Mothers and fathers contribute different things to the lives of their offspring. Mothers, for example, tend to be more attuned to the moods and feelings of young children especially; fathers excel at discipline and at pushing children to give their best effort. On this topic, though, I think it can help to move beyond the sociological research and ask people: are you really comfortable asserting that a child suffers no misfortune by being motherless? Or by being fatherless? Of course there will always be children who grow up under sub-optimal circumstances, often for reasons beyond anyone’s control. That’s not a justification for cementing sub-optimal circumstances as a new norm.

Children raised by same-sex couples are 35% less likely to make normal progress through school than children of traditional married households.

The seismic and manufactured public opinion “shift” on same sex marriage in the past several of years is a glaring example of how coercive persuasion works. As people become increasingly fearful of expressing a heretofore innocuous understanding of marriage as a man-woman institution, they silence themselves and thereby fuel the opposing agenda. The threat of isolation — labeling, shunning, and firings — is a powerful motivator because human survival is tied to it.

The redistribution of marriage rights modifies your marriage as a natural entity afforded legal recognition. Marriage is a naturally occurring relationship. The state does not create marriage but is to create complimentary environments in which martial life is legally recognized and protected. Redefining marriage by legal fiat changes this point of reference. It shifts the legal posture of the state from recognizing a preexisting institution to creating the institution after its own image and likeness. The state becomes the originator of your marriage.¹

Government cannot comprehend marriage. It can only comprehend legalisms. Thus government cannot define marriage. It can recognize civil union, but civil union is not the same thing as marriage. The government can permit people to enter into civil union regardless of whether not they are actually married in the spirit of the universe. Thus government should be concerned only with the legal arrangement (contract) between two people, not what they do within their relationship.

Sex has two components: procreative and unitive.

Homosexual sex is not procreative, and I would argue that it is not unitive either. Penis-in-vagina sex results in the exchange of bodily fluids and risks on both parts. Many forms of homosexual sex do not do this.

I hold out hope that extramarital sexual activity will someday be treated with the same seriousness that we accord to alcohol consumption.

People with sexual or gender orientation or identity issues need love, not tolerance; counseling, not coddling; redemption, not accommodation.

The legal legitimization of same-sex marriage affects your status as a father or a mother. Courts are already ruling that "de facto" parents "perform a share of caretaking functions at least as great as the legal parent."² Affirming that a male partner in a same-sex marriage is equivalent to the natural relationship of a mother in “caretaking function” is not only preposterous. It marks a monumental shift in the posture of the law toward the capability of parents within marriage and therefore the status of both mother and father relevant to their child.

The legal recognition of same-sex marriage destroys the concepts of "husband" and "wife." In forcing the legalization of same-sex marriage in California, the California Supreme Court decreed that all marriages would have the respective parties designated as “party A” and “party B.” That ruling was a result of the Court’s acknowledgement that it could afford by statute domestic partnerships all the rights and privileges of marriage but not labels similar to “husband” and “wife.” The elevation of same-sex marriage to that of traditional marriage, combined with the use of random nomenclature to designate parties in marriage, absorbs and reduces time-honored roles of husbands and wives into a morass of meaningless linguistic jargon.

By legalizing same-sex marriage, the state becomes the official advocate of same-sex marriage. Thus, in every public forum where marriage rights extend to same-sex couples, the state will expect you to comply. Local judges will be called upon to conduct the new civil ceremony. Any restraints within the public schools to advocate for sexual culture will be removed fully. In the private sphere, owners of rental properties must agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. Businesses offering wedding services will be forced to cater same-sex ceremonies, and much more. If your traditional marriage touches these, or similar areas, you can expect it to be affected.

Same-sex marriage will obfuscate the state’s interests in all marriages. As Justice O’Connor said in her concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a “legitimate state interest.”³ Such interests are predicated mainly in the fact that heterosexual couples can produce children which facilitates social order and the longevity of the state. State interest in marriage extends to the well-being of a child, for should a family fail to protect a child that responsibly can fall to the state. However, if marriage is to have any social value the social meaning of marriage must remain apparent and protected. For, “the contribution of family life to the conditions that develop and sustain long-term personal fulfillment and autonomy depends (among many other important factors) upon maintaining the family as a legally defined and structurally significant entity.”⁴ Anything less than preserving the traditional definition of marriage creates an imprecise relationship between the state and your marriage.

Same-sex marriage defeats the purpose of the state’s interest in marriage. Government bestows benefits on families with children to provide the normal and stable conditions for the birth and upbringing of those children. Same-sex marriage is not aimed at providing such conditions. Its chief purpose is the personal gratification of two individuals whose relationship is inherently barren.

Same-sex marriage reduces the worth of marriage. Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex is a legal endorsement of the fungibility of a man and woman in marriage, and of male and female in general. To set “any two persons” on a par with a man and a woman in marriage is to reduce the worth of their roles.⁵