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.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#168 Apr 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You consistently argue against equality. One does not need to overtly state their position on an issue to imply their views.
<quoted text>
It is not about happiness, it is about equal protection of the law. It is also specifically about gay marriage (read the thread title).
Equal protection can ABSOLUTELY be denied if doing so serves a compelling state interest. So your "whatever make you happy argument" is so much juvenile BS.
lol...you're quite funny, really. You stated I had a side in this. Thus you lied stated I had a side in this because I don't have a side in this.
My 'overtly position' as you term it is real and factual. I don't give a rat's *ss about who marries whom or who marries what as long as they are of a legally defined age to understand what their getting into.
I have never argued against the equality issue liar. All you do is assume I think this and believe that and you as foolish *sses do assume you're correct in your bigoted prejudicial judgement of me and you're wrong.
You don't like the fact that I have stated I don't care about who marries whom or what.
You think everyone has to have a position.
You're wrong and you're in error.
I DON'T CARE. Can you get that? Can you possibly understand that? I respect marriage but I have not a care of who marries whom or what as long as their a defined adult to understand what their getting into.
Fricking quit stroking your over inflated ego dude, you're making a whole lotta wrong statements from doing it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#169 Apr 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lolol...fricking ignoramus....lol
This was your statement you now tell a lie that you never said...liar...
"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation.....then it must apply to same sex couples."
That was your statement, that the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation....." and that it must then apply to same sex couples. Those were your words.
Need it pasted again so you can lie again that you didn't state it?
"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation.....then it must apply to same sex couples."
You said it so lie about it all you want as long as lying makes you happy :)
Please cite, chapter and verse,(post number would be lovely) where I said the 14th Amendment was without limitation. You can't, because I didn't.

I can't be held accountable for your fiction.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#170 Apr 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
lol...you're quite funny, really. You stated I had a side in this. Thus you lied stated I had a side in this because I don't have a side in this.
Your opinion is apparent. You don’t need to declare a side in order to determine this simple fact.
No Surprise wrote:
My 'overtly position' as you term it is real and factual.

Of course, what I said was “You consistently argue against equality. One does not need to overtly state their position on an issue to imply their views.”
Apparently, you parse ineptly. I never stated that your “overtly position”, which would be inept and poor English. Do try to keep up.
No Surprise wrote:
I don't give a rat's *ss about who marries whom or who marries what as long as they are of a legally defined age to understand what their getting into.
No Surprise wrote:
I have never argued against the equality issue liar. All you do is assume I think this and believe that and you as foolish *sses do assume you're correct in your bigoted prejudicial judgement of me and you're wrong.
You don't like the fact that I have stated I don't care about who marries whom or what.
You think everyone has to have a position.
You're wrong and you're in error.
I DON'T CARE. Can you get that? Can you possibly understand that? I respect marriage but I have not a care of who marries whom or what as long as their a defined adult to understand what their getting into.
Fricking quit stroking your over inflated ego dude, you're making a whole lotta wrong statements from doing it.
You are a moron. Nothing more, nothing less. And you are now trying to dig out of the hole you have dug for yourself.

To recap the stupid **** you have said, in part,
“You're bonkers dude, really fricking bonkers. Marriage itself offers no protection for anything.”http://www.topix.com /forum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTDJ DD0/post144
lol....oh yeah, I'm the one with a lack of comprehension but you're the one that is stating in various ways that since the 14th amendment came to be in 1867, it's also protected same sex marriage...yeah righty....too funny dude....http://www.topix.com/f orum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTDJDD 0/post137 (Of course, I only claimed it guaranteed equal protection of the laws, which is does)

It appears that you are a moron of the first order, with no rational point, nor particularly the ability to formulate a rational argument. Feel free to join the adults and make a big boy argument, I don’t think you can.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#171 Apr 18, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
What about the cost to this country of allowing two dudes to marry?? This nation is morphing into a monster that our forefathers wouldn't recognize. Good-bye USA! I'll miss you!!
It's the fruition of Freedom that they, constrained by their own pasts, could not envision.

That fruit is sweet and wholesome.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#172 Apr 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Really, you never said that the 14th amendment protected same sex marriage?
It protects marriage, moron. Unless you can grown a brain and indicate a legitimate state interest served by EXCLUDING same sex marriage, then it protection "same sex marriage".

You really seem to be in competition for chief idiot. It appears Wondering will give you a run for your money.

