Since I've been away with computer problems (which persist), Keith Burgess-Jackson, the aptly or inaptly (depending on what you take it to mean) self-described AnalPhilosopher has been working hard to come up with an argument against legalizing gay marriage, while attempting to impugn liberals for their argument style(s). His anti-gay marriage arguments have been all over the place, so far, with the original being a strange comparison between gay marriage and both dogs voting and men having abortions, an "argument" which I addressed here, and Richard of Philosophy, etcetera addressed here. Since then, he's gone through a few arguments. One was essentially that judges shouldn't be able to force people to do things they don't want to, like accept gay marriages (I'll leave that absurd argument untouched). Currently, he is arguing (apparently through an ignorance of the history of marriage) that marriage's only purpose is to facilitate child-rearing. The basic argument is that only people who are likely to have children should be able to marry, straight couples are much more likely than gay couples to have children, and therefore only straight couples should be allowed to marry. It's not clear what this means for sterile couples (B-G argues that they should be included in the law because there's no easy way to exclude them, but that seems pretty arbitary to me), nor is it evident, to me at least, that if gay marriage were legal, gay married couples would be much less likely than straight couples to have children. Still, that's his argument. Fortunately, Richard has torn this argument apart for us here. Unfortunately, B-G's arbitary, if not absurd arguments, be they about dogs voting or child-rearing, are likely to be more convincing to the anti-gay marriage crowd than any rational, non-arbitrary arguments offered by Richard or others.