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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#269 Apr 21, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>YOU said gay marriage....I said....SSM.
Same thing. If a guy believes he's a woman trapped in a man's body and marries a woman, is he a lesbian? Would that be SSM?

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#270 Apr 21, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Same thing. If a guy believes he's a woman trapped in a man's body and marries a woman, is he a lesbian? Would that be SSM?
Ha! Sometimes I feel like I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Ya know, if everybody would've just watched more John Wayne movies growing up and learned the right way how men and women were supposed to act, we wouldn't even be having this conversation

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#271 Apr 22, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>We're not talking about homosexuality. We're talking about homosexual "marriage" and the subject of who can marry who. Unfortunately for you, polygamy is very relevant to this discussion.
Polygamy isn't related to this subject at all. It is a red herring.
Polygamy is having more than one wife or husband. We are talking about monogamous relationships.

2 does not equal to 3 or more.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#272 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>If you had taken a moment to go back and find my post and the post I responded to, you would have your answer, just saying.
The conversation went as follows....
No Surprise wrote:
If the ongoing definition of marriage is so inept and irrelevant, then why has same sex marriage had so many hurdles to cross with so many more to cross in the future? Seems something so inept and irrelevant would actually not be a problem to deal with according to your logic :)
Lides wrote:
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.
I wrote back:
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 :)
The original conversation was the definition of marriage and how it's viewed in our time. Lids got a little off topic. Understand?
Now that I have shown you ASSUMED you understood what in fact you didn't and you wrote very foolishly as a reply, give it a second try :)
Actually no, you didn't address the problem at all. This is that you said that because it's traditional, it should stay in effect.
Slavery was traditional, therefore according to you, it should have stated in effect.

Besides that, marriage has been a whole lot of things and still is things such as marrying 12 year olds, marrying a bunch of people, marrying siblings, and so on.
To claim traditionalism is to claim the above is correct, along with all other past negatives.

The fact that you don't see your logical fallacy simply proves you are unable to make claims to anything else.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#273 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>More Lacez Logic? Explain how it doesn't.
Look here everyone!
Wondering believes that marriage has EVERYTHING to do with 3 or more people marrying!

Off his rocker again it seems, or he never got back on.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#274 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>You are the one person that comes the closest to being as stupid as Justice Dumbass.
See? No refuting, only useless attempts at insults because there's no truth in your statements.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#275 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Look here everyone!
Wondering believes that marriage has EVERYTHING to do with 3 or more people marrying!
Off his rocker again it seems, or he never got back on.
Why do Canadians always get it backward? I can tell you that two men or two women have nothing to do with marriage and family.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#276 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
See? No refuting....
....what Wondering said. Lacez and Justice Dumbass are in the same league.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#277 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
See? No refuting, only useless attempts at insults because there's no truth in your statements.
Stupidity isn't worth refuting, it is what it is and you have no shortage of it. Did you finish high school or are you still attending?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#278 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually no, you didn't address the problem at all. This is that you said that because it's traditional, it should stay in effect.
Slavery was traditional, therefore according to you, it should have stated in effect.
Besides that, marriage has been a whole lot of things and still is things such as marrying 12 year olds, marrying a bunch of people, marrying siblings, and so on.
To claim traditionalism is to claim the above is correct, along with all other past negatives.
The fact that you don't see your logical fallacy simply proves you are unable to make claims to anything else.
Are you drunk?
"This is that you said that"
"it should have stated in effect."

"Besides that, marriage has been a whole lot of things and still is things such as marrying 12 year olds, marrying a bunch of people, marrying siblings, and so on."
What part of that is traditional?

"To claim traditionalism is to claim the above is correct, along with all other past negatives."
Again, what part of that is traditional? Do you know what the word means? Try common, customary and mainstream.

"you are unable to make claims to anything else."
Huh?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#279 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
Off his rocker again it seems, or he never got back on.
Are you kidding, Wondering has stripped naked, taken a dump on the rocker and lit the entire assemblage on fire.

