Gays Denied Marriage: The Economic Cost

Mar 28, 2013 Read more: WISW-AM Columbia 394

What is the cost to gay people of not being allowed to marry? A University of Massachusetts economist believes the lifetime cost averages $500,000 per couple.

Read more

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#208 Apr 20, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Most States do not allow bequests to non-humans.
I don't know of a state that does allow a civil marriage to a non-human.
That wasn't the point. You essentially stated of non-consensual marriage "How will the cow or car demonstrate Informed Consent to the contract?"
Good question. Especially since states allow non-consensual wills to be left to animals without that animal being able to accept that will or to reject it. Wills to humans have to be okayed by the human recieving the will. That's law. They have to sign a legal document consenting to the accepting of the will. But state laws allow for an animal to be forced to accept the will. So what would be the difference if states passed laws that forced animals/things into marriages without their consent? States are already forcing them to accept wills against their consent. What, breaking the law of consent on one end is okay but from the other direction it isn't okay? Very hypocritical.
And as I said that you side stepped, non-consensual human arranged marriages take place all over this world without any intent to harm either bride or groom in the prearranged marriage. The bride and groom are usually okay with the prearranged marriage in many cases.
So non-consent of marriages is alive and well on earth.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#209 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And? Polygamy is not equal protection under the law, the only people who would advance such an argument are those who cannot count.
But it should have protection. It should have been found legal under freedom of religion and in society by itself. There is no more harm in a polygamous setting where consenting adults have agreed to such a marriage setting than a same sex couple marriage or an opposite sex marriage.
SCOTUS used Christian discrimination practices to rule against polygamy.
State governments used Christian ideology to forbid homosexual acts and thus kept at bay same sex marriage from happening for centuries in America.
Discrimination is discrimination. If it was challenged, there is not a single legal reason existing that could be honestly justified to continue to deny people the right to polygamous marriages.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#210 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
I don't know of a state that does allow a civil marriage to a non-human.
That wasn't the point. You essentially stated of non-consensual marriage "How will the cow or car demonstrate Informed Consent to the contract?"
Good question. Especially since states allow non-consensual wills to be left to animals without that animal being able to accept that will or to reject it. Wills to humans have to be okayed by the human recieving the will. That's law. They have to sign a legal document consenting to the accepting of the will. But state laws allow for an animal to be forced to accept the will. So what would be the difference if states passed laws that forced animals/things into marriages without their consent? States are already forcing them to accept wills against their consent. What, breaking the law of consent on one end is okay but from the other direction it isn't okay? Very hypocritical.
And as I said that you side stepped, non-consensual human arranged marriages take place all over this world without any intent to harm either bride or groom in the prearranged marriage. The bride and groom are usually okay with the prearranged marriage in many cases.
So non-consent of marriages is alive and well on earth.
What an asinine argument.

Please show me a single state where animals are granted “non-consensual will”. Do you realize how utterly foolish (irrational, and potentially mentally unstable) this makes you sound?

It appears, once again that you have no argument that is on topic, so instead you offer an utterly off topic and irrational rant about an imagined application of consent that no state actually applied within their laws.

Your argument is a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#211 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
But it should have protection. It should have been found legal under freedom of religion and in society by itself. There is no more harm in a polygamous setting where consenting adults have agreed to such a marriage setting than a same sex couple marriage or an opposite sex marriage.
SCOTUS used Christian discrimination practices to rule against polygamy.
State governments used Christian ideology to forbid homosexual acts and thus kept at bay same sex marriage from happening for centuries in America.
Discrimination is discrimination. If it was challenged, there is not a single legal reason existing that could be honestly justified to continue to deny people the right to polygamous marriages.
Once again, you are not making an argument against gay marriage, so much as one in favor of polygamy. Do you have an argument against gay marriage?

As to your other point, the court ruled as they did because they can count to three (or more) and can rationally see that it is greater than two. It isn't a religious issue, but rather one of equality under the law. Polygamy seeks greater, not equal protection.

