The Exception to the Rule

Hollywood’s Cynthia Nixon takes comfort in having two children by a man she did not marry. Currently, she awaits “marrying” her same-sex friend. Since her procreating children did not motivate marriage, I find her current behavior highly curious. So, what difference does marriage make?

I am a left-wing liberal conservative. I am far enough out into left field that I agreeably defend the civil rights of same-sex individuals. I am so far to the right that I FAIL to miss the fact that same-sex marriage is the exception to the rule, whatever you call it.

The fact is, same-sex cohabitation does not a marriage make, by whatever name you give it. It merely gives a license to lust without any accountability for the destroyed families, damaged children, and diseased lives.

Media people are currently enjoying huge listener response, as they frame questions regarding the civil rights of same-sex and hosting panels they cannot give equal response time to, like Joy Behar of CNN. They take no responsibility for fomenting further anarchy, although the church representatives put her ill at ease as she turned the same-sex defender loose -- as in loose cannon.

Whatever you think of it, it is an interesting conversation and I want to note some observations that remain hard to debate.

1. Same-sex marriage remains the exception to the rule. Our universe operates by law and order, rather than exception.

Whatever one thinks about God; e.g., take the story of Noah and the Ark. The narrative alleges that Noah took every living creature into the Ark 2x2, goats, ducks, pigs, domestic and wild animals, including the humans that went on board. The simple truth was, and is, that procreation requires 1 male sperm and 1 female ovary. Man and woman offer no exception - until the 20th century.

Heterosexual marriage has produced 6,000 years of antiquity, give or take a few years, depending on your system of dating. Same-sex marriage could not have produced the 2nd generation whereas heterosexual marriage produced a society that allowed scientific discovery to short-circuit the natural process and produce the exception to the rule - procreation via synthetic means of science.

Now the exception to the rule demands equal civil rights (marriage) but they have to depend upon science, or a heterosexual marriage, to produce their child for them. Talk about incivility and unfairness, everyone should have a constitutional right to bear his or her own child; why should women have the privilege of bearing all the children?

That voids the issue of religion! Procreation remains a universal issue of biological law, pure and simple. As for religionists and others depriving same-sex individuals of their civil rights, I insist that these biological anarchists are thieves (an issue of morality).

By attempting to restructure the focus, they attempt to PLUNDER ANTIQUITY AND STEAL FROM SOCIETY what has been the bedrock of our civilization, the cornerstone of our society, and the very epitomy of human relationships for most of us--our homes.

2. As an exception to the rule, they substitute a cheap glandular gorge for love. They cheapen human relationships to the level of body functions, living like alley cats, all the while demanding the right to re-write the laws.

3. As an exception to the rule, they seek privileges they are unwilling to earn: they want children they neither procreate nor protect.

*Same-sex marriage offers no protection to the child who is dependent on both a father and a mother to “parent” it with all the mental-emotional-psychological issues involved in “maleness” and “femaleness.”

*IF anyone has a civil right due to them, it is the child who has an “inherent human right” to have both a father and a mother, with all that entails. Sociologists like David Popenoe know that dad and mother are the source of much of their child’s learning about being a male and female, and the evidence has mounted in recent years.

We already have a world crisis with our children: preemies, victims of sexual abuse, divorce, poverty, war, genocide. All of these play a serious role and I see no reason to further exaccerbate the problem by creating further relational identities for the children than they already have.

That is abuse of the worst degree, immoral and unconscionable, socially unacceptable! It simply makes same-sex adoption socially unacceptable. We are still reaping the benefits of the dissolution of two-parent families as written about by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead in Atlantic Monthly (4-93). It benefited the selfish needs of many adults but helped few children, which is precisely the case the dear Bishop tried to make with Joy Behar on CNN 11-14-08.

The Powers of the Universe, whomever or whatever that may be, could have prevented all of this by creating--whatever your method of creation or evolving)--a same-sex union. However, until that happens, I am happy to leave things the way they are and leave same-sex liasons as exceptions to the Ruler of the Ages.
Wayne