I mentioned this in the first Iowa wedding thread.

Gay and lesbian couples spend money--and while it's not always on things with better taste or more expensive than their straight counterparts, it's still added revenue to banquet houses, dressmakers, flower vendors, printers, and sectors of the economy that are lagging and dragging.

I suppose that there will be a few folks who are too proud to take homosexuals' money, but I suspect that it's going to be rarer and rarer.

Also, since gays generally don't have kids, they've got more disposable income. And they've got higher education and hence higher average income.

So you have a population with more disposable income who are enthusiastic to get hitched, so they're going to inject tons of money into the state.

I wonder if the Jeebus Freaks will mind if Iowa spent the extra tax revenue from gay marriages on teaching creationism.

"estimated 55,000 out-of-state couples who spend money on weddings"

FABULOUS ONES!!!

Seriously, sounds like a good deal.

"For the economy" is quickly replacing "for the children" as the most popular excuse for doing something.

I think I might have heard something like this before...

http://www.viddler.com/explore/buhawi/videos/43/

"There's money to be made" (pops)

...yes but after the wedding they start "sharing" the cloths and shoes. Oh right the divorce lawyers will divy those back up later.........

scseth: "There's money to be made" (pops)

Ha. I beat you.

DIAF

Uh... no it's not... homos don't make little taxpayers, they can just import them, and that usually doesn't last very long.

This is one of the main (sane) arguments in Maine over gay marriage; the economy boost. The gay marriage bill was actually sponsored by the hotel and catering associations.

Though I swear, if I have to listen to one more person saying "but marriage has been around for 2000 years"...

First off, no it hasn't. Marriage has been around since Mesopotamia was just a bunch of huts. Marriage in it's current form has been around for significantly less; we no longer require dowries, permission of the family, etc etc. And that's not even getting into the nonsense of claiming that it was always "one man and one woman".

Honestly I just hope that everyone goes the way California seems to be, and do away with "marriage" as a legal term. Everyone gets the same basic legal definition, and if you want to be "Married" or "Butt Buddied" then that's your own damn issue.

krelborne: "For the economy" is quickly replacing "for the children" as the most popular excuse for doing something.

Yup. And, same-gender marriage doesn't really require an excuse at all. There's no reason to bar two consenting adults from entering into the same contract as two different-gendered adults. Until someone can come up with one, let people do what they want to do.

Mariann La Fleur: Ha. I beat you.

Not even by 2 mins! Just wish that musical had helped more.

HartRend: Uh... no it's not... homos don't make little taxpayers, they can just import them, and that usually doesn't last very long.

who the hell are you responding to? a great many of the homosexual couples in iowa have foster children. instead of being a burden on the state, when these couples are given legal guardianship, they take the child off the state's books and into theirs. less children supported by the state and by private individuals is awesome.

Yeah, but think of the money they put into the economy setting up protests.

This is totally a capitalist opportunity. Think of all the GLBT specific wedding crap that can now be made. A whole new market is opening up; the business opportunities are endless and . Think of the job creation!

And btw, Canada's had homosexual marriage for ages now. We've managed, as a country, to not explode. In fact, I don't really notice it. I think one or two guys have introduced me to their husbands. That's pretty much the extent to which it affects me.

So once again to those of you heterosexual people who oppose homosexual marriage: HOW DOES HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE AFFECT YOU?

i am so psyched to be an iowa native.

/we're good people
//we can talk weather all day
///and now, we feel faaaabulous

Well, duh. How much is charged for a wedding license?

I have to say though, that even though I'm massively pro equal rights for gays, I don't think the wedding ceremonies will bring in much extra. Just because a wedding isn't legally binding doesn't mean gays don't have beautiful ceremonies already. Lots of gay couples have weddings every day. Dresses, tuxes, flowers: the works. Even in churches, actually. There are loving churches in the country - it's sometimes easy to forget that.

Oldiron_79: DIAF

Damn, Iowans Are FAABULOOOUS?

Gays didn't fly airplanes into your buildings, or take your retirement account, or crash the economy.

We're the least of your problems.

uptonogood: i am so psyched to be an iowa native.

/we're good people
//we can talk weather all day
///and now, we feel faaaabulous

Wow, you are almost Canadian then :)

ThreeEyedOni:

For you, sir (or madam)....

THough it is possible there are economic benefits, I think they're not brought up because they shouldn't HAVE to be brought up. The rights should be given based solely on the fact that they DESERVE those rights.

/The same reason many environmentalists don't like to bring up economic benefits.

Can we just take the state influence out of marriage? If there's a church that wants to marry gay people then let them. If you can have a ceremony you can get a license. I don't understand the "sanctity of marriage" argument anymore, just because two guys down the street have a better marriage than yours doesn't mean its wrong. Marriage is a failing institution as it is now. Some fresh blood could revitalize it.

