So I think your argument boils down to gay marriage reduces the focus on child bearing crumbling society . If by child bearing you mean actual conception of a child , I ' m not sure how the fabric of society will fall apart by enabling a small portion of citizens , who weren ' t going to procreate anyway , get a legal piece of paper . It ' s not like enabling gay marriage is going to reduce the number of straight people creating children . I don ' t know anyone who would think they won ' t have anymore kids because gays can get married now . If you mean child bearing as in raising a child , gay people have children too . In fact , they are more likely to adopt children than straight couples , which puts children in loving homes they would not have had . It ' s not like banning gay people from marrying means they can ' t have children . To equate marriage with children is a logical fallacy . People , regardless of sexuality , can have children with or without marriage . How come you don ' t go after unmarried parents if you ' re truly a proponent of child bearing ? Single mothersfathers ? If you really actually wanted to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the ' institution ' of child bearing , you would be focusing your efforts on divorce , adultery , and remarriage , which are far more damaging to ' family values ' and child bearing and have a much broader scope of affected citizens than gay marriage .