Nope.

Post #402,910 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:09:15 PM Reply	Nope. It just means that your marriage is of no value to the State. Note that I am not saying your marriage is without value to you, only to the State. But, your marriage does come at a cost to the State and I fail to see how it benefits the State to encourage relationships that are a net negative to the State. Next?
Post #402,914 by Andrew Grygus 6/26/15 2:16:15 PM Reply	That's a rather obsolete argument. Today, with overpopulation the root of most of our problems, especially ecological problems, that a gay marriage cannot produce children is a benefit to the State. Also, gay couples often adopt, which is also a significant benefit to the State.
Post #402,919 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:31:44 PM Reply	I'm not blind to the overpopulation problem. But you assume facts not in evidence. First, I haven't seen compelling evidence that suggests the benefits of a reduction in birth rates a State receives from childless marriages overwhelms the burdens placed upon the State by the cohabitation of the married couple. Let alone being denied the potential contributions to the State the children could make should they actually be born. Second, the adoption question is an open one. There's no conclusive proof (yet) that children are better off being raised by a couple who do not fit the conventional mother/father roles. That may well be the case. We're in the midst of an experiment with the next generation. But it's far too early to make a claim about benefits or costs associated with being raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple. There simply is no conclusive evidence that the State receives the benefit of better performing citizens when those citizens were raised by same-sex couples as there is when they are raised by their biological parents. Until such evidence is presented, adoption by same-sex couples cannot be fairly characterized as either a benefit or a cost to the State.
Post #402,927 by rcareaga 6/26/15 3:07:25 PM Reply	BTW, don't you think that Virginia... felt that the state had an interest in tamping down the numbers of mulatto children?
Post #402,933 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 3:22:33 PM Reply	Yes. See. Marriage really was all about procreation!
Post #402,948 by Andrew Grygus 6/26/15 4:40:13 PM Reply	When a child is taken out of state care . . . . . and is instead cared for by an income generating couple, that is a cost benefit to the State. Increasing population requires the state to spend more on infrastructure to support that population, and more on human services as well. Taxes have to be higher with a growing population than for steady state due to a larger part of the population being under wage earning age. The environmental costs of overpopulation are too obvious to require a study (except for the benefit a study may provide to a person preparing a doctoral thesis).
Post #402,915 by Another Scott 6/26/15 2:19:27 PM Reply	You keep making these pronouncements in these threads... "no value to the State". Really? The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. It has an interest in promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. It has an interest in minimizing overbuilding of housing stocks (no "all adult humans must live in physically separated abodes!" laws). Marriage promotes lots and lots of benefits other than reproduction. If the State only cared about procreation, then procreation would be a requirement of marriage. If it only cared about procreation, why would there be over 1000 federal benefits of marriage? It isn't. Please stop bringing up this discredited argument. Thanks. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,921 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:40:54 PM Reply	Re: The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. Well, it might now. But historically it hasn't. Marriage, historically, was the means by which the State encouraged biological parents to remain with their biological offspring until those offspring reached maturity. I'm the first to admit it was not an optimal solution. But claiming that the State benefits in equal proportion from childbearing and non-childbearing marriages contains the implicit "truth" that children are of net zero value to the State. I will not and cannot do that.
Post #402,938 by Another Scott 6/26/15 3:59:58 PM Reply	We've been arguing about the history for at least 11 years... We're not likely to convince each other. ;-) #135825. Enjoy. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,942 by rcareaga 6/26/15 4:09:38 PM Reply	Re: The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. In that case, divorce ought to have been universally outlawed.
Post #402,950 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 4:51:04 PM Reply	It was in Rome.
Post #402,956 by Another Scott 6/26/15 5:33:28 PM Reply	Eh? http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/divorceinancientrome.htm Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,917 by crazy 6/26/15 2:22:05 PM Reply	What what what!? Benefit to the state is the criteria that you use when determining what should be lawful? The state exist for us, not the other way around. Confederate communist viewpoint is amazing.
