<p>Finances are bad reasons to deny people their human rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that (at least as far as I’ve seen) no one seems to be trying to estimate these costs. </p>
<p>Everyone who supports gay marriage don’t care about the costs, and those that oppose it don’t want legalization regardless. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why we aren’t seeing some numbers. It would shed a lot of light, and I think that anyone who has a pro-gay-marriage agenda should be advocating such a study.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gay marriage is a human right? Is health insurance a human right, too? What about unemployment benefits? Prescription drugs? </p>
<p>There isn’t a price you aren’t willing to pay to fund everything you think should be a human right?</p>
<p>Are you willing to tax companies/upper class exorbitant amounts? In other words, are you willing to slow down job growth and all technological/human progress to allow these rights? Because a company has no cost-benefit incentives to fund a project that will be taxed at 40, 50, 60% Where does it end?</p>
<p>It’s fine if the answer is yes, but I just don’t think the problem is as simple as everyone wants to make it. You have to make sacrifices.</p>
<p>if there was any legitimate financial reason to justify keeping gays from getting married people these anti-gays would be ALL over it. claiming that “god said so” just has to be such an embarrassing reason to live such an intolerant and hateful lifestyle</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As an atheist I would agree that claiming god said so is a weak argument.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean you actually know the real financial implications of legalizing gay marriage. Please show data if you have it.</p>
<p>"That’s because legalizing gay marriage isn’t that costly in economic terms. In fact, research suggests it should save money for federal and state governments. And for corporate America, the costs of extending benefits to the partners and families of gay employees are small.</p>
<p>Did you ever wonder why more and more companies, state and municipal governments, and colleges and universities are granting benefits to gay workers’ partners and children? One big reason: It’s cheap. On average, it would add 1 percent - 2 percent tops - to employers’ benefit costs, says Susan Sandler, editor of a newsletter, HRfocus, for the Institute of Management and Administration in New York.</p>
<p>Demographics partially explains this modest impact. More than 96 percent of firms would face no additional costs for healthcare benefits, largely because most businesses would not have an employee married to a same-sex partner. That figure comes from a study released by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, an Amherst, Mass., think tank, and Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a Washington group seeking equal rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people. Large firms, with more than 500 employees, would see an average increase in costs of just under $25,000 per year on average.</p>
<p>Already, nearly 7,500 employers extend such benefits, the HRC reports. A new survey of 459 firms by the Society for Human Resource Management in Alexandria, Va., found 39 percent providing domestic-partner benefits.</p>
<p>As for the financial impact on the government, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study found that if gay marriage were allowed throughout the United States, it would “improve the [federal] budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years.” (That wouldn’t make much of a dent in a deficit expected to exceed $400 billion this year.)"</p>
<p>[The</a> dollars and cents of gay marriage / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0830/p17s01-cogn.html]The”>The dollars and cents of gay marriage - CSMonitor.com)</p>
<p>You’re proposing not allowing someone to get married because of finances?</p>
<p>That makes no sense at all…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heterosexual marriage is a human right?</p>
<p>“The economic aspects of gay marriage, however, are becoming clearer – particularly in New England. Of the five states that allow gay marriage, four are in New England. New Hampshire, too, is considering a bill to legalize it. Moreover, New England is home to three of the top six states when ranked by highest concentration of same-sex couples, according to a 2007 study by the Williams Institute at the University of California in Los Angeles.”</p>
<p>For the state of Massachusetts, revenue from gay marriage has come from three main sources: First, marriage licenses.</p>
<p>Second, income taxes are generally higher for married couples than they are for single filers, because many married couples have two incomes, which drives them into a higher tax bracket and incurs a “marriage penalty.” This is particularly true for same-sex couples, who are more likely than heterosexual couples to have two incomes.</p>
<p>Third, same-sex marriage decreases costs for state benefit programs. Since marriage – whether gay or heterosexual – provides a safety net for spouses, an expansion of marriage results in more people becoming ineligible for state benefits. A Maine study, for instance, found that the state could save as much as $7.3 million a year in benefits since it legalized same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>Moreover, in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal the longest, spending on same-sex weddings has brought the state $110 million so far, the Williams Institute study concludes."
