Same-Sex Marriage Would Pump at Least $182 Million into the Texas Economy

I decided to throw caution to the wind, and talk to a wedding planner about the local economic benefit of homosexual marriages.

SHE says it is virtually negligible.  Most homosexual marriages are civil ceremonies, which have no appreciable impact.  Others are greatly abbreviated and beyond modest -- and inexpensive. 

She has talked to wedding planners in states where homosexual marriage is permitted, and THEY say they have almost no clients who are homosexuals, and those very few had to do with just the basics of a place (most don't attend church), musician, boutonnieres, sometimes a few flowers, and very small receptions when they have one at all. 

So, these estimates for economic  benefits are not only incorrect, but the actual net impact of the marriages probably COSTS the community in terms of lost rents, lost utilities customers, fewer insurance policies, etc.

"In the first three years after legalization, the study estimates 23,200 Texas same-sex couples would tie the knot. Most of those marriages, about 14,000, would take place in the first year. More weddings means more fodder for the wedding-industrial complex."

interesting but  all studies are nothing more than just SWAGs
"How Many Gay Couples Have Tied The Knot? Nobody Knows"

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/08/200021271/how-many-gay-couples-have-tied-the-knot-nobody-knows

"How many same-sex marriages in the U.S.? At least 71,165, probably more"
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/26/how-many-same-sex-marriages-in-the-u-s-at-least-71165-probably-more/

How many same-sex couples have married in New York?http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_same-sex_couples_have_married_in_New_York

but you know who will really make out if SSM becomes legal in Texas? the divorce attorneys.

Why Jews Push Gay Marriage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yLbF0BtZs4&list=UUtBqVgzL_cDv_t9o2hFiXXg

this is complete and utter bullshit....that said, we should still give homosexuals this right to marriage so we can move on to more important matters...like getting the government out of our personal business.

...and yet if government got out of the marriage business, this would have been realized long ago. but yet, progressives NEED government recognition, when what they should be demanding is deregulation of marriage. This does not mean that people can start marrying their cousins (sorry DonkeyHotay), but common sense dictates that business between monogamous adults is none of the governments business.

@pak152  and your point is?

@wontunow 

Oh yeah, THIS guy:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nathanael_Kapner

What do you mean start? Marrying your first cousin has been legal in Texas and many other states for ages. Look it up. This is 'Merika, after all.

@TexMarine 

Does that include polygamy, and/or marrying off children (popular in some Islamic cultures), for example? Where do you draw the line at governmental involvement? Expecting "common sense" from a population of diverse beliefs (not to mention diverse intelligence) is a fantasy indeed.

@bippyizod @pak152 The numbers are way off.  It's nowhere even near that NET impact on the economy of Texas. 

You cannot isolate the average costs of heterosexual weddings and make them apply.  to homosexual weddings.  Furthermore, these WAGs do not take into consideration the number of individual households with their own costs that are combined in the new household.

As well, almost all gay weddings in the few states that allow them are civil marriages instead of church weddings.  That's the difference between day and night. 

And, the tax implications are huge.  No doubt all gays will go after the marriage exemptions and deductions, and that will cost the national economy a fortune. 

A worse cost is done to the social fabric of a state that has traditionally been a very moral and ethical enclave for marriage and for sexual protection of minors, outlawed homosexual practices,  has the largest Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches in the world.

@aymous944 wow. next time YOU look it up before you show your ignorance. Now, spread this message to your "friends" - you cannot marry your fist cousin in Texas, idiot.

@aymous944 

Texas? Not according to this:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx

@plainsman1 @TexMarine He did say monogamous adults. So where's the problem? And yeah, polygamy. Because freedom.

@plainsman1 if you think "common sense" is marrying children, then you should get some help. A civil union covers the legal aspects of it all. The term "marriage" is the hitch; drop it and the bitching goes away.

@TexMarine @aymous944 That's correct.  The whole purpose of such statutes is to prevent a well-known disability from occurring in the offspring.  So, it a practical thing as well as a social thing.

@plainsman1 @aymous944 I stand corrected. Apparently, it was banned in 2005. Still, cousin marriage isn't unheard of in many parts of the nation, as you can see from that list.

If they agree to not procreate, why shouldn't close relatives be allowed to marry?

@5iveblades 

The deregulation of marriage, in Tex's somewhat muddled initial post, would lead one to believe he meant deregulation, period. But then, his whole rambling argument is muddled.

@TexMarine So drop the term "marriage" and you end up with a less than situation. How about just dropping "pay taxes" in lieu of FULL and equal rights? 

