Gays Denied Marriage: The Economic Cost

Gays Denied Marriage: The Economic Cost

There are 394 comments on the WISW-AM Columbia story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gays Denied Marriage: The Economic Cost. In it, WISW-AM Columbia reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WISW-AM Columbia.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#229 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
The conversation was between another poster and myself, not you.
And?
No Surprise wrote:
Understand the difference?
Of course I do, you were still advancing, or at least entertaining an utterly absurd argument.
No Surprise wrote:
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.
Here’s the problem, unless your discrimination and prejudice have a rational basis and serve a legitimate state interest, they are not valid to negate the right of another citizen to equal protection of the laws.
No Surprise wrote:
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.
How foolish of me to forget, you merely like seeing your words in print and advance disingenuous and irrelevant arguments in order to see them.
No Surprise wrote:
"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.
I am aware of the Supreme Court cases addressing polygamy, and I am also aware that issue has been settled as a matter of law for over 100 years. Allowing same sex couples the right to marry in no way has any impact upon the laws addressing polygamy. They are separate issues.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#230 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The ignorant think, the ignorant will write you do.

No lawyer necessary, watch this.
Did the Constitution guarantee women and black people the right to vote before laws existed for them to vote? No.
Did it guarantee interracial couples the right to marry before laws were established for interracial marriages? No.
Did it guarantee that schools will be integrated before laws for integration existed? No.
Did it guarantee coloured people wouldn't be discriminated against because they were a different colour before laws for discrimination were established? No.
...
Were laws brought to be that were and are suppose to prohibit the above from happening? Yes.
...
This statement of your's, "The question is whether there is a rational basis to exclude homosexuals from their protection." is not the topic. It's your topic. Know the difference and the truth will set you free :)

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#231 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Equality of the law isn't what was being discussed. Marriage was being discussed.
Legal marriage is a protection of the law.
No Surprise wrote:
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.
At question is if legal marriage, which is a protection of the law, can be withheld from some members of society. According to the 14th Amendment it cannot. Later jurisprudence has held that constitutional rights CAN be infringed, IF doing so serves a legitimate state interest.
No Surprise wrote:
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.
Ahem. "Gays Denied Marriage: The Economic Cost" the question of equality is raised by the very title. In fact the entire point of the article is to see the financial costs of denying equality.

It isn't my fault that you would rather be right than president, but don't have a valid argument to support your opinion.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#232 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The ignorant think, the ignorant will write you do.
No lawyer necessary, watch this.
Did the Constitution guarantee women and black people the right to vote before laws existed for them to vote? No.
Did it guarantee interracial couples the right to marry before laws were established for interracial marriages? No.
Did it guarantee that schools will be integrated before laws for integration existed? No.
Did it guarantee coloured people wouldn't be discriminated against because they were a different colour before laws for discrimination were established? No.
...
Were laws brought to be that were and are suppose to prohibit the above from happening? Yes.
...
This statement of your's, "The question is whether there is a rational basis to exclude homosexuals from their protection." is not the topic. It's your topic. Know the difference and the truth will set you free :)
The topic is the inequality and cost of denying equal protection of the law, which is constitutionally guaranteed.

Why wouldn't I discuss the legal merits of denying such equal protection?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#233 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Polygamy isn't a separate issue except by legal definition wherein a court of law one case is heard at a time.
Polygamy is a form of marriage. Same sex is a form of marriage. Opposite sex is a form of marriage. All three for thousands of years have been recognized as forms of marriages between humans.
So in addressing the rights and equality of same sex marriage, one inevitably is addressing marriage and it's three most popular forms and how they should or shouldn't be defined in our day and time.
Polygamy will be readdressed. It will be readdressed on the present court findings for same sex marriage.
As you said...They have everything to do with equality under the law, which is constitutionally mandated, and that you seem to lack a rational argument against polygamy except that very obvious biased findings rendered law against it.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#234 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Polygamy isn't a separate issue except by legal definition wherein a court of law one case is heard at a time.
Polygamy is a form of marriage. Same sex is a form of marriage. Opposite sex is a form of marriage. All three for thousands of years have been recognized as forms of marriages between humans.
So in addressing the rights and equality of same sex marriage, one inevitably is addressing marriage and it's three most popular forms and how they should or shouldn't be defined in our day and time.
Polygamy will be readdressed. It will be readdressed on the present court findings for same sex marriage.
As you said...They have everything to do with equality under the law, which is constitutionally mandated, and that you seem to lack a rational argument against polygamy except that very obvious biased findings rendered law against it.
Funny, isn't it, how when I make a comment that you misconstrue to be irrelevant, you claim I am off topic; but when you make an assertion that misses the mark by miles it's OK.

Polygamy is not seeking equal protection. It is seeking inherently greater protection for three or more persons. There is no such similar legal protection in any state in the union, whereas marriage between two people already exists in every state in the union.

