> Then by what you wrote, gay marriage shouldn't be palatable to the state or society, since same-sex marriages usually do not result in natural children with today's technology.
Why do you believe creating children is the only social value of marriage? If it figures there at all, it's very low on the totem pole, after all society could simply subsidise rape if that were the point.
> Why so? That's pretty much what the state does, it provides advantages for situations it wants to see happen more (tax breaks for instance, dispensations or fast tracks, direct monetary grants) and disadvantages for those it doesn't (fines and privation of liberty, mostly). Would you find replacing "the state" by "society" more palatable?
Why do you believe creating children is the only social value of marriage? If it figures there at all, it's very low on the totem pole, after all society could simply subsidise rape if that were the point.