You keep making these pronouncements in these threads...

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

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.

Two days in a row - (malraux) - (80) - June 26, 2015, 10:19:56 AM EDT

One can only hope. -NT - (mvitale) - June 26, 2015, 10:37:14 AM EDT

Whatever your position, ... - (mmoffitt) - (33) - June 26, 2015, 10:51:48 AM EDT

And there's nothing in that quote that requires the union to involve specific genders -NT - (drook) - June 26, 2015, 11:06:16 AM EDT

Hmm. - (malraux) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 11:09:19 AM EDT

Cosign. Also, a bit of levity. - (Another Scott) - June 26, 2015, 11:18:49 AM EDT

To all above. - (mmoffitt) - (7) - June 26, 2015, 11:48:11 AM EDT

the Farce is strong in this one - (rcareaga) - June 26, 2015, 12:03:37 PM EDT

Meh. - (Another Scott) - (5) - June 26, 2015, 12:39:31 PM EDT

I think you just made my point. - (mmoffitt) - (4) - June 26, 2015, 01:29:10 PM EDT

You (and Roberts) don't acknowledge the "right to marry" for those who 'don't fit'. - (Another Scott) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 02:13:28 PM EDT

Re: Marriage is a fundamental right that two adults can share. - (mmoffitt) - June 26, 2015, 02:15:27 PM EDT

Finally figured out how to put this - (drook) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 04:37:24 PM EDT

Good! I wonder if Alito got an answer like that (but am too disinterested now to check. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott) - June 26, 2015, 05:29:49 PM EDT

Sullivan returned to blogging, for today. - (Another Scott) - June 26, 2015, 07:58:28 PM EDT

Richard Posner's take - (Another Scott) - (20) - June 27, 2015, 04:57:10 PM EDT

You have to admit John Stuart Mill lays it out clearly. -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (1) - June 27, 2015, 06:34:44 PM EDT

I don't have to admit ANYTHING! Oops, sorry. -NT - (drook) - June 27, 2015, 08:32:58 PM EDT

Re: No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such - (mmoffitt) - (17) - June 28, 2015, 10:38:12 AM EDT

You just don't get this, do you. - (malraux) - (16) - June 28, 2015, 10:51:16 AM EDT

You're right. I won't ever "get" this. - (mmoffitt) - (4) - June 29, 2015, 08:42:02 AM EDT

Marriage is not. About. Children. - (pwhysall) - (2) - June 29, 2015, 09:48:46 AM EDT

Re: Marriage is not. About. Children. - (mmoffitt) - (1) - June 29, 2015, 11:58:37 AM EDT

Not even wrong. -NT - (pwhysall) - June 29, 2015, 02:22:04 PM EDT

Red herring. - (malraux) - June 29, 2015, 09:58:07 AM EDT

Any tax benefit anyone else gets harms him financially. - (crazy) - (10) - June 29, 2015, 09:05:19 AM EDT

s/him/State -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1) - June 29, 2015, 09:13:48 AM EDT

Which makes no difference in the meaning of the post - (crazy) - June 29, 2015, 09:50:58 AM EDT

No, he still could be. - (malraux) - (7) - June 29, 2015, 10:01:47 AM EDT

Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. - (mmoffitt) - (6) - June 29, 2015, 12:04:45 PM EDT

Nope - (drook) - (4) - June 29, 2015, 12:10:01 PM EDT

But you got that because of an expectation that you'd reproduce. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3) - June 29, 2015, 12:12:46 PM EDT

An expectation by whom? Legal cites, please. -NT - (Another Scott) - June 29, 2015, 12:16:06 PM EDT

You didn't make a claim about retroactive meaning - (drook) - (1) - June 29, 2015, 12:36:36 PM EDT

I was trying to answer a question posed to me. - (mmoffitt) - June 29, 2015, 01:29:24 PM EDT

Re: Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. - (malraux) - June 29, 2015, 01:00:40 PM EDT

this morning's decision - (rcareaga) - (40) - June 26, 2015, 12:40:00 PM EDT

Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - June 26, 2015, 12:41:33 PM EDT

I think Roberts fairly refuted the fallacy of comparing this with Loving. - (mmoffitt) - (37) - June 26, 2015, 01:36:08 PM EDT

step into my parlor - (rcareaga) - (28) - June 26, 2015, 01:40:31 PM EDT

BIO 101. You take it? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (27) - June 26, 2015, 01:47:31 PM EDT