Feel free to make an adult point.

That said, in the end you will lose, for two reasons. A) popular opinion is in support of equality, and B) the US Constitution requires it.

Game. Set. Match.

You are a moron.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#173 Apr 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Please cite, chapter and verse,(post number would be lovely) where I said the 14th Amendment was without limitation. You can't, because I didn't.
I can't be held accountable for your fiction.
So you're going to start your denial thing again?
Post 136:
"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation."

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#174 Apr 18, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're going to start your denial thing again?
Post 136:
"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation."
You've yet to be able to provide a legitimate state interest served otherwise.

Moron.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#175 Apr 18, 2013
Now you must admit you said that. Here it is again:
So you're going to start your denial thing again?
Post 136:
"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation."

You don't have to tell people you're an idiot, you show them almost daily.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#176 Apr 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Please cite, chapter and verse,(post number would be lovely) where I said the 14th Amendment was without limitation. You can't, because I didn't.
I can't be held accountable for your fiction.
"Please cite, chapter and verse,(post number would be lovely) where I said the 14th Amendment was without limitation. You can't, because I didn't."

Liar liar pants on fire. You stated matter of factly...
"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation(WITHOUT LIMITATION)(YOU SAID WITHOUT LIMITATION)." You have called yourself a liar because you said you didn't say what you actually did say.

Since you're experiencing a brain fart that doesn't allow you to remember what you said and has taken away your capacity to go back and find your own post, here you go :)

Post 136, page 7...
You stated quote unquote...

"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation. Unless you grow a brain, which seems unlikely, and can indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, then it must apply to same sex couples."

After stating the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection WITHOUT LIMITATION, you than brainlessly stated unless a state interest can be shown to legally deny same sex marriage, then the 14th amendment that according to you guarantees equal protection without limitations for all, then that(the 14th amendment)must also apply to same sex marriage because that amendment according to you is WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR PROTECTION.

You have held yourself accountable to your own inept memory and fantasy thinking. Get with it dude, you've made a liar of yourself, nice job.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#177 Apr 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion is apparent. You don't need to declare a side in order to determine this simple fact.
To a prejudicial bigot as yourself who prejudged what my thinking was about same sex marriage before I said anything, you have proved you're a prejudicial bigot bent with an agenda to judge people. Now that you have made abundantly apparent as the above proves.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#178 Apr 18, 2013
lides wrote:
Of course, what I said was “You consistently argue against equality. One does not need to overtly state their position on an issue to imply their views.”
Apparently, you parse ineptly. I never stated that your “overtly position”, which would be inept and poor English. Do try to keep up.
Speaking of poor English, my spell checker keeps greying out your words as errors so contend with your own English before you speak of mine lol.
Next, you're a liar. I have never argued against equality in this thread. And you'll never prove I have because I haven't. So once again you stand to be your own pathetic liar, again. I have argued how you define the usage of the 14th amendment. That I have done. Do try and keep up with facts and let go of your lies you seem to favour repeating. It doesn't make you look very good, just saying :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#179 Apr 18, 2013
lides wrote:
You are a moron. Nothing more, nothing less. And you are now trying to dig out of the hole you have dug for yourself.
To recap the stupid **** you have said, in part,
“You're bonkers dude, really fricking bonkers. Marriage itself offers no protection for anything.”http://www.topix.com /forum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTDJ DD0/post144
lol....oh yeah, I'm the one with a lack of comprehension but you're the one that is stating in various ways that since the 14th amendment came to be in 1867, it's also protected same sex marriage...yeah righty....too funny dude....http://www.topix.com/f orum/state/ma/TSG82BDFJGMTDJDD 0/post137 (Of course, I only claimed it guaranteed equal protection of the laws, which is does)
It appears that you are a moron of the first order, with no rational point, nor particularly the ability to formulate a rational argument. Feel free to join the adults and make a big boy argument, I don’t think you can.
Fricking ignorant pathetic moron with too many brain farts...
By the way, marriage protects nothing. Laws for marriage allows protection for those embracing marriage. You stated marriage protects.... You were wrong. You were in error. Marriage protects absolutely nothing. Laws for marriage protects the many facets of marriage. fricking idiot.

"Please cite, chapter and verse,(post number would be lovely) where I said the 14th Amendment was without limitation. You can't, because I didn't."

