Quote:
And know what? I went back and read the last big thread we had on this issue. You didn't give a reason then either. Insisting that you have over and over doesn't count.
And stop it with the "why not roomates then?" idiocy. They're not intended permanent relationships, so obviously wouldn't fit the role at all. I understand you love to use absurd unrealistic situations more then a stripper uses a pole, but seriously find a new one.
Summary of argument since you seem to be missing it.
We're saying stable households that will support each other are valuable to society. This is for a number of reasons such as remaining functional when one person has a crisis, so continuing to be stable and contributing to society, reducing population spread by combining into a single residence, and others that have been mentioned, although I know you're going to insist that they haven't. You're insisting that stable households do not contribute anything to society, and that they're not worth giving incentives for. The first point is absurd and laughable. Your second point is fine, this is a matter of opinion, and it would make sense that small government people wouldn't want to fund that. My only point is that using the current system, the incentives for marriage are really not about providing a stable place for kids, even if they once were, and so you need to either strip the benefits out of the system, or give them to gay marriage as well. There are a number of rights and responsibilities that are integrated into marriage that I feel are important, that have nothing to do with tax breaks etc, and that would be why I think that marriage needs to be accessible for gay relationships.