Gays Denied Marriage: The Economic Cost

Mar 28, 2013 Full story: 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.

Full Story

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#349 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Umm no. I haven't advanced an argument from any specific position as you continue to claim in error.
I have questioned your reasoning and your arguments.
I have not argued/debated the right or wrong, rational/irrational of same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage.
And you continue not to understand that difference. Your bad, not mine :)
You've argued yet again that tradition should be respected. You ARE advancing an argument, and it is against equal protection, which is constitutionally guaranteed. If you don't be careful, you might expose that you are as unintelligent as Wondering.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#350 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
Let me see if I can help. This country didn’t even exist in 200AD or 300AD. When we formed our country, we wrote a constitution, and we have since amended it to address various issue, such as equal protection.
You have finally proved the idiocy/fallacy of your rant. Thank you. Thank you very much.
You have just proven in the above that it is your position that same sex marriage should find equal footing in the laws of this land whether laws for same sex marriage exist or not.
You have just proven that to you public opinion that has halted and stalled the passing of same sex marriage laws doesn't matter to you. Laws should be passed anyway.
You have just proven that a long held definition of marriage is no matter to you. That the definition of marriage should be no consequence for the legalization of same sex marriage.
Well it nice that you have all these fantasy opinions of what should be for same sex marriage if everything was different according to your thinking.
Equal protection for same sex marriage doesn't exist in 41 states because of things you wish to pretend aren't irrelevant. And in the other 9 states only varying degrees of protection exists because same sex marriage doesn't still have the same full benefits opposite sex marriage has in those states as granted by the law. Changes still have to be made and amended to bring about those benefits.
So do all the complaining you wish to do about 'equality of the law' while ignoring why that equality doesn't obviously exist. Good luck :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#351 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
Unless you can grow up an indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry, then such a restriction is unconstitutional, regardless of history and/or tradition.
Here's another example of the fallacy of your position. You keep stating this is the problem and it's not. There is no legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law.
No state interest exists to deny same sex couples a right to marriage as served to opposite sex couples.
So the fact that you have continued to demand that an interest to be revealed that doesn't exist, proves the fallacy of your argument.
It a public perception/opinion of what marriage is that has kept states from having a legitimate interest to serve same sex couples equal protection of the law.
It is now the public perception of a much younger generation that is now compelling states to have an interest to serve equal protection to same sex couples.
Get it?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#352 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've argued yet again that tradition should be respected. You ARE advancing an argument, and it is against equal protection, which is constitutionally guaranteed. If you don't be careful, you might expose that you are as unintelligent as Wondering.
I have not said tradition should be respected. You stated that not I. Therefore this post of your's was founded on a twist of what I said and is untrue all the way through all three lines.
Give it another try and say what I said, not what I didn't say.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#353 Apr 23, 2013
lides wrote:
Unless you can grow up an indicate
How do you grow up an indicate?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#354 Apr 23, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've argued yet again that tradition should be respected. You ARE advancing an argument, and it is against equal protection, which is constitutionally guaranteed. If you don't be careful, you might expose that you are as unintelligent as Wondering.
Where do we not have equal protection?
Any man can marry any qualified and consenting woman.
The rule is the same for everyone in the country.
Same = equal.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#355 Apr 23, 2013
MapDark wrote:
Thus using TRADITION as the reason for denying a group of people , LEGAL ADULTS WHO CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS THANK-YOU-VERY-MUCH , from having the same protections and rights as the rest of society is RETARDED.
Then you must support incestual relationships and polygamy. After all, these are LEGAL ADULTS WHO CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS THANK-YOU-VERY-MUCH.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#356 Apr 23, 2013
lides wrote:
What I understand is that you don't understand basic concepts, and that you often fail at basic reading comprehension.
JD, you are the poster boy for both of those.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#357 Apr 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you be a good little girl and go watch cartoons on TV.
You're dumber than my socks.
More useless 10 year old insults.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#358 Apr 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>Good luck to you as well, what ever will be will be. That said, no court decision will ever make me think that homosexuality or gay marriage is normal.
Good, because no one cares what you personally think.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#359 Apr 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>Tradition not supported by law can usually be challenged and changed without a lot of issues.
Tradition built on long standing laws will never be easily challenged and will face many issues when challenged.
White America enslaved all colours and ethnic backgrounds, especially if you were Caucasian and a citizen. It even enslaved it's own people for a period of time until enslaving other colours and ethnicities became law, custom, tradition.
So you're just admitting that I was right.
You're all flip-floppity like Romney.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#360 Apr 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>Your definition of equality makes brothers marrying brothers, sisters marrying sisters, men marrying two women unequal as well. For that matter, it makes brothers marrying sisters unfair. Your definition of equality excludes no one. You first claim all US citizens should be treated the same, in the next breathe you claim they shouldn't be. You claim it's a matter of law. Same sex marriage is in the courts, is that not a matter of law. You claim that all citizens in any given state should be treated equally, I claim they are. You've never convinced me otherwise. If a law or a rule applies to all citizens in a jurisdiction then it's treating everyone the same. You want exceptions, not equality. You are a moron.
Red herrings all over the place!
Wonderbread's day job is obviously working at a seafood restaurant.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#361 Apr 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>I have not said tradition should be respected. You stated that not I. Therefore this post of your's was founded on a twist of what I said and is untrue all the way through all three lines.
Give it another try and say what I said, not what I didn't say.
You did.
You made comments about how marriage shouldn't "change" because it's tradition to have it as only a man and woman getting married.