Liar liar pants on fire. You stated matter of factly...
"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation(WITHOUT LIMITATION)(YOU SAID WITHOUT LIMITATION)." You have called yourself a liar because you said you didn't say what you actually did say.

Since you're experiencing a brain fart that doesn't allow you to remember what you said and has taken away your capacity to go back and find your own post, here you go :)

Post 136, page 7...
You stated quote unquote...

"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation. Unless you grow a brain, which seems unlikely, and can indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, then it must apply to same sex couples."

After stating the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection WITHOUT LIMITATION, you than brainlessly stated unless a state interest can be shown to legally deny same sex marriage, then the 14th amendment that according to you guarantees equal protection without limitations for all, then that(the 14th amendment)must also apply to same sex marriage because that amendment according to you is WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR PROTECTION.

You have held yourself accountable to your own inept memory and fantasy thinking. Get with it dude, you've made a liar of yourself, nice job.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#180 Apr 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It protects marriage, moron. Unless you can grown a brain and indicate a legitimate state interest served by EXCLUDING same sex marriage, then it protection "same sex marriage".
You really seem to be in competition for chief idiot. It appears Wondering will give you a run for your money.
Feel free to make an adult point.
That said, in the end you will lose, for two reasons. A) popular opinion is in support of equality, and B) the US Constitution requires it.
Game. Set. Match.
You are a moron.
Speaking of bad English from someone complaing of other's usage of it...lolol....you wrote in really poor English...
Unless you can grown a brain...
...then it protection "same sex marriage"
...It appears Wondering will give...

"Please cite, chapter and verse,(post number would be lovely) where I said the 14th Amendment was without limitation. You can't, because I didn't."

Liar liar pants on fire. You stated matter of factly...
"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation(WITHOUT LIMITATION)(YOU SAID WITHOUT LIMITATION)." You have called yourself a liar because you said you didn't say what you actually did say.

Since you're experiencing a brain fart that doesn't allow you to remember what you said and has taken away your capacity to go back and find your own post, here you go :)

Post 136, page 7...
You stated quote unquote...

"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation. Unless you grow a brain, which seems unlikely, and can indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, then it must apply to same sex couples."

After stating the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection WITHOUT LIMITATION, you than brainlessly stated unless a state interest can be shown to legally deny same sex marriage, then the 14th amendment that according to you guarantees equal protection without limitations for all, then that(the 14th amendment)must also apply to same sex marriage because that amendment according to you is WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR PROTECTION.

You have held yourself accountable to your own inept memory and fantasy thinking. Get with it dude, you've made a liar of yourself, nice job.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#181 Apr 18, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Now you must admit you said that. Here it is again:
So you're going to start your denial thing again?
Post 136:
"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law for ALL, without limitation."
You don't have to tell people you're an idiot, you show them almost daily.
Way to be out of context Wondering. The 14th Amendment is no without limitation, and you are incapable of articulating any reason why same sex couples should be denied equal protection.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#182 Apr 18, 2013
It's funny to watch you make so many posts, and say so little.
No Surprise wrote:
Fricking ignorant pathetic moron with too many brain farts...
By the way, marriage protects nothing. Laws for marriage allows protection for those embracing marriage. You stated marriage protects.... You were wrong. You were in error. Marriage protects absolutely nothing. Laws for marriage protects the many facets of marriage. fricking idiot.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overvie...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.ht... #

Once again, several legal protections of marriage were illustrated for you, more are listed here.

One isn't too bright if they claim otherwise.

I won't be addressing your other posts, which really are so much tripe, brilliantly illustrating your own ignorance.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#183 Apr 18, 2013
lides wrote:
It's funny to watch you make so many posts, and say so little.
I won't be addressing your other posts, which really are so much tripe, brilliantly illustrating your own ignorance.
lolol....really I have to thank you for the chuckles. Laughter is good and you kept it coming.
You complained of my English and you have some real English problems happening you should be addressing.
You make statements. I repeat them back to you. You deny you said them. I paste them to you. You still can't remember saying them and deny you said them again. I pasted post and page number and specific quote and like some small minded mentally/emotionally wounded child you respond...
"It's funny to watch you make so many posts, and say so little.
I won't be addressing your other posts, which really are so much tripe, brilliantly illustrating your own ignorance." ...too fricking funny, really. You go dude!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#184 Apr 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lolol....really I have to thank you for the chuckles. Laughter is good and you kept it coming.
You complained of my English and you have some real English problems happening you should be addressing.
You make statements. I repeat them back to you. You deny you said them. I paste them to you. You still can't remember saying them and deny you said them again. I pasted post and page number and specific quote and like some small minded mentally/emotionally wounded child you respond...
"It's funny to watch you make so many posts, and say so little.
I won't be addressing your other posts, which really are so much tripe, brilliantly illustrating your own ignorance." ...too fricking funny, really. You go dude!
Congratulations, you don't understand the constitution or the issue, yet you frequently speak on it airing your ignorance in public. Your mother must be so proud (to hide any association with you).

