No, it really wasn’t. If I wanted to read something a stupid person wrote I could have found something much shorter on YouTube.
On behalf of straight people everywhere, I congratulate America’s gay population on their ever-increasing opportunities to enjoy the benefits of loveless marriage and acrimonious divorce that we heterosexuals have denied all others for far, far too long.
You’re welcome. 
You understand that this is all garbage, of course. The “law will change to encourage the break up of marriage?” Are you fucking kidding me?
Britney Spears has not affected my marriage or yours, and neither would any same sex divorces. This is ridiculous, straw-clutching nonsense.
That argument relies on a massive assumption: that the dynamics of gay male relationships will remain the same even after they’re legitimized. Is there any evidence that same sex couples divorce at a higher rate than traditional ones?
To say nothing of the fact that it takes a colossal amount of gall to complain about the transient nature of gay male relationships when the exact same segments of society who are supposedly so concerned with it have spent, and continue to spend, time and resources to marginalize, ostracize, condemn, shame, and otherwise inflict harm upon gay men, and specifically make maintaining long, stable relationships between gay men as difficult as they possibly can.
I was going to mention that, too, but forgot.
His argument is that by giving unique recognition to heterosexual marriage the state gives it honor. The reason the state gives marriage special recognition is in order provide stability for families. Marriage is about legally bonding a man and a woman to provide for their children and each other. Otherwise the vagaries of relationships are such that families could be routinely torn up over trivialities and emotions. Obviously trainsient feelings can rarely be the basis for a stable relationship.
Adding gay relationships to the institution of marriage would change the nature of marriage from one that is primarily about family creation to one that is about the feelings of the people involved. Since feelings change all the time whereas obligations to family members change less, this change make the institution inherently less stable. It is not the gayness that threatens marriage, letting heterosexual friends of the same sex marry would change the institution in the same way.
Letting infertile people marry, too. Good thing we don’t do that.
Or the elderly. Or those who don’t want to procreate. Or those whose ideas of obligation to family members differ from those of whoever gets to decide what “correct” family structure is.
Is there no end to the rabble attacking this purest of institutions, which has never existed in any form but its current one and for no reason other than baby-maximization?
Is there a way to keep a tax deduction for children and have a pair of people file jointly but not as a married couple?
Just get rid of the tax benefit for marriage, keep the tax benefits for kids and voila. There would be no reason to marry at all.
Think I could sell that to my wife?
Friends of the opposite sex are currently allowed to marry anyway, whether heterosexual or homosexual. No law says a romantic or sexual bond must exist. Surely this happens from time to time for various reasons, but does it really rise to the level of threatening the institution?
What makes anybody think it would become more of an issue if same-sex marriage were allowed? Lots of buddies out there just waiting for the chance to get married so they can game the system?
You get tax benefits for kids whether or not you’re married.
Bit late.
Well yeah but if you filed single with kids, your “other” wouldn’t get to claim them.
And I know about the bit late part 
If so, this would result in, at most, about 1% more divorces (assuming, of course, that *every *gay person who got married did it as a lark).
Truly the end of marriage.
Stability in hetero marriages?
bah humbug - look at the divorce rate of heteros.
You’d think that all those people who think gay sex is “icky” would be doing their best to *encourage *gays to marry, thereby *reducing *the occurrence of gay sex.
I didn’t make the claim that all arguments against gay marriage are rooted in “homosexuality is wrong”, merely that the one in the OP (“threat to traditional marriage” in all its various guises) is.
The “gay marriage is obviously farcical” or “there weren’t any gays back in the oughts” are different arguments, with different (obvious) flaws.
Isn’t the total per kid the deduction the same amount regardless of who claims them, though?
Well, it’s worth reading as an example of someone who opposes the idea, but can’t actually come up with any real arguments, so they try to invoke vague dread about possible consequences without actually saying what these consequences are, and claiming to be opposed to strawmen activists who want social change for the sake of social change, giving them a stern condescending lecture on unintended results.
The most interesting part is actually the response, with some praising the author as having come up with something brilliant and incisive. Actually, all the author’s done is give them a thin cloak for their bigotry - they’re not opposed to gays any more, they’re opposed to reckless social change.
Nothing to add. I have never understood this, and no one has been able to explain it to me. Whatever anyone else does in terms of who they marry will have zero impact on my marriage. Or else I lack the imagination to envision what that impact might be. My wife and I will still love each other, and we’ll still be married, and no aspect of our relationship will change even slightly if two gay guys get married.
I am generally of the belief that anything you do that doesn’t have a material impact on me is none of my business. This clearly falls in that category. Or, as I said, nothing to add, I guess.