There are no compelling arguments against same-sex marriage

The most important thing to understand is that my opponent has provided no reason for thinking that being of a certain sex kind makes a person exclusively capable of being married. Nor has he provided a reason for thinking that sex kinds have intrinsic social value. Further, he fails to tell us what it is about this intrinsic social value that would make them uniquely fitted for marriage. Notice that my opponent is arguing in favor of OSM by pointing to the special social value—not morality or rightness—of sex kinds. So the most important questions are: 1) what is the intrinsic special social value of sex kinds—especially without the ability to procreate? and 2) what about heterosexual sex kinds makes them uniquely worthy or capable of marriage? However, before exploring those crucial questions, we must examine a fundamental assumption my opponent makes and define social value. My opponent appeals to what is called Natural Law when he writes, “Nature . . . defines what something is and what it should be. But this is just an example of the is/ought fallacy that was famously critiqued by Hume. What “is” the case and what “ought” to be the case are “logically different notions, and no conclusion about one follows from the other.”[1]Something has social value if it brings about, sustains, or improves the quality of society and it does so in a just way. Sex Kinds and Social ValueNotice that in my opponent’s response whenever he discusses the supposed intrinsic social value of sex kinds he always comes back to how they’re related to procreation. In the end, however, he provides no explanation of why sex kinds have value in and of themselves. He must deny that the special social value (henceforth SSV) of sex kinds is as a means of procreation, because if he accepts this belief, he has no principled reason to argue that non-procreative heterosexual couples deserve marriage more than gay couples.He writes that the characteristics of sex kinds, e.g. chromosomes, sexual organs, etc., have a proper function “in order to contribute to the effect of procreation.” He is right to claim that even if a couple lacks the ability to procreate, they are still of a certain sex kind, but that doesn’t mean that they have SSV. He continues by averring that it is obvious that sex kinds are intrinsically valuable, “because effects [procreation] rely on their kinds in order to actualize.” This only seems to mean that the ability to procreate relies on the existence of sex kinds. However, this fails to address where the value of non-procreative sex kinds comes from. Furthermore, he writes, “without heterosexual sex kinds there can be no sexual organs and without sexual organs there can be no procreation. We can see how such kinds are the source of this special social value.” This sounds like sex kinds are valuable as a means to procreation and thus any heterosexual non-procreative couples could not be considered to have this value. We think of humans as intrinsically valuable, but only because of certain crucial features like consciousness. Thus, when someone lacks the ability or potential to develop consciousness or is brain dead, it is often considered morally justifiable to kill them. That is, they lose their intrinsic value. I would say that based on most of what my opponent has written, the most important feature of sex kinds is the ability to procreate. Remember, evolutionarily speaking, this is the only reason sex kinds developed. In fact, he writes this himself, “The reason sexes exist at all is because there needs to be some process that will ensure the survival and flourishing of the species.” My opponent writes, “there is no need to regulate or ban heterosexual relationships that are non-procreative because by participating in their respective heterosexual sex kind, they're representing the special value that the kind has by nature.” First, I didn’t say they should be regulated or banned, but only that if SSM was, they should be too. Second, I’m not sure I know what he means by this. Perhaps by being male (i.e. having the characteristic features of a male) a man is “representing” the sex kind’s SSV? Does something that merely represents something that have SSV have SSV in itself? I see no reason to believe this. How does such a representation help society in any way? If his contention is that just by virtue of being male or female, heterosexuals can marry, then that seems to suggest that the only reason that gays can’t marry is that they’re gay. But this begs the question. We need to know what about being gay disqualifies them from marriage. My opponent claims that he is arguing not from PVI to marriage, but from procreative sex kinds to EHM. He says, “the sexual acts are a mere means to fulfilling that end whereas a kind has the inherent ability to fulfill that end through the nature of its kind.” If by “end” he means procreation, then this is simply false. Sex organs are necessary for procreation. A kind may retain its “kind-ness’ without the ability to procreate, but it has no inherent ability. Sex kinds are only socially valuable as a means to procreation. The reason that evolution favored sexual reproduction as opposed to parthenogensis, for example, is because “sex must have some huge evolutionary advantage that outweighs its cost.”[2] Again, sex kinds exist as a means to procreation. But, if these sex kinds don’t lead to procreation, then society has no reason to institutionalize them.Marriage and Government My opponent claims that the government should be interested in institutionalizing marriage because, “children are required for the perpetuation of society and such children need to be properly nurtured, loved, and educated.” According to these reasons, marriage is valuable as a means to an end [procreation]. He claims: 1) heterosexual unions have social value because they can procreate and 2) only heterosexual couples can properly nurture, love, and educate children. According to (1) sterile couples don’t qualify for marriage. If my opponent doesn’t mean (2), then why couldn’t SSMs be seen as having great social value, because they can nurture, love and raise well-adjusted children? In fact, countless professional psychological institutes completely support SSM and testify that there is no meaningful difference in their ability to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[3] This fact provides the government with a very serious reason to institutionalize and support SSM. Mere procreation is not enough, children need to be raised in loving homes. Think of all the children waiting to be adopted in the world. SSM seems like the perfect institution to give these children a home. I find it hard to believe that an orphanage or foster home could ever be as helpful to a child’s healthy development as a real home with loving parents.Heterosexuals that procreate and leave their children to be adopted are not helping society, they’re hindering it. Where does the money to run and subsidize orphanages and foster homes come from? Tax dollars. Society needs more than quantity, it needs quality too.Marriage and Legal BenefitsBefore claiming that SSMs don’t deserve the legal benefits that OSMs get, we need to ask why the OSMs are getting the legal benefits in the first place. If it is for reasons that are equally applicable to gay couples, then it isn’t unjust to give SSMs the same legal benefits. So far the only mentioned differences between SSM and OSM is that OSM can procreate (but not always) and it contains two different sex kinds. Do people deserve special benefits, because they can procreate? Probably not, they will most likely procreate no matter what as humans have an inborn sex drive. However, I think it would be fair to provide subsidies to people who have procreated and need to raise children. SSMs should get the same subsidies if they adopted or had their own children.My endnotes are listed in the Comments section.