No one has EVER denied that there has often been a correlation between marriage and children, but it's so obviously wrong to reduce it to that.
But it's correct to always keep that original correlation in mind, right? Because otherwise, we might lose sight of why we bothered providing benefits to married couples in the first place. Just like what's going on with the *** marriage argument.
Your argument furthermore fails because couples can raise children together without the existence of marriage, and marriage is even given to sterile couples (such as those including post-op transsexuals).
Those don't cause my argument to fail. That's like arguing that there's no reason to put tires on your car because tires sometimes fail anyway. Or there's no point in building codes because they still sometimes fall apart, or catch fire, or otherwise cause injury to those within/nearby them. You're trying to make an argument from exception. That's a weak argument at best since those exceptions don't eliminate the value of the subsidy from a broader social perspective. Yes. Some people will raise children outside of marriage just fine. And some people will qualify for marriage who don't really need it. But the marriage benefits are there for the much larger number of people who don't fall into those exceptions.
The most important problem, though, is found in the bullsh*t spewed in the first passage:
Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
Why is it a ridiculous argument?
I didn't make that specific argument btw. You're arguing with some professor, not me. But I'll play along.
Because you are taking a specific cultural group and comparing them to other groups that lack identities, for one.
Lolirony! Didn't I just talk about this? So if some other group gains an "identity" (basically is formed into a political/voting block), then suddenly it qualifies to have the rights it otherwise shouldn't have? So you're basically admitting that I'm right that from the liberal point of view, the choice about who should get marriage subsidies is purely arbitrary. It's about who you've been told should have them.
So if first cousins form a strong enough block, you'll argue they should have the right to marry. But until they do, you wont care? It's nice to see that you're such a free thinking individual! :)
More importantly, you are treating these other marriage laws like they obviously don't include civil rights violations, which definitely isn't the case.
It isn't? When did someone, anyone, have a "right" to receive a government benefit? This goes back to a fundamental difference of opinion on rights between classical and social liberalism, which is a whole different argument. But I think it's worth noting that exactly the negatives of social liberalism are present here.
One of the arguments against social liberalism is exactly that "arbitrary benefits" thing I spoke of earlier. When you adopt social liberalism, you abandon any sort of consistent mechanism by which you can determine what government should or should not do. It becomes entirely about groups of people competing for benefits from the state. And that's all about which groups get the best/biggest lobbying going. It also eliminates any breaking effect to prevent a slippery slope. Once today's "group in need" gets what they want, the social liberalists will move right on to the next group. Once you turn the concept of "rights" from something government doesn't do to you, to something government does for you, there is no end to the number of rights you can demand, nor to the number of groups of people who can demand them.
It's a stupid way to run a society and is ultimately doomed to failure. Bit of a side point, but there you have it.