Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Weird gay marriage economic argument?

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:19:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Gay marriage debate is fundamentally a religious/socially-conservative battle founded on outmoded ideals that, in our modern world, are instantly recognized as backwards unless shrouded in a more secular policy debate, like the attempt of the OP. Of course these so-called policy arguments are ultimately found to be frivolous if actually examined, such as in the Courts. The arguments raised in the OP are the same recycled and rehashed social conservative talking points found in so many group chain emails, "studies" by conservative thinktanks, and trial briefs of socially conservative non-profits that push the conservative social agenda in the court system. These arguments are not only scientifically unsound, they are becoming culturally outdated and desperately trying to seek relevance in a world that no longer needs them.

As to the nuclear family and why the government encouraged it so heavily in the 1950's, here are my thoughts. These are my own, I did not get these from a google article or a blog, so don't ask me for sources.

The Nuclear family drove material consumption in its heyday from the 1940's through the 1970's. This is why it is "subsidized," i.e., encouraged through tax incentives. Nuclear families, as opposed to extended families, bought their own homes, bought their own refrigerators, bought their own TVs, bought their own cars, and so on and so forth. As opposed to the extended family, which encouraged more community oriented sharing of goods, since the whole family lived together or relatively close together and shared resources. Sharing resources means you are buying less crap which means society as a whole is not consuming as many goods, which is bad (if you believe that the engine of our capitalist world requires high rates of artificially encouraged consumption.) If you are a real hardcore American Patriot, you could probably create some tangential relation between extended families and communism.

Of course, the nuclear family of the 1950s is on the decline, but this is not due to same sex marriage. There are more single parent households and childless households than ever before. This is not necessarily bad from the consumerist standpoint either; the main need there is simply smaller and smaller living units that need to buy their own stuff (and now with a modern flavor: health insurance!). Same sex marriage, or a same sex household, perfectly fits the paradigm of breaking society up into smaller units that individually need to purchase more "stuff" for themselves. There is no reason to not provide the same tax incentives to a same sex household as any other, other than outmoded socially conservative ideals.

So really, same sex marriage is good for the economy, and if you're against it you're against jobs and prosperity! USA #1!"


Can anybody explain this in simpler terms?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:27:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The argument is that legalizing same sex marriage increases the number of "nuclear families" and thus increases consumption because nuclear families breaks society into smaller pieces and thus forces a reduction in sharing and an increase in individualistic spending.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:45:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's a stupid argument; gay marriage is a social issue first.

Imagine if we only looked at the economic side of slavery.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:30:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:45:20 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
It's a stupid argument; gay marriage is a social issue first.

Imagine if we only looked at the economic side of slavery.

I am actually going to have to agree with this post (*cue the Apocalypse because I just agreed with LibertyCampbell*). The argument really is not that convincing.

Does this not justify banning the family model altogether and forcing all of us to live individually? We would increase consumption very quickly in such a fashion.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:00:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:19:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
Gay weddings would save the economy :P

I'm sure the hundreds of State recognized benefits imposed on these couples would outweigh the economic benefits from marrying.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:09:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:00:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:19:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
Gay weddings would save the economy :P

I'm sure the hundreds of State recognized benefits imposed on these couples would outweigh the economic benefits from marrying.

lol @ you saying benefits being "imposed" like it's a bad thing. Oh, gay citizens getting something back from the government like every other tax payer. The horror.
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 5:18:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 5:09:07 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 5:00:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:19:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
Gay weddings would save the economy :P

I'm sure the hundreds of State recognized benefits imposed on these couples would outweigh the economic benefits from marrying.

lol @ you saying benefits being "imposed" like it's a bad thing. Oh, gay citizens getting something back from the government like every other tax payer. The horror.

It's not their fault Danielle, in the U.S.A. we are taught to think of ourselves first, particularly in the political arena. It's only natural that we'd do what we can to disenfranchise another group that doesn't include us.
Rob