Point and Counterpoint: Abortion and Alternatives (Article #34)

George A. Sprecace M.D., J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New London, P.C.
www.asthma-drsprecace.com

Point and Counterpoint: Abortion and Alternatives - Article 34, for Sunday, March 9, 2008

GAY MARRIAGE, OR CIVIL UNION, OR WHAT?

As discussed in our column last month, there is mounting scientific evidence that Homosexuality is very often not a “mental disorder” or a life-style choice; but rather, that it is a consequence of specific biologic and/or congenital developments not under the control of either mother or offspring. Certainly, the “nature v nurture” debate can be joined here. But there is much more evidence available that much more “nurturing” in a concerted - but misguided – effort to steer a homosexual child onto a heterosexual path takes place than the reverse…and that such efforts may have tragic outcomes.

It then follows that two such responsible individuals of the same sex may naturally want to avail themselves of the personal, emotional, supportive and also economic benefits accorded by the state of legal Marriage to heterosexuals. There lies the rub – and the challenge.

Our thesis is as follows:
1) “Civil Unions” between committed homosexual couples…Yes;
2) Marriage between persons of the same sex…No;
3) Assisted “procreation” of children by means of surrogate mothers, donated sperm and the like…No;
4) Access to adoption…Yes.

Marriage has existed since God created Eve from Adam in the Garden of Eden and joined them until death. From then until now, the state of Marriage has been guided, administered and controlled by both civil and religious authorities…with widely varying norms and rules, dependent both on time and on geography. Such precedents are nearly timeless and have always had as their goal the guarantee of stable procreation and child rearing, for the perpetuation of human life and civil society.

At no time in civil society, as known to us, has this institution been open to homosexual couples. Nor should it be, in our opinion, because it would be too disruptive to society as a whole and would endanger the security of procreation that is society’s intent.

On the other hand, we see no problem with a different legal institution, perhaps even open to blessing by appropriate religious authorities in order to strengthen the commitment of the couple themselves. This would redress any civil laws found to be discriminatory toward committed gay households. The title of this new civil institution should in no way allow confusion with the historical institution of Marriage or Matrimony.

With the above strict caveats related to childbirth, we believe this position to be reasonable, civil, humane, and Christian. It is our hope that this matter can be settled without the unproductive, aggressive and wholly unacceptable demands of a small minority of homosexuals regarding access to the Institution of Marriage.

Peter Moore, PhD George A. Sprecace, M.D., J.D.

Return to:

Home