G.O.P. Senators Are Stalled in Talks on Marriage Bill

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Perfect. We should just outlaw marriage then as that involves sexual behavior and welfare children that will draw benefits.

Sounds good to me. People shouldn't get tax breaks for having children. If anything they should pay a penalty tax to cover the increased amount of public resources they will utilize.

[yubba]

Well it sounds like you would rather take care of gay couples, than take care of children and struggling families it's your money knock yourself out. Oh by the way we're broke.

[August]

Originally Posted by yubba

Well it sounds like you would rather take care of gay couples, than take care of children and struggling families it's your money knock yourself out. Oh by the way we're broke.

I don't want to take care of any of them, gay or straight. I especially don't like being forced to do so by my government.

[yubba]

well you need to tell that, too your governmental represenitives, I'm the one that just throws gasoline onto a housefire, too see what runs out. If anyone thinks this economically vieable, watch what businesses and the insurance companies do.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by yubba

well you need to tell that, too your governmental represenitives, I'm the one that just throws gasoline onto a housefire, too see what runs out. If anyone thinks this economically vieable, watch what businesses and the insurance companies do.

What, you mean the $100 million that gay marriage has made for Massachusetts? Or the $63.8 million that legalizing gay marriage in California would bring to the state? . Legalizing marriage for more people brings tourism and weeding planning dollars in to an economy. This is basic business sense and economics.

If you truly cared about the economics of gay marriage, you'd be all for it instead of using it as an excuse for your bigotry.

[razark]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

This is basic business sense and economics.

Now, now!

You can't go bringing things like logic and facts into this debate!

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

What, you mean the $100 million that gay marriage has made for Massachusetts?

Woah.

First off Massachusetts has not made 100 million on gay marriage. That is just an estimate of what it might make if they overturn the old law against out of stater unsanctioned marriage and a pretty unrealistic estimate at that.

Also, making that money depends on no other state also getting into the gay marriage game. Nobody is going to travel all the way out here if they can find a similar situation closer (like say, California for example?)

In short it's a pipe dream fantasy being pushed to promote a political agenda.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Woah.

First off Massachusetts has not made 100 million on gay marriage. That is just an estimate of what it might make if they overturn the old law against out of stater unsanctioned marriage and a pretty unrealistic estimate at that.

According to a 2008 article in The Boston Globe, gay marriage has pumped over $100 million into the Massachusetts economy, with $5 million coming from marriage license fees and sales and occupancy taxes.

If you want to go back and buy the Boston Globe reprint of the article, have at it.

Secondly, you may be right if marriage for all was legalized nationwide. But the fact still remains that money would still be spent on marriage, providing an economic boost to whereever it was spent. And finally, equal rights doesn't need a "pipe dream fantasy" for justification. It's just simply the right thing to do and any argument to the contrary is based in bigotry.

[mookiemookie]

The inevitable march of history and equality continues, no matter how much the backward and fearful try to stop it.

And this could be just the shot in the arm that the economy needs. The wedding planning business will be booming with new clients. Affluent, childless clients.

[Bakkels]

This thread is turning a little bit in the direction of personal attacks I think And I'm having a major déja vu here. Didn't we have the exact same discussion just a couple of weeks ago? Ah what the heck.

I got to agree with Mookie, August. What exactly is your point on this? Do you think gays shouldn't be allowed to be married? Or are you saying that they can, but that they can't call it marriage?
I really can't make it out...

Well anywyay, I say let them marry. Churches can decide for themselves if they want to allow gay marriages within their own church. The most important factor imo is that you are born gay. It's not a choice. You can't deny anyone a basic right because they are different by birth.

I agree with August on this by the way:

Originally Posted by August

Sounds good to me. People shouldn't get tax breaks for having children. If anything they should pay a penalty tax to cover the increased amount of public resources they will utilize.

And there are already too many people inhabiting this earth.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

August. What exactly is your point on this?

All I wanted to do is point out that the 100 million dollars that mookie claims my state made from gay marriage is bull. But apparently that doesn't matter much to him since he feels the goal of gay equality justifies anything including outright lies to get there. It sorta went downhill from there.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

But apparently that doesn't matter much to him since he feels the goal of gay equality justifies anything including outright lies to get there.

The only reason I brought up that article was to counter yubba's rambling about gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because he thinks it would cost the country money to allow that. You act as if refuting that article is the be all and end all of the marriage equality argument. It's not. I don't buy it, but even if allowing everyone to marry costs money, it's still the right thing to do. There is no price on civil rights.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You act as if refuting that article is the be all and end all of the marriage equality argument.

Nope. That's something you have projected on me which you seem to do fairly often. Personally unless it costs me money I don't really care but if you're going to resort to making fallacies to support your argument on a public forum then expect someone to call you on it.