Perhaps you heard about
a recent study that announced the Scientific Results of a long-term study: kids of lesbian "parents" are actually better-adjusted than kids of "straight" parents.
Well, that's it, then, right?
Science has spoken. You don't want to argue against
Science, do you? Be a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, a hater?
No, we don't want to oppose actual science. Is it still OK if we ask questions, though? Like, for instance, who did this survey?
Well, the "researcher" quoted in this article is Nanette Gartrell, MD, the Williams distinguished scholar at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Science propels Dr. Gartrell to cut right to the chase:
"Contrary to assertions from people opposed to same-sex parenting, we found that the 17-year-olds scored higher in psychological adjustment in areas of competency and lower in problem behaviors than the normative age-matched sample of kids raised in traditional families with a mom and a dad."
Once again, that sounds pretty weighty. But is that the objective, untainted force of the evidence? Doesn't evidence have to be interpreted by a person? Who is the person doing the interpretation? Is it possible Dr. Gartrell has a dog in this hunt? Is she a member, perhaps, of John Piper's church? Wife of a pastor at John MacArthur's church, maybe — a faithful Christian, forced to this conclusion by the sheer weight of evidence?
Gartrell is a "wife" of sorts, it turns out. She is
the "wife" of another female, named Dr. Diane Mosbacher, who did a documentary called "Straight From the Heart," which was "about religious parents coming to terms with the homosexuality of their children." Axe to grind, much?
We learn elsewhere that Dr. Gartrell was "the first out lesbian on the Harvard Medical School faculty," and that she has made the lesbian agenda a focus of her career. This study is in line with her previous activities. So perhaps instead of simply calling her "researcher," as the article does, it might be more informative to say "researcher and lesbian activist"? Isn't that worth factoring in?
It is at least interesting and worth noting. If the "researcher" in a study praising the joys and health benefits of obesity weighed in at 650 pounds, for instance, I think it would be noted. Or if the lead researcher in a study lauding
Oreos as a health-food were a major Nabisco stockholder, again, the fact would be noted.
But if that's all we had, we could be reasonably accused of the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well." You know a poison-well argument: it singles out some adverse trait of a person, and tries to invalidate his argument thereby. For instance:
- John Calvin was connected to the execution of Michael Servetus
- Therefore Calvinism is false.
Is that my argument in this case?
As I said, I think it's worth considering. The study was not done and analyzed by a tire iron or a CPU; it was done by a person, and persons have grids. But more worth considering are the premises of the study. What is "healthy"? What is "normal"? What is "well-adjusted"? Are there other ways of interpreting the data?
For instance, the article specifies that the children of lesbian "parents" (for instance) were less likely to engage in "problem behaviors such as rule-breaking and aggression."
Reading that, I wonder: does that make them more "healthy"? Or more feminine? And is that a good thing, for boys? A number of analyses have suggested that our educational system and culture seem Hell-bent on turning boys into girls. Is it surprising to learn that a boy raised by two women might take on more feminine characteristics? If so, is that good?
Is it legitimate to ask whether the standards of measurement in a test conducted by a woman who rejects her own God-created, God-defined sexuality might be severely skewed, and whose career seems to reflect a focus on normalizing what God calls abnormal?
What are the specifics that define "normalcy" and "health"? Take the term
"normal." Now, there's a word capable of a broad array of nuances. If "normal" were used
and understood to mean
statistical average, I'd have no quarrel. However, the usual nuance is
healthy, acceptable, good. But that is misleading. One could say quite accurately, for instance, that it is "normal" for the products of government re-education camps to be lazy-minded, ignorant, and incapable of logical thought. But does that mean it is
good? Not at all.
Never forget the statistician who drowned while wading across a river with an "average depth" of four feet.
So what is the standard for normalcy and health in studies such as this one?
What, for instance, if our model were Jesus Christ, instead of the average of our fallen, lost, corrupt culture? What if it were derived from a vertical source rather than a horizontal, or an internal? Suppose
these were the standards for measuring health and normalcy:
- Faith in the Bible as God's inerrant, binding word.
- Faith in the triune God revealed in Scripture alone.
- Values derived from the Word.
- Heartfelt love for God and passion to be conformed to His will.
- Consistent attempt to conform to the Word in thought, aspiration, and behavior.
- Moral categories derived from the Word (i.e. identifying immoral behavior such as homosexuality as wrong under any circumstances).
...and the like? If that were the norm, what would the study's results be? Would being raised by couples definitionally devoted to moral anarchy and rebellion against God still turn out looking so rosy?
Bring these thoughts to bear in considering this latest "scientific research" spun as invalidating God's Word — because, don't be deceived, that is the ultimate agenda: to make the world safe for sin.
Here, then, are my points: we should never forget that —
The pastor-thingie, "Rev." Ian Lawton, explains that these elements were making the influx of (presumably unrepentant) Jews, Muslims, homosexuals and atheists uncomfortable. Something had to change, and since they wanted to accommodate the organization to the current crowd.
Posts
