Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

No, income. Period. I'm not going to research it at work, but the reported income values of people who report as being homosexual in surveys for a long while now have been greater than heterosexuals. While I've not seen the details, I have a theory that it's connected to, like you said, not having kids. How much income does a person lose by making time sacrifices around having children? They're able to work more, get more accomplished, and thus earn more.

So Gays have both more income and also more disposable income. It probably also is connected to having children because there are so many single parents out there nowadays, that must drag down overall income statistics quite a bit.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if there were sample bias: whomever responded to the surveys you cite may have overrepresented high income gays relative to the entire gay population compared to high income straights compared to the entire straight population, if one assumes that the status of being "gay" is self-reported.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

From a strictly logistical point of view, it's an argument to be made; anyone can get married today if they're willing to marry someone for whom they have no affection. I simply don't agree with it. I'm not religious. I was never raised in a church. So I don't hold that set of bigoted values. (From a non-religious point, everything written in Leviticus with regards to sexual congress only allows those actions between a man and his wife only at the times of month in which she's most fertile, thus leading to higher birthrates among the Jewish people should they choose to follow those rules. It's a very shrewd set of rules writing for growing political power in a world where safety in numbers was a great priority.)

Personally, I say that the Federal government removes itself from the term "marriage" and moves into strictly using the term "civil union". Then allow states to make up their minds as to what should be allowed. Eventually, those states will come around. States like MS will take a long time to come around on the finding a true state of equality, and homosexuals can then know to avoid those states should they choose to be treated like full people. And given that homosexuals have greater household incomes than straight people, the economics of such a situation will force those laggard states to catch up with the times.

Just sayin. Everybody has the same rights right now. I know the semantical twisting that goes on though to make it sound otherwise.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

No, income. Period. I'm not going to research it at work, but the reported income values of people who report as being homosexual in surveys for a long while now have been greater than heterosexuals. While I've not seen the details, I have a theory that it's connected to, like you said, not having kids. How much income does a person lose by making time sacrifices around having children? They're able to work more, get more accomplished, and thus earn more.

If you want to push that theory, then as a single person, I should be making more than all of them, because I don't have to make a time sacrifice around a loving partner, and instead supposedly work 24/7.

[unofan]

Just sayin. Everybody has the same rights right now. I know the semantical twisting that goes on though to make it sound otherwise.

Yep, just like African-Americans did when interracial marriage was illegal. Tell me, how'd that one turn out?

[Priceless]

So instead of lobster I can have steak...That doesn't do much for the Maine economy. Or people who prefer lobster.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So instead of lobster I can have steak...That doesn't do much for the Maine economy. Or people who prefer lobster.

There's enough land there to raise cows. I seem to remember they tried to give some away on Wheel of Fortune.

[Slap Shot]

Just sayin. Everybody has the same rights right now. I know the semantical twisting that goes on though to make it sound otherwise.

The semantic assholism is all yours.

[manurespreader]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Hang on a second, I wanna see what wacky research led you to saying this one...

Not wacky, but true.
and i'm in favor of gay marriage.

[St. Clown]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Hang on a second, I wanna see what wacky research led you to saying this one...

http://www.commercialcloset.com/comm...bnav=resources

Here you go. It looks like the research that had been widely published, and often quoted, is very much in doubt. The article linked goes through it all, if you're interested. A short bit from the article seems to give a more accurate - assuming those data sources aren't also flawed.

By contrast, some research shows that gay men may earn less than straight men but lesbians may do better. A 1998 academic report by University of Massachusetts professor Lee Badgett found that gay male earnings were actually 4 percent to 27 percent less than heterosexual men. And a July 2006 study by the London School of Economics Center for Economic Performance looked at gay and lesbian couples in civil partnerships and married opposite-sex couples. It found that men in same-sex relationships earned 6% less than their straight counterparts and had a 3% higher unemployment rate. However, lesbians in civil partnerships earned about 11% more than straights and were 12% more likely to have a job.

Just sayin. Everybody has the same rights right now. I know the semantical twisting that goes on though to make it sound otherwise.

And when gay marriage is legal, everyone will have the same rights then, too. How does legal gay marriage change that paradigm?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So, I believe there was someone who was whining about how if someone doesn't get what they want from a cake shop that they'll sue? Well, it may be a florist instead of a cake shop, but it's coming to a head: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...y-wedding.html

[unofan]

So, I believe there was someone who was whining about how if someone doesn't get what they want from a cake shop that they'll sue? Well, it may be a florist instead of a cake shop, but it's coming to a head: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...y-wedding.html

Yeah, you don't get to do that. She's going to lose. And Fox News will make it the outrage of the hour.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Yeah, you don't get to do that. She's going to lose. And Fox News will make it the outrage of the hour.

Just like how doctors at hospitals sponsored by a church are required to give out contraceptives? Even that was thrown out. One key is that religious beliefs was cited in this case.

[unofan]

Just like how doctors at hospitals sponsored by a church are required to give out contraceptives? Even that was thrown out. One key is that religious beliefs was cited in this case.

While I disagree with that ruling (if there was such, all I remember is hospitals being exempted by law), there's still a marked difference between a church owned business and a private one. There's also a huge difference between not selling a specific product or service, and selling a service or product to some people but not others.

This florist could stop selling flowers for all weddings, that would be acceptable. But she can't sell wedding flowers to some couples but not others based simply on their sexual orientation.

I know a judge or two who used gay marriage as an excuse to stop performing all weddings, because they were lazy and hatred doing weddings.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

While I disagree with that ruling (if there was such, all I remember is hospitals being exempted by law), there's still a marked difference between a church owned business and a private one. There's also a huge difference between not selling a specific product or service, and selling a service or product to some people but not others.

This florist could stop selling flowers for all weddings, that would be acceptable. But she can't sell wedding flowers to some couples but not others based simply on their sexual orientation.

Something tells me you didn't actually read the article.

[unofan]

Something tells me you didn't actually read the article.

Yeah, she refused to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple because jesus. The rest was grandstanding from right wing political organizations and her attorney.