Re: BIO 101. You take it? - (rcareaga) - (26) - June 26, 2015, 02:01:13 PM EDT

Nope. - (mmoffitt) - (25) - June 26, 2015, 02:09:15 PM EDT

That's a rather obsolete argument. - (Andrew Grygus) - (4) - June 26, 2015, 02:16:15 PM EDT

I'm not blind to the overpopulation problem. But you assume facts not in evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (3) - June 26, 2015, 02:31:44 PM EDT

BTW, don't you think that Virginia... - (rcareaga) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 03:07:25 PM EDT

Yes. See. Marriage really was all about procreation! -NT - (mmoffitt) - June 26, 2015, 03:22:33 PM EDT

When a child is taken out of state care . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - June 26, 2015, 04:40:13 PM EDT

You keep making these pronouncements in these threads... - (Another Scott) - (5) - June 26, 2015, 02:19:27 PM EDT

Re: The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. - (mmoffitt) - (4) - June 26, 2015, 02:40:54 PM EDT

We've been arguing about the history for at least 11 years... - (Another Scott) - June 26, 2015, 03:59:58 PM EDT

Re: The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. - (rcareaga) - (2) - June 26, 2015, 04:09:38 PM EDT

It was in Rome. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 04:51:04 PM EDT

Eh? - (Another Scott) - June 26, 2015, 05:33:28 PM EDT

What what what!? - (crazy) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 02:22:05 PM EDT

"Confederate communist viewpoint is amazing" - (rcareaga) - June 26, 2015, 02:40:31 PM EDT

Umm... - (hnick) - (11) - June 26, 2015, 02:25:40 PM EDT

Would you leave your wife if you didn't have a marriage license? - (mmoffitt) - (10) - June 26, 2015, 03:04:05 PM EDT

easy-peasy - (rcareaga) - (9) - June 26, 2015, 03:14:15 PM EDT

Ah, then we're talking of the selfish interests of the couple. - (mmoffitt) - (4) - June 26, 2015, 03:26:23 PM EDT

Re: Ah, then we're talking of the selfish interests of the couple. - (hnick) - (3) - June 26, 2015, 04:02:49 PM EDT

The State also has an interest in seeing that it survives. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2) - June 26, 2015, 04:57:01 PM EDT

The State has interests . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 05:32:45 PM EDT

:0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - June 29, 2015, 08:47:50 AM EDT

My last comment in this thread - (hnick) - (3) - June 26, 2015, 06:35:19 PM EDT

Man, I gotta keep that link ... Oh lord, time sink from hell! - (drook) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 08:11:51 PM EDT

Things like that were on Pharyngula when PZ was debating. He eventually quit debating. -NT - (Another Scott) - June 27, 2015, 12:51:41 AM EDT

Holy Cthulhu! ... why this thesis might be appended to Gödel's - (Ashton) - July 2, 2015, 05:43:00 PM EDT

The Majority opinion, again. - (Another Scott) - (7) - June 26, 2015, 02:05:26 PM EDT

I cannot "Move On"... - (mmoffitt) - (6) - June 26, 2015, 02:14:17 PM EDT

Your so-called contribution - (rcareaga) - (5) - June 26, 2015, 02:21:27 PM EDT

Re: ...did not require a marriage license. - (mmoffitt) - (4) - June 26, 2015, 02:52:12 PM EDT

I have a relative, shortly to be married - (rcareaga) - (3) - June 26, 2015, 03:04:55 PM EDT

Regional. That's funny. I was raised in Long Beach, California (ages 4 - 18 ). - (mmoffitt) - (2) - June 26, 2015, 03:21:09 PM EDT

Nor indeed, then, is it any of your business - (rcareaga) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 04:11:57 PM EDT

In the final analysis. You're right. It isn't. But it is stupid. -NT - (mmoffitt) - June 26, 2015, 04:53:45 PM EDT

hey, christians beleive you can bang one of your slaves to whelp a get - (boxley) - June 26, 2015, 03:04:38 PM EDT

okay now I am totally confused - (boxley) - (3) - June 26, 2015, 03:01:41 PM EDT

confused is your default state -NT - (rcareaga) - (2) - June 26, 2015, 03:15:56 PM EDT

rather be an asshole than a self righteous asshole Dr. Villega -NT - (boxley) - (1) - June 26, 2015, 03:21:05 PM EDT

Thou sayest. -NT - (rcareaga) - June 26, 2015, 04:12:47 PM EDT

This is the most insane thing I've seen in six or seven hours.
108 ms