The "indispensable means" argument is not a compelling objection to same-sex marriage

"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)."(1) Heterosexual union isn't synonymous with a man and a woman having sexual intercourse or having a child, though a popular characteristic it may be. Therefore, if we grant the rest of the argument, it doesn't justify the exclusion of same-sex marriage since gay couples are capable of carrying out the necessary union (male couples using a surrogate, female couples using in vitro fertilization) and raising a child. Homosexual couples are capable of furthering the "first precondition for society" and are thus, under the argument, legitimate objects of civil recognition.(2) Heterosexual union isn't a universal attribute of heterosexuals themselves. Obviously there are heterosexual males and females who either don't have the ability to have children (are infertile) or have no intention of doing so. Therefore, granting those specific couples civil recognition (marriage) fails to further or recognize the first precondition (birth, raising children). So one is forced to either give up on the first premise or to give up on the arbitrary focus on homosexual/heterosexual relationships as opposed to child rearing/non-child rearing ones."What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction."This point doesn't follow. The "special recognition and sanction" point doesn't appear to have any actual necessity considering that the "first precondition" would occur regardless of such sanction. At best, one could argue that civil recognition serves to foster a "better" environment in fostering child birth/raising. However, this wouldn't be unique to heterosexual relationships since gay couples are fully capable of raising children as well. Therefore, in the interest of fostering a stable environment for raising children, same-sex marriages should also be civilly recognized."To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust."The argument here makes the unsupported presupposition that civil recognition of heterosexual marriage is somehow the only way to recognize it's "special social value". There are other instances however in which the supposed social value of the means by which the propagation of the species is recognized. For instance, its importance is valued on an inter-personal level (as well as on the civil level). If heterosexual marriages ceased to be recognized civilly, it wouldn't diminish the value that most people place on it. Civil recognition may further legitimize these relationships in the eyes of some but it's certainly far from the means by which people recognize the legitimacy in the first place.===Conclusion===The "indispensable means argument" fails on several levels. For one, it unnecessarily presupposes that civil recognition (as opposed to social recognition on an inter-personal level) is the only way to recognize the "special social value" of the first precondition of society. Furthermore, the argument makes a categorical mistake in focusing on the genders of the parties involved in marriage as opposed to the social role which those parties actually fulfill. There's nothing conceptually linking heterosexual relationships and child-rearing or necessitating that homosexual couples aren't capable of raising children.