A Criticism of Gabrielle Taylor's Right-Wing Views
The following article was written by Gabrielle “Gabby” Taylor. It is a work of her own mind and expression of her freedom of speech- not mine. I’m not a political expert, but I know a thing or two, and decided to exercise my own freedom of speech in this criticism of her blatant right-wing extremist views. Anything in bold is entirely my opinion or research I have done on the topics. Anything in normal text is entirely Miss Taylor’s writing. With that said, I hope you enjoy and perhaps learn a thing or two from this.
Many people who support gay marriage do not think of the legal meaning of marriage, or of how our population will be affected in the negative by such an action. Let’s be cold about it and get down to the base of the issue. The state has absolutely no interest in giving homosexuals the right to marry for one main reason.
The federal government may not show much interest for same-sex marriage, but individual states do. Massachusetts permits same-sex marriage, and California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, and D.C. permit civil unions. Besides, the federal government only gave interracial couples the right to marry in 1967. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States)
When someone gets married legally in the eyes of the state they are supplied with tax benefits. However, the state is not being as kind as it seems. The point of a marital union in the eyes of the state is for making babies who will pay taxes when they grow older and such tax payers to become contributing, moral, members of society.
“Making babies”? Last time I saw, making babies was not an intelligent way of saying “start a family”. Married couples are not baby factories, and ideally do not “make babies”, but make love and have children. But I digress. I would like to know where Miss Taylor derives these statements from. Of course, the state, like all mentally sound humans, hope people will raise their children to become “contributing [and] moral members of society”. However, facts speak louder than speculation. Last time I checked my sources, 100% of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and red necks come from heterosexual couples, the large majority raised by at least one heterosexual. (Source: common sense.)
Obviously homosexual marriages cannot provide in any way, shape, or form of this deal with the state. I have not heard of any man or woman getting pregnant due to sexual actions with another of the same sex. Many would argue that homosexuals could adopt, therefore supplying part of the deal.
Thank you for introducing my next point. How would adoption not fulfill part of the deal? By adopting a child, the adopting parents are removing a child from foster care, a TAX FUNDED program, that is inundated in unwanted, abused, and lonely children. Thus, in adopting a child, the state is relieved of one more responsibility, the child receives the tender, loving, necessary care only found in a family, and same-sex couple fulfills their instinctive drive to raise children. Everyone’s happy, right?
Others could claim it is unjust to put such a standard on couples; what about the sterile heterosexuals or couples who choose not to have children? Most do not seem to notice that this is an issue that is private and the state does not have the right to pry, or the time, to go through each couples intentions and fertility before marriage.
Would that not be a horrific, authoritarian invasion of privacy? Of course most people notice this is a private issue! Only idiots wouldn’t see this as an invasion of privacy. So, why isn’t one’s sexual preference a private and respected matter? How does it not qualify?
However it is made rather apparent that someone in a homosexual relationship cannot reproduce on their own, so the state has no interest in loosing money. Gay couples that adopt do not qualify either; Little Orphan Johnny will grow up to pay taxes, whether or not he was raised by a homosexual couple.
The state loses money by keeping a child in foster care. In the state of Florida, foster families are reimbursed up to fourteen dollars per day per child. Compared to the money the average Little Orphan Johnny will pay in taxes as an adult, this seems to be quite a money sink. Plus, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual parents, Little Orphan Johnny still pays the same sales tax on his daily goods as you or I. (Source: http://www.fosterparenting.com/foster-care/foster-care-rates.html)
Homosexuals should be allowed to right to civil unions, but marriage should be a term reserved for heterosexual relationships. With a civil union the individual can meet with a lawyer and appoint their partner to their belongings by using a will. Also they can give power of attorney, and other logistical aspects to becoming a joined couple.
Actually, with a civil union, the couple is entitled to the 400 or so rights and privileges awarded to married couples, but denied the 1000 or so rights and privileges provided by the federal government. Use of a written will and power of attorney does not even begin to summarize the 400 or so rights included in a civil union. Besides that, a will can include anyone the individual wishes. Power of attorney gives another adult the right to handle your financial affairs; again, this can be anyone the individual wishes. It does not necessarily encompass taxes, hospital visitation rights, survivor’s rights to Social Security benefits, or tax-free inheritance of a spouse’s estate.
(Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/20/MNGC654O601.DTL)
In conclusion, I believe Miss Taylor has some homework to do, both in the research and English language categories. Accompanying her weak arguments was weak sentence syntax and unnecessary usage of be verbs. That aside, I’d like to thank you for considering my points of view, and hope what I have presented may help enlighten you on the same-sex marriage issue.
Many people who support gay marriage do not think of the legal meaning of marriage, or of how our population will be affected in the negative by such an action. Let’s be cold about it and get down to the base of the issue. The state has absolutely no interest in giving homosexuals the right to marry for one main reason.
The federal government may not show much interest for same-sex marriage, but individual states do. Massachusetts permits same-sex marriage, and California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, and D.C. permit civil unions. Besides, the federal government only gave interracial couples the right to marry in 1967. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States)
When someone gets married legally in the eyes of the state they are supplied with tax benefits. However, the state is not being as kind as it seems. The point of a marital union in the eyes of the state is for making babies who will pay taxes when they grow older and such tax payers to become contributing, moral, members of society.
“Making babies”? Last time I saw, making babies was not an intelligent way of saying “start a family”. Married couples are not baby factories, and ideally do not “make babies”, but make love and have children. But I digress. I would like to know where Miss Taylor derives these statements from. Of course, the state, like all mentally sound humans, hope people will raise their children to become “contributing [and] moral members of society”. However, facts speak louder than speculation. Last time I checked my sources, 100% of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and red necks come from heterosexual couples, the large majority raised by at least one heterosexual. (Source: common sense.)
Obviously homosexual marriages cannot provide in any way, shape, or form of this deal with the state. I have not heard of any man or woman getting pregnant due to sexual actions with another of the same sex. Many would argue that homosexuals could adopt, therefore supplying part of the deal.
Thank you for introducing my next point. How would adoption not fulfill part of the deal? By adopting a child, the adopting parents are removing a child from foster care, a TAX FUNDED program, that is inundated in unwanted, abused, and lonely children. Thus, in adopting a child, the state is relieved of one more responsibility, the child receives the tender, loving, necessary care only found in a family, and same-sex couple fulfills their instinctive drive to raise children. Everyone’s happy, right?
Others could claim it is unjust to put such a standard on couples; what about the sterile heterosexuals or couples who choose not to have children? Most do not seem to notice that this is an issue that is private and the state does not have the right to pry, or the time, to go through each couples intentions and fertility before marriage.
Would that not be a horrific, authoritarian invasion of privacy? Of course most people notice this is a private issue! Only idiots wouldn’t see this as an invasion of privacy. So, why isn’t one’s sexual preference a private and respected matter? How does it not qualify?
However it is made rather apparent that someone in a homosexual relationship cannot reproduce on their own, so the state has no interest in loosing money. Gay couples that adopt do not qualify either; Little Orphan Johnny will grow up to pay taxes, whether or not he was raised by a homosexual couple.
The state loses money by keeping a child in foster care. In the state of Florida, foster families are reimbursed up to fourteen dollars per day per child. Compared to the money the average Little Orphan Johnny will pay in taxes as an adult, this seems to be quite a money sink. Plus, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual parents, Little Orphan Johnny still pays the same sales tax on his daily goods as you or I. (Source: http://www.fosterparenting.com/foster-care/foster-care-rates.html)
Homosexuals should be allowed to right to civil unions, but marriage should be a term reserved for heterosexual relationships. With a civil union the individual can meet with a lawyer and appoint their partner to their belongings by using a will. Also they can give power of attorney, and other logistical aspects to becoming a joined couple.
Actually, with a civil union, the couple is entitled to the 400 or so rights and privileges awarded to married couples, but denied the 1000 or so rights and privileges provided by the federal government. Use of a written will and power of attorney does not even begin to summarize the 400 or so rights included in a civil union. Besides that, a will can include anyone the individual wishes. Power of attorney gives another adult the right to handle your financial affairs; again, this can be anyone the individual wishes. It does not necessarily encompass taxes, hospital visitation rights, survivor’s rights to Social Security benefits, or tax-free inheritance of a spouse’s estate.
(Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/20/MNGC654O601.DTL)
In conclusion, I believe Miss Taylor has some homework to do, both in the research and English language categories. Accompanying her weak arguments was weak sentence syntax and unnecessary usage of be verbs. That aside, I’d like to thank you for considering my points of view, and hope what I have presented may help enlighten you on the same-sex marriage issue.