Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   The financial cost on society for legalizing gay marriage. Here comes the (christian) science   (csmonitor.com) divider line 75
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2903 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jul 2009 at 8:14 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-07-19 06:57:38 AM  
$69?
 
2009-07-19 07:30:10 AM  
Wow... it almost sounds like they're advocating gay marriage.
 
2009-07-19 08:22:12 AM  
About the whole "gay marriage" thing, every verse in the Bible that mentions what we now call homosexuality defines it as a sex act between two people of the same gender. Nowhere does it say that two people of the same gender having a close but platonic relationship is a sin. And so nearly everything that's thought of as gay, homosexual, etc. by people both for and against homosexuality today is only so because people make it to be.
 
2009-07-19 08:23:38 AM  
Okay so let me get this straight (heh heh), they are complaining that Gay Marriage provides a boost to business and impacts an economy positively, but just not in the right areas? That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Not the dumbest though...

FTFA:
Yet critics say the talk of economic profit obscures a greater social cost. "It's the societal message that same-sex marriage sends - that children do not need a mother and a father," says Kevin Smith, executive director of New Hampshire's Cornerstone Policy Research, which opposes gay marriage.

i371.photobucket.com

Everyone here knows that I would like to see religious marriages and legal contracts separated; so I won't go into my "I wish I were a rich man" defense for Tradition; but to claim Gay Marriage convinces children that they don't need a mother and a father is just plain idiocy.

Because we all know that unwed teenage mothers and fathers disappearing quicker than Houdini make a hell of a convincing argument for two parent families no?

/Dumbasses.
 
2009-07-19 08:27:04 AM  
FTA"It's the societal message that same-sex marriage sends - that children do not need a mother and a father," says Kevin Smith, executive director of New Hampshire's Cornerstone Policy Research, which opposes gay marriage.

Claims a puritanical asshole who would never dream of ever hearing that somebody had the hubris to get divorced when there were kids Involved. This scientifically explains all the roving packs of subhuman rabid children roaming the streets preying on man and beast.

/ mostly sarcastic.
// and Biologically .000001 seconds after conception the father is no longer "required".
 
2009-07-19 08:29:15 AM  
It will be pretty sad if somebody in this thread confuses the Christian Science Monitor for a right wing rag, simply because of the "Christian" name. The CSM is pretty much centrist in its reporting, and is no Fox News wannabe.

But it will happen in this thread, so there goes my preemptive disclaimer.
 
2009-07-19 08:30:49 AM  
No surprises in the article.
 
2009-07-19 08:36:01 AM  
CanisNoir: Okay so let me get this straight (heh heh), they are complaining that Gay Marriage provides a boost to business and impacts an economy positively, but just not in the right areas? That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Not the dumbest though...

FTFA:
Yet critics say the talk of economic profit obscures a greater social cost. "It's the societal message that same-sex marriage sends - that children do not need a mother and a father," says Kevin Smith, executive director of New Hampshire's Cornerstone Policy Research, which opposes gay marriage.


Everyone here knows that I would like to see religious marriages and legal contracts separated; so I won't go into my "I wish I were a rich man" defense for Tradition; but to claim Gay Marriage convinces children that they don't need a mother and a father is just plain idiocy.

Because we all know that unwed teenage mothers and fathers disappearing quicker than Houdini make a hell of a convincing argument for two parent families no?

/Dumbasses.


Further proof that your ghey
/the dumbest argument for anything I have heard against anything is you. Congrats
 
2009-07-19 08:38:09 AM  
You know the wedding industry employs a lot of people. Legalizing Gay Marriage would be a huge stimulus.
 
2009-07-19 08:38:10 AM  
Why is it that everyone with a motive behind some perceived societal "ill" has one of these "research center" or "institute" or whatever.

I assume it's to give their biased, narrow view some (fake) legitimacy?
Isn't this putting the cart conclusion before the horse hypothesis?

/I always thought that institutes and research centers were for learning and growth. How stupid of me.
 
2009-07-19 08:41:11 AM  
soy_bomb: You know the wedding industry employs a lot of people. Legalizing Gay Marriage would be a huge stimulus.



Indeed. Why do Conservatives hate the free market at work?
 
2009-07-19 08:41:43 AM  
soy_bomb: You know the wedding industry employs a lot of people. Legalizing Gay Marriage would be a huge stimulus.

