1. Marriage--as defined as being between men and women exclusively--is the basis for any culture.
A: Bull****. It's not the basis for the culture. Property rights are the basis for the culture.
B: So what. You're not harmed by a homosexual getting married.
2. Fatherless homes are the number one predictor of antisocial behavior in teens.
So then homes with 2 fathers should be twice as good, right?
No harm.
3. Maternal deprivation is shown to increase a child’s incidence of alcoholism and impulsiveness
So do you want to outlaw divorce? If not, then this argument is horse crap.
4. A change in the definition of marriage only hurts the institution of marriage and thus society as a whole.
How did you get to "thus society as a whole"? Can you demonstrate that society suffers as a result of divorce? Do you have proof that there is wide spread harm?
Consider that marriage used to be a permanent institution and divorce was a rather rate occurrence until “no-fault divorce” became law and divorce became easier to obtain. Today nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and the impact on children in devastating.
So then gay marriages, and divorces without children, is okay with you?
5. As a result of high divorce rates many couples choose to live together without the benefit, responsibilities and obligations of marriage. This, too, has a dangerous affect on marriage as those who live together first and then marry are more likely to get divorced, once again, harming any children involved.
If there are no children, then your argument is again invalid. That just assumes that your argument is valid, at all, but specifically if there are no children.
6. The state provides divorce courts, child services, women services, etc. all relating to the break-up of families. It is a multi-billion dollar expense that tax-payers must absorb. As such the state would be better off limiting divorces to the best of their ability (limiting marriage to it traditional sense: one man + one woman for life).
No. You're skipping equal protection under the law. This may be an arugment for the state getting out of marriages, altogether, but not for violating the Constitutional principle of equality.
7. As marriage comes to mean less and less, people are relying less and less on the institution. One of the newer trends in relationships involves the “hook up”, where an individual finds a sexual outlet in another person for a time. There is only a minimal, in any, relationship outside a sexual relationship. Children born out of such arrangements will suffer.
Again, falling on children.
All of your arguments are
"but think of the children!". Since that's your entire argument, skipping over the generally false nature of it, but, for argument, since
but think of the children! is the sum total of your argument against gay marriage, then you're surely not opposed to gay marriages with no children. If not, then your entire argument,
but think of the children!, is nonsense.
Further, you still can't prove any of this. You're making assertions without any factual basis, such as, "all civilizations are based on marriage". They're not. They're based on property rights, and marriage was originally just a father granting property rights over his daughter to another man.
Since historical marriage was usually polygamous and involved underage brides, do you condone that?