Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Does that not set a double standard?
Since infertile couples still enjoy the benefits.... and gays can adopt children...
Sure. But without testing for fertility, name for me the smallest set of couples that includes everyone who could possibly produce a child.
If your answer is: "All couples consisting of one male and one female", you'd be right.
Which is exactly why that's the requirements we place on marriage.
Get it?
Adoption is irrelevant because the child has already been generated. We want to encourage people to form socio-economic units best capable of supporting a child *before* they produce children (ideally). Thus we create the legal status of marriage. If someone chooses to adopt a child, that's their own business. It does not change the fact that the child already exists prior to adoption. There's no need to create incentives for gay couples to marry because they *could* adopt. Anyone *can* adopt, right? You're essentially saying that we should provide the benefits of the legal status of marriage to everyone because anyone might adopt at some future time. But then that ruins it's value as an incentive for hetero couples to get married before having children in the first place doesn't it? Kinda becomes circular really...