I think I'm going to start calling you Mitt.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#362 Apr 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>Then you must support incestual relationships and polygamy. After all, these are LEGAL ADULTS WHO CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS THANK-YOU-VERY-MUCH.
MapDark, take the above into consideration when I suggest that you specify every little detail.
Wonderbread and others here can't understand where generalities come in.

You have to specify that non-related, adult relations with consent are what you are pushing for in equality.
Otherwise this guy thinks you believe in letting people marry a dog if they want, like he did.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#363 Apr 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Here's another example of the fallacy of your position. You keep stating this is the problem and it's not. There is no legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law.
No state interest exists to deny same sex couples a right to marriage as served to opposite sex couples.
So the fact that you have continued to demand that an interest to be revealed that doesn't exist, proves the fallacy of your argument.
Stick a fork in you, you’re done. You have just proven my point, because absent such an interest, laws denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry are unconstitutional.

I don't think I have anything more to say to you.

Yours is an argument told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#364 Apr 23, 2013
lides wrote:
I don't think I have anything more to say to you.
Another lie.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#365 Apr 23, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
MapDark, take the above into consideration when I suggest that you specify every little detail.
Wonderbread and others here can't understand where generalities come in.
You have to specify that non-related, adult relations with consent are what you are pushing for in equality.
Otherwise this guy thinks you believe in letting people marry a dog if they want, like he did.
Why not? After all, they are LEGAL ADULTS WHO CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS THANK-YOU-VERY-MUCH.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#366 Apr 23, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
More useless 10 year old insults.
Useless, yes. Accurate, very.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#367 Apr 23, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I think
No you don't.
MapDark

Montréal, Canada

#368 Apr 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you must support incestual relationships and polygamy. After all, these are LEGAL ADULTS WHO CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS THANK-YOU-VERY-MUCH.
God .. you're retarded.
What does incest have to do with gay marriage , seriously?

Incest , in general , is very rarely consensual , so NO I don<t approve of incestual marriage. as for polygamous relationships , I don<t care about it , but I don't see how allowing COUPLES to marry , we're somehow permitting harems to be formed in the country right after that. o_0

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
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 11 min chris toal 26,585
Alaska's 1st known gay marriage in Arctic town 23 min Sneaky Pete 13
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 47 min Matt9969 155
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 2 hr Broken Record 31,499
Zen Buddhist Temple in Japan Offers Symbolic Sa... 2 hr SHlTWORMDAEGUDEBD... 29
Will the Supreme Court End Gay Marriage as an E... 3 hr truth to power 433
Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from th... 4 hr Phyllis Schlafly ... 61