The primary argument against polygamy is it does not seek equality.

Stilled down to it's simplest form 3(or more) is inherently greater than two.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#235 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You keep claiming something of me I never reasoned should or shouldn't exist. That's called circular reasoning.
DEFINITION. Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion. I have given no answer for you to have a conclusion because I am not contesting the premise of your question. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#236 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws to legally marry exists in every state in the union.
Politically and legally wrong. Marriage has been redefined as to who can marry and who can't in the 50n states.
The laws to marry for opposite sex marriage exist in 41 states.
The laws for same sex marriage don't exist in 41 states.
The laws to marry same sex exist in 9 states.
The laws to marry for opposite sex and same sex exist in 9 states.

Stating the laws to legally marry exists in every state in the union is like saying the laws to legally have opposite sex marriages exists in every state of the union. A true statement but one which purposefully leaves out other important facts concerning marriage and to whom also it applies.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#237 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
You keep claiming something of me I never reasoned should or shouldn't exist. That's called circular reasoning.
DEFINITION. Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion. I have given no answer for you to have a conclusion because I am not contesting the premise of your question. Understand?
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

Why else would you continually make other irrelevant arguments (which is ironic since you are quick to claim others are off topic, even if they are not) against other forms of marriage (all of which have already been legally addressed and would not be impacted by marriage equality for same sex couples to marry.

The reality remains that from the earliest posts you made here, you lack a fundamental understanding of the law, and in particular the 14th Amendment. You actually claimed in post #88 that:
"If there's a law for same sex marriage, those couples can be protected.
Where there are no laws, the 14th amendment protects nothing."
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJ...

The law in question is marriage, which exists in all 50 states. According to the courts, before same sex couples, or anyone else, could be excluded from that protection doing so would have to serve a legitimate state interest in order to satisfy strict scrutiny. Of course, you offered no reason in particular that such a restriction could withstand a rational basis test.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#238 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Politically and legally wrong. Marriage has been redefined as to who can marry and who can't in the 50n states.
The laws to marry for opposite sex marriage exist in 41 states.
The laws for same sex marriage don't exist in 41 states.
The laws to marry same sex exist in 9 states.
The laws to marry for opposite sex and same sex exist in 9 states.
No, legally, if a law doesn't have a rational basis, it can be struck down in a court of law.

Legally if infringing upon a constitutional right, like equal protection of the law, does not serve a compelling state interest, it can be struck down in a court of law.

You present no compelling state interest to limit the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman. In fact, you don't even present a rational basis. You are ignorant of both the law, it's application, and even what is simply constitutional.

Personally, I find uninformed people like yourself hysterical, because they make absurd points argued form ignorance, and I find it amusing that they would publicly illustrate their ignorance.

It is quite likely the Supreme Court will give you a lesson on the 14th Amendment in the near future.
No Surprise wrote:
Stating the laws to legally marry exists in every state in the union is like saying the laws to legally have opposite sex marriages exists in every state of the union. A true statement but one which purposefully leaves out other important facts concerning marriage and to whom also it applies.
No, saying that marriage exists in every state clearly illustrates a legal right everywhere in the nation.

You've yet to indicate any a rational basis to limit it to being between a man and a woman, just as you have failed to show a compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples.

Unless, you are capable of backing that opinion with some solid reasoning, then you are just putting your ignorance upon display.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#239 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
I am aware of the Supreme Court cases addressing polygamy, and I am also aware that issue has been settled as a matter of law for over 100 years. Allowing same sex couples the right to marry in no way has any impact upon the laws addressing polygamy. They are separate issues.
You're not getting this, maybe because of your 'know it all youth' or maybe for some other obscure reason.
Marriage was challenged by a polygamist. SCOTUS found the following ruling to use to forbid it.(A well put statement from the web)

"On its face, the Constitution appears to forbid the US government from interfering in any aspect of religious practice. In Reynolds, however, the Waite Court held that Congress had no power to exercise control over opinions, but could limit actions that violated community social norms or subverted social order."
Anti-same sex marriage advocates are using this very same premise to outlaw same sex marriage...they claim same sex marriage violates community social norms and subverts social order. Unfortunately unlike their predecessors case that didn't have to do the same thing by actual facts, they now have to use ACTUAL evidence to prove same sex marriage violates community social norms and subverts social order.
Same sex marriage advocates are redefining marriage. In redefining marriage they have opened a door for other forms of marriage (like polygamy)to enter on it's heals to have the courts prove they aren't worthy of also being included within the new definitions of marriage. Understand?
Same sex marriage advocates are paving the way into modern history for marriage to be totally and absolutely redefined in all it's many possible facets that society has said no to.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#240 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
Ahem. "Gays Denied Marriage: The Economic Cost" the question of equality is raised by the very title.
No. To you the matter of equality is being discussed.
The topic is what's the economic cost to the US for denying same sex marriage to those that wish to partake of it.
The topic isn't as you want to make of it, "Gays denied marriage: The Economic/Equality Cost".

