Report Inappropriate Comments

Roy Dempsey is right of course. What the Council did was neither courageous nor right. On controversial issues, like gay marriage, it's the responsibility of every elected body to obtain both sides of the story before making a decision. Quite obviously, the City Council did not. Instead, it apparently heard only the side that it wanted to hear or didn't bother (or won't bother) to solicit information contrary to the legal recognition of gay marriage. In so doing, the Council action was a charade - not a courageous act, especially since the audience was packed with supporters of gay marriage.

That information does not reflect favorably on legally recognizing gay marriage. On the contrary, the full set of facts strongly argues against against it. Here's why:

Government recognition is bestowed, only, on human behavior that's beneficial to the individual and to society. Monogamous marriage between one man and one woman qualifies for this recognition because (on average) it increases life expectancy, reduces stress, diminishes to zero the potential for STDs, and provides the best environment for raising children. The science supporting this outcome and the references upon which it is based is irrefutable (1).

Science, though, proves the exact opposite for same-sex behavior, whether it occurs in a committed relationship or not (1). For in comparison to heterosexuals, homosexuals, primarily men, aren't monogamous in committed relationships and both gay men and lesbians are far more likely to divorce, which would only weaken marriage below its already diminished state. Further, for this reason and because it involves human physiology that's not designed for same-sex interaction, same-sex activity is highly prone to bodily damage and serious disease, especially HIV/AIDS to which homosexuals are 44 times more likely to contract on a per person basis, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

This is not only bad for the individual but it's also bad for society, not only because of the medical consequences but because of the capacity for homosexuality to be triggered in people, whose genetic and biological makeup makes them prone to developing the behavioral urge.

There are numerous examples of this concept. One is from Dr. Ritch C. Savin-Williams of Cornelly University. In his book, "The New Gay Teenager," believes same-sex behavior is on the upswing due to cultural influences exerted by the media and educational curricula. Legally recognizing gay marriage will only be one more factor that could trigger homosexuality in people who are more prone to it than others and encourage same-sex behavior in people who are already homosexual. For after all, marriage encourages the dating that precedes it, which for homosexuals will mean exposure to the serious medical, psychological, and sociological problems to which homosexuals are far more prone than straights on a per person basis.

Therefore, for all these reasons, we must all work together to keep marriage between one man and one woman. We can do so by educating the public. To help, please email this post and the link to the essay below to as many people as you can and to your legislators. Additionally, please ask the recipients to do the same, demand that your legislators vote down legislation granting gov't recognition to same-sex behavior, and vote them out of office, if they don't. In this way, we can all work together to keep marriage between one man and one woman, as it should be.

(1) - "The Case for Government Recognition of Traditional Relationships," a short essay summarizing the science and listing the peer-reviewed references on which its based. You'll need to google to read.

From: Marriage equality endorsed at emotional, one-sided hearing

Please explain the inappropriate content below.