Sure. But that's their choice. Isn't it? When the government provides subsidies to try to get people to buy hybrids, we might support or oppose said subsidy, right? But no one in their right mind would argue that if you oppose said government subsidy that you are denying people the "right" to own a hybrid car.
Don't you think it's strange that that exact illogic is used in the case of *** marriage? Think about it...
Well, except in this case it's the government saying that only certain people can buy hybrids.
I've said this a dozen times in the past. Fewer children born to single mothers. That's why we encourage heterosexual couples to marry. The benefits for that, even a small dent in that, vastly outweigh every other economic aspect of the issue.
No no, not why we encourage hetero marriage, why we don't want gays to get married. The statement is that assuming the *** marriage will generate a net social benefit why not just let them get married. It's a different reason then hetero marriage for you sure, but that's not a problem. Different aspects often call for different reasons. If scenario A generates $100, and scenario B generates $5, then while the difference is huge, they are both still good decisions, especially when pursuing B does not affect A.
I don't agree with your "reasons" for marriage laws, but assuming you're right, the same reasons don't have to apply to allowing *** marriage. If there are another set of reasons benefits and costs that apply to this scenario, that can also justify it, even though following your reasons it doesn't likely affect single parenting much. Edited, Mar 9th 2010 4:40pm by Xsarus