God either exists or He doesn’t (actually He does, but that’s a discussion for another time). In either scenario, the rationale for “gay” “marriage” is untenable.
For all you good atheists who believe a warm pool somewhere indirectly gave birth to the profusion of life forms, I’m sure the concepts of survival of the fittest and natural selection are intuitive and sacrosanct. Fine. In that case, you believe humans evolved physical and mental characteristics that gradually increased our versatility and capacity for individual and collaborative achievements. If so, you also believe (or should believe, if you’re logically consistent) that social patterns that have been almost completely universal among diverse societies, across distance and time, became pervasive for a reason: they enhanced the survivability of those who manifested them. Perhaps the most consistent of these social patterns is marriage–heterosexual marriage to be exact (and redundant).
You would also be justified in inferring that there has been a symbiotic relationship between these social patterns and the process of developing young minds, for as long as these patterns have been dominant. In other words, over the ages that people have grown up in families that used this framework, our mental maturation process–the steps by which we have used stable norms to calibrate our ability to think, socialize, and organize—has almost certainly been optimized for that framework. In turn, minds nurtured by the framework continuously refined and propagated it. For this reason, departure from such a fundamental social norm, particularly where the raising of children is concerned, can be seen as a truly reckless experiment, a wilful attack on the foundations of our personalities and very identities.
This critique isn’t new or original, just deliberately marginalized by those who fear its implications. As the historian Will Durant wrote over seventy years ago, “The institutions, conventions, customs and laws that make up the complex structure of a society are the work of a hundred centuries and a billion minds; and one mind must not expect to comprehend them in one lifetime, much less in twenty years.”
Let’s say instead that you have a religious mind-set, insofar as you believe in a deity or deities. In that case, you either believe that your god (or gods, or transcendent principle) has revealed truth about how to live, or you don’t.
If you don’t believe in revealed truth, you’re left to your own powers of reason, so embracing the analysis I’ve outlined above would be the responsible thing to do. On the other hand, if you do believe in revealed religious truth, you need to look at your religion, or at all religions that seem to have a prayer of being true, to see if they offer reasonably clear guidance on this issue. They do.
The classical/orthodox forms of the “Abrahamic” religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) condemn homosexuality and make absolutely no provision for homosexual marriage. The same is true of Zoroastrianism. The positions of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism–on sexuality and everything else—are less consistent, but in practice the societies where these religions have flourished have maintained heterosexual marriage as an incredibly consistent norm.
Where does this leave us, and in what context do we see advocates for homosexual marriage? In this bad place: a decadent society incapable of critical thought as it fetishizes diversity in all realms as a self-evidently supreme value. In short, in a society that is estranged from its own origins and rationality.