Comments on: Gay Marriage is Good for the Economy

By: Mats

Mats — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:46:23 +0000

Thanks C, I was scratching my head over the same inconsistencies of Curt’s not-so-fact-based comment.
Not to say I haven’t heard this line of arguments before: it is far too easy to churn out something one overheard sometime, somewhere that seems to support one’s case and values. Lots of people talk before they think. Or read.

By: C.

C. — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:59:30 +0000

@ Curt:

Can you explain to me how gay marriage (which means commitment and longterm relationships) is going to increase aids infections? On the contrary, every study goes to show that those who have a risky comportment are the ones who have the lowest self-esteem and most pronounced internalized homophobia (and who, then, don’t care whether they get the virus or not because it is a form of suicide).

Secondly in the US, 75% of hiv positive people are heterosexuals.

Thirdly, I’d really, REALLY like to know what gay marriage has to do with unwed women. Honestly.

By: Drea

Drea — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:45:09 +0000

Regardless of what the long-term trend is, gay and lesbian couples are creating a positive spike in the industry as I write this. Closets do create pressure, when packed tightly enough…

By: Curt

Curt — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:29:27 +0000

Are you kidding me? Gay marriage would destroy the economy as it would further break down the family unit – which is the foundation of society as we know it. Gay marrige means more unwed mothers, which means more people becoming dependent on the government. Gay marriage means more AIDS and other health related problems, which means millions more will be spend on medical research to develop more drugs. This alone will could cost every family thousands of dollar as their health insurance rates increase. I just read an article yesterday about how the world health organization said that the spread of AIDS is primarily in the gay population, yet they expect the entire world to pay for new research to help.

By: Jim Vernon

Jim Vernon — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:16:43 +0000

Oh.
3) Some of that “extra” revenue is already realized in the form of commitment ceremonies. Gay cruises, etc. You’d have to figure out how much is already realized and subtract it from your estimates of incremental revenue. Then you’d have to reduce your 5-10% multiplier by the percentage that already have commitment ceremonies, etc.

This is starting to sound like Bill Clinton’s 1996 victory speech (SNL skit reference).

By: Jim Vernon

Jim Vernon — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:13:35 +0000

What’s the basis for expecting gays to marry at the same rate as straights?

1) By definition, gays are different. Do we even know enough to say how the differences that make one gay would affect one’s attraction to a social norm?
2) Even if gayness were uncorrelated with the factors leading one to marry, the tendency for gays to stay “in the closet” would still reduce their marriage rates. I don’t think for a minute that legalizing gay marriage would bring everyone out of the closet. Legalization doesn’t mean instantly creating a culture with full acceptance of gayness.
3) I’m too tired to think of other reasons, but I’m sure I’ve only hit the easy ones.