The problem with the "cost of insurance" type of argument comes about because insurance has become an entitlement more than a matter of contract between potential insured and insurer. If a company decides to give a "family" coverage to group of people X, then it has to do so in accordance with various civil-rights-egalitarian-nanny-state government rules about when it can say no to a member of the family group.
If insurance were made truly private, instead of this bastardized system under the influence of medical-industry-big-employer-insurance-company-whiny-safety-netters-assorted-know-nothing-coalitions, then my guess is we'd see some insurance companies refusing to deal with people with "non-nuclear-family" ideas.
But I'd also guess we'd see a bunch of them doing so. Perhaps some even specializing it so.
Insurance purely conceived is simply a matter of risk sharing, with the terms of the sharing determined by peoples beliefs about population and subpopulation probabilities re illness, accident, etc.
The problem is, that is *NOT* the way the modern insurance system -- or any of the equally ludricrous "government-sponsored" health systems out there -- work. Instead of basing rates and coverages on the expected value of probability x possible outcome, they get distorted by eleventeen different "social objectives" and woolly-headed utitlitarian notions of social engineering and emoting about "basic rights" to have costly things be "free" or "cheap".
And in that world of utilitarian pablum and seeking to provide everyone with medically effective hand jobs, the question of whether same-sex or polygamic groups get legal recognition becomes important.
It shouldn't. Because, as Rourke points out, its silly to think that a homosexual couple with a dog and a parakeet are going to be more costly to the system than some Ozzie and Harriet couple with three kids, and their Ritalin/Prozac/Valium/Viagra/every-runny-nose-needs-trips-to-a-brachial-specialist addictions. Or than some uneducated rube with ten kids.
But again, it does, because we're so fucked up in our conceptualization of the "entitlements" of medical care, that we forget how insurance really works.
Of course, we're appallingly ignorant in general of how trade only takes place IF both people see a benefit to be had. So why should insurance be any different.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)