It's sad that all it takes is a single sentence to refute each argument, yet the 'debate' rages on.Browbeating and triumphalism are the objectives, not serious consideration of the subject at hand. The straw man arguments are there to be cut to shreds, not to offer real resistance. The ease with which a moribund West rejects not just all of its own history up through about a decade ago but also rejects the histories of all other major civilizations is a feature rather than a bug. If 21st century America, with its unsustainable fertility patterns, resource usage, trade imbalances, and perpetual military intervention doesn't know what's right, who does?
Never one to pass up the opportunity to be a gloriously massacred member of a hopelessly outnumbered and outmaneuvered rearguard, let's see if we can't pick off these ten orcs as they advance up the hill towards our position.
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
It's unlikely that homosexuality is genetically heritable because of the obvious evolutionary disadvantage homosexuals suffer. Ironically, that disadvantage is becoming more pronounced as homosexuality moves from enjoying tenuous social acceptance to being revered in a single generation. Long removed are we from the time of Oscar Wilde.
Unlike eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning, there is a reason people find (male) homosexuality repulsive--it's unhealthy, really unhealthy. Anal tissue is not designed to be penetrated by an erect penis, and taking anal material into the bloodstream isn't salubrious. AIDS, for example, stole countless hours of my high school health classes.
If, as seems most likely, homosexuality is caused by a pathogen, well, it's about as natural as smallpox or the plague. That doesn't mean admonitions regarding the appeal to nature don't apply.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
There probably is a non-negligible cultural component to female homosexuality. Male homosexuality is not contagious, nor does anyone seriously argue that it is. One wishes blank slaters would admit the same about intelligence (Head Start to turn low-IQ kids into Einsteins!), affordable housing (bring the underclass into suburbia to turn transform them into middle class burghers!), desegregation (expose people to Diversity to exorcise the stereotypical caricatures that exist in their secluded minds!), big is beautiful (to convince men that the way their minds and bodies react in a split second to this is merely a social construct!), etc, but here we are.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Pets don't have said rights or capabilities but siblings, 12-year-old girls, and members of a harem all do.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all. Women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
All is Hegelian progress!
Miscegenation and chattel slavery are separate issues. Conflating them is logically fallacious. In reverse, "Same-sex marriage is a novel experiment that will work, just like communism, eugenics, and affirmative action have all worked."
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour and Kim Kardashian's 72-day marriage would be destroyed.
Infidelity is far more common among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals. The divorce rate in the US peaked in late seventies and has been gently but steadily declining since then. It's too early to gauge how same-sex divorce rates will compare to conventional divorce rates but the smart money is on the former being higher than the latter. Cherry-picking high profile anecdotes doesn't change that.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
The fear is that if the institution loses its focus on children, the nuclear family correspondingly loses its status as the societal norm and conventional ideal of household formation.
Even in the Occident marriage hasn't always been monogamous, quite the contrary in fact. Marriage is going full circle on the way back to what it was 2,000 years ago, when the arrangement agreed more with Heartiste's palate. Sex outside of marriage was socially acceptable for men in antiquity because there was no expectation that it signified romantic love between the two marrieds. Pompey Magnus, Julius Caesar's great rival, was regularly ribbed for his apparently genuine, doting affection for his wife.
Philandering was less acceptable for married women, but that was because of the obvious issues it raised with regard to paternal uncertainty. Unmarried women having sex with married men was fine, even expected. The Catholic Church is probably the single biggest reason, historically, that the contemporary European understanding of marriage is what it is.
I'm of the opinion that the institution of marriage that emerged out of the forge of Christendom is a spectacular achievement that has played no small part in the building modern society. Historically, a higher percentage of women than of men have successfully reproduced (estimates as disparate as 80% of women but only 40% of men though I doubt the gap is that large on average--it's hard to tell precisely and there are ebbs and flows like genetic bottlenecks) because high-status men had wives and (exclusive) mistresses while low-status men often had little to no sexual access at all. That's still more-or-less how things go in lots of tribalistic societies, like say in the cases of our 'allies' in Afghanistan and Iraq. Middling men who millenia ago wouldn't have had much stake in society now have some stake in it, and they have reasons (their wives and children) to help maintain a large, high-trust super community.
It's not trolling too hard to say that we know the outcome when open relationships are ubiquitous--just take a look at inner city America.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Stepparents are more likely to abuse their stepchildren than parents are to abuse their biological children. The evolutionary explanation for why this is so is obvious. In the case of same-sex couples with children, at minimum one is a stepparent, and in many cases both are.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
Aside from the fact that if we replace "Gay marriage" with "Opposition to gay marriage" and "religion" with "Diversity", the above works as a serious assessment of what just took place in Indiana, the US is (in theory) a representative republic and same-sex marriage was foisted upon a population that didn't initially support it, while those doing the foisting did so self-assured of their moral righteousness. Counterfactuals are inherently speculative, but I suspect without legal fiat same-sex marriage would have still come to be legalized, though it would've taken longer.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Single motherhood has virtually become sanctioned in America, both socio-culturally with the removal of stigmatization turning what used to be a mark of shame into something bordering on a badge of honor, and also financially with mandatory child support, no-fault divorce, TANF, WIC, etc. The consequences have been disastrous.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. We could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Accede, then, to the assertion that we could adapt to state-mandated sterilization or the reintroduction of slavery!
This assumes the sale without any attempt to show the benefits derived from making the purchase. There are lots of other potential organizing principles that haven't been adopted and adapted but have instead been thrown out, like communism and fascism.