Often the best way to get people to depart from non-fact based assumptions is to ask pointed questions. 2 issues come to mind in the debate (or lack thereof!) on gay marriage these being:
Opponents of gay lifestyles and marriage are portrayed as being Homophobic. This leads to my first question: "Can you explain the difference between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?"
The second issue is the claim that being gay is inherent, as opposed to a choice. Since the 1986 US supreme court Bowers v Hardwick case (where the rights of individual states to criminalise homosexual conduct was upheld) the gay movement changed tack and began arguing (without scientific basis) that homosexuality was immutable and therefore in line for constitutional protection. To this day this is the (clever but dishonest) political strategy used worldwide and we are witnessing the next step of this evolution in Ireland with the upcoming constitutional question. Politicians are falling over themselves in the blindfolded politically correct race to support this referendum without a calm thought on this point. Is homosexuality innate or a choice? So here's my second question on this sub topic: "Are you aware that If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin (which has same DNA) has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women according to 8 major studies in the last 2 decades." This fact flies in the face of the "innate" argument.
Men and Women are different and both essential for marriage. Lawmakers have a duty to protect family and the extension of marriage to a pair which excludes one sex if adopted will have to then be promoted to young children as "normal" when it is manifestly unnatural. I spoke to a Labour party TD recently on the matter and he assured me that he was of the view that society had changed and we need to get with it. I asked him if everyone was stabbing each other in 20 years time should the law follow suit and allow that. He said no because that is harmful. It al sounds a bit arbitrary to me. The majority can be wrong. I would argue that truth ought to be established by something more that a plebiscite. I make no apology for the fact that as a christian I believe our Creator established the truth about sexuality, among other matters, and to violate His design leads only to wheels falling off wagons.