- There's a great deal of value in knowing both of your biological parents and being raised by them (other things being equal--of course there are exceptions).
- The normal way of procreating for same sex couples involves a gamete donor, so that the child knows and is raised by at most one biological parent.
- If same sex couples are permitted to marry, their normal way of procreating will be elevated to parity with the heterosexual way of procreating.
- Because of that elevation to parity, we will all gradually lose sight of the value of knowing both of your biological parents and being raised by them.
- Losing sight of a kind of value tends to cause that sort of value to be less pursued and less protected. Possible sequelae: couples (straight or gay) buying gametes to have the type of child they prefer (an intellectual, an athlete, or whatever); rights of biological parents being less protected.
- There isn't the same problem with infertile heterosexual couples being able to marry, since using a gamete donor is not their normal way of procreating, but usually a last resort chosen after years of medical intervention. THEREFORE,
- Same sex marriage should be prohibited (but marriage of heterosexuals who may turn out to be infertile should be allowed).
How to argue against gay marriage (part II)
This is certainly a diabolical exercise. I am for marriage equality, and I think most reasonable people are for marriage equality. But what if a college debate society were staging a debate, and you got assigned the "against" side? What could you say? Most of the stuff normally said on that side is extremely silly. Is there anything even half-way reasonable to say against gay marriage? In yesterday's post, I gave it my best shot. Let's see if I can spell out that argument more precisely.