as follows:
"It is bewildeing to me that infertile opposite-sex (hetero) couples who cannot procreate would want to adopt children. Children are a means of propogating the human race, they are a direct result of coupling between opposite-sex persons who are capable of procreating, and thus an infertile man or woman should lack the need to propogate since their body denies them that opportunity."
... Of course, persons in both categories (gays and infertile heterosexuals) want to adopt and have families for the same reasons...
(Pardon the redundancy of this reply. I want to make sure that the point gets across because I notice that a lot of people here aren’t aware of the flaws that critics keep citing)
First of all, I want to address your point about Dr. Corvino. You wrote:
>> I read Corvino's blog: a man who has made a career out of defending homosexual behavior (just check his official website). <<
Actually, Dr. Corvino has made a career out of being a professor of philosophy, but I get your point. Allow me to explain the problem with your criticism by applying that same kind of criticism to William Lane Craig in the context of atheism-vs.-theism. Dr. Craig “has made a career” (not really, but you get my point) out of defending Christianity and traditional arguments for the existence of God.
Imagine that you’re debating an atheist who keeps citing an argument against Jesus’ resurrection that you think is flawed. Rather than spending several pages carefully explaining why think it’s flawed, you instead cite a rebuttal by Dr. Craig. Now let’s say that your atheist opponent replies to you by saying the following: “Matt, I read Craig’s web site: a man who has made a career out of defending Christianity. Of course Craig will say anything to avoid admitting that Christianity is false.” That would be an unfair cop-out, wouldn’t it? Your atheist opponent hasn’t actually addressed a single point that Craig made.
I don’t intend to make this about atheism-vs.-theism. I believe in God. My point is that your complaint about Corvino is irrelevant. You didn’t address *any* of Dr. Corvino’s arguments, which reveal that Regnerus’ study in flawed.
One problem is that Regnerus used different criteria for selecting the two groups. Let me explain. The group considered to be children and their “same-sex parents” *included* children who had gone through a divorce (for a variety of reasons), step families, children who spent the majority of their youth away from their parent and parent’s partner, children raised by *single* parents, and “other” family structures. These sub-groups were combined into one group on the grounds that the adults in these sub-groups had engaged in same-sex eroticism at least once in their past. (So for example, if a mother had previously turned to prostitution in desperation and occasionally serviced women, then she would have been classified as a “lesbian mother” in the study.) In contrast, the group of children and their opposite-sex parents was comprised of intact nuclear families *without* divorce, adultery, or single parents. In other words, it was a heterogeneous “gay” group being compared to a homogenous “straight” group. Here’s an excerpt from one of the essays I linked to (by Burroway, not Corvino JFYI):
>> Regnerus’s decision to arbitrarily force his sample into non-overlapping categories results in a method is based solely on a desire to increase the size of the smaller group, a goal which has nothing to do with the study’s larger goal of comparing children of gay and lesbian parents to those of intact biological families. In fact, he makes choices which, by their very nature, run explicitly counter to that goal. With each transfer of a subject from the Divorced, Step Families, Single Parent or “All Others” categories into LM or GF, the less those LM and GF groups are designed to look like intact biological families. Especially if you consider some of the possibilities that might exist in the “All Others” category. << [END OF EXCERPT]
Please take more time to study the critiques of Regnerus’ study. Here’s an excerpt from another critique (this one by William Saletan of Slate):
>> this isn’t a study of gay couples who decided to have kids. It’s a study of people who engaged in same-sex relationships—and often broke up their households—decades ago. [...] Only one-sixth to one-quarter of kids in the LM [lesbian mother] sample—and less than 1 percent of kids in the GF [gay father] sample—were planned and raised by an already-established gay parent or couple. [Regnerus] writes that GF kids “seldom reported living with their father for very long, and never with his partner for more than three years.” Similarly, “less than 2 percent” of LM kids “reported living with their mother and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.” In short, these people aren’t the products of same-sex households. They’re the products of broken homes. And the closer you look, the weirder the sample gets. [...] What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people. But that finding isn’t meaningless. It tells us something important: We need fewer broken homes among gays, just as we do among straights. << [END OF EXCERPT]
I recommend that you read Saletan’s entire article. And please actually *read* the article instead of dismissing the critics as merely defending “America’s sacred cow” (which is false, but I digress). Go to http://tinyurl.com/6w7w7vr
Here’s an excerpt from Corvino’s critique:
>> Question: What do the following all have in common?