The reality remains that our constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Homosexuals are people. Marriage is a protection of the law.

Even constitutional rights CAN be infringed, but only when doing so serves a legitimate state interest. You have failed to indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

Feel free to actually grow an argument, if you are able.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#185 Apr 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations, you don't understand the constitution or the issue, yet you frequently speak on it airing your ignorance in public. Your mother must be so proud (to hide any association with you).
The reality remains that our constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Homosexuals are people. Marriage is a protection of the law.
Even constitutional rights CAN be infringed, but only when doing so serves a legitimate state interest. You have failed to indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Feel free to actually grow an argument, if you are able.
You've missed a key element of our 'talks'. I debated how you erroneously used the 14th amendment and the constitution for proof that they guaranteed same sex marriage the same levels of equality with opposite sex marriage.
I never debated that same sex marriage shouldn't find equal liberties in the law with opposite sex marriage. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#186 Apr 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations, you don't understand the constitution or the issue, yet you frequently speak on it airing your ignorance in public. Your mother must be so proud (to hide any association with you).
The reality remains that our constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Homosexuals are people. Marriage is a protection of the law.
Even constitutional rights CAN be infringed, but only when doing so serves a legitimate state interest. You have failed to indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Feel free to actually grow an argument, if you are able.
It's a tough thing to try and find justification for any type of marriage in the constitution and or amendments/bills because opposite sex marriage was the way of life concerning marriage. It was considered 'what was right' for thousands of years by whatever terminology used for it.
That is why in the constitution bills etc there was nothing written to protect it and or to define it. Those that set forth the constitution and bills never thought for a moment that marriage would need to be defined because they never thought anyone would want to give it a definition beyond what was accepted of it by world wide societies for thousands of years.
This is why there was no protection made for same sex marriage.
This is why there was no protection for polygamy.
And when polygamy was pursued through the constitution's freedom of religion law, it failed because even though polygamy was proven to be in the Christian Bible to Scotus and though it was proven to be a religious act by Jews for thousands of years to Scotus, Scotus ruled heavily on the fact that the early church of Rome (Christianity) had decided monogamy was God's will, not polygamy. Scotus used how popular opinion flowed among the American Christian communities to help make a decision against it's practice, even though it had been proved polygamy was substantially a religious act and not a non-religious act.
And that is why same sex marriage has had such an issue finding equal footing. There were no laws to sustain it and their were laws made against it.
The LGBT won it's first case with the APA when they decided homosexuality was not abnormal. They then were able to approach legislatures to override public opinion that said no to same sex marriage at the voting booths.
Now that same sex laws have recently been made and passed, legislators are finding less and less reason to be against it and are following suit other states making laws for same sex marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#187 Apr 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
It's a tough thing to try and find justification for any type of marriage in the constitution and or amendments/bills because opposite sex marriage was the way of life concerning marriage. It was considered 'what was right' for thousands of years by whatever terminology used for it.
It's not "tough" to find the concept of equal protection of the laws.

As for the "definition" in play for thousands of years, it is an inept and irrelevant argument. The reality is that the constitution has only existed for 200+ years, not thousands, and it is the supreme law of the land. Now, it includes an amendment that mandates states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

You can argue the 14th Amendment is irrelevant. You will just be wrong.

You cannot, and have not, illustrate any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.

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 Lost generations 23 hr NGUQEQYTGBECAYMAN... 15
News South Allegheny school board member and wife ac... (Sep '13) Mon collins vet 208
News New and Totally Bizarre Baby Names Sat Dr Wu 10
News BHS, Medicaid Insurers Set Enrollment Fairs May 30 Bibi Netanyahu 3
News The economic benefits of immigration reform are... May 29 wild child 1
News APNewsBreak: IRS says thieves stole tax info fr... May 27 Sterkfontein Swar... 3
News U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Den... May 27 wild child 1
More from around the web