Golf clap?
Golf clap.

i187.photobucket.com

/I hope that animation doesn't break. I'm at work, so I can't double check
 
2009-07-19 08:44:46 AM  
Die Polizei: Further proof that your ghey
/the dumbest argument for anything I have heard against anything is you. Congrats


So you're claiming that Gay Marriage does more harm the the notion of a two parent family than say teenage pregnancy and a lack of feeling responsible for what their sperm can become, in young males?

If that's your contention, you calling me stupid has as much weight as a parrot calling me a "dumb-dumb"
 
2009-07-19 08:45:32 AM  
Die Polizei: Further proof that your ghey

Oh and the number of times I've been turned down by women would signify that I'm not "teh Ghey", just unattractive :P
 
2009-07-19 08:58:28 AM  
dracos31: Indeed. Why do Conservatives hate the free market at work?

To be fair, quite a few have a wide stance on the subject.
 
2009-07-19 08:58:39 AM  
I guess the author of the article feels that the "moral argument" against gay marriage is so strong and so persuasive that he's comfortable putting all of the many economic benefits out there for people to see. Pretty silly.

There are many examples of great kids raised in situations other than a Christian man/woman couple. My wife was raised by a single mom. No drugs, not a drunk, college educated, great job, nice friends. How did her mom raise her like that? First, she didn't bring strange men in and out of my wife's life. Second, she made sure my wife played lots of sports... kept her out of trouble. Third, and most importantly, she went to my wife's games and PTA meetings whenever she could.

It's pretty simple. Kids who have people around them who really care do well. Those who don't, well.. don't. There are tons of studies that say this (including families run by gay parents).
 
2009-07-19 09:03:54 AM  
Y'all posting in a fag thread.
 
2009-07-19 09:06:14 AM  
CanisNoir: Die Polizei: Further proof that your ghey

Oh and the number of times I've been turned down by women would signify that I'm not "teh Ghey", just unattractive :P


Maybe you've caught the ghey, and you just don't know it yet, but the women's intuition was enough for them to steer clear?
 
2009-07-19 09:06:24 AM  
bluefelix: I guess the author of the article feels that the "moral argument" against gay marriage is so strong and so persuasive that he's comfortable putting all of the many economic benefits out there for people to see. Pretty silly.

Or he supports the economic argument but included the opinions of others to appear less biased. But hey, he's a christian and they all think alike!

Did you know there is only ever one type of Christian? No sects, no differences in belief, all the same.
 
2009-07-19 09:07:13 AM  
CanisNoir: So you're claiming that Gay Marriage does more harm the the notion of a two parent family than say teenage pregnancy and a lack of feeling responsible for what their sperm can become, in young males?

Then your support of Sarah Palin is out the window?

Oh and the number of times I've been turned down by women would signify that I'm not "teh Ghey", just unattractive :P

Whether your ghey or straight is a nonfactor. It's your views to such.
/your my favorite troll BTW, hook line and sinker
 
2009-07-19 09:18:03 AM  
I will mention that British Columbia ended up getting my (straight) wedding dollars, because we were a might bit pissy about Prop 8.

/ didn't spend very much, though
 
2009-07-19 09:22:47 AM  
So a reasonably impartial publication has an article that mentions gay marriage is good for the wedding economy, and slightly diffuses the notion that such would be a ball and chain to companies who'd offer married benefits.

I'M LITERALLY ANGRY WITH RAGE!
 
2009-07-19 09:35:45 AM  
Our neighbours for six years were a 40 year old gay couple. They were probably the best neighbours we ever had. SO friendly and generous.

They would look after our two dogs when we went on family vacations, get our mail, and watch the house. A couple of times we got home and the dogs were manicured and shampooed, since one of their friends was a dog stylist or something.

The best guys, and it was funny as hell (for both of us) for me and Roland to biatch about "the wife" now and again.

Marriage is the key, not teh ghey. These two men were in a longterm, committed relationship, trying to build and share a life together, and why the hell should it matter if they play hide the salami with each other?

The people who bought their house are a boring straight couple who apparently have a love for dandelions and blasting Christian rock all weekend. And old Scottish songs sometimes.
 
2009-07-19 09:42:55 AM  
Lawnchair: I will mention that British Columbia ended up getting my (straight) wedding dollars, because we were a might bit pissy about Prop 8.

/ didn't spend very much, though


You guys are some kick ass straight people then.
 
