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.

Read more

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#329 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you just burn to point out your own lack of reading comprehension? The post you cite, specifically says that it is your argument, not the institution, that I am calling inept and irrelevant. It wouldn't even make sense to call marriage inept. Thank you, for proving that you are inept.
You can pathetically twist this any way you want to now to cover up your own past statement if that makes you think it makes you sound more correct or whatever.
I never claimed nor said you called 'marriage' inept or irrelevant. You're a liar to insinuate I said that when I didn't.
You called the traditional definition of marriage inept and irrelevant because we have a constitution you claim protects same sex marriage rights today. That was your point and your position.
It was your argument. Not mine concerning the traditional definition of marriage being inept and irrelevant today in face of the laws of the present constitution we have.
Get your own rhetoric straight...sheesh...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#330 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Questions can't be 'red herrings' but your answers can be.
Answer the questions. How old are you? Why are your parents still supporting you? Why don't you get a job?
Red herring: Something that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.

And so yes, a question does fall under the category, or are you now saying that you believe questions aren't something?

Wonderbread, you again are attempting to use red herrings, false ones at that. What do any of your false accusations have to do with marriage? You're the one who implied, in your previous comment, that you wish to stay on topic. You were obviously just trying to make yourself look dumber.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#331 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
A tradition is formed ONLY after a custom/belief is practiced for usually a long, long while.
Of course, that doesn't have any bearing upon reality. Just because a right or protection has traditionally been afforded to only certain individuals does not mean that restriction is rational, justified, or constitutional.

Applying your logic, we would still have slavery, segregated schools, and women wouldn't be able to vote. None of those things is true, because your argument has a fallacious basis.
MapDark

Montréal, Canada

#332 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're quite the simpleton really. Read what I write, don't read what I write and interpret it to be what you want it to mean. That's a simpleton's issue for not being able or not wanting to understand something as it was written/said.
I never said I was for the traditional meaning of marriage. So you're a liar to state I said that. It's as simple to explain as that. You created a lie to have a lie to say about me that I didn't say. That makes you a liar. Understand? Care for me to repeat it?
I was explaining something, not defending something and your simplicity of thought missed that in your quest of being a judgemental prejudicial socialistic bigot.
Doesn't have to be that way, just saying :)
He's actually the one who's right.
Tradition means doing something because it's been done years and centuries and millenials beforehand.

What was keeping slavery alive WAS a twisted sense of tradition in the form of : "Negroes have always been slaves before , so why change that , we're used to it , it shouldn't change."

Preventing change for the sake of preventing change is stupid. 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.

Using "it's always been that way before" as the reason to tell people their relationship is for some retarded reason NOT acceptable and worth less than others , is DESPICABLE.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#333 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
You can pathetically twist this any way you want to now to cover up your own past statement if that makes you think it makes you sound more correct or whatever.
I never claimed nor said you called 'marriage' inept or irrelevant. You're a liar to insinuate I said that when I didn't.
You called the traditional definition of marriage inept and irrelevant because we have a constitution you claim protects same sex marriage rights today. That was your point and your position.
It was your argument. Not mine concerning the traditional definition of marriage being inept and irrelevant today in face of the laws of the present constitution we have.
Get your own rhetoric straight...sheesh...
Funny that you accuse someone else of spinning their argument, when you do nothing but spin your own as you hunt for a rationalization tthat would support your position. My personal favorite was your claim that “I never was making an argument against same sex marriage.”http://www.topix.com /forum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTDJ DD0/post227
You continually are making irrelevant arguments that essentially are against equality.

Feel free to actually indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Personally, I don’t think you are up to the task of meeting the much lower standard of review of a rational basis.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#334 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
What do any of your false accusations have to do with marriage?
Questions are not accusations. Are you ashamed to answer them?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#335 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Questions are not accusations. Are you ashamed to answer them?
I don't answer them because they are based on false pretenses as well as being red herrings and irrelevant to the conversation.