At some point even the best wordplay will not disguise bigotry.   Yet to insinuate that DH or anyone ANYWHERE thinks that marrying children is connected to gay marriage is someone who continually pollutes the message that all men are create equal and thus deserving of the same rights. 

So the comment about the bitching going away if "marriage" is dropped is called a distraction.

Now about your concern with children.   I assume that you are volunteering some of your humanitarian time and $$ to help those children that are coming our way for help.   Because just to promise NOT to marry them is not doing a lot of good.

@TexMarine @plainsman1 

The hyper-religious who get there knickers in a twist over this deserve no special consideration in a multicultural secular nation. "Separate but equal" didn't fly very well for segregationists, either.

@DonkeyHotay

Yep - hence my use of and/or...

@aymous944 @plainsman1 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

cousin marriage laws by state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

@Hot.Sauce Since you can have sex without marriage, which almost all homosexuals do, why would you need to marry on the basis of NOT having sex? 

That seems to be senseless.

@Hot.Sauce 

That stipulation exists in six or seven states, I believe.

@plainsman1 @5iveblades Sorry you failed that course in LOGIC. 

You're seriously failing to account for thousands of years of precedent, religious practices, civil practices, and even statutory precedents in basically free societies.

@bippyizod @TexMarine Homosexuals have every right to marry; just not those of the same sex. 

In the minds of many, homosexuals are a blight and a scourge on any culture they invade. They cannot produce offspring, they practice unhealthy and risky behaviors having sex, and raise the level of immorality of any community they inhavit. 

Homosexuals have the same rights that everyone has.  Having a "right" to do something absurdly wrong is not a right.

@bippyizod you are off your meds. I didn't say anything close to what you are alleging. I merely said that heteros and homos would be just find with civil unions, because that's technically the only part of a "marriage' that is governments business.

It was those who chose to argue with me over that term that decided that marrying children was within context of my point. This is the same response when guns are the subject; they assume guns will be used against children.

As far as your question about the children headed into town; I already support them; I pay taxes that fund failing schools, I pay taxes that help our government fuel the conflict in central america, and I interact with losers on the DO who's drug problem gives the cartels business.

Any more bitch ass questions?

@DonkeyHotay @TexMarine @plainsman1 At a time in the world then, when life expectancy was under 40 years old, and women had nothing else to do but marry, it's was not at all uncommon for women to marry as soon as they could have children. 

We don't know how old the mother of Jesus was when she delivered him in a hotel stable, but nothing in the Bible condemns marrying and having children in one's teens.

This still a common practice in Africa, in Islamic countries, and elsewhere.  In fact, Muhammad is said to have been something of a pedophile and had children for sex partners. 

So, I fail to see your point.  

@DonkeyHotay @TexMarine @plainsman1 older than the Prophet Mo's (PBOH) wife Aisha whom he married at age 6

@DonkeyHotay @TexMarine @plainsman1 You're more of a mess than I first thought. God didn't impregnate anyone, much less have sex with them. 

It was the Holy Spirit of "Trinity" fame who saw to it that Mary was able to have her son, Jesus.

@DonkeyHotay so much for your fucking facts.

Wrong about Georgia > http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/georgia/

Missouri - yeah, they're backwoods.

so...do you think if you had any ancestors in Judea 2000 years ago that this wasn't practiced? Or did your lineage just appear out of thin air?

jarhead...lol...ouch.

You are a soft headed bitch. And I'm sure in your real life, its just the same.

@pak152 what's the hold up California?

Good to know.

Hoping cousin Janine is at the next family reunion. :-)

@noblefurrtexas 

A ridiculous overstatement. In the past, this trend of yours has been almost exclusively influenced by the myths and superstitions of religion. Fortunately in this country changing public opinion and an adherence to the Constitution (a favorite rallying point for the right, BTW) is doing away with bigoted segregation of homosexual rights. Boo hoo.

@RTGolden1  

How the government is "in" the marriage business other than to protect the legal position of the two individuals varies from state to state. For the most part, the only legislation on the state level that makes dissolving a marriage more difficult is usually instigated by religiously inspired legislators of the thumper variety. As for wallet-lightening, that possibility always exists in any contract situation, (although I might also be detecting, rightly or wrongly, a personal aversion to child support and/or alimony here)

@DonkeyHotay @plainsman1 @5iveblades Sorrry.  I did serve in the military, and that included an active combat involvement.

But, no PTSD.  I resolved whatever horrid reactions I had for myself, and moved on.