2009-07-19 09:53:48 AM  
CanisNoir: Okay so let me get this straight (heh heh), they are complaining that Gay Marriage provides a boost to business and impacts an economy positively, but just not in the right areas? That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Not the dumbest though...

FTFA:
Yet critics say the talk of economic profit obscures a greater social cost. "It's the societal message that same-sex marriage sends - that children do not need a mother and a father," says Kevin Smith, executive director of New Hampshire's Cornerstone Policy Research, which opposes gay marriage.



Everyone here knows that I would like to see religious marriages and legal contracts separated; so I won't go into my "I wish I were a rich man" defense for Tradition; but to claim Gay Marriage convinces children that they don't need a mother and a father is just plain idiocy.

Because we all know that unwed teenage mothers and fathers disappearing quicker than Houdini make a hell of a convincing argument for two parent families no?

/Dumbasses.


Canis, every time I try to argue with you, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

So this time I'm not going to argue with you, I'm going to argue over you.


Single parentage has nothing to do with gays getting married. It has everything to do with the heterosexuals raising said children not teaching them to either a) abstain until marriage (yeh right) or b) use protection each and every time, and c) that if you're not done with college, and aren't yet financially ready to support a child without government assistance (its one thing if you LOSE a job, its another thing if you're just ghetto trash) then it's ok to abort that baby or give it up for adoption.


Thats it... nothing related to gays there at all.


DIAF canis.
 
2009-07-19 10:07:05 AM  
akzeac: It will be pretty sad if somebody in this thread confuses the Christian Science Monitor for a right wing rag, simply because of the "Christian" name. The CSM is pretty much centrist in its reporting, and is no Fox News wannabe.

But it will happen in this thread, so there goes my preemptive disclaimer.


what a right wing rag
pfft.. religion of peace
 
2009-07-19 10:16:38 AM  
It's kinda sad that the idea of whether or not we give rights to our fellow citizens depends on whether or not the State can either make or save a boatload of cash in the process.

-Why, of course those filthy gays don't deserve to be able to...
-Wait, we'll make HOW much money?
-Gay Marriage for everyone!
 
2009-07-19 10:24:39 AM  
Let's try out the Canadian Health Care system and see.
 
2009-07-19 10:24:47 AM  
ThematicDevice: Or he supports the economic argument but included the opinions of others to appear less biased.


I don't see why the other "opinion" is included. One is about the economic impact of legalizing gay marriage, and the other is "OMG THINK OF TEH CHILDREN!!!!1!! THOSE DIRTY, DIRTY HOMOS!!!1!!"

To me, including both is just an attempt to legitimize the latter as equal to the former.

Shame on you, CSM.
 
2009-07-19 10:25:23 AM  
soy_bomb: Let's try out the Canadian Health Care system and see.

Wrong thread. Argh.
 
2009-07-19 10:26:09 AM  
soy_bomb: Let's try out the Canadian Health Care system and see.

Idiot.
 
2009-07-19 10:29:53 AM  
detfrost1: Thats it... nothing related to gays there at all.


DIAF canis.


You Tards do realize I was defending Gay marriage is not being destructive to the notion of a two parent family right? My argument that single parents are the leading cause of children believing they only need one parent and that Gay Marriage doesn't effect it at all; which is why I called the author of the article a dumbass and pointed out that particular statement as proof right?

Oh wait, you couldn't be bothered to see past your bias to realize I was actually defending Gay Marriage despite the fact that I don't support it in it's current form.

/Looks like the author isn't the only dumbass putting word to print this Sunday.
//Yes, you're a dumb ass.
 
2009-07-19 10:47:23 AM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay: To me, including both is just an attempt to legitimize the latter as equal to the former.

Or its the way almost all media in the country operates. Look it has problems but its not the fault of this author.
 
2009-07-19 10:52:27 AM  
ThematicDevice: Or its the way almost all media in the country operates. Look it has problems but its not the fault of this author.

Um, no. It's this author's fault that he chose to put this shiat in his article. Your argument didn't work on my parents when I was six; I tried it, but they came back with "well, if your friends all decided to jump off a cliff...?"

You don't have to legitimize bullshiat hand-wringing about violating Leviticus by expressing it as the counter-argument to solid data about the economic impact of legalizing gay marriage. This author chose to do so.

Shame on you, CSM.
 
2009-07-19 10:55:36 AM  
Just wait til the gay mormons come 'out' demanding polygamgay.