When one employs an argument of polygamy to argue against gay marriage, you can tell they have no valid on topic argument.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#212 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Take this argument, and replace same sex marriage with "interracial marriage", "voting rights" (excluding women), or "segregation". Each of which illustrate that this is a historically inept argument.
Wrong. "voting rights" (excluding women), or "segregation" has absolutely not a thing to do with marriage and what marriage has been defined as for thousands of years.
Nice try though :)

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#213 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Wrong. "voting rights" (excluding women), or "segregation" has absolutely not a thing to do with marriage and what marriage has been defined as for thousands of years.
Nice try though :)
They have everything to do with equality under the law, which is constitutionally mandated, and that you seem to lack a rational argument against regarding same sex marriage.

It comes as "no surprise" that you still don't have an on topic argument.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#214 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Fell free to prove as much. I don’t think you can.
You just don't understand this fact about the 14th amendment. Why don't you go ask a lawyer. Give me their name or website so I'll know you actually spoke to a bonafide lawyer.
The 14th amendment cannot, nor will it ever protect an individual and or a group from discrimination and or prejudice and or bigotry if no law exists to protect them.
Do you understand that? Can you comprehend it? It's a pretty simple concept. Where a law doesn't yet exist, it cannot give any kind/type protection. Get it?

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#215 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you are not making an argument against gay marriage, so much as one in favor of polygamy. Do you have an argument against gay marriage?.
This person isn't making a case for polygamy, they're just using it as an example to pose the question, "where does it end?" Try and keep up...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#216 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
The right to marry exists in every state in the union, does it not?
Can you indicate even so much as a rational basis to deny equal protection for same sex couples to marry? Of course, you cannot, which is why you moronically argue that the 14th Amendment is inapplicable.
Speaking of moronic, prove that same sex marriage in 1940 was protected by the 14th amendment. Prove in 1870 the 14th amendment protected blacks and all colours and women the right to vote in America. Please prove it.
You with your moronic thinking claim the 14th amendment has had all these protections since it's inception, fricking prove it or be your own moron.
Understand this fact. It's a legal fact you're not digesting for some obscure reason. The 14th amendment protects EXISTING LAWS.
Let's say it again...The 14th amendment protects EXISTING LAWS. Let's say it again...The 14th amendment protects EXISTING LAWS.
Now let's comprend the obvious. The 14th amendment doesn't protect non-existing laws.
Let's state it again...The 14th amendment doesn't protect non-existing laws.
Let's state it again...The 14th amendment doesn't protect non-existing laws.
Let's state it again...The 14th amendment doesn't protect non-existing laws.
Do you still have questions?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#217 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
The right to marry exists in every state in the union, does it not?
Can you indicate even so much as a rational basis to deny equal protection for same sex couples to marry? Of course, you cannot, which is why you moronically argue that the 14th Amendment is inapplicable.
Yes, prior to 2004, marriage between a man and a woman existed in every state of the union.
Todate, 41 still back marriage as that between a man and a woman and 9 have included same sex marriages with opposite sex marriage.

Next, you're having a circular argument with yourself, not me. I haven't said there's a rational basis to deny same sex marriage. You keep insinuating I have stated that and I haven't. I said there was legal basis to deny same sex marriage, not a rational basis. Some may define the law as a rational basis for the existence of laws because legislators usually, usually make laws according to what the people also want. Popular opinion is sometimes called a rational basis. Understand? Like at one time it was a rational basis to be against same sex marriage. Now in a recent time period it's rational to be for same sex marriage.
So even the word 'rational' has it's ups and downs from one generation to the next in how it's used.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#218 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
Grow a brain. The US Supreme Court has found marriage to be a fundamental right. Not once, but 14 times.
Separately it has held that,“One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Do you notice how my opinion is substantiated by fact, and yours is substantiated by, well... nothing.
Grow a brain? lol....I was responding to your brainless statement by your brainless logic. So if you found my response brainless it was a reflection of your thinking, not mine lol.