Wonderbread, you never learn do you?
I'm literally asking you this, for it seems you never made it past a 6th grade mentality.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#336 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
This argument still fails to rise to the level of having a rational basis. Allowing marriage equality has no impact upon traditional marriages whether existing or yet to be performed.
Sorry, even if the majority sees something as rational, they are not afforded the ability to abridge the legal rights and protections of others.
See, we can agree :)
There is no 'rational' point either way concerning popular opinion. It really comes down to belief, not rational.
It's rational by those supporting same sex marriage to state it's irrational not to support same sex marriage.
In the other court, it's rational by those opposing same sex marriage to state it's irrational to support same sex marriage.
The continuing part of this argument is that for thousands of years the court of being against same sex marriage was held as very rational and was accepted and still is accepted by the majority world wide.
Belief is the key word here, not rational. The new youth have a different belief and that belief is changing the past rational of older generations.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#337 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it was the tradition of freedom in this country that stopped those injustices. Gay marriage bans are no such injustice.
well, wondering, the judges in both prop 8 and doma cases have disagreed with you. and most likely, scotus will disagree with you as well.

good luck.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#338 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
See, we can agree :)
There is no 'rational' point either way concerning popular opinion. It really comes down to belief, not rational.
It's rational by those supporting same sex marriage to state it's irrational not to support same sex marriage.
In the other court, it's rational by those opposing same sex marriage to state it's irrational to support same sex marriage.
The continuing part of this argument is that for thousands of years the court of being against same sex marriage was held as very rational and was accepted and still is accepted by the majority world wide.
Belief is the key word here, not rational. The new youth have a different belief and that belief is changing the past rational of older generations.
Spin away. You've not indicated a rational basis for your opposition to equality under the law for same sex couples to marry, much less a compelling state interest. Your childlike rationalizations are amusing, but your ignorance of the law, reality, and the workings of the courts is horrifying.

Get thee to a kindergarten.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#339 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny that you accuse someone else of spinning their argument, when you do nothing but spin your own as you hunt for a rationalization tthat would support your position. My personal favorite was your claim that “I never was making an argument against same sex marriage.”http://www.topix.com /forum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTDJ DD0/post227
You continually are making irrelevant arguments that essentially are against equality.
Feel free to actually indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Personally, I don’t think you are up to the task of meeting the much lower standard of review of a rational basis.
I don't have a 'position'. You declare I have a position and I keep telling you I don't have a position as you define the positions in this debate about marriage.
I have stated positions of the law.
I have stated positions of the public be it the majority or the minority.
I have stated those existing positions whether they have existed for thousands or for the last 5 decades.
I have stated the rationale and the irrational of it all.
I have not stated my position as you think and claim it exists to your opinion except, to state I think marriage should be as I think it once was in many communities: a union between a human to an animal or one or more humans as long as the humans were of an adult age in that community to understand what they were getting into.
People like you have made marriage a quagmire of what it should have never became or what you continue to support it to be, a mess in definition. Understand?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#340 Apr 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't answer them because they are based on false pretenses as well as being red herrings and irrelevant to the conversation.
Wonderbread, you never learn do you?
I'm literally asking you this, for it seems you never made it past a 6th grade mentality.
Why don't you be a good little girl and go watch cartoons on TV.
You're dumber than my socks.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#341 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
I don't have a 'position'. You declare I have a position and I keep telling you I don't have a position as you define the positions in this debate about marriage.
I have stated positions of the law.
I have stated positions of the public be it the majority or the minority.
I have stated those existing positions whether they have existed for thousands or for the last 5 decades.
I have stated the rationale and the irrational of it all.
I have not stated my position as you think and claim it exists to your opinion except, to state I think marriage should be as I think it once was in many communities: a union between a human to an animal or one or more humans as long as the humans were of an adult age in that community to understand what they were getting into.
People like you have made marriage a quagmire of what it should have never became or what you continue to support it to be, a mess in definition. Understand?
Every time you advance an argument, which you do regularly, you are holding a position. Those arguments are all, rather ineptly, against marriage equality.