/Heather has Twenty-Two Mommies
//Brigham Young rolls over in grave
///gets blindsided
 
2009-07-19 10:56:25 AM  
CanisNoir: detfrost1: Thats it... nothing related to gays there at all.


DIAF canis.

You Tards do realize I was defending Gay marriage is not being destructive to the notion of a two parent family right? My argument that single parents are the leading cause of children believing they only need one parent and that Gay Marriage doesn't effect it at all; which is why I called the author of the article a dumbass and pointed out that particular statement as proof right?

Oh wait, you couldn't be bothered to see past your bias to realize I was actually defending Gay Marriage despite the fact that I don't support it in it's current form.

/Looks like the author isn't the only dumbass putting word to print this Sunday.
//Yes, you're a dumb ass.


Gotta go with Canis on this one. Both the article and CanisNoir seem to be making far better arguments FOR the legalization of gay marriage than against it (or legal partnership, or whatever you want to call it. I too am in favor of taking religious marriage entirely out of the government realm).

The other point I wish to make is that the realm of research psychology (especially personality psychology) makes clear what the factors are in a healthy upbringing. We know what leads to deviant behavior, and what leads to good, pro-social behavior. Sexuality of the parents is a non-factor; the issues at hand include parenting style (authoritarian, permissive, or authoritative) peer environment, consistency of affection, consistency of rule enforcement, level of education, and amount of family contact.

I would hazard a guess (and for now it's just an educated guess, nothing more) that families with same-sex parents would produce BETTER behaved children, simply because of the nature of the situation. Same-sex couples need to apply to adoption agencies, rather than simple sexual attraction. There are no drug addicted 16 year old loser homosexual parents. Same-sex couples need the financial wherewithal, and much more importantly, the DESIRE to have children. In the realm of studying whether a child has a happy childhood and grows up to be a successful adult, one factor of enormous importance is how WANTED the child feels. Same-sex couples, I'll bet, will raise more confident, well adjusted kids. Just a hunch though.
 
2009-07-19 11:07:19 AM  
MysteryMachine: Same-sex couples, I'll bet, will raise more confident, well adjusted kids. Just a hunch though.

Here's the shiatty part. At SOME POINT, being gay won't be a big deal anymore, except to the religious fringe and whatever patron politicians they own. And some day, after a thousand children of heterosexual couples have already done so, some child of a gay couple will shoot up their school.

Then you will hear MONTHS of these religious asshats on TV saying "WE WARNED YOU!!!11! DON'T YOU BELIEVE US NOW!!!1!!1 LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE, YOU DIRTY, DIRTY HOMOS!!!1!!!1!"
 
2009-07-19 11:44:46 AM  
CanisNoir: You Tards do realize I was defending Gay marriage is not being destructive to the notion of a two parent family right?


That's how I read you.

I have to admit, both you and soy_bomb surprised me a little on this subject. Very cool.
 
2009-07-19 11:45:24 AM  
CanisNoir: So you're claiming that Gay Marriage does more harm the the notion of a two parent family than say teenage pregnancy and a lack of feeling responsible for what their sperm can become, in young males?

If that's your contention, you calling me stupid has as much weight as a parrot calling me a "dumb-dumb"


I gotta say, man, you do a pretty good job of being a rational conservative.
 
2009-07-19 11:45:29 AM  
Farker T: Just wait til the gay mormons come 'out' demanding polygamgay.

/Heather has Twenty-Two Mommies
//Brigham Young rolls over in grave
///gets blindsided


I don't mind the idea of polygamy (well, polyamory, really). I just hate the way it's executed.

/I can haz two husbands?
//I don't really have someone I'd call a second husband (nor do I really think I'd ever find anyone I like as much as my husband), but I'm not sold idea on 'till-death-do-us-part'
///Point? Why the fark should I care about the relationship between two (or more, for that matter) consenting adults of sound mind? Whose life are they impacting specifically?
////Don't know any gays, no vested interest. But willing to serve as proof that gay marriage doesn't affect MY marriage.
 
2009-07-19 11:49:17 AM  
Six_By_Nine: ////Don't know any gays...

We can fix that right now. Allow me to introduce myself... *extends hand*
 
2009-07-19 12:06:39 PM  
MysteryMachine: I too am in favor of taking religious marriage entirely out of the government realm

It already is. You can already get married without ever setting foot in a church. And a given church is already free to not recognize your legal marriage (it happens occasionally in the Catholic Church, for example).