Post #402,920 by rcareaga 6/26/15 2:40:31 PM Reply	"Confederate communist viewpoint is amazing" Yes, it's almost as though he has cherry-picked the most preposterous elements of each ideology. While this means that there is little of substantive value in his contributions, the entertainment content is considerable. cordially,
Post #402,918 by hnick 6/26/15 2:25:40 PM Reply	Umm... My wife and I are also childless. You are claiming that our relationship is a net negative for the State. I would submit that this is the United States, not the Soviet Union. The people here ARE the State. Happy people in stable relationships are a positive for the state, not a negative. People here, who have too many children they can't afford or can't maintain are more of a load on society than my wife and I who work as much as we are able (considerable still)and maintain our property. As a side note, discounting what the Republicans think, our society is not a business; everything is not a financial profit/loss transaction, and we don't "manage out" the bottom 10% on a performance basis. "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #402,924 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 3:04:05 PM Reply	Would you leave your wife if you didn't have a marriage license? I, respectfully, submit to you that the strength of the relationship you and your wife enjoy is not dependent upon a state issued marriage license. Further, if the existence of "happy people in stable relationships" is entirely dependent upon a State issued license, then how happy can the people truly be? How stable can be their relationships when it is only a legally binding document that keeps them together?
Post #402,929 by rcareaga 6/26/15 3:14:15 PM Reply	easy-peasy Let's assume hnick and his wife are not actually married. The (virtual) Mrs. hnick, whose parents have never liked her boyfriend, is mortally ill. Her parents bar hnick from the hospital room, and from the subsequent funeral service. Since the hnicks neglected to do proper estate planning, her entire assets go to the virtual in-laws. Lord, the barrel is so tiny, and the fish so big.
Post #402,934 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 3:26:23 PM Reply	Ah, then we're talking of the selfish interests of the couple. That's what's really important here, right?
Post #402,939 by hnick 6/26/15 4:02:49 PM Reply	Re: Ah, then we're talking of the selfish interests of the couple. Protecting the interests of the citizens (including couples) is the only legitimate business of the state. As long as there are varying rights in society that are dependent on a declared status e.g. marriage, all consenting adults are entitled to access that privilege. Now, in the instance of marriage, they have it. If this overly bothers you, well, pissfiddles... it's only the selfish interest of an individual they're messing with. "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #402,953 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 4:57:01 PM Reply	The State also has an interest in seeing that it survives.
Post #402,955 by Andrew Grygus 6/26/15 5:32:45 PM Reply	The State has interests . . . . . The State this, The State that, The State something else, always The State - geez, what a commie :)
Post #403,034 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 8:47:50 AM Reply	:0)
Post #402,958 by hnick 6/26/15 6:35:19 PM Reply	My last comment in this thread "You are not just wrong. You are wrong at every conceivable level of resolution. Zooming in on any part of your worldview finds beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview." Fractal wrongness "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #402,960 by drook 6/26/15 7:39:00 PM 6/26/15 8:11:51 PM Reply	Man, I gotta keep that link ... Oh lord, time sink from hell! My new favorite term: Gish Gallop. From which I find this little (unsurprisingly apropos) nugget: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:77_Reasons -- Drew Edited by drook June 26, 2015, 07:46:40 PM EDT Edited by drook June 26, 2015, 08:11:51 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #402,964 by Another Scott 6/27/15 12:51:41 AM Reply	Things like that were on Pharyngula when PZ was debating. He eventually quit debating.
Post #403,202 by Ashton 7/2/15 5:43:00 PM Reply	Holy Cthulhu! ... why this thesis might be appended to Gödel's Proof--thus bringing scale + relativity to human mouth noises!--at last. {Alas, as with Dr.Strangelove's Doomsday device: it only works if everyone Knows about it} ;-/ ..so as to return so many bat-shit crazies to their former status: being utterly ignored. For cause.

Welcome to IWETHEY!