A heterosexually married female prostitute who on rare occasion services women
A long-term gay couple who adopt special-needs children
A never-married straight male prison inmate who sometimes seeks sexual release with other male inmates
A woman who comes out of the closet, divorces her husband, and has a same-sex relationship at age 55, after her children are grown
Ted Haggard, the disgraced evangelical pastor who was caught having drug fueled-trysts with a male prostitute over a period of several years
A lesbian who conceives via donor insemination and raises several children with her long-term female partner
Give up? The answer—assuming that they all have biological or adopted adult children between the ages of 18 and 39—is that they would all be counted as “Lesbian Mothers” or “Gay Fathers” in Mark Regnerus’s new study [...]
Regnerus’s analysis purports to debunk the claim that children from same-sex families display no notable disadvantages when compared to children from other family forms, including intact, biological, two-parent families—what Regnerus calls the “no differences” paradigm. Had the study actually focused on “same-sex families,” it might have shed some light on the issue.
Instead, Regnerus—a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin—asked respondents whether their mothers or fathers had ever had a same-sex relationship, regardless of the duration of the relationship and “regardless of any other household transitions.” He then allowed those answers to trump others in order to increase the “Lesbian Mother” and “Gay Father” sample size and treated all of the family-form categories as mutually exclusive, even though they are not. (To use the Haggard example: although he is still technically in an “intact biological family,” he would be counted among the “Gay Father” families in this study.)In other words, Regnerus’ “Lesbian Mother” and “Gay Father” categories (unlike the “Intact Biological Family” Category) included children of adoptive parents, step-parents, single parents, and, notably, a large number from divorced parents. Regnerus then observes in the resulting data that the children of his “Lesbian Mothers” and “Gay Fathers” look less like children of married biological parents than they do like children of adoptive parents, step-parents, single parents, and divorced parents. Well, duh. << [END OF CORVINO EXCERPT]
To fully grasp the problem here I ask you to consider the following scenario. Let’s say that *both* groups were HETEROsexual parents and *opposite*-sex parents (so that the study had nothing to do with homosexuality or same-sex parenting). Now let’s call the two groups G1 and G2. Now let’s say that G1 consisted of children raised by single parents, children who had gone through a divorce, etc. all mixed together. Now let’s say that G2 consisted *only* of intact nuclear families without the aforementioned problems. G1 and G2 each have a similar number of subjects, but the children in G2 will (on average) be better off and healthier than the children in G1 (again, on average). That’s obvious. Now let’s say that the adults in G1 were Chinese and the adults in G2 were Caucasians. On the basis of that study, should we then conclude that children raised by Caucasians are better off than children raised by Chinese? Obviously not; that would be an unjustified conclusion.
But that exact same problem appears in Regnerus’ study. His category of “gay parents” was a sabotaged sample since the contrasting group of “opposite-sex parenting” did *not* include the same hardships. Those hardships are not inherent or inevitable in same-sex couples or gay parents, but Regnerus arranged it so that more of the subjects in his “gay” group suffered from them. He did that in order to have a large enough sample size, which is important, but he ended up having large heterogeneous sample and a large homogenous sample and then compared the two...
Please take more time to study the critiques of Regnerus’ study. In fact, in response to several critiques, Regnerus himself acknowledged that “Implying causation here—to parental sexual orientation or anything else, for that matter—is a bridge too far.” IMO he ought to admit a lot more than that.
