Archive for May, 2012

Open Letter to the President about Gay Marriage

May 10, 2012

Dear Mr. President,

I know you framed the debate about gay marriage in terms of civil rights issues, and the right of people to love whom they wish.  That makes it seem like taking the high ground in the debate, and makes it very hard to argue the point without seeming like one is against civil rights for some, and against love.  Its very manipulative, because it is so selective an argument in its use of truth.

There are a number of things we never hear argued.  Instead the arguments against gay marriage are met with snarls and accusations, claims that anyone against this proposal has to be a mean and vicious religious bigot who is just afraid of the “truth”.  There has never been a full and rational argument, and dissent has been stifled by particularly vile name-calling by the press, media and entertainment establishment.

One doesn’t have to be religious at all to look up facts and statistics.  And some things are just so obvious its like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes.  In an age that worries about the loss of all thats natural and the rise of the artificial, this embrace of the artificial over the natural seems odd.  People who eat only organic food and are obsessed with health, fitness and the natural seem to embrace homosexuality as though it were something sacred that has been trampled by the ignorant. 

The obvious is that gay sexual experience depends on unnatural acts, many or most of which are difficult and dangerous, even in a monogamous relationship.  This is true of Lesbian relationships as well, which is not so obvious from a public who seems to think that Lesbians are nuns who hug and kiss.  The second, not so obvious fact is that both homosexual men and women tend to hold a different vision of monogamy that heterosexual married people.  In other words, if the relationship lasts and you always come home to the same person, you are monogamous, regardless of the separate sexual lives you also lead.  A third, not so obvious fact is that both homosexual men and women are not exclusively homosexual.  Only a small fraction of gay men has been exclusively gay.  Most studies show it is less than 10%.  Lesbians, on average, have had more male partners than the average heterosexual woman.  These things are astounding, considering we’ve been told homosexuals are just born with different urges.

The other obvious area involves the inability to reproduce together.  Reproduce, yes, but only artificially.  Anyone who has ever known an adopted person, knows the yearning such a person has to connect with their biological roots.  Artificially conceived children may never know where their donated seed even came from.  That will have psychological consequences.  The other consequence is some children will never have a parental relationship with both a mom and a dad.  Two dads, no matter how loving, will never equal having a mom and vice versa.  We have already seen the consequences of lacking a dad, even when mom and grandma have always been in the child’s life, stable and loving.  Not having a dad creates a void and a grief that survive into adulthood.

Last of all, homosexual relationships, as a rule don’t last as long as traditional marriages.  That is changing, but only because traditional marriage is in trouble, not because homosexual relationships have become stronger.  In the Netherlands, where homosexual marriage has been legal for 11 years, all relationships have become more fluid, and marriage rates as a whole have gone down.  Since marriage has less meaning, having become separated from family making, fewer people see a need for it.

Mr. President, I doubt you looked at all the facts before making your decision.  For you it was an emotional decision based on your personal experience with civil rights struggles.  Now, its too late and you, the most looked up to man in probably the world has supported something that will cause untold damage to this country and countless individuals.  I hope you again evolve, but it will be too late.  I’m sad for you.




When Does the Government Finally have Enough Money

May 3, 2012

I saw the following quote recently:  ”  What kind of person sees nothing wrong in cutting a teachers 50,000 salary by 20%, but doesn’t see anything wrong with a 3% tax increase on a millionaire.”

I would re-word this:  “What kind of government sees nothing wrong in taking more and more money from small business and uses the emotional blackmail of threatening to cut the salaries of public employees, most famously teachers and police.”

This first quote is too simplistic a choice, and issues revolving around pay and taxes go much deeper than this. Governments must learn to live within a budget and can’t continue to take more and more.  England thought they were faced with a similar choice between raising taxes or cutting pay. They decided the fairest thing was to raise taxes on the top tier of income.  A 3% tax increase isn’t what we’re really talking about here.  That would never be enough.  How much is enough?  50% tax rate, 70%, 90%?  They’ve all been tried.  If we did today, what England did, we would have a top income tax rate of 70%.  The median wage would be about $30,000.  Unemployment among the under 25’s would be 40%.  Only 10% would be allowed to go to college.  Health care would be free and mostly unavailable.  The government would become the partial or total owner of all big business in the country.    This was what England looked like in the 1980’s after 30 years of high taxes and the central government running virtually everything.  And the country still came to the edge of bankruptcy more than once.  Emotional arguments like the one above will lead to poor choices.   We think we are being “fair” and can make this type of economic system (redistribution of wealth) work when it has failed everywhere it has been tried.   It leads to people having no motive to excel, and all wealth ending up under government control, when government is not and will never be a good steward of what it manages.  We need to look at where we’re spending our money, not raising taxes.