On the contrary, it's a good argument. People claim that they want marriage 'equality', but a homosexual relationship is not the equal of a heterosexual relationship because one of them produces children, one of them does not. I don't have to show that heterosexual unions ALWAYS produce children, I just have to show that homosexual unions NEVER produce children. And that's just simple biology. Game. Set. Match.
As far as parsing heterosexual marriage based on procreation, do you really want to try to go down that road? Do you really want the courts to go down that road? And why should we be going down that road in the first place? Are you saying that the motivation for parsing marriage is the fact that homosexuals cannot have children? It that suppose to be some kind of compelling argument? I don't think so.
It was a poor argument presented to the Court and one that was easily shot down.
“I just have to show that homosexual unions NEVER produce children.”
And the other side only needs to show that couple over 65 never produce children.
The argument is states’ rights, the argument is morality, the argument is Freedom of Religion.