Religion in Government

Because the union of the three groups is necessarily larger than any single group, and thus will cost more.

Rrhain was talking about pension rights (and other associated benefits that are passed to a married partner at death), I was responding specifically on that point.

That would be true if the situation you're describing was the case; but it is not. Unless you're suggesting that the gay couples are currently forming straight 'faux' marriages to get pension rights? (And I know you're not).We already have the pairs set up; we're just only giving rights to some of them. Suppose it's something like this among your 40 people:16 man/women.
1 man/man.
1 woman/woman.
The rest are single.The man/woman pairs cost extra because of the right to inherit the pension income - as compared to the man/man, woman/woman and singles. If you extend the right to inherit the pension to man/man and woman/woman then it will cost more for that extra 12.5% that have gained an additional right.Although, in practice, man/man couples would cost less than either man/woman or woman/woman.Quite frankly however, I think it's about as bollocks an argument as arguing that we shouldn't aim for pay equality between men and women because it would cost more. Just a technical quibble.

perky, young women are sexier in general. Fake tits are horrible.