If they care so much then why is the the average length of a gay relationship so short. Why do they cheat on eachother all the time with other partners. Don't tell me that they don't care about fidelity. We had a gay guy stabbed to death by his lover in our town because he found out he was seeing another man. Gays get jealous too. The question is one of a lack of relational fidelity. Studies show gay and Lesbians can have as many as 50 partners per year. How is that wholesome for kids to grow up with. Infedility cheapens the concept committed relationship. I realize Heterosexuals cheat, fight and break up too. But Heterosexual don't need to ask for adoptive rights to have kids, children are a natural product of a Heterosexual lifestyle.
Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle it is against nature for man to stick his organ in another man's rectum. If you are offended that I spelled that out for you, ask yourself why? Is it because put it bluntly exposes it as unacceptable? I am not saying gay people can't be nice people. Some of the sweetest people I know are gay. That is not the issue. I know a lot of very sweet hetrosexual people too. But the distinguishing factor between LGBT community and the Heterosexual community centers around the sexual act. Aside from that we are pretty much all the same.
Its bewildering to me that gay couples would want to adopt children. Children are a means of propogating the human race, they are a direct result of hedrosexual coupling and thus a truly gay person should lack the need to propogate since their lifestyle denies them that opportunity. In effect, If you choose to be gay then you have chosen to be childless, if you were born gay then childlessness was part of your DNA. So either by choice or by genetics the demand by gay people to have children is contradictory to the lifestyle.
Pat, what flaw? I read Corvino's blog: a man who has made a career out of defending homosexual behavior (just check his official website).
I don't see what the issue is though... The study looked at parents who have engaged in or are engaging in homosexual behavior. How is that an issue? I can only speak for myself, but I'm interested in whether or not the homosexual behavior of parent(s) negatively impact the development of their children. Therefore, whether or not the parents are "officially" gay or not is irrelevant.
Your link doesn't work by the way, but I'm sure you could easily find other people who have critiqued this study, since homosexuality is America's sacred cow. That doesn't guarantee that the criticism will be any good though.
http://www.dallasvoice.com/ut-... What evidence are you talking about? It's in black and white that the peers of this researcher think that it is flawed for obvious reasons. It is clearly flawed even to the eyes of the layman. Not only that but the funding is clearly coming from a biased source. When I look to a source that claims to be independent I don't expect them to be advertising material that would only appeal to the Christian right's biases. That doesn't make you slightly suspicious? Do you want me to show you lots of sources that show that homosexual parents are equal if not better parents than hetero couples? I'm not American or homosexual but I do see a lot of misinformation coming from the Christian right. It's embarrassing really.
Funny comment here, "Unless you're one of those people who believe homosexuality is a choice".
One of those people? . . Its hard not to be 'one of those people' when no scientific study has shown that homosexuality is something of biology. Regardless, many people chiming in on this issue seem to be ignorant of the fact that people do, come out of the gay lifestyle. We would not tolerate any other deviant behavior if one's excuse to perform that behavior was because they've always felt that way (can you imagine a pedofile saying that?). Same-sex parenting is inherrently different from complimentary sex parenting. To say otherwise is to treat the sexes as something akin to colours of the rainbow. Particularly in the case of men, I cant imagine a child enjoying having parents who cannot seem to love and serve each other for the good of the family and the benefit of the children, not to mention a drastically reduced lifespan of those parents. There are so many tragedies with this lifestyle that the mainstream mind seems to just gloss over that its hard to speak on this issue without meeting a lightning rod. But you know what, I am encouraged by those who are coming out of this lifestyle, and those who have been regenerated and are honest about thier struggles.
Change is possible. Gayness is not a special lifestyle. Heterosexuals need their sexuality redeemed just as much as gay's do, particularly in american oversex'ed culture. Praise Jesus for the work he is doing.