You have stated a number of things. None of them rises to the level of a valid, rational, or particularly cogent argument.

What I understand is that you don't understand basic concepts, and that you often fail at basic reading comprehension. Oh, and apparently, you would rather be right than President.

Do you realize that making your statement about what "marriage should be", you are holding a position, and it is against equality for same sex couples to marry.

It truly make me laugh to watch your attempts at thought. Particularly when you are spinning your own BS, and contradict yourself in the course of a single post.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#342 Apr 22, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
well, wondering, the judges in both prop 8 and doma cases have disagreed with you. and most likely, scotus will disagree with you as well.
good luck.
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 day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#343 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Spin away. You've not indicated a rational basis for your opposition to equality under the law for same sex couples to marry, much less a compelling state interest. Your childlike rationalizations are amusing, but your ignorance of the law, reality, and the workings of the courts is horrifying.
Get thee to a kindergarten.
Fricking goof...lol....there is no rationalization good or bad for what marriage should be. Understand?
Here, you want some of your self professed rationalization you holler about that exists or should exist?
Rational in 200 AD set a law for monogamy, outlawing polygamy. That was done on the premise of your so loved word 'rationale'.
Than in 300 Ad the rationale of the RCC pope outlawed polygamy for monogamy. Both civil and secular laws were done with 'rational'.
That rationale was well and good with the majority of europeans for the next 1600 plus years.
Suddenly in the end of the 1900s, that long standing rational was wrong and inept and irrelevant to new customs and beliefs.
Thus as I stated, this isn't about rational. it's about belief.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#344 Apr 22, 2013
MapDark wrote:
<quoted text>
He's actually the one who's right.
Tradition means doing something because it's been done years and centuries and millenials beforehand.
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.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#345 Apr 22, 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.
thank you.

and it's ok to disagree. it's the law that's the "thing" anyway.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#346 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time you advance an argument, which you do regularly, you are holding a position. Those arguments are all, rather ineptly, against marriage equality.
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 :)
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#347 Apr 22, 2013
lides wrote:
Do you realize that making your statement about what "marriage should be", you are holding a position, and it is against equality for same sex couples to marry.
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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#348 Apr 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Fricking goof...lol....there is no rationalization good or bad for what marriage should be. Understand?
Now who’s off topic? There doesn’t need to be, our constitution specifies that states must provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and marriage is a law in every state in the union. Even constitutional rights CAN be infringe, however ONLY when doing so serves a compelling state interest.
No Surprise wrote:
Here, you want some of your self professed rationalization you holler about that exists or should exist?
Rational in 200 AD set a law for monogamy, outlawing polygamy. That was done on the premise of your so loved word 'rationale'.
Than in 300 Ad the rationale of the RCC pope outlawed polygamy for monogamy. Both civil and secular laws were done with 'rational'.
That rationale was well and good with the majority of europeans for the next 1600 plus years.
Suddenly in the end of the 1900s, that long standing rational was wrong and inept and irrelevant to new customs and beliefs.
Thus as I stated, this isn't about rational. it's about belief.
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.

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.

This is perhaps the most pathetic argument you have offered thus far, and that is truly saying something. Of course, what should I expect from someone who claims not to have a position, and then lays out a very specific position in the same post?

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 Memo: Illegals To Receive Social Security,... 25 min Who Guessed It 121
News Unions Are Increasingly Bargaining To Protect U... 1 hr Holla Isabella 9
News Same-Sex Marriage Benefits Endorsed on Senate F... 2 hr barefoot2626 30
News Attorney accused of fraud (Jul '11) 2 hr Gethimouttaourmisery 68
spousal benefit vs. own benefit Sat newfaner 1
News Let's help seniors, disabled Fri Stop Crushing Sen... 2
News The 6 Most Extreme Views Of Presidential Hopefu... Mar 24 QUITTNER Mar 24 2015 3
More from around the web