Your opinion is substantiated by fact as you ignore other facts that work against the purpose of your twisted logic...
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.
Speaking of brainless...lol

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#219 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
You just don't understand this fact about the 14th amendment. Why don't you go ask a lawyer. Give me their name or website so I'll know you actually spoke to a bonafide lawyer.
The 14th amendment cannot, nor will it ever protect an individual and or a group from discrimination and or prejudice and or bigotry if no law exists to protect them.
Do you understand that? Can you comprehend it? It's a pretty simple concept. Where a law doesn't yet exist, it cannot give any kind/type protection. Get it?
No lawyer necessary, watch this.

Does the Constitution guarantee women and black people the right to vote? Does it guarantee interracial couples the right to marry? Does it guarantee that schools will be integrated?

The laws do exist. The question is whether there is a rational basis to exclude homosexuals from their protection. So far, you haven't indicated any such interest. You have proven that you are ignorant of the law.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#220 Apr 20, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
This person isn't making a case for polygamy, they're just using it as an example to pose the question, "where does it end?" Try and keep up...
That argument falls flat. Polygamy is a separate issue, it has already been specifically addressed by the court, and it seeks inherently greater protection of the law.

Since it HAS already been addressed by the court, allowing same sex marriage will not change the existing law regarding polygamy.

Try though they might to argue a slippery slope to polygamy, it appears to be a very high traction flat surface.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#221 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of moronic, prove that same sex marriage in 1940 was protected by the 14th amendment. Prove in 1870 the 14th amendment protected blacks and all colours and women the right to vote in America. Please prove it.
You with your moronic thinking claim the 14th amendment has had all these protections since it's inception, fricking prove it or be your own moron.
Understand this fact. It's a legal fact you're not digesting for some obscure reason. The 14th amendment protects EXISTING LAWS.
Let's say it again...The 14th amendment protects EXISTING LAWS. Let's say it again...The 14th amendment protects EXISTING LAWS.
Now let's comprend the obvious. The 14th amendment doesn't protect non-existing laws.
Let's state it again...The 14th amendment doesn't protect non-existing laws.
Let's state it again...The 14th amendment doesn't protect non-existing laws.
Let's state it again...The 14th amendment doesn't protect non-existing laws.
Do you still have questions?
The laws to legally marry exists in every state in the union.

You have yet to offer any legitimate state interest served by excluding same sex couples from equal protection.

You can argue that the protection doesn't exist, but that isn't true. You can argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply, but it does. What you cannot do is offer a valid defense of your position, which you prove with every post.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#222 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, prior to 2004, marriage between a man and a woman existed in every state of the union.
Todate, 41 still back marriage as that between a man and a woman and 9 have included same sex marriages with opposite sex marriage.
Next, you're having a circular argument with yourself, not me. I haven't said there's a rational basis to deny same sex marriage. You keep insinuating I have stated that and I haven't. I said there was legal basis to deny same sex marriage, not a rational basis. Some may define the law as a rational basis for the existence of laws because legislators usually, usually make laws according to what the people also want. Popular opinion is sometimes called a rational basis. Understand? Like at one time it was a rational basis to be against same sex marriage. Now in a recent time period it's rational to be for same sex marriage.
So even the word 'rational' has it's ups and downs from one generation to the next in how it's used.
Once again, the problem with your theory is that laws limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman unconstitutionally abridge the right of same sex couples to marry. Unless doing so serves a legitimate state interest, that exclusion is unconstitutional.

