Comments on: The Curious Case of the Incurious Economists

By: Marty

Marty — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:00:57 +0000

I personally have great respect for people who choose a different lifestyle. But I have nothing but disdain for those who choose a different lifestyle — and then try to force everyone to pretend that all lifestyle choices are equal, as if they didn’t really choose anything different after all!

Dare to be different, if you must. It’s your choice.

By: nerdygirl

nerdygirl — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:39:30 +0000

I don’t see posts about the problem with men having one night stands. I see plenty of posts on the subject concerning women. I don’t see posts about the problem of men fathering children outside of marriage, but you bring up women raising children without men in almost every post. And this is tackling mainstream society’s view of men’s sexuality and responsibility? It challenges nothing, it questions nothing. You don’t try to bring men into accountability, you just keep blaming women. It’s not men’s fault, feminism must have done this to them. Bull. Are men are so fragile that the concept of social, political and economical equality with women spiraled them into this state of irresponsibility. No, of course not. Humans are however lazy, and we have a society that still refuses to let go of outdated sexism because it’s easier then facing reality.

As far as changing peoples behavior, as a society we can only hope that it changes for the better. Plenty of people cried over giving women the right to vote, how it would ruin society. The civil rights movement was supposed to ruin society too. And interracial marriage? Oh my, STILL there are people who think its wrong (google Keith Bardwell). Have any of these things actually ruined society?

Here’s the hilarious thing. There are so many things that feminists and you are both against. Neither groups like the mainstream media, double standards with male promiscuity, societal pressure on teenage girls to have sex, etc.

Yes, the fascist comment was out of line and had no place in that comment. I take it back and apologize. I still find your viewpoints cruel and insensitive, if not down right bigoted. Not even for not agreeing with same sex marriage, but because you don’t seem to have any respect for people who choose a lifestyle different then your own.

By: Jennifer Roback Morse

Jennifer Roback Morse — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:02:48 +0000

When are you going to start tackling the promiscuity of men, and how it is encouraged, championed and deemed normal in society? Ah, nerdy girl, what do you think the abstinence movement is trying to deal with? what do you think the anti-pornography movement is trying to deal with? The ruth institute is all over those issues.
the point of the article was that redefining marriage, with all those benefits and all that social approval you keep talking about, will put incentives into place that will change all kinds of people’s behavior. It is irresponsible to change the law without at least considering the possibility that the law will do things you dont’ expect. calling me a fascist isn’t really a response to an argument. it is an attempt to shut down argument, and i dont’ appreciate it.

By: Chairm

Chairm — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:06:32 +0000

Jennifer, did your remarks have the effect of turning on the light for at least a few of the participants at that round-table discussion?

If SSM is merged with marital status, and the marriage idea is officially supplanted by the SSM idea, there will be no firm basis for discriminating between marriage and the very broad range of types of relationshps and types of living arrangements that are now safetly in the nonmarriage category.

Marriage would come to mean less and less and less until its special status is neutralized. This is not really a slipper slope: SSM is a push over the cliff’s edge.

When there is no longer anything special to note about marriage, it no longer can sustain a special status in the law nor in social policy nor, even more tragically, in the culture. The logical conclusion of SSM argumentation is that all forms of family structure must share the same status as that of the married mom and dad. This defines marriage down.

It may actually incent Government to get out of the marriage business. Or rather, to become the silent partner (or perhaps not so silently intrusive partner) is the nonmarriage business.

Or, rather, to expand the nonmarriage business at the expense of marriage.

By: Rich N.

Rich N. — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:07:44 +0000

Hello, I think the Planned Parenthood booklet now in print for 10 year olds tells the whole story. It tells of the joy of sexual pleasure for all children. It isn’t about same sex partnerships, I have no right to discern the morals of other people, I can care and I can have an opinion though. The reason the left and GLBT want this so bad is so they can then start forcing the education of our children from kindergarten on up. Text books were already in print preparation in California. The 3% want the power to teach their homosexual agenda to the children of the 97%. Very simple. Progressives know what is best for everyone evn though they are a huge minority. The pesky State and Federal Constitutions just keep getting in the way so let’s just bypass those with Judicial fiat. Wake up America, these people are smart, funded and they have a plan for the minds, hearts and morals of our children.

By: Karen Grube

Karen Grube — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:42:06 +0000

Here is where government has not only a right but a responsibility to chime in on same-sex relationships. If we repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, won’t the next step to be for gay and lesbian “married couples” with one or even both partners in the military to insist on housing in military family housing in order to raise their ‘families’? That thought alone should be enough to make a whole bunch of real married men or women with families want to leave the military in the dust. How scary is that? But, how could one legitimately or even legally say ‘No’ to this as long as gays and lesbians are more than simply accepted into the military, but their rights acknowledged and their relationships affirmed? It seems to me that asking what the real agenda is here with repealing DADT might not be a bad idea, and I can tell you that legally forcing gay marriage in the military is part of it, whether anyone realizes it or not, and that includes our military commanders not realizing this.

By: nerdygirl

nerdygirl — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:52:47 +0000

I’m sorry, but you’re crazy. The women you fear doing this will do this regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legalized. Besides, with all the incentives with heterosexual marriage, whats to stop two friends from getting married? Nothing. And it’s not a worry because most people view marriage as a long held commitment of love, not incentives. You’re always going to have “freeloaders” no matter what system you enact. Are you seriously arguing that the wrongs of a few should restrict the rights of the majority? That all committed couples should be punished because of a few opportunistic fools? How cruel and downright fascist of you.

Also why are you so concerned about women sleeping around? It takes two to make a baby and pass STD’s. When are you going to start tackling the promiscuity of men, and how it is encouraged, championed and deemed normal in society?