Nobody was cherry picking studies to show that children raised by same-sex couples are, on average, just as stable and healthy and children raised by opposite-sex couples. Instead, that is simply what most studies actually show. Yes, many of those studies used small sample sizes, but there are dozens of studies. If there were negative effects from same-sex parenting, then even the small studies would have revealed it by now. Perhaps you'll say that Rednerus' study reveals it, but that study has multiple flaws that prevent us from interpreting it in that way. Frankly, you guys are clinging to that flawed study in the same way that Richard Dawkins clings to his flawed atheistic arguments. Yes, I'm comparing your behavior here to Dawkins' behavior. Just as he clings to his ridiculous "who made God" argument, you guys are clinging to the idea that this study shows that same-sex parentings is bad for kids. It's the same degree of unjustified confidence. The study is bad. Let it go.
Matt, I shared that particular link because Corvino highlights the study's flaws in a readable fashion. But please notice that you did not actually address even a single point that Corvino made. Instead you called him a "nobody blogger" (ad hominem). In fact, Corvino is a professor of philosophy who has published in peer-reviewed journals. Please note that your ad hominem comment is the same kind of comment that certain atheists make about Dr. Craig. It's not fair when atheists do it, but it's also not fair when christians do it.
The fact is that the study Dr. Craig cited contains flaws, flaws that were pointed out by a fellow philosopher (Corvino).
Do you want me to cite a critique by somebody *else*???
Regarding the promiscuity and mental health issues, go to http://jeramyt.org/gay/gayheal...And for the record, many same-sex couples want to have families. And **that** is why they seek adoption rights. That's why same-sex couples seek adoption in gay-friendly countries and areas - not because the adoption is a method of forcing majority approval, but because they want to build families. So you're just wrong on that point. Of course, most of them would love to have majority affirmation, but that is *not* what motivates their desire to adopt/raise kids.
Also, the study that Dr. Craig cited (but apparently didn't read) has been shown to be severely flawed. Please read Corvino's devastating critique at http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/... . The study does *not* show that kids raised by same-sex couples are worse off, and many other studies show otherwise (I can cite those studies for you if you would like).
Aside from that, I recommend the following:
-- Justin Lee's essay at http://www.gaychristian.net/ju... (Lee is the founder of the Gay Christian Network, which has thousands of members who are gay, bisexual, straights, or unsure. The site has a whole is a "safe haven" for christians who happen to be gay in *orientation*, but it doesn't *officially* take a stand on whether same-sex intimacy is ever permissible. In fact, *many* of the members who are gay are also *celibate* and believe that gays are called to lifelong celibacy (a position called Side B). Of course, many other members believe that same-sex intimacy is at least sometimes permissible (a position called Side A). My point is that that site is worth checking out regardless of your perspective. Justin and I are both Side A, although I am not gay myself. Please read Justin's essay slowly and carefully. -- Patrick Chapman’s 2008 book “Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays”. Chapman is a Christian and biological anthropologist. Chapman covers the anti-gay prooftexts, history, science, and politics. Go to http://tinyurl.com/blvapl7 -- Gareth Moore’s 2003 book “A Question of Truth”. Moore was a Dominican Priest who gave lectures on philosophy and theology, but unfortunately died shortly before his book was published. His book is a long response to the Catholic Church (his church), but it’s very helpful for non-Catholics as well. Go to http://tinyurl.com/cuvhhsn Honestly, these issues are far more nuanced than you and Craig seem to be aware of, though I do *not* intend or desire to cause you any offense by that claim.
I agree with Dan
Makes my blood boil when (adopted/surrogate) children are used by same-sex couples seeking to "validate" adult homosexual behaviour. (We're here! We're queer! we even have marriage certificates and ''own'' children too! SEE?)
Gay ''marriage'' & same-sex adoptive parenting advocacy claims are BOTH derived from a motive to have homosexual relationships accepted by the majority - it's like a badge of legitimacy.
Higher rates of promiscuity and infidelity, higher rates of relationship failure, higher rates of mental illness, higher rates of self-harm will not simply vanish once gay marriage and same-sex adoption are legalised in a given jurisdiction.'