[The</a> cost of gay marriage ? in dollars and cents - CSMonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/0527/p02s07-ussc.html]The”>The cost of gay marriage – in dollars and cents - CSMonitor.com)</p>
<p>The whole “man and woman is how nature intended it” argument has been refuted by nature itself. There are homosexual animals; it doesn’t get much more “natural” than that. And I might be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that animals cannot sin.</p>
<p>" if one were to cite strictly economic rationale for gay marriage, there is a great case to be made for it.</p>
<p>Forbes magazine says an immediate windfall of about $17 billion could be had if gay marriage were made legal nationally. The magazine conducted the analysis several years ago and determined that “one thing is abundantly clear: Legalizing same-sex marriages would mean a windfall for the wedding industry.” Weddings are a $70 billion-a-year business. "</p>
<p>[Gay</a> marriage can serve as boost to economy Thomas Kostigen’s Ethics Monitor - MarketWatch](<a href=“http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gay-marriage-can-help-economy]Gay”>Economic benefits of gay marriage - MarketWatch)</p>
<p>Boehm - you are correct that they occur in nature. I think I mentioned in a previous post that at the pet store where I work alone, there are two lesbian lovebirds who live as a mated pair. :)</p>
<p>Some animals eat their crrraaapp and lick their bum. Does that mean humans should?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Arguably all the benefits I listed could be human rights, including gay marriage. The point was whether these rights are financially sustainable by the federal government.</p>
<p>Northstarmom is showing some articles suggesting that gay marriage is.</p>
<p>Why is this even on College Confidential? I want to focus on my UC threads :(</p>
<p>Northstarmom – when I inserted ““improve the [federal] budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years.” (That wouldn’t make much of a dent in a deficit expected to exceed $400 billion this year.),” why did I only get the CSMonitor article? Where is that CBO report, because I don’t understand how decreased tax revenues led to a net profit on the bottom line. </p>
<p>I should add that you excluded from the Forbes article: “If you look carefully through the numbers, the thing that actually makes the numbers work in gay marriage’s favor is the caring of one person for another. When people show they care, they spend – on gifts, dinners, weekend getaways.”</p>
<p>Assuming that married gay couples will spend more on each other than unmarried partners is a stretch</p>
<p>Edit: the economic growth spurt mentioned in these articles is from “engagement rings, banquet halls, wedding dresses and honeymoons. Add it all up, and it comes to $16.8 billion.”</p>
<p>How many times will gay couples marry? How many times will they pay yearly federal income tax?</p>
<p>“Some animals eat their ***** and lick their bum. Does that mean humans should?”</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this is referring to my post, but I’m refuting previous statements I saw about how homosexuality is “unnatural”. I’m not trying to introduce my own argument.</p>
<p>Some animals eat their crrraaapp and lick their bum. Does that mean humans should?</p>
<p>Well? What says you, homosexuals?</p>
<p>Truelove, your post $338 is just silly. The people like me who were mentioning that there are homosexual animals were mentioning that because some people argue against gay rights by saying that homosexuality doesn’t occur in nature, something that isn’t true.</p>
<p>"Where is that CBO report, because I don’t understand how decreased tax revenues led to a net profit on the bottom line. "</p>
<p>Feel free to post research that supports your viewpoint.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure it’s an accepted fact that humans are more civilized than animals. However, humans do not have the will power to choose who they are attracted to. To believe that, as a human, you CAN make that “choice” is a bit conceited. Don’t give yourself too much credit. We are all slaves to our subconscious, whether you want to accept it or not.</p>
<p>Edit: I think some people on here be trollin’</p>