They offer nothing of merit, whatsoever, relative to the conversation.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#280 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do Canadians always get it backward? I can tell you that two men or two women have nothing to do with marriage and family.
You said that polygamy has everything to do with marriage, therefore you stated that having more than one wife or husband has everything to do with marriage.

Are you crawfishing yet again?
Nevermind answering that, it was a rhetorical question.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#281 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
....what Wondering said. Lacez and Justice Dumbass are in the same league.
More mindless gutter-gurgle from the infamously stupid Wondering.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#282 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupidity isn't worth refuting, it is what it is and you have no shortage of it. Did you finish high school or are you still attending?
More gutter-gurgle.

No arguments from the likes of you because you can't come up with any factual evidence to prove your "points."

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#283 Apr 22, 2013
He doesn't go by the name 'Wondering' for nothing! ROTFL

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#284 Apr 22, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
He doesn't go by the name 'Wondering' for nothing! ROTFL
By that logic, why don't they go by Clueless, which would be more to the point?

The reality remains that they are ignorant of the law, and apparently incapable of articulating a factually supported argument against equality. They aren't alone on this point, no one has been able to articulate a rational basis to deny equal protection of the laws for all. The recent cases before the US Supreme Court were almost painful to listen to due to the mental gymnastics of those defending "traditional marriage", and the subsequent gymnastics of those justices that appear ready to rationalize an irrational argument.

Ultimately, equality will come, not only because it is required by law, but because it is the right thing to do. We can't deny marriage equality because Wondering thinks it's icky, and it make them feel blue.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#285 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you drunk?
"This is that you said that"
"it should have stated in effect."
"Besides that, marriage has been a whole lot of things and still is things such as marrying 12 year olds, marrying a bunch of people, marrying siblings, and so on."
What part of that is traditional?
"To claim traditionalism is to claim the above is correct, along with all other past negatives."
Again, what part of that is traditional? Do you know what the word means? Try common, customary and mainstream.
"you are unable to make claims to anything else."
Huh?
And it WAS common, customary AND mainstream.
You just can't accept that fact can you?

Besides, if you want to put it that way, you will NEVER get rid of traditional marriage because all that happens is the tradition changes and evolves.

Try again, Wonderbread.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#286 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you kidding, Wondering has stripped naked, taken a dump on the rocker and lit the entire assemblage on fire.
They offer nothing of merit, whatsoever, relative to the conversation.
And that's why I reply.
It's hilarious to see them struggle and to hear the new bullshit they come up with (whenever they aren't repeating themselves).
Crazed bigots will always be crazed bigots, I know that.
But that's why I laugh at them.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#287 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
And that's why I reply.
It's hilarious to see them struggle and to hear the new bullshit they come up with (whenever they aren't repeating themselves).
Crazed bigots will always be crazed bigots, I know that.
But that's why I laugh at them.
Wondering is a little like a dog that has been fed peanut butter. The ironic part is that they don't seem to understand that their mental gymnastics are hysterical, only because they make a fool of themselves performing them.

I've never know anyone who so will go out of their way to reveal their ignorance and lack of intelligence.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#288 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
And it WAS common, customary AND mainstream.
You just can't accept that fact can you?
Besides, if you want to put it that way, you will NEVER get rid of traditional marriage because all that happens is the tradition changes and evolves.
Try again, Wonderbread.
If you are an adult I have to apologize to Justice Dumbass.
Even he isn't as stupid as you are. You parents must be ashamed.
Don't think they aren't just because they still support you.

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.

Social Security Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Republicans already giving Trump's budget a col... 1 min Just Saying 8
News Milbank: Trumpa s cruel budget is merely propag... 1 hr tomin cali 1
News Trump Budget Aims To Eliminate Tax Credits For ... 2 hr tomin cali 1
News Elijah Cummings Said Democrats Gave Black Peopl... (Aug '16) 7 hr Royal Norwegian A... 14
Termination of benefits 17 hr TipsyFromCentralC... 2
News Trump budget promises balance in decade, relies... Mon UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 4
News Presidenta s 2018 budget to include paid family... Mon Dee Dee Dee 23
More from around the web