And I'm bothered by the sort of ''hostage negotiation debates'' I see, in which gay rights advocates demand same sex marriage & child adoption OR ELSE these social pathologies will continue. (Thats called argumentum ad baculum)
People like Robin possess a confirmation bias regarding homosexuality. Even if all the evidence were pointing towards homosexual behavior being harmful to children, she/he would find ways to ignore it. That's what they do. "Oh, a study showing that homosexual behavior may be detrimental? Must be fraudulent propaganda."
And when a study comes around that shows homosexual behavior to be at least on part with heterosexual behavior, the level of skepticism is mysteriously reduced.
I think it has something to do with the fact that your link brings us to some nobody blogger who evidently an apologist for homosexual behavior. That hardly constitutes as evidence against the study.
As opposed to what we normally see: people cherry picking studies to demonstrate that there are no negative implications of homosexual behavior.
You do realize that those are ritual laws that were done away with after jesus came right?
I understand your reasoning,but it is somewhat flawed. Just because the Bible doesn't come out and say something is bad doesn't mean it is justified. Jesus never talks about abortion...does that mean it's okay? Jesus never talks about a lot of things but we can't assume that as Christians as citizens in a democratic society, they are good, beneficial, and should be promoted. Taking the Bible out of the equation, one has to look at the benefits of allowing a society to define marriage however it wants. Why is polygamy still prohibited? Why not marry your sister if you love her? Your reasons that 'those who wish to commit to a monogamous loving committed relationship should be allowed to' is great. There's nothing stopping them. However, marriage--legally and socially defined is something unique and should be protected as such.
He cherry picked a study that is highly disputed to suit his own ends, that isn't truth by any stretch of the imagination.
If you disagree, then state so, rather than asking questions that are clearly state to your own prejudice and desire to belittle those who believe God has not changed, His laws are true for all, and, obedience to God is first not man's desire to sin. Also, perversion (high incidence of multiple sex partners) has victims and victimization is wrong no matter the sex orientation beliefs someone holds.
I never blamed the statistics on African Americans on social stigma. I used the counter-example of African Americans to demonstrate that stats against a group say nothing about the group's inherent potential, and that these negative stats may be due to social constraints. Both groups face negative statistics, and only one has the stats used to say that something must be inherently wrong with them.I agree with Robin Jones that this very debate indicates a stigma against homosexuals (parents or not), let alone the bullying, rejection, beatings, and murders the group has suffered. Dr. Craig himself remarks that having a homosexual orientation, if it is genetic, is like being born with a cleft palate or a predisposition to alcoholism.Whether homosexuals are portrayed negatively in mainstream TV or Hollywood depends on your value system. For Christians, someone who is promiscuous, effiminate, loud, sassy, etc. (the way gays are portrayed) is very negative. While I lament the negative portrayal of Christians in the media, much of it is deserved. If you're a fan of Dr. Craig, you also ought to be ashamed of how anti-intellectual modern Christians are, insisting for example that the universe is just 6000 years old based upon poor science and poor biblical interpretation. But that said, people can proudly wear crosses and Christian T-Shirts anywhere they go in this country, but two men will still get dirty looks for holding hands; they might even get worse than that, too often from Christians.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) .
Are you seriously saying that homosexual couples aren't stigmatised? Take a look at the comments on this page! Consider the fact that this study was even done in the first place! It doesn't matter what the attitude is in the media (although you have a clear example of Craig mining for anti homosexual propaganda here to portray homosexuals negatively). The gay community would love to be treated like Christians are on a day-to-day societal basis. They'd be able to marry, there wouldn't be news stories of how they'd been beaten up/killed all the time due to the bigotry of others.
