Apparently, you *can* think of a single thing which would justify my position. Why'd you say otherwise?
And yes: Procreate is the thing that heterosexual couples do that *** couples cannot. And just to show you how ridiculous your comparison was, one of the primary arguments for disallowing interracial marriages was the fact that they would produce mixed-race children who would then be at some assumed disadvantage in society. The ruling against those prohibitions strongly rested on the precedent that people had a right to choose both to procreate and whom they wished to procreate with.
Excellent, you said procreate. Do you support those same tax benefits that married people get going to single parents?
If they marry, sure. There's more than one criteria here.
What about those people who marry, but don't/can't have children? What about heterosexual couples that adopt instead? Should they get the tax benefits?
Really? Do I actually have to give the exact same answers I've given before (to you at least once that I can recall)? Why pretend that you've forgotten the answers? I haven't changed my position, nor my reasoning for it. Sigh...
The objective isn't to reward people for having children. People will do that all on their own without us providing an incentive. The objective is to reward the set of couples who might produce children together for marrying (preferably *before* having children). That way, if/when they do produce children it'll be while bound to a marriage contract and in an environment most likely to result in those children being contributing members of society rather than burdens on it. Obviously, not every couple consisting of a man and a woman will produce children together. However, we can say with certainty that every couple not consisting of a man and a woman will *never* produce children together. Not as a natural consequence of being a couple.
You did learn how babies were made, right? No amount of two people of the same *** bumping uglies will result in pregnancy. Ergo, there is no reason to create an incentive for same *** couples to get married. They're free to do so on their own if they wish, but the state has no interest in the matter at all.
Sorry but you don't allow anything. If you think you do, go ahead and try not paying all of your taxes.
Um... I was responding to a hypothetical which asked why I don't oppose providing those benefits for heterosexual couples. The whole train of thought assumes that my support or opposition has some meaning. I'm ok with my tax dollars being used to subsidize marriage benefits for opposite *** couples. I'm not ok with extending those benefits (and the cost) to same *** couples.
I was asked the question. I answered. And your response is to say that my opinion doesn't matter anyway? That's a bit of a cop out, isn't it?
How about you answer my question? I've asked it twice now. Why I should be ok with paying more taxes to extend those benefits to *** couples? Do you have an answer for this?