Emily912: Just because a wedding isn't legally binding doesn't mean gays don't have beautiful ceremonies already.

Emily, I think the idea is that many couples from out of state will travel there to have a legally-sanctioned wedding rather than having an informal wedding at home, and bringing their dollars with them. I can see lots of couples from Chicago and other midwestern cities going to Iowa for this, the same way that Cape Cod has made a lot of money from couples making the short hop up from NYC.

jekxrb: HOW DOES HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE AFFECT YOU?

Married couples get a tax break. That means my taxes go up. If you want to "be fair" and extend those same breaks to gay couples, you should also extend them to single people.
Or just taking away the advantage from straight married people would even things out nicely.

studebaker hoch: Gays didn't fly airplanes into your buildings, or take your retirement account, or crash the economy.

We're the least of your problems.

I lol'd.

The Icelander: Also, since gays generally don't have kids, they've got more disposable income. And they've got higher education and hence higher average income.

So you have a population with more disposable income who are enthusiastic to get hitched, so they're going to inject tons of money into the state.

I wonder if the Jeebus Freaks will mind if Iowa spent the extra tax revenue from gay marriages on teaching creationism.

Once were done getting our rights; we can leave the democratic party become libertarians, and fight for our right to not have to pay for other people's crotchfruit to go to school or have medical insurance.

Just kidding! Scool fur Americun kidz are good to has.

studebaker hoch: Gays didn't fly airplanes into your buildings, or take your retirement account, or crash the economy.

We're the least of your problems.

Maybe they don't fly planes into your buildings but they're always flying them into mine. And by buildings I mean butt and by planes I mean penises. Wait, what?

studebaker hoch: Gays didn't fly airplanes into your buildings, or take your retirement account, or crash the economy.

We're the least of your problems.

Awesome.

ThreeEyedOni: First off, no it hasn't.

And what gets me are these people who believe that marriage is somehow a Christian institution invented by Christians. Even Bill O'Reilly, who is not dumb (even if he is evil) makes this mistake not infrequently. I always ask these people, "If marriage is a Christian institution, how did Joseph and Mary get married?"

Emily912: I don't think the wedding ceremonies will bring in much extra. Just because a wedding isn't legally binding doesn't mean gays don't have beautiful ceremonies already.

This. If you're really serious about marrying somebody it shouldn't matter how the government looks at it. Go ahead and have the ceremony now, then get a license when they become available.

studebaker hoch: Gays didn't fly airplanes into your buildings, or take your retirement account, or crash the economy.

We're the least of your problems.

Not so fast...

phenn: There's no reason to bar two consenting adults from entering into the same contract as two different-gendered adults. Until someone can come up with one, let people do what they want to do.

That's the rub. No one who opposes gay marriage can give a valid reason. "It's in the bible" or "marriage is defined as being between a man or a woman" are answers, but not good ones.

If gays are allowed to marry, I am not damaged in any form or fashion. Christ, there are so many weightier issues out there. But even some of the more rational people I know cringe at the topic, unable to explain why.

krelborne: "For the economy" is quickly replacing "for the children" as the most popular excuse for doing something.

When you're broke enough, kids just become more and more of a liability, especially in modern society where cranking out kid after kid no longer serves as an effective retirement strategy.

I just got my first Social Security statement in the mail the other day. I laughed when I read the figures because even if I were to live long enough to collect benefits, it would be barely enough to wipe my ass with after accounting for the rate that inflation has been going.

My current golden years strategy involves keeping a shotgun handy to just off myself the day I become useless to society. With the way the younger generations seem to treat the elderly, I imagine that their only problem with it would be having to clean up my brain bits off the wall.

Of course, that is assuming that the cancer from baby shampoo or simply breathing doesn't get to me first.

First gay marriage legalization.

Next up, legalized polygamy.

It stands to reason that if you cannot deny one group of people their right to marry, you can't do it to another group like the plural partner crowd.

gtomako: First gay marriage legalization.

Next up, legalized polygamy.

It stands to reason that if you cannot deny one group of people their right to marry, you can't do it to another group like the plural partner crowd.

Why would you say that? Marriage is already set up as a contract between two individuals, it wouldn't really require any change in the law to allow gays to marry, simply make the language gender-neutral. Plural marriage, however, would require massive overhaul of existing law and raise a lot of rather thorny issues. For instance, who gets power of attorney? what happens to property/children in a plural marriage divorce? etc. etc.

The slippery slope argument here just doesn't seem to follow. I mean, yes, maybe the acceptance of gay marriage will eventually lead to the legalization of plural marriage, but given the lack of legalized plural marriage in the more liberal parts of the world, I'd say it's still pretty far off.

subaudio: Emily912: Just because a wedding isn't legally binding doesn't mean gays don't have beautiful ceremonies already.

