The Economic Case For Same Sex Marriage. Agree?
|
|
|||||
|
19 votes
|
|
79% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
13% | |||
The national discussion about same-
sex marriage is heating up. Just last week, North Carolina voted
to prohibit the practice, and, for the first time, President
Barack Obama clearly came out in favor of it.
The debate, which has focused on our evolving views on
sexuality, also mirrors a deeper generational shift in how we
view and experience marriage.
Naturally, couples who have bought into the traditional
notion of marriage -- with women taking care of the home and men
financially supporting them -- find the concept of same-sex
marriage foreign. Same-sex relationships are less likely to
involve traditional roles and separate spheres, as evidenced by
the fact that the partners are more likely to both work outside
the home.
One might have expected marriage to disappear as its
traditional benefits faded. Instead, it has evolved.
Modern marriage offers different benefits. Today, we search
for a soul mate rather than a good homemaker or provider. We are
more likely to regard marriage as a forum for shared experiences
and passions.
For heterosexuals who have embraced the modern notion of
marriage, the idea of same-sex marriage seems natural. These
couples aren’t any different from them. They love and support
each other, raise kids together and are committed to each other.
They share values, desires and interests. Not allowing them to
marry is as arbitrary as not allowing couples of different
races, ethnicities or religions to marry.
It is no coincidence that many of the opponents of same-sex
marriage are also opponents of the ongoing shift to marriages of
equality. Theirs is a futile battle. The reach of markets will
keep expanding, allowing individuals and families to reap
greater returns by selling their specialized skills and services
outside the home. Technological change will further undermine
the benefits of specialization within the family. Improvements
in women’s education will continue to raise the opportunity cost
of staying at home.
The implication is that ultimately, traditional marriages
are doomed. And indeed, countries in which gender and social
norms have been the slowest to evolve have seen the biggest
declines in fertility and marriage.
The best way to let marriage thrive in the 21st century is
to embrace the new model of equality and to welcome all couples,
regardless of sexual orientation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/the-economic-case-fo...
As you mention, however, there are many who are unwilling or unable to see the changing role of the family. Toffler, in Future Shock, suggested we need a certain portion of the population holding to traditional values and life styles to create islands of the past retaining knowledge and skills necessary to thrive in these oasis. The example he used was the Amish community. Isn't it interesting that the Southern Baptists have chosen to take the same route as the Amish just around a different set of issues. ... Perhaps NC will become an enclave to the past.
But I would not be locating my research centers in NC given this trajectory. This may be a bit hard the the Research Triangle Park area.
Don't misunderstand...I am not suggesting that the US gay population resembles the population of ancient Sparta. What I am suggesting is there is wisdom associated with some ancient taboos. It is not always apparent what the wisdom is and so retaining islands of the past protects the species.
I don't want to live in an island to the past. But if the people of NC choose to do so, I believe there is value to the rest of us in letting them do so ... provided those who wish to leave are free to do so. It is likely that maintaining this island of the past will require them to give up additional conveniences; e.g., they are likely to outlaw abortion as well as gay marriage, I suspect other forms of birth control will go with abortion. As they continue down this path, it is likely poverty in the state will grow as Universities and research organizations leave the state because it becomes difficult or impossible to attract top talent. As George Bush was so fond of saying; there are consequences.
but to change the definition of marriage is what voters always vote down.
The majority of Americans DO NOT want the definition changed to suit a minority.
Marriage, one man, one women
nor should it be, If you want to have civil ceremonies, go for it, but its not marriage. If you want to contract yourself as a partner, go for it, but marriage for thousands of years has been one man, joining with one women,
marriage, one man one women, everyone has that right now,
Please answer this.
Why do you think that it should always be a man and a woman?
even as left as California is, they voted to not change it and it took a activist judge to stop them,
people don't want this, and yes, societies world wide recognize it as valid
marriage, one man, one women
Why do you insist on forcing this on american's that dont want it?
Since 1998, voters in thirty states have approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, voting to protect marriage in every state where the issue has been put on the ballot, often by large margins.