首先，如果我们认真对待这个前提，我们就必须从根本上改变婚姻法。不允许不孕夫妇结婚 – 这包括因健康问题而不育的年轻人以及因年龄而不育的老年人。谁会同意呢？令人感到奇怪的是，对想要结婚的同性恋者的谴责不是针对想要结婚的老年人，这表明这个问题不可能源于人们不赞成一对不会生孩子的夫妇。考虑一下当某人因其他爱的原因结婚时的反应，如公民身份，金钱或社会地位。这表明社会将爱视为结婚的基础，而不是生育孩子。如果我们为了生育和抚养孩子而强制执行婚姻的观念，我们难道不会禁止夫妻自愿无子女吗？即使我们没有禁止避孕和堕胎，我们也必须采取措施确保所有已婚夫妇都没有孩子：如果他们不生产自己的孩子，他们将不得不收养一些孤儿并放弃儿童目前没有稳定的家庭和家庭。既然我们没有看到任何人争论这种令人发指的措施，我们必须得出结论，同性婚姻的反对者并不像他们看似那样严肃对待这一原则;而且由于这些措施如此令人愤慨，我们有充分理由不认真对待。即使没有这些结论，前提本身也存在许多缺陷。它包含了同性恋与儿童之间必然脱节的想法，但这是一个错误。同性恋伴侣普遍没有孩子。有些人有孩子，因为一个或两个伙伴早些时候参与了产生后代的异性恋关系。一些男同性恋伴侣有孩子，因为他们已安排其他人担任代孕妈妈。一些女同性恋伴侣有孩子，因为他们使用人工授精。最后，一些同性恋伴侣有孩子，因为他们已经领养了。不管是什么原因，更多的同性恋伴侣并非没有孩子 – 如果婚姻，无论是在“自然”还是作为一个法律机构，存在促进和保护生育和抚养孩子，那么为什么不能这样做同性恋伴侣呢？以及直接夫妻？第二个缺陷是它从生物功能中产生了迷信。从什么时候开始，人们只根据他们想象的生物学目标来定制他们的活动？谁结婚只是为了生孩子而不是与他们所爱的人追求有意义和亲密的关系？谁吃食物只是为了摄取营养而不是享受伴随美食的社交和心理体验？最后，有人认为，同性恋婚姻的存在将构成对上帝为了生育目的而创造的神圣制度的亵渎。如果将同性恋视为憎恶的教会被迫执行和承认同性婚姻，那么这可能是真的，但没有人暗示这种情况发生。在多元社会中由世俗法律建立和管理的民事婚姻，不能受某些宗教如何在其信仰的神学界限内构想婚姻的限制。不同宗教成员之间的婚姻不能仅仅因为一些教会认为它是亵渎神灵而在法律上被禁止。不同种族成员之间的婚姻不能仅仅因为某些群体认为混血与上帝的意志相悖而在法律上被禁止。那么为什么同性成员之间的婚姻会有所不同呢？
First of all, if we take this premise seriously, we must fundamentally change the marriage law. Infertile couples are not allowed to marry – this includes young people who are infertile due to health problems and older people who are young due to age. Who will agree? Surprisingly, the condemnation of homosexuals who want to marry is not directed at the elderly who want to get married, which suggests that this problem cannot be attributed to people who disapprove of a couple who do not have children. Consider the reaction when someone marries for other reasons of love, such as citizenship, money or social status. This shows that society regards love as the basis of marriage rather than giving birth to children. If we enforce the concept of marriage for the birth and raising of children, wouldn’t we not prohibit couples from volunteering without children? Even if we don’t ban contraception and abortion, we must take steps to ensure that all married couples have no children: if they don’t produce their own children, they will have to adopt some orphans and give up children and families that are not currently stable. Since we have not seen anyone arguing about this heinous measure, we must conclude that opponents of same-sex marriage do not take this principle as seriously as they seem; and because these measures are so outrageous, we There are good reasons not to take it seriously. Even without these conclusions, the premise itself has many flaws. It contains the idea of a disconnect between homosexuality and children, but it is a mistake. Gay partners generally have no children. Some people have children because one or two partners have earlier participated in heterosexual relationships that produce offspring. Some gay couples have children because they have arranged for other people to be surrogate mothers. Some lesbian couples have children because they use artificial insemination. Finally, some gay couples have children because they have adopted them. Whatever the reason, more gay couples are not without children – if marriage, whether in “natural” or as a legal institution, promotes and protects fertility and raising children, why not be a homosexual partner? And direct couples? The second drawback is that it produces superstition from biological functions. When did people start to customize their activities based on their biological goals? Who is married just to have children and not to pursue meaningful and intimate relationships with the people they love? Who eats food just to get nutrition instead of enjoying the social and psychological experience of accompanying food? Finally, it has been argued that the existence of a gay marriage will constitute a paralysis of the divine system created by God for the purpose of birth. If the church that treats homosexuality as abhorrent is forced to enforce and recognize same-sex marriage, then this may be true, but no one suggests that this happens. Civil marriages established and managed by secular laws in a pluralistic society cannot be limited by how certain religions conceive marriage within the theological boundaries of their beliefs. Marriage between members of different religions cannot be legally prohibited simply because some churches believe that it is a blasphemy. Marriage between members of different races cannot be legally prohibited simply because certain groups believe that the mixed blood is contrary to the will of God. So why is the marriage between same-sex members different?