So what if they have entered the homosexual lifestyle? If they're homosexual, they can't help it, unless you're one of those people who thinks it's a choice. In which case I'd like to ask you when you chose to be heterosexual. Also what do you think this "lifestyle" involves? If your only basis for it is the Bible and church groups then you're going to think it's a depraved lifestyle because religion just dehumanises homosexuals, through asserting that they are morally reprehensible. I lived next to Manchester's "gay village" and lived with gay/lesbian people, there's no difference between a caring homosexual relationship and a caring heterosexual one.
I beg to differ with both yours and Mr. Fountis arguments. African Americans are not incarcerated more because of discrimination or stigmatization. It is simply because the ones that are incarcerated are usually from broken homes, caught in the unending cycle of poverty and government subsistence, involved with drugs and/or alcohol and are found guilty in a court of law of some type of criminal activity. How does that relate to homosexual parenting? Homosexual parents are not stigmatized in our society. It is the "traditional" family of 2 parents of different genders, Judeo-Christian values that are stigmatized, ridiculed and mocked by the mainstream media and the LGBT community. Give me one example where a homosexual is portrayed in a negative light due to his/her sexual preference on any mainstream TV show or Hollywood movie versus the multitude of examples I can give you for the mockery of the "traditional" family and/or the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.
This is what is happening...http://www.dennyburk.com/could...
And if older Christians don't begin to understand quickly that the Bible does not speak on Monogamous Homosexual relationships at all, that more and more of there children will leave the dusty churches. I understand that many in the Gay Pride movement are fornicators and live lives in decadent sin, but those who wish to commit to a monogamous loving and committed relationship should be allowed to. Nothing at all in the bible speaks against this, matter of fact, it is the exact type of relationships the bible teaches.
The statistics are interesting, I guess, but I think a lot more studies of this sort will have to be done to establish an empirical consensus that opposes the current zeitgeist. I feel more comfortable keeping it a matter of principle- that the homosexual union is intrinsically dysfunctional, being contrary to the natural order, and therefore, all things being equal, is an evil to inflict on children.
I upvoted you because you're correct in what you've said, of course that will bring the censoring brigade on RF.
Are you seriously saying that kids being raised by homosexuals will be abused behind closed doors?  What exactly is the homosexual agenda anyway? According to you they've been looking after kids really well as some evil scheme to be able to get married. Are you high or something? They're just raising kids with love as any family unit would whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.
You're talking nonsense and not paying attention to how things actually are. Something is a hypothesis before it is tested, the topic of whether children can be brought up effectively by homosexual couples has been tested already and the consensus is that it has little effect. So you ignore all that and instead go for your own personal experience, interesting. Obviously your personal experience of these matters is so much more objective than scientific studies... Homosexuals are victims in America (many other places too), and the prejudice against them comes from older generations and the religious. People like Manny Pacquiao and Andy Gipson can get away with quoting dehumanising scripture that gay people should be put to death. This week a lesbian couple in Texas were shot in a park for no reason and the in the Ukraine a man was beaten up for arranging a pride parade. This is a serious matter and they are being victimised. Are you seriously suggesting that these children don't get love at home just because their parents are homosexuals? That's just plain assertion on your behalf, I'm sure people like Zack Wahls would beg to differ.
Yes. The Witherspoon Institute was one of the sources of the funding and despite them saying they're independent their page shows many examples of Christian/right wing material yet nothing of the opposing viewpoint. As for it being against the vast majority of studies you'll find that the people at the University of Texas think this to be the case and are saying that this study is flawed/biased. His peers would not be saying such things about his work if this were not the case.
Your comment begs the question: we don't know that homosexual couples don't exhibit the problems they do for precisely the same reason you claim to be the cause of the African-American communities problems, namely unjustified stigmatization.
I cited a link showing that the study Craig cited contains multple flaws. Wouldn't Craig and others want to know about those flaws? So why 4 down votes? The votes don't bother me; I'm just very confused and curious....
But you can't really compare the statistics of the African-American community, because we know the reason why they sometimes fall behind is because society treats them badly for no reason. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, is a huge factor for children growing up as Dr. Craig has stated.
