Notice that the below commercial in support of excluding gays from civil marriages in Minnesota actually offers no direct argumentative supports for the position at all.
In the intellectually bankrupt culture surrounding the anti-gay marriage movement, it’s taken to be acceptable to substitute oppositional reasons with nice music and calm tones of voice. Concerns expressed in the commercial are at the periphery of the issue—such as worries about process. One person, for example, wants elections, not judges, deciding. That’s an argument for democracy, not against gay marriage. Another is nostalgic for how things were when he grew up. Again, this in not really an argument; it’s a complaint. Still another says heterosexual marriage is just the way it is, and should stay that way. This restates the anti-gay marriage position, but doesn’t provide any additional support for it.
Weak, peripheral (or completely absent) reasons for opposing gay marriage are why the anti-gay marriage movement is likely to lose, and deserves to lose. If it doesn’t lose at the ballot box, it must lose in court. Judges want arguments.
So, what work is really being accomplished by this ad? It soothes the conscience of those inclined to vote against gay equality; it assures them that they’re nice people and aren’t bigots. And it suggests to the viewer that there is simple strength in numbers. This is true. Intellectually, you can be asleep and still win.
But what are the actual arguments against gay marriage again?