IRS tax breaks, the military’s “basic allowance for housing” the social security benefit for survivors, to name a few, were all designed to encourage heterosexual couples to get married and have children. You can deny deny deny all you want but that won’t make you right. Your 70 year olds probably don’t have that much taxable income anyway, and your infertile couple are merely exceptions to the rule and will likely try to adopt. Obviously same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt lest they indoctrinate the innocent baby to their own aberrant sexual preference.

So you’re in Seaside…that’s not too far from me (Tallahassee).

Musuems: There’s a maritime musuem in Apalachicola. But even there wasn’t, you want to check Apalach out. Where the ice machine was invented.

http://www.apalachicolabay.org/index.cfm/m/20/

And in Carrabelle, maybe 30 minutes east of Apalach, is a WW2 musuem of the Army camp that was there.

http://carrabelle.org/things-to-do/camp-gordon-johnston-museum/

You wife can pick up the Coach handbag at the outlet mall in Destin…

Now that I have had some time to reflect on your comment, I have a serious question. By your logic, the tax breaks given to heterosexual marriages because of their burden to “bearing and raising of children”, should not be given to those who cant?
I am to understand that a 70 year old couple that gets married should not be fill under a joint married status on their taxes? That a young married couple that cannot conceive should be exempt from receiving marriage subsidies?
If this is the case, can a same-sex couple adopt a baby from China and start to receive the proper government subsidizing?

Were you not hugged as a child, ever? I learned a new word today. Risible: such as to provoke laughter. So thanks for that.