Emily, I think the idea is that many couples from out of state will travel there to have a legally-sanctioned wedding rather than having an informal wedding at home, and bringing their dollars with them. I can see lots of couples from Chicago and other midwestern cities going to Iowa for this, the same way that Cape Cod has made a lot of money from couples making the short hop up from NYC.

So not really a viable strategy for fixing the economy anywhere outside of Iowa then.

Ahhhhhhhhhh...Fark a guy!

ThreeEyedOni: Though I swear, if I have to listen to one more person saying "but marriage has been around for 2000 years"...

First off, no it hasn't. Marriage has been around since Mesopotamia was just a bunch of huts. Marriage in it's current form has been around for significantly less;

THIS

We should force anyone who seriously believes in the long tradition of marriage to watch several hours of Travel Channel tribal shows. They have a "marriage" by the men and women spend almost all of their time apart from each other. The men do the hunting and gathering and other men together and the women do the child raising and cooking and other women things together. In the overall scope of human history, the nuclear family is very new.

attackingpencil: gtomako: First gay marriage legalization.

Next up, legalized polygamy.

It stands to reason that if you cannot deny one group of people their right to marry, you can't do it to another group like the plural partner crowd.

Why would you say that? Marriage is already set up as a contract between two individuals, it wouldn't really require any change in the law to allow gays to marry, simply make the language gender-neutral. Plural marriage, however, would require massive overhaul of existing law and raise a lot of rather thorny issues. For instance, who gets power of attorney? what happens to property/children in a plural marriage divorce? etc. etc.

Which is why I always say marriage should be moot in the government's eyes. Want Wife A to get custody of the kids? There's paperwork for that. Want wife B to get power of attorney? There's paperwork for that too.

serial_crusher: Married couples get a tax break. That means my taxes go up. If you want to "be fair" and extend those same breaks to gay couples, you should also extend them to single people.
Or just taking away the advantage from straight married people would even things out nicely.

Wow, your post is so full of fail that I don't even know where to begin. So instead, I'm just going to reply to:

subaudio: ThreeEyedOni: First off, no it hasn't.

And what gets me are these people who believe that marriage is somehow a Christian institution invented by Christians. Even Bill O'Reilly, who is not dumb (even if he is evil) makes this mistake not infrequently. I always ask these people, "If marriage is a Christian institution, how did Joseph and Mary get married?"

Ahh, but these are the same geniuses who would reply "But Joseph and Mary were Christians!"

Maybe I should specialize in same-sex divorces...

I suggested this for a Detroit thread. Legalize marriage and the money will follow.

gtomako: First gay marriage legalization.

Next up, legalized polygamy.

It stands to reason that if you cannot deny one group of people their right to marry, you can't do it to another group like the plural partner crowd.

As long as it only involves consenting adults and a contract that can be fairly and legally enforced if anyone splits from the marriage, I don't give a shiat.

The reason why you cannot marry a turtle or a 14-year old is because neither are legally able to provide consent or sign a contract.

fariasrv: serial_crusher: Married couples get a tax break. That means my taxes go up. If you want to "be fair" and extend those same breaks to gay couples, you should also extend them to single people.
Or just taking away the advantage from straight married people would even things out nicely.

Wow, your post is so full of fail that I don't even know where to begin. So instead, I'm just going to reply to:

subaudio: ThreeEyedOni: First off, no it hasn't.

And what gets me are these people who believe that marriage is somehow a Christian institution invented by Christians. Even Bill O'Reilly, who is not dumb (even if he is evil) makes this mistake not infrequently. I always ask these people, "If marriage is a Christian institution, how did Joseph and Mary get married?"

Ahh, but these are the same geniuses who would reply "But Joseph and Mary were Christians!"

Where's the fail? If I had been "married filing jointly" last year, I would have saved $2500. What do married couples contribute to society that I don't?

serial_crusher: jekxrb: HOW DOES HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE AFFECT YOU?

Married couples get a tax break. That means my taxes go up. If you want to "be fair" and extend those same breaks to gay couples, you should also extend them to single people.
Or just taking away the advantage from straight married people would even things out nicely.

Actually, depending on your tax bracket, married couples get either a tax break or a tax burden. Getting married can either raise or lower your taxes as compared to single status.

It kind of averages out.

Now, that said. Your beef is with the tax system and single people. Not gay vs. straight.

gtomako: First gay marriage legalization.

Next up, legalized polygamy.

It stands to reason that if you cannot deny one group of people their right to marry, you can't do it to another group like the plural partner crowd.

What do you care?

serial_crusher: Which is why I always say marriage should be moot in the government's eyes. Want Wife A to get custody of the kids? There's paperwork for that. Want wife B to get power of attorney? There's paperwork for that too.

I'm fine with the legalization of polygamy (I do think it would result in a lot of legal messiness though), I'm just making the point that it doesn't necessarily follow from gay marriage.

oroku_saki:

The reason why you cannot marry a turtle or a 14-year old is because neither are legally able to provide consent or sign a contract.


Disagrees: