You need to draw the line somewhere. I agree that the issue of gay marriage is unwinnable from a conservative standpoint under most arguments. I am not going to waste my time reviewing these objections, but rather present a simple question: Where would you draw the line?

                Preserving the values our society is certainly an important thing, but it is not infallible. Better things than tradition arise—slavery was tradition, but it is a terrible crime against mankind. However, we must value our identity as a society enough to prevent certain occurrences. The same arguments that justify gay marriage can easily justify other kinds of marriages—Islamic marriages, for example, where it is a Muslim’s duty to take multiple wives. And what constitutes a religion? These ideas open the door to the State recognizing all kinds of marriages. Marriage is generally thought of by the church as something sacred between a man and a woman—but marriage is a legal document, something organized by the State, where the Church cannot interfere. The issue is not in the Church or in tradition. The issue lies in how one values society, and whether or not they will sacrifice a way of life for philosophical ideals. If the nation legalized gay marriage, then what would stop them from issuing other kinds of marriages? If the states decide to legalize it themselves, so be it—that is the state’s right. However, if gay marriage were instituted nationwide, there would be no going back; every minority out there would attempt to institute their own ideals. And, using the same philosophies, the State would have to legalize them. The sexual nature of mankind is perverted to an extent beyond our other aspects of life—unlike the instinct to eat. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, perversions of the eating nature are extremely uncommon—people do not dwell on food, and do not try to do other things with it besides eating it. I am not suggesting that this is anyone’s fault—certainly as I have never made a conscious decision to be strait I cannot assume anyone makes a conscious decision to be gay. But what is and what should be are distinctly different traits—men and women were created (or at least intended) to be together to preserve the species. The biological purpose of sex is children, and you need both genders to reproduce. I do not think that stating the fact that homosexuality is a perversion of the original sexual nature is in any way prejudiced against homosexual people. I am merely stating that I believe this idea to be true, and that it would be immoral for the State to legalize gay marriage. America, which was founded on religious principles, equally guarantees freedom from religious affiliation; what one man considers wrong, another will not. Religious morals are not to be forced on society—I would not like to be forced into five times daily prayer facing Mecca, for example. However, principles must be enforced to a degree—which is why we have a legal system with punishments for breaking laws. We, the people, decide on those laws based on common principles of what we believe is moral, right, and just—and the vast majority of people can agree that stealing, murder, etc. is wrong. Just because a small minority of people may believe murder is justified by their religion (terrorism) or that they can steal if they want to because they don’t believe in God doesn’t mean that we must support their views. Gay marriage is not so different in principal; the majority of people are strait, and many people oppose national recognition of gay marriage as being against their moral code. The states ought to have the right to approve or disapprove of this issue. Thus, the nationwide legalization of gay marriage need not occur unless all 50 states endorse it, which is unlikely to occur in the traditional and conservative states.