Laws are never entirely explicit. Family legislation implies the intent to have children, though such an obligation is not formalized. A state is presumed to benefit its citizens, not humanity.

The more basic is a rule, the larger is the implicit part of it. Highly specific laws could be traced to several other regulations, but fundamental legislation like on marriage relies on implicit values.
The ostensible legal criteria for marriage—age, exclusiveness, etc—are incidental and cannot compete in importance with the fundamental, albeit implicit, rules for marriage. Age and exclusiveness are not even essential for marriage; the marital age varies greatly among societies. Many societies don’t insist on exclusiveness is relationships, and almost all tolerate informal non-exclusiveness. Other rules also differ greatly: wives can be bought and sometimes sold, divorced at whim or not at all, inherited or not. The only commonality in the institution of marriage in different countries is the intent to have progeny. Substantially all families have or want to have a child.

Western courts overwhelmingly assign child guardianship to mothers after divorce. Societies recognize the critical importance of female influence on children. Homosexual couples cannot provide that, and should not be allowed to adopt children.

The examples of Greek and Roman societies show that active homosexuality, though sometimes inborn, is predominantly a cultural issue. Societies that are permissive and tolerant of homosexuality have huge numbers of deviants; perhaps nearly the entire male population occasionally engages in same-sex relations. Condemnation of homosexuality—pushing it out of public life—discourages the lifestyle deviations and does not practically oppress the born homosexuals.

Homosexuality, like any deviation, is firmly connected with sexual immorality. Gays, even those in committed relationships, are proven to have a much higher STD (sexually transmitted diseases) rate than the average population.

Courts that ignore implicit, common-sense rules doom legal systems.

Homosexuality has ceased to be a crime, and zoophilia too. If homosexuals received permission to marry, and zoophiles would likewise. Prohibiting zoophilia based on “sheep rights” is ludicrous.
If a legal marriage to a dog seems unlikely, then at least consider: what could possibly prevent the courts from allowing consensual polygamy or adult incest?

States routinely prohibit non-violent private acts which they deem detrimental to the moral health of society. That must be especially so for the Jews, who theoretically strive to be a morally pure nation. In practical terms, the only solution for the problem of providing living space to Judaism while allowing for liberal deviations is establishing a religious enclave, a second Jewish state of Judea alongside Israel.

Has modern society miraculously changed, and the historical condemnation of homosexuality no longer applies? Are the modern people unusually tolerant, and no longer see homosexuality as a deviation? Greeks and Romans had similar attitudes toward homosexuality, as do inmates. Decadent societies embrace cultural experimentation before they dissolve.

Homosexuals don’t disproportionally contribute to arts. Rather, the people of the arts are disproportionally gays.

Societies are built around values. Different values build different societies. Liberalism means not imposing one’s values on others. Liberalism doesn’t mean accepting others’ values or acquiescing to their public demonstrations. The Whigs would be shocked by the modern interpretation of liberalism as all-permissiveness. All-permissive societies lack values—bonds—and dissolve.