Porn The Vote

I covered this in my Gay Marriage blog. I find Mr. Wachter’s viewpoint extremely narrow and shallow. To refuse the rights of Gay people in this world is absurd! 

Persia Monir

Floridians voted decisively on November 4, 2008 to approve Amendment 2 whereby, the Florida State Constitution would be righfully commended to ban same sex marriage.  Astonishingly, while 61.9% of Floridians defended marriage from enroachment by homosexuals, a Quinnipiac University poll of 1,370 Floridians reported by U.S.A. Today on January23, 2009, showed 55% favored doing away with a state law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting.  Only 39% of those polled wanted to maintain this ban.  Related Quinnipiac poll results reported on January 23, 2009 by U.S.A Today included: 27% of Floridians said gays should be allowed to marry, 35% approved of gay civil unions, while 31% said that no recognition should be given to gay unions.

Approving of homosexuals adopting children seem to me to be incongruent with disapproving of homosexuals being permitted to marry.  Referring back to points I made in my previous Blog addressing gay marriage, I would reiterate that placing children with homosexual couples is a recipe for disaster through deviant example.  No rational person can assert that homosexual orientation is natural, or a normal result of the developmental process.  It is a given that nature abores a vaccuum.  A practical manifestation of this axiom is that homosexuals, because of the concious choices they make to engage in objectively disordered sexual acts, surrender by extension any right to procreate.  Or if, as homosexuals claim, their inherent deviance is genetic in origin, then their ability to procreate is natures assurance that fundamentaly damaged genetics will be eliminated from the genetic pool.

Moreover, Floridians have approved amending the State Constitution to assure marriage remains defined as a union between one man and one woman.  As such, homosexual couples do not enjoy any legal recognition of equivalant stature and thus, should not be permitted to adopt children.  Homosexuals cannot provide a balanced, nuclear family, which psychologists all but unanimously agree is necessary for the mental, emotional and developmental health and welfare of children.

In support of these conclusions I would point out evidence summarized by a team of social scientists headed by W. Bradfor Wilcox which issues their findings in Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions From the Social Sciences (2005).  Among these conclusions are:

*Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage

*Marriage and a normative commitment to marriage foster high quality relationships between adults, as well as between parents and children.

*Parental divorce (or failure to marry) appears to increase children’s risk of school failure.

*Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health on average than do children in other family forms.

*Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and substance abuse for both adults and teens.

*Married people, especially married men have longer life expectencies than do otherwise similar singles.

*Boys raised in single-parent families are more likely to engage in delinquent and criminal behavior.

*Marriage appears to reduce the risk that adults will be either perpetrators or victims of crime.

*A child who is not living with his or her own two married parents is at a greater risk for child abuse.

**Statistics found in (Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition:Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Services [New York:Institute for American Values 2005], pp 10-11).

With these conclusions in mind, and numerous other studies which have reached similar conclusions, placing children with homosexual couples who are prohibited by law from marrying (or placing children with other unmarried persons in general) is entirely counter productive to the child’s health and well being.

As such, Florida should not only maintain and continue to enforce law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children, but should expanse the current laws to ban adoption of children by any unmarried couples.  Arkansas voters voted in resounding favor, by 73.3%, for Initiative 1, on Nov. 4, 2008, which proposed precisely such a ban.  Moreover, and because such an enhancement or modification to Florida’s law would include all unmarried persons and/or couples, homosexuals could not attack the law as discriminatory as a result of sexual orientation.

(Anyone seeking further reading exploring the detrimental impact of homosexual parents on children, I would recommend the book; Out From Under:The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, by Dawn Stefanoxicz.  Annotation Press, 2007, 245 pgs., &14.95.  To order: annotationbooks.com or (877) 421-7323.)

Michael Anthony Wachter

mwachter452002@gmail.com

I believe in freedom of human beings and freedom of expression. I am a firm believer that people are born gay. I grew up with several gay children that had heterosexual siblings. I do not believe that a child raised in a homosexual environment will become homosexual. I have had several gay friends in my life. I never kept them away from my son for fear that their sexual orientation would taint his own. He was taught by me to accept people for who they are and to not judge them. 

I believe in Gay unions. As I have stated before, I believe that “marriage” ought to be between a man and a woman. As far as same sex unions raising children, the sex part is not my concern. More importantly, ones education, values and ability to raise children to be employable and marriageable is what I find critical to society and a solid foundation thereof. 

Persia Monir

It seems to me that “Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron.  I do not feel that homosexuals should be discriminated against or “bashed”.  However I do not feel it is in societies best interest to enshrine what is deviant behavior by biological standards with the pretense of marriage.  Homosexuals have chosen to orientate their inclinations in diametric opposition to Social Order as well as Natural Order. 

By legalizing gay marriage, Massachusetts, California, New York and other states to follow are essentially imposing, through unilateral action, the idea that gay marriage is precisely equivolent to the marriages of heterosexual couples.  It seems to me that by suggesting this, marriage as an Instituion becomes a mockery.

