Archive for the ‘Sexual Roles’ Category
The Same-SEX Marriage Debate: How to Deal with The High Cost of Political Morality Play
Posted on: May 4, 2013
One of the big debates going on at the state level in many states right now involves the decision to legalize “same-SEX marriage.” One side thinks legalization of “same-SEX marriage” is only fair for those who choose an alternative lifestyle and the other says it is immoral or against religious values. Then of course there are those who really had no opinion on the matter, which is where I resided until something occurred to me.
If you read my essays and observations regularly or have signed up to receive my updates, you will have concluded by now that I am a conservative, more conservative than that political party which often attempts to ally itself with conservative measure but is frequently no more conservative than the other side of the aisle in the comparison of many nowadays. Many conservatives believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal. That is not my sentiment, even though many believe my political or belief system falls within the realm of “true conservatism.”
Instead, I approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” from the same perspective as I approach that of abortion, which I believe as a “true conservative” should be legal. “What?” You inquire? “How can that be, “same-sex marriage” and abortion are not even closely related?” Well, it is not that they are closely related, which as you will see later that they are in a way very closely related, it is that I view “same-SEX marriage” and abortion using the same method I use to view whether or not I believe as a “true conservative” that abortion should be legal, something many in the conservative hall are opposed to with vigor.
I believe that abortion should be legal because a woman can’t raise a child on her own unless she is independently wealthy or has government support, with government support being money from taxpayers, which by default means larger government and more taxes, something to which a “true conservative” is opposed, particularly now when taxes are approaching all time high levels and more people receive government entitlements than ever before.
“OK, so you are for legal abortion because you believe it helps to keep the size of government in check, what’s that have to do with “same-SEX marriage?”” You are asking.
Well, instead of approaching the subject of same-sex marriage from the perspective of whether it is a moral issue, I believe we should apply a certain approach to the subject that merely asks the question, “Will “same-SEX marriage” raise taxes for the taxpayer?” If the legalization of same-sex marriage results in an increase in taxes to the taxpayer, then perhaps it should be reconsidered. But if the legalization of same-sex marriage will result in a decrease in taxes, then perhaps it should be considered. You see, like abortion, you have to examine the behavior. The two, “same-SEX marriage” and abortion are indeed very closely related because they involve the subject of “SEX” and the product of “SEX!” In the case of “same-SEX marriage,” the subject of discussion is the subject of “SEX,” sex by people of the same “SEX!” And if legalization of “same-SEX marriage” results in an increase in taxes to pay for the legalization of a type of sexual activity, or “SEX,” then by the definition of any conservative, not just a “true conservative,” it should probably not be considered for legalization. Just like abortion, which deals with the result of “SEX,” or a fetus, “same-SEX marriage” deals with the subject of “SEX!” And in America we are already dealing with the substantial cost of “SEX” from unwed pregnancies at an alarming rate. Just in 2011 forty-one percent of children born were born to out-of-wedlock mothers who almost all certainly obtained a substantial amount of support from the taxpayer to enable such sexual inequity.
It is by the same method then that I believe we should approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” as that of outlawing abortion, asking the question, how will it affect the burden of taxation upon the taxpayer? If legalization of same-sex marriage increases taxes for the taxpayers, then perhaps it should not be legalized as it is believed that outlawing abortion would increase taxes, substantially.
I think this same method, asking the question, “What burden will it place upon the taxpayer?” should be applied to all such similar circumstances, particularly those involving sexual behaviors. They are consensual behaviors generally and don’t harm anyone until they become issues which affect taxation when then they directly impact the taxpayer. I think the method I discuss here is an excellent way to deal with the political morality play, the political theater and misrepresentation that goes on with such matters of consensual behavior. And though I recognize the biblical origin and position of religious leadership on the matter of “same-SEX marriage,” I don’t think it is as much of a religious matter as it is an economic issue.
Why?
Because it is time American taxpayers should be free from having to pay for others to have sex on a bed made of taxpayers’ dollars.
Copyright © William Thien 2013
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
An Observation About the Cost of Feminism to The Tax Payer
Posted by: William Thien on: June 28, 2011
I recently heard a female news woman proclaim on a Fox News affiliate during a debate about the need for law enforcement in a community that single females “need protection.” It was a surprising revelation to hear from a liberated woman. I consider any woman working in the capacity of a news person to be liberated, by the way, as say compared to fifty years ago, when they were uncommon.
And yes, there are women capable of everything to which a man is, often more so, aside from sexual function of course. But they are not the norm, far from it. Yet, for some reason, we have adopted an elaborate series of lies, generally perpetuated now by Federal Law and the media, that creates an unusual arrangement between the sexes in many places today. This eludes to the point in my essay, Is There a Natural Order Amongst The Sexes?.
Something then occurred to me after hearing the news woman’s proclamation that single females need protection. This is just an observation as there is no scientific evidence supporting my observation. The feminist movement is also expensive to a community in that single women “supposedly” require more protection than married women. Therefor, the demand for police services. or protection, is or must be higher the more single women there are in a community. That fact may even be more obvious in those parts of our society where the women are single and also mothers. Are more police required in such communities? Of course they are.
The thing about police is that they are expensive to maintain, probably THE most expensive personnel at the municipal level as they require by law all sorts of training, they are outfitted with extensive amounts of expensive equipment which they carry or that is located in their vehicles, and their vehicles are enormously expensive. The police also require large amounts of support personnel. The procedures they use to solve crimes are also often very expensive.
Police are the most invasive extension of a bureaucracy and when crime is down, they begin writing traffic tickets and generally making themselves difficult, one might say, without deference or disrespect to the office itself. So not only are police expensive in terms of tax dollars, they drive up the cost of our daily existence, they work to increase municipal revenue at our expense through traffic and parking enforcement, for example, you name it. We all like the protection a police presence affords us. But the result of feminism, the increase in society of single women, is quite possibly creating a lopsided society where excessive police personnel are required. That has to be expensive.
Furthermore, it is believed that police often vote in order to perpetuate their jobs in ways which may not all be mutually beneficial to the citizenry. Add to that the fact that the police and municipal protective services form large voting blocks to which if politicians do not pander, they can often forget about getting elected. So not only are police expensive to maintain on the tax rolls, they can be difficult socially as they may vote in large numbers contrary to the needs, or desires, of the population. And who can blame the police for that last one? Everyone needs a job. It’s human nature. But isn’t that what many laws are written to do, address human nature? I once thought that police should not be allowed to vote in legislative elections that effect law since they enforce the law. It suggests a conflict of interest. But police are people, too.
Getting back to the matter of feminism and taxes, therefore, the greater need for police services as a result of feminism could very well be costing the taxpayer substantially.
That is, by the way, just an observation. I fully expect repercussions. You can rarely say such things publicly and not expect repercussions. But someone has to say them. Married men are afraid to do so. Divorce tantrums have all too often been the remedy for an unhappy wife put in her place during a family disagreement. The political system can’t afford to say what I say here, and they don’t have the intestinal fortitude, either. I’m not running for office, so…
But isn’t it feminism that tells us men and women don’t need to get married, that women are equal to men, in every way? Yes, that is exactly the feminist platform. And it is false. Men and women are not equal. They are different, some might say completely different. And equal and different are not synonymous, equal and different do not mean the “same” thing.
Perhaps men and women should be treated equally. But the lie of feminism, that men and women are equal, is most likely an expensive lie for the tax payer to perpetuate.
Copyright 2011 William Thien