I wrote the other day that "marriage is about children." It might be objected that if this were the case, then childless or infertile heterosexual couples would not be allowed to marry. Here is the objection:
1. If marriage were about children, then neither infertile nor fertile-but-childless heterosexual couples would be allowed to marry.
2. Infertile and fertile-but-childless heterosexual couples are allowed to marry.
Therefore,
3. Marriage is not about children.
This argument is valid, but the first premise is false, which makes the argument unsound. Compare the following argument, which has the same form as the first:
1a. If drinking alcohol were about maturity, then immature individuals who are at or above the legal drinking age would not be allowed to drink alcohol.
2a. Immature individuals who are at or above the legal drinking age are allowed to drink alcohol.
Therefore,
3a. Drinking alcohol is not about maturity.
The first premise of this second argument is false, as even proponents of homosexual "marriage" will concede. There are many reasons of a practical nature, and some of a moral nature, for not disallowing the immature to drink. The drinking age is a bright-line rule that obviates the need for agents of the state to inquire into maturity. Perhaps in an ideal world the law would say that all and only mature individuals may drink alcohol, but our world is far from ideal.
The same is true of the legal rule that allows all and only heterosexual couples to marry. If we changed the rule to disallow childless heterosexual couples to marry, some agent of the state would have to inquire into the presence of children (or perhaps the intention to produce children). If we went further and changed the rule to disallow infertile heterosexual couples to marry, some agent of the state would have to inquire into the fertility status of the individuals. This is not only impractical; it invades privacy, which is a moral matter.
This is only one small part of the debate about homosexual "marriage." My aim in this post is merely to show that one argument made by proponents of homosexual "marriage" is unsound. That the argument is often made and seldom criticized is neither here nor there. It is unsound.
Addendum: I thought of another argument while running yesterday:
1. If the wind were blowing, that flag would not be lying limp.
2. That flag is lying limp.
Therefore,
3. The wind is not blowing.
The argument is valid and the second premise is true, but the first premise is false, and that makes the argument unsound. Ordinarily, if a flag is exposed to the wind, it will not lie limp if the wind is blowing. But this particular flag was shielded from the wind by a house and trees. Even if the wind were blowing, the flag would have been lying limp. Compare: Even if marriage were about children, infertile and fertile-but-childless heterosexual couples would be allowed to marry.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 