Either way, the defenders of traditional marriage are in trouble—and unnecessarily so. For there is an alternative criterion of marriage eligibility, and it successfully explains why homosexual couples and sterile and aged heterosexual couples are different. Namely, the intrinsic (actual or ideal) capacity to procreate. This criterion can presumably be incorporated into the new natural law argument, at the point where human nature—and its capacities and inclinations—informs practical reason. Or it can be used in an entirely different kind of anti-SSM argument, which is what I happen to prefer.

The idea of “acts of a generative kind” was originally used by G.E.M. Anscombe as a standard for evaluating the (im)morality of contraception. In the quite different context of marriage, it would work perfectly fine if sterile and aged couples are not allowed to marry. Needless to say, that is not an option.

It would be absurd to refer to reproduction as a type without making any room for instances of reproduction—and, unfortunately the instances (tokens) say one thing about sterile and aged heterosexual couples (“they don’t belong here”), while the type says another thing (“they do belong here, but homosexual couples don’t”). The George/Gergis argument assumes, as it must, the existence of acts that are potentially or actually procreative, but the argument can’t stop there (or it would be self-defeating), thus the need for “acts of a procreative kind.” The George/Gergis argument trades off on the viability of the tokens for the feasibility of the type—or, more simply, on the ambiguity of the phrases “generative act” and “act of a generative kind.” The result is an argument bedeviled by the fallacy of equivocation.

That’s not even an accurate representation of what they found.

But it doesn’t matter, for three reasons.

The first is because the methods are flawed. They use self-selecting gays whose children have strong incentives to score the “correct” ways, evaluated by strongly biased researchers, and they failed to adequately account for the incentives and biases involved.

I mean, every single child studied is, by definition, a child raised by a gay or lesbian person who had no reason to suppose that motherlessness or fatherlessness would be harmless, but did it anyway. These are people who were willing to use these kids as experimental guinea pigs. That’s a pretty strong indicator that these kids might be under pressure to test a certain way – and yet every study I have seen not only fails to adequately address this concern, but appears to be relying on it (i.e. taking advantage of “self reporting” and so on).

The second reason is because even if the studies were valid, they’re inadequate. Even if good grades did equal good parenting in a simple, straightforward relationship, the problems motherless or fatherless children are known to have are not necessarily linked to grades, or achievement, at all. There are no studies dealing in-depth with far more relevant issues, for instance things involving identity and taboos, communication and relationship abilities re: same and opposite sex relationships, and so on.

Of course the third reason it doesn’t matter is because even if you could prove they were happy and well-adjusted, that doesn’t change the fact that the real question is whether their rights are being violated.

Is adoption primarily about finding the best possible home for a child who is orphaned or abandoned? Or is adoption primarily about finding children for affluent couples who want a baby but don’t want the inconvenience of actually having to do right by that baby’s mother or father?

If a conflict exists between what a child has reason to value vs. what a parent values, whose values are to be prioritized?

How about this: children of gay parents have about the same educational achievements as those by heterosexual parents. Given a psychological study, “researchers [also] found that the children of gays and lesbians were virtually indistinguishable from children of heterosexual parents.”

Boys raised by two women were actually less likely to be promiscuous as adults than when raised by heterosexual parents. Children raised by gay parents were no more or less likely to be gay themselves.

Numerous studies have shown that children of gay parents fared as well psychologically and intellectually as those raised by their heterosexual counterparts. Go look them up.

Now, if you want to insist that children of gay parents are being held to different standards than those of heterosexual parents, please provide the evidence.

And yet we now have 40% of children born out of wedlock, many of whom are living with parents who do not choose to get married. We then also have childless couples getting largely the same breaks as married couples with children. If the goal is to ease the burden of caring for children, why not give benefits based on whether or not (or how many) children a person (or couple) has rather than give the benefits only to those who are legally married.

Society may have an interest in giving couples an incentive to marry, but when we have a 40% rate of out-of-wedlock births, isn’t that punishing 40% of children because their parents did not choose to marry? It’s not the fault of the children.

Why is marriage about legal and civil benefits? Because religious conservatives turned it into that by demanding benefits for married persons at the expense of single persons.

Now go the rest of the way.

Why do these benefits matter?

Because men and women cannot split the biological, economic, or social costs of procreation equally..

Marriage may or may not involve the union of like souls, but the state’s interest in the institution is 100% linked to the enforcement of contracts – specifically, the contracts governing and enabling procreative functions: contracts between the two people who make a baby together, and contracts between the procreative couples and the institutions that support, nourish, and, yes, regulate them.

Why is marriage about legal and civil benefits? Because religious conservatives turned it into that by demanding benefits for married persons at the expense of single persons. You can be married without a church, therefore marriage isn’t religious. You can be married if you are infertile, therefore marriage isn’t about child creation. There is only one reason to deny marriage equality for Gays and Lesbians. Bias.

Furthermore, religious political conservatives have done just about everything in their power to deman straight marriage on their own. Might I cite Donohue (of the Catholic League), Gingrich (three marriages – mucho infedility), Trump, Maggie Gallagher Srinav (child born out of wedlock). Should Newt’s childless third marriage (which I believe started with adultery with an employee) be annulled by the state? Why not start punishing straight conservatives who violate your religous laws? Otherwise its just about abusing Gays only.

To the commenter that stated that employers should be able to fire all openly Gay people, should Gay people be able to fire all openly religious people? Please try to answer that without resorting to dominionism or the Bible. Remember we are talking about secular law. And to those of you who wish to quote the Bill of Rights as some license to allow anyone to do anything just so long as the discriminator or actor says that their personal ‘religion’ requires it, then please tell me how you would square that with not allowing effective Sharia from persons who believe in strict Islam, or Wiccans, etc.

Ever been in a car with a driver who will not turn around as a matter of principle?

We’ve inexcusably allowed things to get this bad. It’s too late to turn back the clock and pretend these things didn’t happen, though that doesn’t mean we can’t work on improving things. But that’s no reason to destroy the last remaining shred of marriage just because it’s gotten to this point.

Briefly, I find that in “What Is Marriage?” George’s arguments appear (to me, anyway) to exclude all kinds of arrangements that, say, anthropologists would classify as marriage. His description of “conjugal marriage” also has little to do with the reality of legal marriage in the United States or elsewhere.

He says in the paper

Yes, social and legal developments have already worn the ties that bind spouses to something beyond themselves and thus more securely to each other. But recognizing same‐sex unions would mean cutting the last remaining threads.

In my own biased way, I read that as saying, “We have put up with every other assault on marriage, but the one thing we can’t stand for is gay people being allowed to marry. From no-fault divorce in all 50 states, to a 50% divorce rate, to a 40% out-of-wedlock birth rate, to 28% of women with children having had them by two fathers—all that is bad enough. But gays being allowed to marry? Never!”