There are no compelling arguments against same-sex marriage

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).The first problematic area that I noticed was that one of the key terms in this argument, “heterosexual union,” is vague. This is a pet peeve of many philosophers. If you are going to use a term that is not widely understood, then you need to define it clearly. One need only consider that we are arguing about the meaning of the term marriage, which I think most modern Westerners would claim that they know the meaning of—whether or not they actually do. Does “heterosexual union” refer to marriage, like a civil union between two heterosexuals? If that were the case then the first premise would be false, because marriage is not a means by which humans come into existence. However, I think that Jim Spiegel is using “heterosexual union” to mean heterosexual sex.In fact, it would have to mean heterosexual sex in order to be accurate, because marriage is not at all the means by which humans come into existence. And, more precisely, it would have to mean penile-vaginal intercourse (henceforth PVI), because heterosexuals can engage in a variety sexual acts, e.g. oral, anal, digital, etc. However, the only one of these acts that is a means by which humans come into existence is PVI.However, if one really thinks about it, the fertilization of an egg by a sperm is really “ the indispensable means by which humans come into existence.” And, because this is true, the first premise is false. Whether “heterosexual union” is meant to mean marriage or penial-vaginal intercourse, it is not true that these are the indispensable means by which humans come into existence. In vitro fertilization is also a possibility. Whether it is as common or not is irrelevant, because it exists neither of the two possible meanings of “heterosexual union” are the indispensable means by which humans come into existence.Because the very first premise of the argument is false, the entire argument is invalid, i.e. the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that PVI is the only/indispensable means by which humans can come into existence. Even if we assume this, I contend that the argument still fails.2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.Ok, so I’ve agreed for the sake of argument that PVI has a special social value, but I’ve yet to see what this has to do with marriage. Furthermore, I’d like to clarify that PVI has a special social value only because it is a means to an intrinsically valuable end (i.e. the creation of a human). In other words, if for some reason society as a whole became infertile—think P.D. James’ The Children of Men—marriage would no longer have this special social value.It seems to me that if one wanted to argue that heterosexual marriage was deserving of special social value then, using the framework of this argument, they would have to argue that heterosexual marriage was the indispensable means by which PVI can occur and because PVI has special social value so does heterosexual marriage. However, this is obviously not true.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.(1) Allowing SSM is not the same thing as recognizing it as comparable to OSM. In recognizing a civil liberty, the government does not necessary communicate approval or equality with any other instance of that liberty. The example of free speech or the right to peaceably assemble are particularly helpful to clarify this. In allowing anarchists to speak publicly, publish, and have parades, the government would not be communicating that this kind of speech, which has very little social value, is comparable to free speech like the civil rights movement, which has/had a lot of social value. This is the first place where this premise is problematic.(2) Nowhere has my opponent indicated what “heterosexual unions” (PVI) have to do with marriage. Because no relationship has been established in the argument prior to or after this premise, we have no reason to believe that recognizing SSM as comparable constitutes a rejection of the special value of PVI. (3)What my opponent is trying to argue is that heterosexual couples who marry can procreate, which provides a unique social good for society and therefore is more valuable than SSM. However, as I’ve said multiple times already, all this argument would show—if it were successful—is that PVI has a unique social value. However, procreation is not an essential feature of marriage. And although this argument doesn’t explicitly state this, it is essentially saying that the most important difference between SSM and OSM is that the latter can procreate and therefore deserves the title of marriage. However, there is an obvious problem with this line of reasoning: many heterosexual marriages don’t procreate.Many heterosexual married couples don’t procreate because some don’t want kids and others contain infertile partners. However, no one in the Western world has ever been denied the right to marry because they were infertile—at least not to my knowledge. It seems to me that if procreation were so vital to marriage that people would have to sign an agreement that they intend to procreate before they can get married or perhaps they’d have to take a fertility test. This might be seen as comparable to the sight test that one receives at the RMV. Being able to see is an essential part of driving and thus it is appropriate to test for it. Some might claim that this would be too invasive, but if marriage is essentially about procreation, it doesn’t seem like too much to ask for. Plus, there are other ways of regulating procreation in marriage that aren’t as invasive. Couples could have something like a 5 or 10 year limit in which they need to procreate at least once or their marriage will be dissolved.Furthermore, post-menopausal women are always infertile. No invasive test or time limit needs to be placed on them. However, no one ever rejects their right to marry or thinks it threatens the special social value of OSM.Essentially, if this premise is true than all non-procreative heterosexual marriages must also be banned, because they can’t provide the unique social good that procreative heterosexual marriages can. Recognizing these marriages as comparable to procreative ones would constitute a rejection of the special social value of procreative marriages (for the same reason that SSM would) and that would be unjust—at least according to this argument. However, it seems to me that my opponent doesn’t want to ban non-procreative heterosexual marriages. I also doubt that anyone thinks that the very allowance of non-procreative heterosexual marriage constitutes a rejection of the special social value of procreative heterosexual marriages.My opponent may respond that these non-procreative heterosexual marriages can at least engage in procreative-type acts, even if they don’t lead to actual procreation. However, this is irrelevant. If these marriage cannot act as the indispensable means by which a human comes into existence, then they don’t have the special social value that procreative marriages do. Anal intercourse between two gay men is just as likely to lead to a human coming into existence as PVI with a post-menopausal woman is. And, one needs to recall that PVI has special social value only because it is the indispensable means by which something of intrinsic social value (i.e. humans) comes into existence. If PVI in these marriages doesn’t lead to procreation they are not of special social value. I look forward to my opponent’s rebuttal.