Feel free to indicate any such interest. If you are able. I won't hold my breath.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#223 Apr 20, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Under what specific circumstances is a majority allowed to create laws designed to harm and marginalize a specific minority?
Can this just be done on a whim? Because of religious beliefs? Or must there be some valid state interest being served by the denial of those basic civil rights?
Slavery was established in America under this principle/premise you described..."..a majority allowed to create laws designed to harm and marginalize a specific minority.." Discrimination by whites against other coloured people was established by the same principle/premise.
I don't believe either was done on "a whim" of want or thought.
Whites used whites for slaves when they first came to America. Whites first discriminated against whites in America. But the owning of slaves and discriminating against others was as much a part of our early American society as it was to say hello to someone.
So because of protests and new laws made for whites, whites turned to other colours for slaves and began to place their discrimination mostly on other colours.
I don't believe anyone now would see those things done as they were as 'valid'. But the people in those past time periods saw doing those things as a very valid part of society and they had laws to justify their actions they found highly rational.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#225 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery was established in America under this principle/premise you described..."..a majority allowed to create laws designed to harm and marginalize a specific minority.." Discrimination by whites against other coloured people was established by the same principle/premise.
I don't believe either was done on "a whim" of want or thought.
Whites used whites for slaves when they first came to America. Whites first discriminated against whites in America. But the owning of slaves and discriminating against others was as much a part of our early American society as it was to say hello to someone.
So because of protests and new laws made for whites, whites turned to other colours for slaves and began to place their discrimination mostly on other colours.
I don't believe anyone now would see those things done as they were as 'valid'. But the people in those past time periods saw doing those things as a very valid part of society and they had laws to justify their actions they found highly rational.
Of course, since then we fought a war and wrote a series of Amendments, which have been invoked time and time again, to ensure equality under the law.

Nothing that you have said would rise to the level of a legitimate state interest to exclude same sex couples from the legal protections of marriage, despite your rationalizations to the contrary.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#226 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Please show me a single state where animals are granted “non-consensual will”. Do you realize how utterly foolish (irrational, and potentially mentally unstable) this makes you sound?
The conversation was between another poster and myself, not you. Understand the difference?
The topic of marriage was being spoken about and 'non-consensual' marriage was brought up between us, not you. Understand the difference?
The other poster stated non-consensual type marriages were wrong based on the premise of a animal or thing not being able to give consent in a contract of marriage. Understand?
My point to the poster was that non-consensual legal contracts for animals and things already existed. So where was the rationale to claim non-consensual marriage contracts wrong when legal non-consensual contracts for animals/things already existed?
My in between the line point was that this paralleled the thinking that opposite sex marriages are fine but same sex marriage and polygamous marriages aren't okay.
Well to round out the argument, people marry each other without the obvious intent to do mental/physical harm to each other while being in that marriage. So why forbid marriage between a human and an animal or thing using the same basis of thought, that the human isn't engaging a marriage to an animal or thing to do it mental/physical harm?
Know what the difference is? It's what it always has been concerning marriage: discrimination and prejudice.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#227 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you are not making an argument against gay marriage, so much as one in favor of polygamy. Do you have an argument against gay marriage?
As to your other point, the court ruled as they did because they can count to three (or more) and can rationally see that it is greater than two. It isn't a religious issue, but rather one of equality under the law. Polygamy seeks greater, not equal protection.
When one employs an argument of polygamy to argue against gay marriage, you can tell they have no valid on topic argument.
I never was making an argument against same sex marriage. This show's how narrow your understanding is of what's being said and what wasn't said.
"Polygamy seeks greater, not equal protection." Scotus never even considered it. Go read the summary of the case why don't you and educate yourself beyond your own opinion.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#228 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They have everything to do with equality under the law, which is constitutionally mandated, and that you seem to lack a rational argument against regarding same sex marriage.
It comes as "no surprise" that you still don't have an on topic argument.
Equality of the law isn't what was being discussed. Marriage was being discussed.
So Wrong. "voting rights" (excluding women), or "segregation" has absolutely not a thing to do with marriage and what marriage has been defined as for thousands of years.
And you're never on topic so don't use your moronic idealisms to pretend to be on topic while telling me I'm not when you aren't yourself. The topic is Gays Denied Marriage: The Economic Cost, not gay and equality or whatever else you speak about.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Which presidential hopefuls would attend a gay ... 23 min Lawrence Wolf 68
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 41 min Frankie Rizzo 2,605
News Gay 'marriage': A recipe for anarchy 1 hr Otter in the Ozarks 29
News Claim: Michael Jackson Paid at Least $200M to S... 1 hr Octopus 341
News With eye toward 2016, Kasich considers message 2 hr nhjeff 2
News The Supreme Court's big gay-marriage case could... 2 hr nhjeff 6
News Russia-Iran relationship is a marriage of oppor... 4 hr Jeff Brightone 1
More from around the web