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#241 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, isn't it, how when I make a comment that you misconstrue to be irrelevant, you claim I am off topic; but when you make an assertion that misses the mark by miles it's OK.
Polygamy is not seeking equal protection. It is seeking inherently greater protection for three or more persons. There is no such similar legal protection in any state in the union, whereas marriage between two people already exists in every state in the union.
The primary argument against polygamy is it does not seek equality.
Stilled down to it's simplest form 3(or more) is inherently greater than two.
Talking about missing the mark by miles lol. You make some really asinine statements. You disputed the legality of assigning pets to a non-consensual contract that's been happening for a long while unknown to you.
You now make another asinine statement that polygamy wasn't seeking equal protection in the law for marriage as it should have been given.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#242 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
Why else would you continually make other irrelevant arguments (which is ironic since you are quick to claim others are off topic, even if they are not) against other forms of marriage (all of which have already been legally addressed and would not be impacted by marriage equality for same sex couples to marry.
The reality remains that from the earliest posts you made here, you lack a fundamental understanding of the law, and in particular the 14th Amendment. You actually claimed in post #88 that:
"If there's a law for same sex marriage, those couples can be protected.
Where there are no laws, the 14th amendment protects nothing."
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJ...
The law in question is marriage, which exists in all 50 states. According to the courts, before same sex couples, or anyone else, could be excluded from that protection doing so would have to serve a legitimate state interest in order to satisfy strict scrutiny. Of course, you offered no reason in particular that such a restriction could withstand a rational basis test.
Some more of that circular reasoning happening dude...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#243 Apr 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, legally, if a law doesn't have a rational basis, it can be struck down in a court of law.
Personally, I find uninformed people like myself hysterical, because we make absurd points argued form ignorance, and I find it amusing that we would publicly illustrate our ignorance.
It is quite likely the Supreme Court will give you a lesson on the 14th Amendment in the near future.
<quoted text>
No, saying that marriage exists in every state clearly illustrates a legal right everywhere in the nation.
You've yet to indicate any a rational basis to limit it to being between a man and a woman, just as you have failed to show a compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples.
Unless, you are capable of backing that opinion with some solid reasoning, then you are just putting your ignorance upon display.
You stated..."The laws to legally marry exists in every state in the union." You didn't state what those laws were and how they're defined. You didn't do that because you have an agenda to show if legal marriage exists in all 50 states than it has to also should logically/rationally exist for same sex marriage.
But it doesn't work your way. It's never worked your way. Forty-one states have specified marriage to be between a man and a woman, not a same sex couple. So you're only partially and deceptively correct in that marriage exists in all 50 states.
By the way, I don't need to indicate any a rational basis to limit marriage to being between a man and a woman. You are contending in a circular argument with yourself that I should have that position and I don't.
Neither have I failed to show a compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples because I have had no interest to do any such thing though in your circular argument you have demanded that I do it.
You're just putting your ignorance on display by demanding things of me I never stated or said.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#244 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I repeat, most States do not allow bequests to non-humans. Creation of a Trust for their care is another matter.

(Didn't you note, or know, the term "bequest"?)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#245 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
GO find a news story about polygamy/polyandry and creat a thread/forum about it.

Keep it out of our Forum. It isn't pertinent.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#246 Apr 20, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
GO find a news story about polygamy/polyandry and creat a thread/forum about it.
Keep it out of our Forum. It isn't pertinent.
Translation: I don't want to have a discussion about marrying more than one person because it blows my gay "marriage" argument out of the water, so I'll just claim that it isn't "pertinent" to this topic.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#247 Apr 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>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 :)
And marriage didn't include interracial marriage until just recently.
What's your point? That something is right just because it's been in effect long?
You know what else was around for a LONG time before not that long ago in the scheme of things?
Slavery.

So by your logic, slavery is good.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#248 Apr 20, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>Translation: I don't want to have a discussion about marrying more than one person because it blows my gay "marriage" argument out of the water, so I'll just claim that it isn't "pertinent" to this topic.
You're the ones using the red herring.
Polygamy has nothing to do with homosexuality.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 9 min cpeter1313 6,097
News Husband of Luxembourg's gay Prime Minister join... 1 hr Jesse 2
News Church of Scotland moves closer to letting mini... 11 hr Pope Closet Emeritus 2
News 1 step forward, 2 steps back for LBGT rights in... 13 hr Pope Closet Emeritus 4
News From the Mouth of Muhammad: 'Allah Will Wed Me ... 17 hr Muslims lie all t... 2
News Taiwan court legalizes gay marriage in historic... May 24 The Wheeze of Trump 5
News New mayor supports young people May 24 not all eh 1
More from around the web