IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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)
New 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?

New 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.
New Ah, then we're talking of the selfish interests of the couple.
That's what's really important here, right?
New 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)
New The State also has an interest in seeing that it survives.
New The State has interests . . .
. . The State this, The State that, The State something else, always The State - geez, what a commie :)
New :0)
New 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)
New 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
Expand Edited by drook June 26, 2015, 07:46:40 PM EDT
Expand Edited by drook June 26, 2015, 08:11:51 PM EDT
New Things like that were on Pharyngula when PZ was debating. He eventually quit debating.
New 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.
     Two days in a row - (malraux) - (80)
         One can only hope. -NT - (mvitale)
         Whatever your position, ... - (mmoffitt) - (33)
             And there's nothing in that quote that requires the union to involve specific genders -NT - (drook)
             Hmm. - (malraux) - (1)
                 Cosign. Also, a bit of levity. - (Another Scott)
             To all above. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                 the Farce is strong in this one - (rcareaga)
                 Meh. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                     I think you just made my point. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                         You (and Roberts) don't acknowledge the "right to marry" for those who 'don't fit'. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                             Re: Marriage is a fundamental right that two adults can share. - (mmoffitt)
                         Finally figured out how to put this - (drook) - (1)
                             Good! I wonder if Alito got an answer like that (but am too disinterested now to check. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
             Sullivan returned to blogging, for today. - (Another Scott)
             Richard Posner's take - (Another Scott) - (20)
                 You have to admit John Stuart Mill lays it out clearly. -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                     I don't have to admit ANYTHING! Oops, sorry. -NT - (drook)
                 Re: No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such - (mmoffitt) - (17)
                     You just don't get this, do you. - (malraux) - (16)
                         You're right. I won't ever "get" this. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                             Marriage is not. About. Children. - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                 Re: Marriage is not. About. Children. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                     Not even wrong. -NT - (pwhysall)
                             Red herring. - (malraux)
                         Any tax benefit anyone else gets harms him financially. - (crazy) - (10)
                             s/him/State -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                 Which makes no difference in the meaning of the post - (crazy)
                             No, he still could be. - (malraux) - (7)
                                 Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                     Nope - (drook) - (4)
                                         But you got that because of an expectation that you'd reproduce. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                             An expectation by whom? Legal cites, please. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                             You didn't make a claim about retroactive meaning - (drook) - (1)
                                                 I was trying to answer a question posed to me. - (mmoffitt)
                                     Re: Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. - (malraux)
         this morning's decision - (rcareaga) - (40)
             Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
             I think Roberts fairly refuted the fallacy of comparing this with Loving. - (mmoffitt) - (37)
                 step into my parlor - (rcareaga) - (28)
                     BIO 101. You take it? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (27)
                         Re: BIO 101. You take it? - (rcareaga) - (26)
                             Nope. - (mmoffitt) - (25)
                                 That's a rather obsolete argument. - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                                     I'm not blind to the overpopulation problem. But you assume facts not in evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                         BTW, don't you think that Virginia... - (rcareaga) - (1)
                                             Yes. See. Marriage really was all about procreation! -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                         When a child is taken out of state care . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                                 You keep making these pronouncements in these threads... - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                     Re: The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                         We've been arguing about the history for at least 11 years... - (Another Scott)
                                         Re: The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                             It was in Rome. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                 Eh? - (Another Scott)
                                 What what what!? - (crazy) - (1)
                                     "Confederate communist viewpoint is amazing" - (rcareaga)
                                 Umm... - (hnick) - (11)
                                     Would you leave your wife if you didn't have a marriage license? - (mmoffitt) - (10)
                                         easy-peasy - (rcareaga) - (9)
                                             Ah, then we're talking of the selfish interests of the couple. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                                 Re: Ah, then we're talking of the selfish interests of the couple. - (hnick) - (3)
                                                     The State also has an interest in seeing that it survives. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                         The State has interests . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                                             :0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                             My last comment in this thread - (hnick) - (3)
                                                 Man, I gotta keep that link ... Oh lord, time sink from hell! - (drook) - (1)
                                                     Things like that were on Pharyngula when PZ was debating. He eventually quit debating. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                 Holy Cthulhu! ... why this thesis might be appended to Gödel's - (Ashton)
                 The Majority opinion, again. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                     I cannot "Move On"... - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                         Your so-called contribution - (rcareaga) - (5)
                             Re: ...did not require a marriage license. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                 I have a relative, shortly to be married - (rcareaga) - (3)
                                     Regional. That's funny. I was raised in Long Beach, California (ages 4 - 18 ). - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                         Nor indeed, then, is it any of your business - (rcareaga) - (1)
                                             In the final analysis. You're right. It isn't. But it is stupid. -NT - (mmoffitt)
             hey, christians beleive you can bang one of your slaves to whelp a get - (boxley)
         okay now I am totally confused - (boxley) - (3)
             confused is your default state -NT - (rcareaga) - (2)
                 rather be an asshole than a self righteous asshole Dr. Villega -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                     Thou sayest. -NT - (rcareaga)

Clearly you have a security problem - and it's got nothing to do with computers.
201 ms