Every time na binabanggit ang same-sex marriage, we say na it’s not marriage since ang ability to have sex is necessary sa definition ng marriage. At the same time, ang interest ng state ay sa future citizens ng bansa which is why may benefits sa heterosexual couple since heterosexual couple can producechildren. On the other hand, ang mga same-sex marriage advocates ay nag-bibigay ng counter argument na dapat, may benefits din sila even though they are incapable of producing children since ang mga infertile couple na incapable magkaroon ng children ay binibigyan rin ng benefits. For example, some same-sex marriage advocates say:
“If it’s their inability to procreate, the petition asks: Why are old heterosexual couples who are sterile and cannot procreate allowed to marry ?”
However, there is a problem if ginagamit ng same-sex marriage advocates ang example ng infertile couple since there is a difference between the two. Ang main difference ng dalawa ay ito. Sa case ng infertile couple, they are capable of engaging in sex. It’s just that because of some factors, they can’t conceive in a child. On the other hand, it’s impossible for the same-sex couple to engage in sex in the same way that a man and a woman can. In fact, even in the law, nakalagay ang importance ng capability to engage in sex sa definition ng marriage. For example, the Family Code of the Philippines mentions that one ground for an invalid marriage is:
“That either party was physically INCAPABLE of CONSUMMATING the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or  [emphasis added]”
To consummate a marriage is defined as “to make a marriage or romantic relationship complete by having sex .” Take note na may mga heterosexual couple na incapable makipag sex and as such, hindi totoo na may discrimination towards sa same-sex couple since this standard is consistent. But, the same-sex marriage advocates will still ask the same question. If parehas naman na hindi nakakabuo ng children ang homosexual couple at ang sterile heterosexual couple, how come na sa case ng sterile heterosexual couple, it’s still considered as marriage? Ang sagot sa question na yun ay ang purpose ng heterosexual sex in comparison sa homosexual sex. Their argument is summarized below.
Premise 1: Sterile couple can’t make babies.
Premise 2: Sterile couple can still be married.
Premise 3: Same-sex couple can’t make babies.
Conclusion: Same-sex couple can still be married.
Ang problem sa argument na yan ay similar sa problem if icoconsider natin ang example ng foot and eye. I can use a similar type of argument.
Premise 1: A blind eye can’t see an image.
Premise 2: A blind eye is still an eye.
Premise 3: A foot can’t see an image.
Conclusion: A foot is an eye.
Ang pagkabulag ng mata is due to some accidental factors, but the eye is defined as a body part that functions for a human being to see an image. Even if mabulag ang isang tao, in principle, yun pa rin ang definition ng eye and as such, it’s still considered as an eye. On the other hand, ang foot ng isang tao is never defined as a body part that can see. As such, we can’t make a comparison of what the two body parts can’t do. In the same way, we can’t make a comparison between sex of sterile couple and homosexual couple just because of what the two are both incapable of doing since the sexual act between the sterile couple is still towards procreation while the sex between homosexual couple is never towards procreation.