Regarding George Will’s column, “Uncharted territory”: He opposes the use of social sciences to support single-sex marriage: “Unlike the physical sciences, the social sciences can rarely settle questions using ‘controlled and replicable experiments.’ ” Oh, really?
How about the “Doll Experiments” conducted by the psychologists Mamie and Kenneth Clark in 1939 and 194o? Children were presented with two dolls: one with white skin and blond hair, the other, brown skin and black hair. Children both Negro and white preferred the Anglo-Saxon to the Negro doll.
Mr. Will also quoted a member of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy that the social sciences, but not the “physical sciences,” are “shaped and driven by politics and ideology.”
In the 18th, 19th and even the 20th centuries, “hard science” proved that women were intellectually inferior to men. Not only were their brains smaller (what passed for biology), but women devoted more of their energy to reproduction, whereas men could use energy to think (ditto for physics).
Serendipitously, the next day in The Post I read, “The most influential U.S. pediatrician’s group says gays should be allowed to marry to help ensure the health and well-being of their children.” Concerning the issue of gay marriage, and any issue related to family or children’s health, I would far more listen to the American Academy of Pediatrics than to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
West Palm Beach
as valid as gays’
Regarding the letter, “Gay Americans will achieve equality”: Marriage has been ordained by God, as stated in Genesis. This is why true Christians oppose gay marriage. Also, when a man and woman are joined in marriage, they become one flesh, according to God. This is the basis for the family as established by God.
The word of God in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 addresses gay unions. We simply choose to obey God, not attack individual gay men or women. No true Christian desires to deprive anyone of constitutional rights, which do not include gay marriage. We, like the gay rights activists who get all the attention from the press, want to get our view heard in the spirit of kind and loving debate.
Do they want to deny us our constitutional rights, which include opposing their views on what constitutes a marriage? If the court rules in their favor, we will still continue to submit to the government, as we should according to Romans 13:1-3, which says: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” No true Christian would call the letter-writer a bigot. Why does he feel the need to use that hateful term against us when we peacefully exercise our constitutional rights?
Editor’s note: The Supreme Court hears arguments today on a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The court hears arguments Wednesday on a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.
Ryan budget at least
tries for balance
Regarding “House averts government shutdown”: The Paul Ryan plan at least attempts to balance the budget in 10 years. The Democrats’ plan increases spending and raises taxes more than $1 trillion with no attempt to balance the budget. The president has even said he doesn’t care about a balanced budget.
Medicare is already changing, due to Obamacare. Medicare Advantage programs will be phased out due to Obamacare and the AARP lobby. AARP sells Medicare supplement plans at between $200 and $500 a month (I priced them) but does not sell the Advantage Plan. Changes in Medicare by the Ryan plan are the least of my worries with Obamacare.
Church is problem,
I read the commentary, “Does pope want to bring back people like me?” and felt that I could have written it.
For many years I have attended Mass by watching it on TV. I love the religion in which I was raised. However, I feel that I have not left the church; the church has left me. Three parishes I have belonged to have had priests who were transferred, and the word whispered among those who knew that it was for “disciplinary reasons.” Just about every Catholic couple I know practices birth control. If they were excommunicated, who would be left? And as to homosexuals, perhaps the Supreme Being put them on this earth for a reason — population control.
Since our first pope — Simon, called Peter — was a married man the argument against priests marrying does not hold water. That rule came much later when married priests were dividing church property among their children. Hence, the church put a stop to it.
Join England in ban
on driving, texting
Regarding the debate about banning texting while driving: I am an international student whose home is in England. It was a surprise when I came over here to see the amount of people using their mobile phones while at the wheel of a car. In England, this is banned, and has been for many years.
Texting is not only dangerous for the person driving the car but for everyone else on the road. I believe that the Florida Legislature really needs to have an eye-opener to seriously consider banning the use of mobile phones while driving.
On smartphones in particular, you do not need to be physically touching the phone to text. With certain applications, you are able to talk normally as you would through Bluetooth, which can allow a person to text or speak. Although still not a lot safer, it is a definite start in preventing the distraction of a person who is driving while using a phone and texting.
West Palm Beach.
Let judge decide
I read with a great deal of interest, or should I say disgust, the article “Kids charged as adults.”
As a retired federal judge in Canada, I find it extremely difficult to comprehend how prosecutors should have the unfettered power to decide that teens, some as young as 14, deserve to be charged and/or treated, as adults in the U.S. criminal court system. I clearly understand the judge saying, “It’s one of the most egregious examples.”
I would further add that I find it very difficult that any state or any criminal law system in Canada or the U.S. would permit or grant prosecutors to decide whether a juvenile should be charged as an adult. These important decisions should be left for a judge. Prosecutors are there to prosecute, not to make these kinds of life-changing decisions.
Wellington better off
without ‘gang of three’
I have found myself reading with disgust the almost daily negative articles about the Wellington Village Council that I am sure have been promoted by Mark Bellissimo and his cohorts who have been unrelenting in their struggle to achieve his personal agenda of expanding his commercial horse show enterprise at the expense of the health, safety and welfare of our community.
He is quick to blame the new council for forcing him to sue, but let us not forget that it was the previous “gang of three” — Mr. Bellissimo’s “gang of three” — that set the April 1 date for the required master plan submittal for the Equestrian Village site. It was the same Darell Bowen, Carmine Priore and Anne Gerwig who stated what the penalty would be if this was not submitted on time. So if you want to blame anyone, blame them. They voted unanimously for everything Mr. Bellissimo wanted. It must have been a shock when he lost his aces in the hole.
Thankfully, we have a newly council with a new mayor dedicated to rectifying the mistakes of the old council and making the village transparent and accountable to its citizens. Mr. Bellissimo’s “gang of three” let him run wild and function any way he wanted to. Wellington will survive and prosper with or without Mark Bellissimo and his grandiose ideas of commercializing our precious land in the equestrian overlay zoning district.
CARMEN S. PATERNITI