On the issue of same-sex marriage Christian apologists often feel the need to amass a

good amount of arguments against same-sex marriage and for heterosexual marriage.
While I believe we ought to formulate those arguments, tactically speaking that is not
where we should start the public debate. To start with a defense of traditional marriage
assumes that we carry the burden of proof when we do not.
The burden of proof does not lie with Christians and those who favor traditional
marriage; the burden of proof lies on those who wish to change 5,000 years of human
civilization. They must make their case as to why we should open up the institution of
marriage to same-sex couples. The burden of proof is on the homosexuals.
The typical arguments they offer are love, equality, and freedom.
Love
"Homosexuals should be able to marry if they love one another."
This assumes marriage is about love. Who said that? Marriage neither brings love, nor
secures it. Marriage is about families, and families are about children. Homosexuals can
love one another without being married just as cohabiting heterosexuals can love one
another without being married. Marriage does not add to that love.
Equality
"It's discriminatory for the government to treat same-sex couples differently from
heterosexual couples."
Discrimination occurs when two equal parties are not being treated equally. While
"discrimination" has a negative connotation, discrimination can be a good thing. We
incarcerate murderers and reward law-abiding citizens with freedom. That's
discrimination, but the discrimination is justified because there is a relevant difference
between the two parties: one is a danger to society while the other is not.
Is there any relevant difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples that would
justify treating the two relationships differently? Yes. Heterosexual couples can, and
same-sex couples cannot procreate. The government-which sanctions civil marriage-
sanctions it because they are interested in children. Only heterosexual couples have the
ability to produce children. Relationship that do not produce children need not be treated
the same as those that do, particularly when the very reason government formally
recognizes the institution of marriage is due to their interest in children.
While the love homosexuals feel for each other may be equal to the love heterosexuals
feel for each other, the government is not concerned about promoting and sanctioning
romantic love. The government is interested in children.
Freedom
"Homosexuals don't have the liberty to do what they want: marry"
The institution of marriage is not about freedom, nor does it confer freedom (it confers
obligations and responsibilities). Marriage is about society putting their stamp of
approval on a particular kind of relationship because it is in society's best interest to do
so.
Homosexuals are demanding the right to marry, not because their freedom to have loving,
committed relationships with someone of the same sex is being denied them, but because
they are seeking approval, respect, and social acceptance. Homosexuals are free to
engage in same-sex relationships, but society is just as free to withhold their approval
from such relationships.
Conclusion
The arguments typically offered in support of same-sex marriage are insufficient, and
thus homosexuals have not met their burden of proof. If the burden of proof has not been
met there is no reason to change the institution of marriage to accommodate the
unprincipled desires of a minority.
I leave you with some wise words from Ben Shapiro:
Same-sex marriage proponents assume that a right to same-sex marriage exists, placing
the burden of proof on traditionalists to deny that right. Forcing tradition to shoulder the
burden of proof reverses logic. Tradition is the working wisdom of experience. The new
should have to overcome the presumptive efficiency, economy and rightfulness of
tradition in order to prevail. Change should always have to prove itself-after all, change
has never been tried.
This is not to say that tradition should always prevail. Sometimes change will meet its
burden of proof: anti-slavery advocates, anti-segregation advocates and anti-sexism
advocates made their cases strongly and forcefully, overcoming the weak arguments for
tradition. But constant social experimentation-perpetual change justified only by empty
assumptions about the infallibility of the New-discards experience in favor of untested
theory.
An immature society asks, "Why shouldn't we?" assuming the past is antiquated. A
mature society sees the proven value of the old and the possible value of the new, asking,
"Why should we?" Sometimes change should be undertaken; sometimes not. This is only
right: Some change is progress, while some change is decay. We can only tell progress
from decay by asking change to make its case-to meet its burden of proof. - "The Most
Important Political Trick in the Book"