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

[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.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

Don't tell me what my argument is based on mookie. Name calling and belittling those that hold different opinions does not prove anything besides the degree of rudeness your side is prepared to demonstrate to achieve your divisive ends.

Your link points to a 2009 article written by a Democrat party operative and references a 2008 liberal newspaper article about repealing a 100 year old law that prohibits the state from marrying out of staters who cannot marry according to the laws of their home state, not how much Massachusetts made on gay marriage before, during or since.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Don't tell me what my argument is based on mookie. Name calling and belittling those that hold different opinions does not prove anything besides the degree of rudeness your side is prepared to demonstrate to achieve your divisive ends.

Denying people equal rights based on their innate, inborn characteristics is bigotry. The solution isn't for me to not point that out - the solution is for people not to hold bigoted beliefs. I'm usually respectful of differing beliefs, but when it comes to equal rights, I have no respect for someone who doesn't believe in them.

And to attempt to make this party politics? Equal rights are not a left vs right issue. That means we're done here.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That means we're done here.

Fine, run away then. You spout blatant propaganda, then when I point it out you start making insulting personal comments. It's a typical liberal tactic. Well trying to make the argument about me does not make that crap you posted any less the crap that it is.

Your 100 million claim is based on a 2009 article written by a Democrat party operative and references a 2008 liberal newspaper article about repealing a 100 year old law that prohibits the state from marrying out of staters who cannot marry according to the laws of their home state, not how much Massachusetts made on gay marriage before, during or since.

Now either that is accurate or not, but ignoring it and resorting to personal attacks only shows that you can't debate the facts.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Fine, run away then. You spout blatant propaganda, then when I point it out you start making insulting personal comments. It's a typical liberal tactic. Well trying to make the argument about me does not make that crap you posted any less the crap that it is.

Your 100 million claim is based on a 2009 article written by a Democrat party operative and references a 2008 liberal newspaper article about repealing a 100 year old law that prohibits the state from marrying out of staters who cannot marry according to the laws of their home state, not how much Massachusetts made on gay marriage before, during or since.

Now either that is accurate or not, but ignoring it and resorting to personal attacks only shows that you can't debate the facts.

The fact is bigots want to deny the same rights enoyed by others to a certain group of people based on an inborn characteristic. If you are in support of that, you're a bigot. Everything else is irrelevant details. Sorry if you think it's personal, but if the shoe fits...

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

The fact is bigots want to deny the same rights enoyed by others to a certain group of people based on an inborn characteristic. If you are in support of that, you're a bigot. Everything else is irrelevant details. Sorry if you think it's personal, but if the shoe fits...

No, the fact is that you post blatantly false propaganda, and when a resident of the state in question calls you on it you completely ignore the point and resort to personal insults.

Name calling and belittling those that hold different opinions does not prove anything besides the degree of rudeness your side is prepared to demonstrate to achieve your divisive ends.

Its the pot I tell ya and it is somewhat darkened.
Its always that side, it is them that is divisive.
Its always liberals liberals liberals that are the problem, never wingnuts wingnuts wingnuts.

Simple equation though on a financial side that was raised, would Elton John spend more on a marriage than Madonna .....ask the florist

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Its the pot I tell ya and it is somewhat darkened.
Its always that side, it is them that is divisive.
Its always liberals liberals liberals that are the problem, never wingnuts wingnuts wingnuts.

Simple equation though on a financial side that was raised, would Elton John spend more on a marriage than Madonna .....ask the florist

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

No, the fact is that you post blatantly false propaganda, and when a resident of the state in question calls you on it you completely ignore the point and resort to personal insults.

Again, irrelevant details. Even if legalizing marriage for everyone did not provide an economic benefit...even if it cost money overall, it's still the right thing to do because denying rights to people based on who they are is bigotry. If someone advocates denying someone equal rights, that. person. is. a. bigot.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Again, irrelevant details.

So in other words the ends justifies the means eh?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

So in other words the ends justifies the means eh?

Equality for equality's sake is all that matters.

[vienna]

What's being missed here is the time and effort being taken by the politicians on a non-priority issue. Ultimately, the issue of same-sex marriage is going to be settled by the courts, probably the Supreme Court. There are already a number of cases and suits making their way up the appeal chain. Adding another is not going to expedite the process or clarify the issue. What is happening is politicians with a narrow agenda taking away from the legislative process with what amounts to, in essence, a nuisance issue. Just as they attempt to attach whatever issue they espouse (same-sex marriage, abortion, prayer in school, etc.) to any and all attempts at meaningful, productive legislation aimed at vital, priority issues (the economy, jobs, etc.), they are like little nuisance leeches, attempting to gain political capital with their narrow constituency (or, at least, who they percieve to be their consituency). While the vast majority of the population, in general, and the voting public, in particular, couldn't give a monkey's about their fetishes, they insist on bringing everything to a grinding halt just because they can.