The problem with citing these statistics is that the negative behavior described here, and elsewhere on the reasonablefaith website, is neither exclusive nor inherent to homosexuals. It seems at least as plausible that much of the negative behavior in question can be attributed to social stigma against homosexuals, which is in the process of significantly decreasing. As a counter-example, African Americans are incarcerated more frequently, have shorter life expectancies, and lower IQs on average than caucasians, but this doesn't suggest that they are inherently less moral or intelligent. The only thing the statistics accomplish in both cases is creating awarness and desire to eliminate the particular harmful action in question. If blacks can improve behavior to avoid common obstacles, so can gays, and it is discrimination to construe gays as unable to improve.
I agree with Dr. Craig on how absurd it is to have the Military have a whole Gay pride thing for a marriage related thing, not a Military related thing.
the study whether its true or not will have a significant (negative) effect on children who brought up in a homosexual couple. why? because this is not the right order of heterosexual parenting or between a man and a woman. More likely, in general, we are not aware of what is happening with those children inside their home, whether these kids are alright or being abuse. It is a hidden diabolical agenda of gays, lesbian and homosexual to adopt children in order for them to be recognize as equal to a heterosexual relationship, but in reality its not. A child with his or her own mind can recognize what is a father, a daddy than to a woman pretending to be a man and a loving parent.
Matthew, in fact, this study does not show what you think it does: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/...
And Robin, What do you think all the studies, that say different, are doing? Anything that science comes out with is a hypothesis. That simple. So, if the majority of studies differ from Craig's ...they are simply all hypothesis'. I have seen first hand how children turn to this lifestyle, and am convinced it is because the Homosexual groups out there, have pushed their way into the political scene, and made themselves look like VICTIMS. To gain sympathy from the populous. So these young children, who can find no love, or support at home- look for anything to get that love, and affirmation. Once in the homosexual lifestyle, they feel they have found it. But it is only an illusion, and can not fulfill the emptiness, that they have sought , with dilligence to fill. Peace.
No, it is very relevant. The raising of children, and especially the relationship between mom, and dad is the SINGLE most important aspect on how a child sees the world. His (her) total emotional make-up is related to the mom and dad relationship. To say being gay parents does not matter is insane. The child is thrown into the world of their parents. Their identity is derived from parents.Studies have been done proving that the male and female brain are totally different. A child needs both to grow up whole. A female, and a male. See"Scientific American Mind" special collectors issue; August 14, 2012. The evidence is overwhelming on male and female differences. My brothers stepson, and my brother-in-laws son have been caught up in the homosexual lifestyle. I pray for them, bacause once they get in it, it is very difficult to get out. I believe , with all my heart that these young ones (the ones I know) are hurting soo much, and so desperate for attention, and love that they go the extreme of entering this lifestyle. If only they could grasp the height and depth of the love that Christ has for them. And all He wants to do for them........they could walk away from it. God Help them.
The problems are with the methadology of the study itself; which render it inconclusive. The problem is first that the study question only asked whether a person had a parent who was, at any point in time, involved in a same sex relationship during their first 18 years or until they left the family.
This is not the same as asking if they had been raised by a same-sex couple. For example, this category would include a child raised by a heterosexual couple where one of the parents had a same sex affair, or where the couple divorced and one went off to have a same sex relationship after the end of the marriage. Dr. Regnerus even admits that this was the case within the study itself, for example 12 of the respondents replied saying they had both a lesbian mother, and gay father. Dr. Regnerus explains that he conflated these categories to increase the sample size of the study.
Those who have defended the study do so on the grounds that the study is superior to previous studies on the matter, and that the sample size is larger than other studies on the matter. But both these points can be granted and the study would still not be vindicated. A large sample is meaningless if the analysis is flawed; and simply because the study may be superior to previous studies doesn't necessarily mean that the study meets academic standards. The criticisms of the study are not in how large or representative the sample of respondents is; but in how the study respondents where questioned, and how the data was analysed.