@TexMarine You are suggesting that gays should be fine with "civil unions".  I say you should be fine with only being allowed a part time job and not a full time job like everyone else.  So get to your honest point and tell us your beef with full equality for all men and women.

EQUALITY.....the same for everyone.   We know that Marriage is not going to be exterminated in order to make us all equal.   Thus the only sane and rational answer to adhere to all men are created equal is to allow MARRIAGE for everyone.  

If you are just speaking of .....hypotheticals.....then how about this.  IF we just outlaw ALL wars then no one will ever get injured or killed in one. 

@noblefurrtexas   So you agree Mary was pregnant but was not impregnated even though God put out a star to guide people to this baby Jesus.  So if he didn't need to stick his dick in her vagina, why did he search out a tight virgin?  Did he FedEx the sperm?  How did the sperm get inside the virgin? 

Just wondering since you are so quick to call someone a MESS, when it seems to me that you are one fucked up cookie. 

If you want to be god like then there is NO need to fuck women to procreate.  Just figure out how God did it and duplicate/replicate/reciprocate and do it, do it, do it till your satisfied. 

The "Trinity" implies that Jesus WAS god and if that were the case then why would Jesus say "Why do you call me good?", "No one is good except God alone."???  If Jesus IS God why would he refer to himself in the 3rd person?

And just for the record.  Equality has nothing to do with YOUR particular brand of religion, nor the Jewish, nor the Muslim, nor ANY sort of religion.  It is just your excuse to disregard fearing what you don't understand.  And if you fear it, you must condemn it as it is easier to do than attempting to understand it.

Boy even after having that "conversation with an ATTORNEY, you are still messy mess.  Chin up sweetie.  Chine up.

@Hot.Sauce LOL

I had one of those growing up who might as well have modeled for "Playboy".  It was for years an object lesson in "restraint".  :)

@plainsman1 @noblefurrtexas I know of no constitutional rights not available to homosexuals. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate your explaining.

@bippyizod @TexMarine Homosexuals are not "equal".  Most countries and states do not permit people of the same sex to marry or have the protections of married couples 

There's a reason for that.

@bippyizod @TexMarine Homosexuals have the same right to to marry, according to the law, as straight people do.  It merely excludes the absurd notion of marrying people of the same sex. 

Marriage is not about love or commitment spending time together.  And, it is the purview of government because of some regulations about who can be married, and to account for vital statistics like single, married, children, and deaths.

@bippyizod @TexMarine Some gays have complained they don't have the same benefits for "coupling" that heterosexuals have.  However, civil unions provide all of those benefits and more.  They just can't sue under marriage provisions. 

But, in most states, the benefits are the same because that is why civil unions created.

@bippyizod "You are suggesting that gays should be fine with "civil unions"

Read this carefully - everyone should be perfectly fine with it as the governments recognition is nothing more than a legal civil union (its that way today).  So, if all you can see is how gays fit into this, you're not thinking at a high enough level. We should ALL reject government sanction of "marriage" and make all EQUAL under a CIVIL UNION.  

Look at the definitions of both words. If heteros who believe in equality would understand that the M word is not the domain of the government, then this shouldn't be an issue. How is that not rational?

"If you are just speaking of .....hypotheticals.....then how about this.  IF we just outlaw ALL wars then no one will ever get injured or killed in one. "

Its statements like this that shed light on how "sane and rational" you are.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas @TexMarine @plainsman1 

Neither you nor I know for sure what the "evidence" was for forced sex by unmarried people in the early days of Judaism.  

In Isam, it takes several first'-hand witnesses to the deed in order to be a crime. 

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas @TexMarine @plainsman1 The Holy Spirit isn't a "man".

@DonkeyHotay @primi_timpano And, here I thought you had some sense.  

You need to study some history and Sociology to learn why males dominated the social fabric for such a very long time.  Rape was NOT a dominant theme; it never occurred to anyone that a wife would refuse to sleep with her husband.  

There are still a majority of countries in the world where this is the case.   In fact, in older times, husbands/fathers held life and death power over their wives, children, and animals

This was even true in the United States in a number of states well into the 1900s.  So I wouldn't be too smug about the topic; it was the way of the world for thousands of years.

@bippyizod @noblefurrtexas If God can put out a special star for a GPS device for wise men and shepherds, I think there would be no problem creating a baby without physical contact. 

Again, remember Adam and Eve.   :)

@bippyizod @noblefurrtexas Thanks for the Psych. evaluation.  You're wrong, but I don't want you getting a bad image over being incorrect about irrational and idle speculation. 

