> Married couples get tax benefits as an incentive to get married and have kids.

Married couples in the US most get tax benefits to the extent to which they have a significant imbalance in income, and it seems to be a lot more connected to the idea of traditional division of labor (one partner working in the trade economy while the other provides in-home support for that partner) than children, per se.

They are tax benefits that directly subsidize children, but they aren't conditioned on marriage.

> I find it weird that this argument has so far been completely ignored by either side in the pro/anti-gay marriage discussion (at least as far as I've seen).

The idea that the civil benefits of marriage are inherently tied to the purpose of promoting reproduction are rather central arguments in the anti-same-sex-marriage camp; this was, in fact, the main argument for Prop. 8's constitutionality offered by its proponents.

> The idea that the civil benefits of marriage are inherently tied to the purpose of promoting reproduction are rather central arguments in the anti-same-sex-marriage camp; this was, in fact, the main argument for Prop. 8's constitutionality offered by its proponents.

My apologies then, I haven't followed the gay marriage discussion in general, only the discussion about Brendan Eich.

Yeah the children thing is a red herring. Couples may get married in every state who are past the child-bearing age, or even infertile.

Not to mention that you get special consideration / tax treatment from the federal government if you have kids regardless of marital status. For example you don't have to be married to claim children as dependents. The marriage [benefits are for children]/children angle is wrong therefore wrong in two respects.

Exactly! My cousins are raising 3 foster kids (now adopted) and their taxes reflect that. So definitely the civil union thing can handle that.

The injustice is simply in the sit-in-the-back-of-the-bus thing - that a lesbian couple should be stamped 'civil union' just so everybody knows they're not as good. Its Jim Crow all over again.

We have a lot of shortages in this world, but human beings aren't one of them. Any incentive for procreating is, at best, antiquated and, at worst, contributing to the overpopulation of the planet.

That's true in the 21st century, but it wasn't true for most of humanity's history. In addition, there was always a population-level competition between countries (you out-breed the other guys, then conquer them by brute force). I'm not sure whether in the age of jet fighters, strike drones and nukes this competition makes sense anymore.