In this thread, I wish to have a civil debate about my core objection to one of the most frequently cited rationales for prohibiting same-sex marriage. I (and others) must have had this debate over a thousand times, and I can't for the life of me understand why opponents don't realize that my objection is fatal to their argument. Maybe someone here can (civilly) show me why I'm wrong.
Opponents of SSM often adopt the following argumentative strategy: point to something that same-sex couples can't do (i.e., procreate), and then assert that it is rational to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying on that basis. Essentially, because same-sex couples (unlike opposite-sex couples) can't procreate, they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
My objection: The inability to procreate has never been a requirement for a marriage license, so whether same-sex couples can meet it shouldn't matter. We don't prohibit people from entering into legal contracts -- and civil marriage is a legal contract -- because they can't meet NON-requirements, which is precisely what the "inability to procreate" criterion is. *So why should the right for same-sex couples to marry turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement? * That is the key question for me.