And on those grounds, I find the criticisms of the study to be very compelling. This isn't to say that the study's conclusions are false; but that because the study didn't eliminate factors like divorce, or extramarital affairs we can't know whether the result of the study are attributable to the same-sex relationship or are the result of these other possible factors that have been mixed in with the study group.
Well spoken, as usual, but as is typical with live events (i.e.debates, speeches, Q & A, etc.) none of the references for thecited studies were included. Those references (which included morethan the somewhat extensively-quoted single study reported in World Magazine)are available on what may the Internet's most comprehensivesingle-page library of homosexual “marriage” articles (includingmany peer-reviewed research journal articles such as the one from whichDr. Craig cited). That web site (which includes several thousandother citations on several dozen other topics, accessible from the Web site'smenu trees) is called Another Slow News Day. The referencesregarding homosexual “marriage” can be found here.
Do you KNOW that it was funded by right-wing Christian groups? Or are you simply assuming that it was based on the findings? If a study appears to be sound (I don't know enough about this one to say one way or the other), then why does it matter who funded it? Can you cite the "vast majority" of other studies you've mentioned? I'd be interested to look into them--and also verify that they constitute a "vast majority".
Dr. Craig, thank you for having the guts to speak truth in this politically correct society.
Craig is wrong about the study and I hope he will retract his claims. For a revealing critique and analysis of the study, go to http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/...
Also see http://articles.latimes.com/20...
Craig's discussion here is terribly uninformed and very disappointing given that he is *usually* so much more careful in other areas (e.g. his research on cosmology).
You're not addressing the source of the study as Craig hasn't, this study was funded by Christian right groups and goes against the majority of studies out there. I'm afraid what's happened here is that Craig has sorted through the studies just to find anything that supports his stance in order to reaffirm the confirmation bias of himself and his followers.
There's nothing that I said that you can disagree with because I made no statemta other summarizing what the report in question concludes. You may feel free to disagree with the study, in which case your thought experiment does not address the conclusions of the study which are based on the scientic data that it collected.
I cant agree with you. If I pose a thought experiment where you have a child to give to either (a) a hetrosexual home or (b) a homosexual home who are equal in all other respects (economical, social status ect) nearly everyone would choose the heterosexual home. This is clear that even in the absense of daming evidence the difference is relivant
Fantastic message. Thank you Dr. Craig for having the courage to speak out on this issue. People need to adhere to truth and common-sense. Children, and therefore our future is at stake.
Indeed. What the study sugested is that the homossexuality of parents does affect children in a way that regular parents wouldn't. It doesn't tell us that regular parents don't bring any suffering for their children.
Scott - you're not really addressing the findings of the study. No one is stating that children from broken homes - whether heterosexual or homosexual parented households - don't suffer any ill-effects; the study in question, however, does indicate that children brought up by same-sex parents do not perform as well as children brought up by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
So the gender - and marital status - of a child's parents are very much relevant.
I am very disappointed to hear this, if you look at kids that are raised in homes where their parents cheat you will have problems regardless of if those people are heterosexual or not. If the individuals parents are gay it is very much irrelevant.
Receive our free Newsletter
Get Dr. Craig's newsletter and keep up with RF news and events.
Get the free Reasonable Faith App for iPhone, iPad, & Android! Download →
Scholarly ArticlesArticles published in peer-reviewed journals
Popular ArticlesIntended for a general audience
DebatesSelect transcriptions of Dr. Craig's debates
Q & AWeekly question and answer
Video / AudioDebates, Talks, and Interviews
Reasonable Faith PodcastConversations with William Lane Craig
Defenders PodcastClass on Christian doctrine and apologetics
Defenders LiveLivestream of Defenders Class
DrCraigVideos ChannelShort Video Clips of Dr Craig
ReasonableFaithOrg ChannelFull Length Video Clips of Dr Craig
DrCraigInternational ChannelTranslated Video Clips of Dr Craig
Copyright Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide. Reasonable Faith is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.