This short debate was carried out on Facebook a few weeks ago and is reposted here for illustration: this is more or less the kind of post that we will see on this blog. ~Claudio
This is why I think that same-sex unions ought to be allowed. For the most part, here I reply to the objection that gay couples have a fundamental biological difference (the lack of the ability to procreate, even in principle) that excludes them from "marriage" by definition. I think that is wrong because even though differences in the procreation options available to straight vs. gay couples are real and must carry some weight, they must not determine which rights a couple gains as a couple, as opposed to the rights it gains when it procreates. It's appropriate to withhold some of the latter rights from gay couples, but none of the former.
1. Kinds of couples
I think that a good definition of traditional marriage is "the consensual union of a man and a woman who have an in-principle possibility of common procreation." In-principle possibility means that the two may opt not to procreate; or one may be sterile; etc.; but so long as they're of opposite sexes and their plumbing works, they could, biologically speaking. Gay couples clearly have no biological possibility of common procreating, even in principle, since by "common" we mean between the two spouses, the natural way, with no donors or adoptions. This much ought to be obvious. Notice that the definition doesn't mention family, because we could easily see a family as being composed of only the couple; indeed, the laws of most countries do. Nor must we say that there is an in-principle possibility of expanding the family beyond the original couple, for that option is obviously available to both gay and straight couples. In other words, "procreation" and "family" are separable concepts.
Other than in the in-principle possibility of common procreation, in what other regards (that are not socially-determined) do straight and gay couples differ? None at all: everything else is the same. In both cases we have two individuals who love each other and vow mutual allegiance. Of course, the common procreation thing is a pretty damn big difference. Since gay couples can't in-principle commonly procreate, what rights should be withheld from gay couples that should be given to straight couples instead?
The answer is only those rights that have to do with the in-principle possibility of common procreation, since that is the only difference. And those certainly do NOT figure among the rights that the state grants to couples simply for being married couples. In other words, childrearing rights are only granted to couples when a child is actually present: to have an in-principle possibility of common procreation is not a sufficient condition to acquire childrearing rights. Therefore, as I hope to show next, childrearing rights are entirely separable from the rights that ought to be recognized to any couple, regardless of its sexual orientation.
2. Couples' rights
Say that couple S, a straight couple, want a child; and couple G, a gay couple, also want a child. S have three options open to them: biological baby-making, adoption, and assisted fertilization (in vitro either with their own genetic materials or with a donor's sperm/uterus in case of one spouse's sterility). G have two: adoption and assisted fertilization (with a donor's sperm or uterus: for the purposes of common procreation, it's just as if one gay spouse were sterile).
Adoption is identical in both, so eliminate it for now. What about assisted fertilization? With in vitro fertilization, we can't say that the resulting child is "of the couple," for it's only of half of the couple; it's basically a kind of adoption where the child is much closer to one parent than to the other. This too is true for both S and G, so let's take this out too. So what's left is that S can have a child that is the biological offspring of both spouses, while G can't. This, in essence, is what the "in-principle possibility of common procreation" requirement says.
This seems obvious, but notice that we've already accomplished a lot. We have shown that the only relevant difference between S and G as far as procreation is concerned is that S can have 100%-biological offspring, while G must be limited to either 50% or zero. But this is irrelevant to the rights of a couple as simply a couple and not also as parents. Remember that we said that there are certain rights and duties that a couple acquires when it begets a child. Consider only S now, the heterosexual couple. Will their childrearing rights be different if they adopt vs. generate their own offspring? Maybe yes, because the law recognizes fewer rights to adoptive parents than to natural parents (many factors can change that, e.g., the current state of the child's natural parents). Let's concede that that's the case. When S has its own bio-baby, they will have 100% childrearing rights; when they adopt, they will have 75% childrearing rights, or 90%, or whatever.
What's different with G? Again, only one thing: that they can't have 100% childrearing rights, because they can't make their own bio-baby. And we already agreed to concede that having a 50%-biological baby is really just a special kind of adoption. If so, then G will have at most 90% of childrearing rights, just as S would have at most 90% of childrearing rights if they adopted. That is the highest possible realization of a gay couple: to "adopt" (in the broad sense of the term also encompassing in vitro fertilization).
But again, none of these childrearing rights, be they 100% or 90%, have anything to do with anything that's different between the two couples, and they have especially nothing to do with their sexes.
Childrearing rights only become an issue when the couple actually HAS a child. If it doesn't, they don't become an issue. And the in-principle possibility of generating a 100%-biological child is not at all a sufficient condition for granting some rights to S and withholding the same rights from G. True, S can have access to that extra 10% of childrearing rights, but that's not because S is hetero: it's because being hetero has allowed them the biological possibility of making a child in such a way as would grant them the extra 10% according to a law that gives the extra 10% only to natural parents. In other words, the biological possibility that comes with being S has nothing to do with being a couple: it has only to do with generating a certain kind of child and acquiring a certain kind of childrearing rights as disposed by the law. The non-childrearing rights that come with being a couple are entirely unaffected, and, as such, ought to be granted equally to all.
3. Objections
Perhaps you want to attach the term "marriage" only to S couples with an in-principle possibility of common procreation. Sure, go ahead and do that: it irks me too when people call it gay "marriage." We could change our definition of the term, but why do that: we'll just call G a "union" instead. The point is, it doesn't matter how you call it. The same rights that are granted to S ought to be granted to G as well, again because the only differences between them don't pertain to their being a couple, but only to a certain kind of procreation being accessible to S and not for G some time down the road. While that's sufficient grounds from withholding some childrearing rights from G couples (for biological reasons), it's definitely insufficient grounds for withholding any other rights from them, including and especially the right to be a legally recognized couple in the first place. And let's not forget that if we can make an argument that adoptive parents ought to have 100% of childrearing rights, just as biological parents, then the difference will in fact vanish almost completely.
Some may also object that a biological child shares a much closer bond to its natural parents than an adoptive child to its adoptive parents. I've no idea whether that's true, but assuming that it is, that's still no reason to deny marriage rights to G couples on the basis that their bond to their children will be less strong: it'll be as strong of a bond as is biologically possible and it has nothing to do with their status as a couple and the non-childrearing rights that come with it.
4. Conclusion
So this is part of why I support gay unions; there are, of course, many other arguments available. But as concerns the common objection outlined above, there is simply no in-principle difference about being a couple as a couple, and the only relevant differences are attached to a wholly separate set of rights and duties. Those differences, which again are very real, can correspond to a loss of rights for the gay couple WITHOUT this loss affecting any other rights that the gay couple can have as simply a couple. In yet other words, gay couples ought to lose some rights as parents because of their biological situation (and even that will depend on adoption laws, not gay-union laws), but they ought not to lose any rights as a couple: their biological situation doesn't affect their simply being a couple and their lack of one baby-making option at the procreation stage ought not to retroactively deprive them of rights not connected with the procreation stage itself.
In short, give it up and let marry whoever will. Olbermann was right when he asked, with some bewilderment, "what's it to you?" It really ought to be nothing to you, because it is (or ought to be) nothing in itself.