In all seriousness, I am I am a poor subject to be explaining the Trinity.  You're certainly asking fair and pertinent questions, but I'm just somewhat inadequate to answer all of them with any authority. 

There was a classical hymn written by lyricist and poet Reginald Heber entitled "Holy Holy Holy".  It addresses the Holy Trinity and says that God, in the Holy Trinity, was three "persons" - which is accurate if you think about it. 

The song was set to music written by composer John Dykes sometime later.  But, for Christians, it is one of the more popular old hymns still sung today. 

I think it is most important to keep in mind that God was a supreme being who created the heavens and the Earth.  But, a part of his persona was fulfilled by a spirit known as The Holy Spirit. 

Jesus is the easiest to figure out.  He was "sent" by God to walk among men to help Him understand why mankind was so incredibly and randomly at variance in terms of behavior and "sinning".

I personally think God sent his only child, a son, named Jesus to enable Him to understand why Man was the way he was. 

@bippyizod @noblefurrtexas First of all, this is a thread about the economic contributions - if any - from same sex marriage (and presumably weddings). 

I've already commented on that; no need to do so further. 

As for how Mary became pregnant, most Biblical scholars I know of believe she was made pregnant by the Holy Spirit.  The methodology wasn't described in the Bible, but since God "spoke" the creation of the heavens and Earth, the Holy Spirit had a wide variety of options.

The notion that people fear or hate what they don't understand is as bogus as the assertion that people condemn what they don't understand. 

That Psychology 101 course you took at the Drive The Big Rigs School is not working out for ya.

@RTGolden1 @noblefurrtexas @DonkeyHotay @TexMarine @plainsman1 Trust me on this, RT.  I wouldn't attempt to rewrite Biblical history with a gun to my head. 

Adam and Eve weren't created through impregnation.  They were constructed/created by God -- most likely through His speaking to create Adam, and borrowing one of Adam's ribs to created Eve.

Prior to Eve's arrival at Eden, there were no other women available to have babies.

@RTGolden1 @noblefurrtexas @DonkeyHotay @TexMarine @plainsman1 I couldn't agree more.

Remember, he SPOKE the creation of the world, the heavens, and Adam.  By borrowing a rib, he then created Eve. 

Having babies the old-fashioned way wasn't necessary.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas I'm curious what good you would find sexual organs on God.  In the Trinity, the birth of Jesus was accomplished by the Holy Spirit, one of God's manifestations.  While it's doubtful it was accomplished in the old-fashioned way, God already had plenty of experience creating people without sex. 

Remember Adam and Eve?  Checkmate!  :)_

@DonkeyHotay yay! first person to use an ad hominem attack loses.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas @plainsman1 @5iveblades It certainly makes it easier to sleep and fell less guilty about missing exercise. 

@noblefurrtexas 

The civil union ploy is just another version of the separate-but-equal gambit of segregationists. The hyper-religious are for it because it symbolically devalues the union in their minds so they can remain oh-so-special and superior.

@DonkeyHotay @TexMarine @plainsman1 I don't see how that's contrary to anything I wrote.  Men who committed rape were were punished in two ways, not one. 

Sounds to me like it is not permissive at all.

@noblefurrtexas 

Riiiiight, the unremitting misogyny of Christianity, not to mention Islam and Judaism, hasn't had anything to do with it.

@noblefurrtexas 

AHHahahaha! So what were "Adam" and "Eve"? Australopithecus, perhaps?

@plainsman1 @noblefurrtexas Homosexuals are NOT equal.  No matter how hard they wish, they can NEVER produce offspring, which is the primary reason for marriage. 

Do you have any idea how truly absurd "same-sex marriage" sounds to normal people?

I'm never in favor of two people with perverse and unhealthy practices and psychological disabilities getting married.  

There is no "separate but equal" argument under civil rights statutes where homosexuals are concerned.  That doesn't mean it hasn't been argued, and some idiot judges have showed their ignorance on the matter. But, "separate but equal" FIRST assumed a totally equal right in all ways applied to the purpose of a lawsuit.  That's just not the case between homosexuals and normal heterosexuals, 90% of the Earth's population if not more.

@plainsman1 @noblefurrtexas I think you're probably close to correct in both cases. 

But, I think it's fair to include ALL of the reasons most of society is against same-sex marriage; regardless of age, marital status, and gender.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas @TexMarine @plainsman1 

TThere is a reason Mary is called "The Virigin Mary" by several denominations including Catholics.  She was made pregnant by means other than sex.  So, she was still a virgin. 

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas @TexMarine @plainsman1 

When you learn to use the Internet and cumulative message boards, you'll probably be happier and make more sense. 

