gbaji wrote:
1. It's a compressed number. You don't get that increase per year. That's the entire number in that city who are estimated to be gay and would marry if only the laws were changed. You only get that increase one time.
that's reasonable, but the link also mentions the jobs that are created. This is an estimation of the prolonged effect, not a single event.
gbaji wrote:
2. It further assumes some average marriage-industry revenue per-marriage. While I suppose this is assumption on my part, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the average gay marriage in this case will consist of the two going to city hall and getting their license witnessed and signed. You aren't going to get the same revenue per-marriage that the industry normally assumes.
I think it's pretty unreasonable to assume that. From what I've seen the case is in fact the opposite, I remember the comments wedding organizers made about prop 8 and the loss of business back in the day.
gbaji wrote:
3. As I stated before. This is the revenue generated not by the granting of a marriage license, but the ceremony of marriage. There is no law preventing gay couples from doing that right now. If the argument was really about getting gay people to have marriage ceremonies so as to increase revenue in the industry, why not simply encourage gay couples to hold ceremonies? They do not need a license from the state to have a wedding. It is only their own assumption that a lack of government benefits somehow makes their marriages less valid which prevents gay couples from doing this.
Right, but they're not, and looking elsewhere, it looks like they start. It's nice that you don't see anything holding them back, but that doesn't affect what's actually happening.
Gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Maybe you disagree that there is this benefit, if you do, assume for the moment the benefit is there, would you support it then?
I think my statement above should make my answer clear. But just in case. No. The reasons for our existing marriage laws and benefits do not include "generating the maximum revenue for businesses in the marriage industry". That is a ridiculous rational to apply to legal changes.
The benefit is in increased taxes and more jobs. This is a measurable amount. Your whole argument is about how the cost is not justified. How the cost is only justified because you see a social gain in the current system. What if the industry, between jobs, taxes, etc has a net positive effect? What is your other reason that has nothing to do with money? Is there one?
Edited, Mar 9th 2010 4:15pm by Xsarus