First let me say I love when people immedietely start railing that people don't have legitimate arguments against Gay Marriage and then when people articulate them they're just written off. Not
agreeing with the argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist nor is invalid.
No, that is the argument... his.
Yes, that is
his argument. What's incorrect is him trying to imply that is also exactly what the argumnent of many people against gay marriage is.
Arguably people who marry are capable of not having children out of choice, rendering the argument false and raising the question mentioned in this thread that non-child-bearing-marriages would be invalid according to this 'historical' truth.
Sorry, you don't get to ignore words. He said:
"The argument is that historically, marriage has been
largely about the production and raising of children."
Note he used "largely" not "singularly". This means a majority of times, not necessarily EVERY time, therefore the fact it doesn't happen everytime doesn't invalidate his statement nor argument.
Which begs the argument that if one partner is incapable of reproducing whether they should be allowed to wed.
No, out of realism of the law and respects to peoples rights. Per the Supreme Court individuals have a right to privacy, one of such being their medical records. Whether one is infertile or not is a medical record and as such should not be required to participate in a government sponsored function such as this. To require such would be too invasive. As such, if you're going with the notion that marriage is designed to provide a benefit to society by forming a healthy family structure for a potential child then the most intelligent way to go about assuring that a potential child can be formed without invading into an individuals privacy and medical records is to mandate it as one man, one child, as it is the only biological combination that has the potential in a healthy situation of creating a child together.
Not to mention the potential issues with regards to disability law in denying someone something based on a medical issue.
How do we know that marriage is not merely a license to mate - and maintain cohesion and curb destructive adulterous habits in the community?
First, the very nature of adulterous habits requires marriage to exist to allow them to happen. You can't curb adulterous habits by allowing marriage as its through marriage that adulterous habits can happen. This is like saying we need to allow people to play poker to curb destructive gambling habits in the community.
Second, if I can guess what you actually meant, an argument could definitely be made of marriage being a social construct aimed at promoting monogomy to create a safer climate for society in regards to sexual health and form a cohesive society. However from what I've seen there's been far more quoatable history backing up the "government interest due to improved family environment" than "government interest due to improved societal sexual health" so I'd say its a far weaker argument to make for it.
Essentially by saying it is a license to procreate and make babies for that purpose, not having babies would violate the purpose of a marriage.
In a way yes, but as was said is a needed leeway in exchange for the more reasonable way for the government to desginate it.
Let me give you a rather abstract analogy.
You own an apartment complex. You feel its beneficial to your complex to provide extended cable to every apartment because there's a likelihood that it will improve your ability to retain residents. Even if you have a resident that has no intention of ever watching television you keep it installed to be consistant and because there's at least a CHANCE that he may decide there's some event on TV he wants to and may decide to start watching. Cutting off his cable because he hasn't yet is making a large assumption about the future and creates an inconsistancy in your approach to the service not to mention brings up a host of other issues (do you alert him, do you reduce his rent, etc?). However, it would make no sense for you to go and pay for extended cable for someone not living in your apartment complex because its not really possible that you paying for someone elses cable elsewhere is going to increase their retention at your apartment complex.
Lets go with the idea that Government has an interest in marriage because it provides the ability to produce a child into a home environment that has the highest chance based singularly on structure to be beneficial to the childs growth and thus addition to society.
IF that is the case, then the government is likely to strive for the method of ensuring this that is broad enough to get the most people as possible while efficient enough at keeping the numbers that do not meet the goal to a low point while maintaining a respect for rights such as privacy.
As such, IF we're to are to take the two arguments above at face value "Man and Woman" is the best way to do that. It covers a vast majority of the population while increasing efficiency by removing couples that who due to gender could not produce a child. It leaves in people who are infertile, but this is due to medical privacy. It leaves in people who "don't want to have a child" but they are still at a higher potential ability for a child through a change in belief or through an accidnet than those of the same gender. Its efficient in that its a simple check and test requiring little further investigation or confirmation from the government.
Now, you can disagree with the very notion that the point of GOVERNMENT recognizing marriage is that they have an interest in it due to procreation and the family structure it creates. However, even if you disagre with the argument you should not obtusely ignore or twist it to fit your stereotyped reasons to hate it in your head rather than actually deal honestly with what is being suggested and why.
In other words the philosophical direction it leads, is that a marriage with a mating couple that does not produce children is invalid... You could go so far and say that a barren woman would be sinful to mate.
And here is the crux of the issue and where your own biases show through. No one said anything about "sins". Goshin said anything about "religion". Goshin said anything about "god" or "heathen" or "unholy" or anything of the such. YOU interject it into the realm because so many who are for Gay Marriage have deemed it an absolute undeniable truth that its
impossible to be against it for anything other than religious reasons and thus ignore and distort any argument that doesn't use religion and in many cases, such as yours here, even starts arguing it on a religious basis when no one even made the argument.
The discussion regarding this argument is not whether its "sinful" or not, but rather does the government have an overriding interest or not and the level of precision it should have in striving for said interest.