Originally posted by: Kibbo
This being said, you have pointed out several inconsistencies in CycloWizard's argument, and I would like to hear how he responds.
Well, since you said that without calling me any names, I guess I probably should do so.
First, as I mentioned in this thread (or maybe another one?), I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. But, since the government already has its hand in the cookie jar, the problem arises all the same. If marriage is a contract, by which government grants the couple rights, what does government (or society) get in return?
The major benefit that a heterosexual couple gives society is the possibility of having children. As was pointed out, there is no guarantee of a couple having children. However, there is a reasonable expectation that, if a heterosexual couple gets married, they may at some point have children. Short of the government testing every couple for fertility prior to marriage, there is no way to determine the likelihood of them having children. Even sterile couple can conceive using artificial means within their couple.
Now, the question is: WHY is this something the government confers benefits for? Production of future taxpayers is the most obvious reason. If the birth rate had not dropped so significantly in the past few decades, social security would not be in its current bind. Tax revenues would be much higher. Essentially, our society was built on a certain input

utput ratio of taxpayers during the last century, which is proving to be unsustainable during times of lower birth rates. Thus, it is in the interest of government and society to reward those who bring children into the world. This view is reinforced by the marriage tax penalty in which married couples pay more than unmarried couples making the same income (I believe this was repealed a few years ago, so now married couples pay the same as the relevant two singles). This was compensated for by child tax credits. Thus, no marriage benefit actually existed until the couple produced those future taxpayers.
If Aidan wants to argue that homosexuals should be allowed to attend funerals, visit the sick, and what have you for their loved one - I would fight for that right for you. If this truly is blocked by families, then a great injustice is being done.