Cool, then by your logic here:
This is true of all manner of laws. For instance, many 17 year olds, or even 13 year olds, are maturer than 18 year olds. Many 14 year olds are probably better drivers than 16 year olds. Does that mean age of majority laws and driving age laws aren’t really about maturity or driving ability? Of course not. The laws chooses not willy-nilly, but somewhat arbitrarily. There’s no way not to choose arbitrarily, for there is no universal age of sufficient maturity to be an adult, though there are biological norms giving a rough estimate of when your brain reaches full development. Laws can be somewhat arbitrary, in that they are for the general case, not every specific instance. Infertile couples can be married in the same sense that immature 18 year olds can be adults.
It is entirely reasonable to allow same-sex couples to marry since they are perfectly capable of providing a stable, loving home to children that need one.
Again, and at the risk of belaboring the point:
Two women, or two men, or a human and an animal, CANNOT produce a child. Buggery does not lead to pregnancy.
Two men, or two women, or a human and an animal, CANNOT provide a child with a stable family containing a father and a mother.
A homosexual relationship, or a beastial relationship, CANNOT by its nature, be the substance of which marriage is made.
“It is entirely reasonable to allow same sex couples to marry since they are perfectly capable of providing a stable, loving home to children that need one”
Gay couples can raise a child, but heterosexual couples will have kids in and out of wedlock. Where do you think most if the kids gays adopt come from. There is a compelling state interest in binding reproducers on wedlock because it addresses the problem of illegitimacy. There is no illegitimacy springing from gay coupling, and therefore no problem to address.
Adoption authorities can set their own standards, and I’m sure they screen for fidelity and farsightedness in gay couples. To propose marriage as a solution to doubt over whether the gay couples who have cleared all other hurdles will stay together at least until the child is 18 seems unreasonable to me. That’s like offering as solution to the chance a 14 year old is as good a driver or better than any 16 year old annual tests from 14 to 16, or maybe even earlier, just in case any good drivers are left cold by the law.
It’s not compelling, is the point. It’d be like killing a gnat with a cannon. Again, gays might be able to raise a kid, but heterosexuals will have children. The state’s interest is in those people, the ones responsible, being responsible. Many, many, many less gays will ever adopt or ever would adopt than boys and girls who make babies.