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
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#289 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
And it WAS common, customary AND mainstream.
Maybe for your relatives in Montreal, not in this country.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#290 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! JD, you crack me up! I remember when I was 6 or 7. I had a cousin the same age. When she was mad at me she wouldn't talk to me. She would say what ever she wanted me to hear to someone else. You remind me of her. I think she was more mature though. Go play with your crayons.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#291 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I am not a part of parents, therefore "you parents" does not fit and is irrelevant.

Being called stupid by you is like being called stupid by...well, you. There's just no one dumber than you, Wonderbread.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#292 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe for your relatives in Montreal, not in this country.
Again with no relevant comments or even a rebuttal!
It's SO easy winning arguments with you since you make no valid ones and crawfish out of it later with petty insults!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#293 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.
Oh yeah...you're engaged alright but not mentally to understand a conversation.
If something is " inept and irrelevant," as the poster declared the traditional definition of marriage is, then that would mean to the poster that there isn't in fact any traditional thoughts held for marriage. That would mean no one would fight to define something that held no importance concerning it's definition. That would mean according to the poster that since the definition of marriage is " inept and irrelevant," to the populace of America, same sex marriage advocates should never of had to go to court to fight to have same sex laws established because according to the poster, no one in America according to them give a rats *ss as to who can marry. Get it? Do you understand the idiocy of their statement?
Do you understand their shallow thinking in making such an outlandish statement that the definition of marriage to Americans is " inept and irrelevant," ?
I stated because marriage has a traditional definition, that is the reason why in America same sex marriage is having such a battle to be legalized. Get it? Understand?
Than you have to go and play really ignorantly stupid and say because slavery was traditional, according to me it should have stayed in effect. I never said any such thing. I did explain "why", get that word I'm using okay? I explained 'why' same sex marriage was having such a battle. I never stated it would stay in effect because of it's traditional definition.
You're a Canadian. You're a socialist by nature because you live in a socialistic country. So your inability to understand that in America, it's the traditional definition of what marriage is to many Americans that has same sex marriage advocates fighting to be legally recognized.
Need further proof? Let's school you in American history you're an obvious idiot of. Do you know what DOMA is? Do you know what main principle DOMA was established upon by Congress? THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BY AMERICANS THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
Think before you speak next time okay?

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#294 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
I remember when I was 6 or 7.
Of course you would, that was a year ago.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#295 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah...you're engaged alright but not mentally to understand a conversation.
If something is " inept and irrelevant," as the poster declared the traditional definition of marriage is, then that would mean to the poster that there isn't in fact any traditional thoughts held for marriage. That would mean no one would fight to define something that held no importance concerning it's definition. That would mean according to the poster that since the definition of marriage is " inept and irrelevant," to the populace of America, same sex marriage advocates should never of had to go to court to fight to have same sex laws established because according to the poster, no one in America according to them give a rats *ss as to who can marry. Get it? Do you understand the idiocy of their statement?
Do you understand their shallow thinking in making such an outlandish statement that the definition of marriage to Americans is " inept and irrelevant," ?
I stated because marriage has a traditional definition, that is the reason why in America same sex marriage is having such a battle to be legalized. Get it? Understand?
Than you have to go and play really ignorantly stupid and say because slavery was traditional, according to me it should have stayed in effect. I never said any such thing. I did explain "why", get that word I'm using okay? I explained 'why' same sex marriage was having such a battle. I never stated it would stay in effect because of it's traditional definition.
You're a Canadian. You're a socialist by nature because you live in a socialistic country. So your inability to understand that in America, it's the traditional definition of what marriage is to many Americans that has same sex marriage advocates fighting to be legally recognized.
Need further proof? Let's school you in American history you're an obvious idiot of. Do you know what DOMA is? Do you know what main principle DOMA was established upon by Congress? THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BY AMERICANS THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
Think before you speak next time okay?
Surprise, you have misinterpreted my comments, once again, which comes as little surprise. It merely reaffirms the notion that your reading comprehension skills are elementary at best.

My argument was not that traditional marriage was inept and irrelevant. It was that your argument of tradition marriage and the history of marriage was inept and irrelevant, because it is.

You have NO valid argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry; which has no impact whatsoever upon traditional marriages, whether existing, or yet to be performed.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#296 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah...you're engaged alright but not mentally to understand a conversation.
If something is " inept and irrelevant," as the poster declared the traditional definition of marriage is, then that would mean to the poster that there isn't in fact any traditional thoughts held for marriage. That would mean no one would fight to define something that held no importance concerning it's definition. That would mean according to the poster that since the definition of marriage is " inept and irrelevant," to the populace of America, same sex marriage advocates should never of had to go to court to fight to have same sex laws established because according to the poster, no one in America according to them give a rats *ss as to who can marry. Get it? Do you understand the idiocy of their statement?
Do you understand their shallow thinking in making such an outlandish statement that the definition of marriage to Americans is " inept and irrelevant," ?
I stated because marriage has a traditional definition, that is the reason why in America same sex marriage is having such a battle to be legalized. Get it? Understand?
Than you have to go and play really ignorantly stupid and say because slavery was traditional, according to me it should have stayed in effect. I never said any such thing. I did explain "why", get that word I'm using okay? I explained 'why' same sex marriage was having such a battle. I never stated it would stay in effect because of it's traditional definition.
You're a Canadian. You're a socialist by nature because you live in a socialistic country. So your inability to understand that in America, it's the traditional definition of what marriage is to many Americans that has same sex marriage advocates fighting to be legally recognized.
Need further proof? Let's school you in American history you're an obvious idiot of. Do you know what DOMA is? Do you know what main principle DOMA was established upon by Congress? THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BY AMERICANS THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
Think before you speak next time okay?
And it was tradition that tried to stop black people from gaining their rights, along with slaves, women, and people of different colours that wanted to marry.