Mockery and ridicule of social order has long been a hallmark of the gay subculture.  On one hand gays deliberately choose to reject established gender roles.  On the other they attempt to co-opt these same roles and create a false genderous tinction.  A feminine/masculine dynamic (or vice versa) cannot exist between two men or two women.  They are what they are and no amount of role playing will change this fact.

Expanding on this example: Gender roles amongst men and women are one of societies fundamental linchpins.  Especially, and I would argue most importantly, in childhood development.  Children absorb and become impressed with what they observe in their primary caregivers, and by their social environment in general.  Consequently when a child observes a gay couple, or worse, a gay couple with a child, and questions his or her parents about it, parents must somehow respond.  The response will almost certainly have profound impact on how the child will begin to define homosexuality as well as his or her own gender role.  Sexuality becomes ambiguous for children with long term and potentially catastrophic results.

Put plainly; if children are conditioned to accept homosexuality as natural, as a valid alternative lifestyle, society will have essentially instilled children with the invitation to adopt homosexuality as their orientation and lifestyle.  Children adopted by homosexuals who are “married” will be constantly exposed to the gay subculture and will perhaps be likely to consider homosexuality as being of greater value and normality than heterosexuality.  Gay couples will almost certainly condition, deliberately or by example, their children to favor homosexuality.  The long term results here are simply disasterous.

Proponents of gay marriage, or homosexuality in general, will argue that a large percentage of Americans feel homosexuality is valid.  A New York Times Op-Ed by Charles M. Blow appeared on July 26, 2008 citing Gallup Polls on public opinions of gay marriage between May 2001 and May 2008 demonstrate an 8% increase (from 40% to 48%) of people that feel gay relationships are morally acceptable.  Nearly half.  I am reminded of something that Mark Twain said.  Twain noted that the three greatest lies are: first, the lie, second, the damn lie, and third, the statistic.  For many people a poll question regarding the morality of gay relationships is abstract and impersonal.  The issue does not really touch their lives, so it’s all good.  What I wonder is how people would respond if the question indicated personal impact.  For example, would you be pleased if your son or daughter were in a gay relationship?  Would this be morally acceptable?  Somehow I suspect the results would be radically different if such a question was polled.

The fact is that the legalization of gay marriage will have myriad impacts on society and will affect almost every citizen.  Some of the impact will be very subtle.  For example, the Saturday, August 2, 2008 New York Times carried an article in their Metro Section by Tina Kelley entitled, “New York Gay Couples Head to Massachusetts with Marriage In Mind”.  In it she notes that the New York City Comptroller’s Office estimated in June 2007 that the local economy would stand to make $142 million in the first 3 years if gay marriage were legalized.  New York State would make up to $8 million in taxes, the city an additional $7 million.  It is estimated that Massachusetts will add $111 million to its economy over the next three years, that could possibly create 330 new jobs and increase state and local revenues by at least $5.1 million.  All of this sounds great, particularly for Massachusetts.  Gov. Deval Patrick has also signed into law in Massachusetts, a measure which will now allow all married couples to receive medicaid benefits, despite the fact that federal law does not recognize same sex marriages.  Gov.  Patrick’s solution?  Medicaid money for gay couples will be paid from state funds.

Massachusetts, New York and California are unilaterally attempting to impose gay marriage as a national norm.  Massachusetts has repealed its 1913 law that made it illegal to marry couples whose marriage would not be legally recognized in the couples home state.  So a gay couple from Florida, for example can now be legally married in Massachusetts, return to Florida, and immediately begin the process to sue the State of Florida for refusing to recognize their same sex marriage.  I am almost certain this is the gay lobby’s current strategy for imposing gay marriage in states that do not recognize such unions.  The cost to state tax payers for litigating such issues will be enormous as such suit would without doubt eventually wind up in front of the United States Supreme Court.

These are only some of the issues raised by attempts to legalize same sex unions.  This is the first of an ongoing series of blogs which I intend to write about this issue, and in response to respondent’s opinions of my blog.  I look forward to reading your responses and hearing your opinions.  I am also curious as to what readers feel are workable solutions to the issue of gay marriage.  Identifying problems requires formulating a practical solution.  What do you feel and what do you suggest?

Michael Anthony Wachter

mwachter452002@gmail.com

It is almost that time folks.  I hope you are all voting….out with the old and in with the new.  All you Florida voters get out there and vote “NO” for Amendment 2. We want Gay Marriage in Florida.  Let’s get this state out of the dark ages and bring some tax dollars to mend this mess we are in. 

Persia

Let me say first that I do not believe that homosexuality is a result of environmental influence. People are born homosexual or heterosexual. Ever met anyone that told you they knew they were gay when they were a child? I have. Grew up with a few too from otherwise normal heterosexual parents and households.  Where environment does play a factor is in teen years when peer pressure may influence a gay woman or man to come out of “the closet” and deal honestly with their sexual orientation.  I also feel that couples that share a home and financial responsibilities together should be able to benefit from tax breaks or  other state and federal programs that married couples have. 

Now on the subject of marriage, this is a boundary that I personally cannot accept for homosexual couples. The word “marriage” is taken. The gay community needs a new word. 

Persia