What in the name of Sam Hill does any of that have to do with same sex marriage? The number of gay individuals in a population appears to be somewhat constant. Probably something on the order of 2%. Permitting or not permitting marriage for same sex couples will have absolutely no bearing on life spans and debilitating diseases that accompany aging. The sum total of the "tax breaks" that occur due to same sex marriage will be far lower than that 2% of the population they comprise. Your argument is based upon pocket change, relatively speaking.<quoted text>
Goverment could not and should not regulate the love between people - it is unconstitutional, it is private mater between individuals and nobody have right to dictate that relationship. I think we are on the same page here?
The marriage as goverment protected institution is not a registry of people in love, it is goverment enforced contract to protect procreation and set of tax breaks with same intention.
The reason why general public invest in procreation, because the future of the nation depends on it. The today children will pay tax tomorrow and cover the cost of these tax brakes
By the way, check out the report from SSA - we are at the real danger that in 50 years for every working person it would be 4 not working senior and two of them with Alzheimer's. Although US so far has a good chance to avoid it all Europe certainly goes to that future.
The benefits of marriage cover hundreds of items in addition to the tax breaks that protect procreation. Just how what percentage of tax breaks do you think actually do anything to protect procreation?