Tradition doesn't mean shit, because tradition will include same sex marriage in the future.

I don't understand how bigots like yourself can trick yourselves into thinking that marriage equality will never come.
Though the US is usually near-last in granting basic rights to minorities.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#297 Apr 22, 2013
Of course, this moron has also produced the following tidbits:
“I said there was legal basis to deny same sex marriage, not a rational basis.”http://www.topix.com/fo rum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTDJDD0 /post217
Of course, a rational basis is necessary for a law to stand under the lowest level of judicial review, which is the rational basis test.

“I never was making an argument against same sex marriage.”http://www.topix.com /forum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTDJ DD0/post227

“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.”http://www. topix.com/forum/state/ma/TSG82 BDFJGMTDJDD0/post223
Of course, we fought a war on this topic, and then made multiple amendments to our constitution to address the situation.

“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?”http://www.topix.com/ forum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTDJD D0/post226

“Equality of the law isn't what was being discussed. Marriage was being discussed.”http://www.topix.co m/forum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTD JDD0/post228

This user seems to be a treasure trove of stupid statements and non-sequiturs.
MapDark

Montréal, Canada

#298 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah...you're engaged alright but not mentally to understand a conversation.
If something is " inept and irrelevant," as the poster declared the traditional definition of marriage is, then that would mean to the poster that there isn't in fact any traditional thoughts held for marriage. That would mean no one would fight to define something that held no importance concerning it's definition. That would mean according to the poster that since the definition of marriage is " inept and irrelevant," to the populace of America, same sex marriage advocates should never of had to go to court to fight to have same sex laws established because according to the poster, no one in America according to them give a rats *ss as to who can marry. Get it? Do you understand the idiocy of their statement?
Do you understand their shallow thinking in making such an outlandish statement that the definition of marriage to Americans is " inept and irrelevant," ?
I stated because marriage has a traditional definition, that is the reason why in America same sex marriage is having such a battle to be legalized. Get it? Understand?
Than you have to go and play really ignorantly stupid and say because slavery was traditional, according to me it should have stayed in effect. I never said any such thing. I did explain "why", get that word I'm using okay? I explained 'why' same sex marriage was having such a battle. I never stated it would stay in effect because of it's traditional definition.
You're a Canadian. You're a socialist by nature because you live in a socialistic country. So your inability to understand that in America, it's the traditional definition of what marriage is to many Americans that has same sex marriage advocates fighting to be legally recognized.
Need further proof? Let's school you in American history you're an obvious idiot of. Do you know what DOMA is? Do you know what main principle DOMA was established upon by Congress? THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BY AMERICANS THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
Think before you speak next time okay?
But it IS inept and irrelevant.
If everybody had to stop and listen to every piece of bullshit coming out of people's mouth when it came to human rights , we would still be in the dark ages.

Do you think Lincoln listened to people's opinions on the matter of making slavery illegal? Do you think every leader that made advances in human rights possible took the time to listen to every ignorant racist bigoted person out there so they could appear "fair" ?!

HUMAN RIGHTS SHOULD NEVER be voted on. ESPECIALLY NOT when it comes to RESTRICTING rights for a certain group of people.

As for DOMA , contrary to a lot of americans , canadians KNOW what happens politically outside of their own countries. I know about DOMA , PROP 8 , heck I even know about stuff like section 28 which is a UK bill that restricted gay rights . so yeah we are informed , princess.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#299 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with no relevant comments or even a rebuttal!
It's SO easy winning arguments with you since you make no valid ones and crawfish out of it later with petty insults!
You can't rebut stupid when it's Lacez class stupid. They just come back with more stupidity.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#300 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you would, that was a year ago.
If your parents threw you out, what would you do?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#301 Apr 22, 2013
MapDark wrote:
<quoted text>
But it IS inept and irrelevant.
If everybody had to stop and listen to every piece of bullshit coming out of people's mouth when it came to human rights , we would still be in the dark ages.
People have the right to try and preserve traditional marriage. Are you suggesting that gay marriage will bring us out of the dark ages?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#302 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
This user seems to be a treasure trove of stupid statements and non-sequiturs.
This user, meaning you. Your entertainment value is on the rise.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#303 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>You can't rebut stupid when it's Lacez class stupid. They just come back with more stupidity.
More petty insults and an attempt to be relevant in an irrelevant way.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#304 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>If my parents threw me out, what would I do?
I bet you'd cry.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#305 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
And it was tradition that tried to stop black people from gaining their rights, along with slaves, women, and people of different colours that wanted to marry.
Actually, it was the tradition of freedom in this country that stopped those injustices. Gay marriage bans are no such injustice.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#306 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
More petty insults and an attempt to be relevant in an irrelevant way.
They have nothing valid to say, and clearly lack the intelligence to craft a rational and factually supported argument for their position. At this point, they seem to have reverted to their most adolescent instincts.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#307 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
More petty insults and an attempt to be relevant in an irrelevant way.
Why don't you come out of your room and get a job? How old are you?`
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#308 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you'd cry.
If your parents threw you out? I don't think so.

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
Numbers of homeless increase in region Sep 17 The Insider 13
Senior Americans burdened with student debt Sep 16 budd 90
New Mexico vets' personal information compromised Sep 15 Viet Nam Vet 1
Not all legal immigrants allowed to work Sep 14 dirtbag1958 1
Saving SSI benefits Sep 14 xakarii 1
Not all legal immigrants allowed to work Sep 13 Bull Chit 1
Illegal workers pay taxes, reap no federal or s... (Mar '11) Sep 12 gulf 266
•••

Social Security People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••