For example, "Prove" what???????

@plainsman1 @noblefurrtexas It's not misogyny; it's what they truly believed was Biblical, legal, and right. 

For thousands of years, a man's wife, children, and animals were chattel under his control.  It wasn't quite slavery, but it was pretty close in some instances. 

The holy books of all three major religions, not to mention Africans and others in the world. agreed that women has a role in the family that was significantly subservient.

I generally don't condemn people for how they lived in earlier times.  I wasn't there, and I think most people look at circumstances and traditions to ascertain why they did what they did, and believed what they believed.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas @primi_timpano It's not an excuse for it; but, it explains where it came from and why it is.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas @primi_timpano What else would it be if not tradition.  It's not the law, it's not just a sociological practice, and while the Bible tells women to obey their husbands, and tells women to be silent in the church (temple), I'd say the U.S. has done more to give women equal rights than any other country in the world. 

If nothing else, we're in the freedom business. 

@plainsman1 @noblefurrtexas I'm sorry, but I don't know the anthropological scientific name for "first people created by God to be the parents of all future generations". 

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas The Holy Spirit, being a spirit, wouldn't have found it necessary to have sex with Mary in order to produce a child. 

Remember, these folks in the Trinity were into miracles.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas No; God didn't impregnate anybody.  The Holy Spirit caused Mary to be with child, and Jesus was born like any other man for specific reasons. 

Yes; I can only imagine Joseph's reactions to all this, but he seems to have taken it in course.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas God created man in his own image, but it wasn't necessary to do it in the traditional manner.

If you'll read Genesis, the mystery will be resolved for you. 

I also don't see the need to assume females of child-bearing age would get married in a world where life expectancy was often under three decades.  By the time Jesus was 30, Mary was already over 40 years of age. 

@noblefurrtexas @plainsman1 

Basing the distribution of civil rights upon percentages or popularity is preposterous, as is basing it on procreation capabilities - if that were so, then citizens past child bearing age or otherwise choosing to remain childless should be prohibited to marry as well. Additionally, how could allowing same-sex marriage affect procreation to begin with - do you think gays and lesbians desiring children would instead marry heterosexuals just to get access to childbearing? Equally preposterous. If anything, access to the benefits of marriage would increase overall procreation as same-sex couples avail themselves with surrogates, artificial insemination and adoptions.

I suggest you read Chief Justice Earl Warren's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, where he refers to marriage as a basic civil right. Then try refreshing yourself on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas @TexMarine @plainsman1 In all honesty, it's fair to add that "virgin" in those times was a woman who had never slept with anyone but her husband, and it was a Jewish tradition as well.

@plainsman1 @noblefurrtexas Again, I don't how the Equal Protection clause applies to homosexuals any more than it applies to Coker Spaniels or liazard. 

Marriage isn't ONLY about having children, as you know, but that was one of five or six key reasons marriage was created.

As you might imagine, I'm not a big fan of the 14th Amendment.  It violated pertinent points of original intent, and its purposes were intended as punishment and subjection of over half the country. 

Yes; I know that it made the Bill of Rights binding on the states, but it also destroyed "states rights" as originally outlined and described by the Founders, and it is still, today, used as punishment for southern states.  (See Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.)

It also began the "breakout" of the federal government from an obedient servant with citizens as master, but turned upside down that relationship, which has become worse almost every year. 

@DonkeyHotay I agree with you.  :-)

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas The Bible says they were, and that's more than good enough for me. 

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas "Raped"?????

Where did you get that from?  You're confusing Christianity with Islam. 

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas Only two that we know of.  The other 99.99% seldom passed 50.

@noblefurrtexas 

Provide a quote from the Koran corroborating that claim.

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas You're welcome to prove me wrong.  :)

@plainsman1 @noblefurrtexas I haven't read the Qur'an in years.  But, rape of women and boys is quite common in Islam, yet there is a prohibition against killing women except for stoning them for various infractions. 

To prove "rape", a woman has to produce four MALE eye witnesses.  If that doesn't legalize rape, I don't know what does.

Don't confuse the Qur'an with Shari'ha Law.  Both are mandates on how to live, and although Shari'ha is more disciplined and radical.  (Two sides ot he same coin.)

@DonkeyHotay @noblefurrtexas You say I'm wrong, so prove that I'm wrong instead of offering nothing but personal hatred for religion. 

I've told you what I believe, and WHY I believe what I do.  You're welcome to tell me why you DON'T believe it, and why you're in the minority of billions of people who HAVE believed it.