All you're really arguing for is a change in terminology to emphasize what is already the case. And my response to that is, if churches are unhappy with sharing the term then they are free to begin using their own new term (in fact, they already have one they can use, "holy matrimony").
 
2009-07-19 12:25:49 PM  
It is interesting to see the argument against and for gay marriage slowly morph and change.

For the longest time people kept making incredibly stupid predictions about what would or could happen if gay marriage was legalized. The sad thing about that was that it continued long after other countries had legalized gay marriage. If you wanted to know what was likely to happen you only had to look elsewhere to see what had happened. Too many people did not want to see and continued to treat the US as some sort of special case where things were simply different.

Now that some precedents are set in the US itself the argument slowly changes. Predicted effects become more long term less obvious and partly hidden.

You have to wonder what the arguments will be when the first couples are celebrating their 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary without any of the predicted effects having materialized.
 
2009-07-19 12:27:18 PM  
Well, they'd spread the AIDS around less, wouldn't they? Cause queers are the only ones that get the AIDS, right?

/Right?
 
2009-07-19 12:30:09 PM  
My two cents, I think people flaming on CanisNoir remember him from election time. I'm sure I've read past a few of his posts because I remember him being very....troll'ish. Though recently I have been taking the time to read his posts and have to defend him. Read what people actually write!!!
And yeah, a very comitted gay couple would probably make better parents than some strung out teenager whose boyfriend ran out on her the moment he found out about the baby. It's the bigots who think that their way is the only way that are screwing things up.
 
2009-07-19 01:10:02 PM  
Farker T: polygamgay

Clearly that should be "polygaymy".
 
2009-07-19 01:13:55 PM  
Die Polizei: Then your support of Sarah Palin is out the window?

I'm not a supporter of Palin, though I do defend her from what I see as unwarranted attacks and I try to correct what I see as misinformation. As far as this issue goes, yea I'm with her, I think the "States" should decide whether or not to allow Gay Marriage. Like Palin, I believe most of our social issues should be solved by local governments and not the Fed.

I don't suddenly support Gay Marriage, I don't; I just don't try to hide the fact that my resistance to it is embedded in an irrational emotional attachment to "Tradition". Hence I have no logical basis to vote "against" it, so I don't bother voting on the subject matter.

Personally I would prefer every couple enjoy the same rights through a Civil Union and if people want to be married, arrange a separate ceremony through a church. Since that's not one of the proposed position, I find myself not wanting to either inhibit the pro-gay marriage movement, nor advancing it. Thus, I sit on the side line and correct those who believe only people who hate or are afraid of homosexuals oppose Gay Marriage.

I'll gladly call an dumbfark who uses stupid logic like "it'll only advance economic areas where the Gays are" and "A Gay couple would destroy the notion of a two parent family", a dumb fark.

Now he could have made the argument that children need both a masculine and a feminine influence in their lives; but again, simply because a couple is gay does not preclude those influences from their children. (i.e. Homo's don't live in a vacuum so the kids will get a decent amount of both influences through them, their friends or acquaintances) In other words, it's no different from a woman who marries an effeminate man, or vice verse.

There really is no *logical* reason to oppose Gay Marriage, but that's not to say there isn't a decent "illogical" reason which is why I'd like to see the grand compromise I offered above take form. It'll never happen though; Militant Gays are dead set on absconding the word "Marriage" for themselves due to a perceived past "wrong", and Fundies are too scared that "Them homo's will drag us to hell son".
 
2009-07-19 01:27:35 PM  
CanisNoir: I think the "States" should decide whether or not to allow Gay Marriage. Like Palin, I believe most of our social issues should be solved by local governments and not the Fed.

Like how Alabama and Mississippi realized that "separate but equal" was wrong all on and enforced the voluntary desegregation of public schools without the need of national guard troops right?

I get what your argument lies in opposition to federal intrusion of state law but sometimes the rights of a minority wether race or sexual will never be realized without federal protection and enforcement.
 
2009-07-19 01:54:40 PM  
me_the_farker: I get what your argument lies in opposition to federal intrusion of state law but sometimes the rights of a minority wether race or sexual will never be realized without federal protection and enforcement.

Well truth be told, I don't see Gay Marriage as being a State's Rights issue either; like I said, I'm firmly in the camp that would love Civil Unions for legal rights and Marriages for the religious. So my ideal position on this one would be solved by the Fed; abortion, that's a different bird :)
 
2009-07-19 01:55:10 PM  
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report