Funny how you phrase that "don't get".
Cause we both know "can't get" would be an inaccurate claim.

It is "don't get" in the same way that a person who chooses not to vote "doesn't get" a say in who is elected.
It is "don't get" in the same way that a person who never buys a gun "doesn't get" to own one.
It is "don't get" in the same way that a person who doesn't exercise religion "doesn't get" to exercise religion.

And as for "tax breaks", that varies based on the dual income of the couple.
For a lot of couples, it's a tax penalty. They would pay lower taxes filing separately.


This argument really bores me.
It has the same mentality as "If different race couples are to be legally married, why stop there. Why not a dog and a cat?"

To give you a quick run-down on constitutional law, you can't prevent a right, like legal marriage status, unless you have a legitimate state interest.
In Loving v Virginia, the courts ruled there was no legitimate state interest to preventing interracial couples from marrying.
In Massachusetts and California, the courts have accurately recognized there is no legitimate state interest in preventing gay couples from marrying.

For "multiples", there is a problem in diminishing ownership without consent.
Say John marries Jane. Both have essentially agreed to a "joint" property ownership.
Say John now marries Mary. Jane's property ownership just dropped, without any consent from Jane.
Suppose Mary decides to divorce John, and Jane is the major bread-winner in the family. Does Mary now have a "right" to get alimony from Jane's contribution to the family?
There are numerous legal problems with "multiples", creating a "legitimate state interest" in protecting Jane's rights.

Marry your mother or your daughter? Incest produces off-spring with mental and physical handicaps. Preventing incest marriages is in the interest of protecting the offspring.
Plus, since incest is typically illegal, it's a pretty big barrier to recognizing an illegal relationship.


Wrong.
Show me ANY proof of that claim, cause I just can't see it.

If you look at the over 1,000 rights and privileges associated with marriage, NONE of them are enhanced by the presence of children.
NONE of them are detracted from by the absence of children.
Married couples get the benefits WITH or WITHOUT children.

It makes NO sense to penalize gay couples for not having children, when straight married couples with no interest in children have no such penalty.
That's akin to saying "Blacks who can't read can't vote, but it doesn't matter for whites".
And furthermore, gay couples who DO have kids, or use other means to procreate, are STILL forbidden to marry. Providing a double-whammy proof that the barrier is a false one.

What you just gave is a common excuse which is destroyed by common sense.


Tax credits exist REGARDLESS of whether the couple is married.
Can you name me any benefit the parents get for being married, that they wouldn't get for being single?

And to put out a side-comment, it can also be argued that we do not have enough.
There are some pretty serious estimates regarding bankrupting of Social Security and Medi-government assistance because we have too many old people and not enough young people.


I find your complaint ridiculously trivial.
It's like saying "Why should I have to take this test in order to get a driver's license?"

Your children can obviously collect regardless of your marital status.
And I see no reason why some random person at your choosing should get social security benefits upon your death.
The SPOUSE gets it because the two have built a "home" (not necessarily literally) together, and thus the benefits help the person who has been dependent upon you to get the benefits to maintain living.
Even your parents can get the SS benefits, given the right circumstances.

But if you aren't willing to make the committment, I don't see why anybody should pay out benefits WHICH ARE BASED on the existence of a committment you refused to make.