Yes, Neutering Marriage Affects All

The Aquila Report has something written by John Barber, "Ten Reasons Why SSM Affects Your Marriage".

4. Same-sex marriage will absorb your marriage into a new view of reality
The basic argument for same-sex marriage states that there is no fundamental difference between the rights of gays/lesbians and heterosexuals to marry. Supporting the legal claim of “gender equality” is a view of human sexuality that erodes natural, gender-specific, differences between men and woman. The result is a “unisexual” view of personhood which, rather than affirm diversity, blurs it beyond recognition. The unisexual view of personhood is part of global move toward a hermaphroditic understanding of reality... Ironically, diversity, the very thing secularism claims to champion, is what it destroys. Unity (two people becoming one) and diversity (a husband and a wife) are held in perfect balance in traditional marriage.

This is something many people refuse to admit when discussing this with those who oppose the neutering of marriage. They present it as all about a particular couple they know, if not themselves. However, laws apply to all, and what our laws says inevitably sends a message about our values and priorities. All laws express someone's morality. If the law says that brideless and groomless coupling is an equal action to marriage, then marriage can't, as an institution, be about the needs of children and the gender inclusion or sex integration can't be valuable, because it is indistinguishable from gender exclusion or sex segregation. (You might think this will clear the way again for male-only clubs to exist, but a judge who thinks along the lines of a marriage neutering advocate would rule that a woman is a male if she says she is, and thus must be admitted, or that since there is no difference between men and women, women can't be excluded.)

7.  Same-sex marriage defeats the purpose of the state’s interest in benefiting your marriage
A reason the federal government bestows numerous benefits on families with children, including child tax credits, is due to their social significance. The intent and design of heterosexual marriage is to provide the normal and stable conditions for the birth and upbringing of children. Homosexual marriage is not aimed at providing such conditions. Its chief purpose is the personal gratification of two individuals whose relationship is inherently barren. A major agenda item of gay activists is to secure a range of federal, state, and local benefits, hitherto enjoyed by traditional marriages. Should that goal be met fully, courts would only serve to empty traditional marriage of its significant social meaning, other than the respect of personal preferences. Should that ensue, would the federal government (especially one burdened economically) still see the necessity to continue to extend tax breaks to married heterosexual couples with children? Child tax credits could be offered to gay/lesbian couples who adopt. But the government could also choose to “level the playing field” by maintaining deductions for dependents whether they are children or spouses.

The ultimate goal of Leftists is to remove marriage from the law. That's why "get the government out of marriage" is a false compromise. Some Leftists, including homosexual Leftists, admit their goal is to remove marriage from the law. The see unfairness in married people and/or adults with minor children getting any advantage, reward, or assistance over unmarried people or childless adults. Many libertarians agree. Many conservatives, however, note that in order to conserve society, we need new citizens, preferably raised in stable, loving homes that provide them a role model and parents of each of the two sexes with whom they will have to interact with as adults.

9.  The redistribution of marriage rights modifies your marriage as a natural entity afforded legal recognition
Marriage is a naturally occurring relationship. A purpose of U.S. law is to create a flourishing context for the family to govern itself. Put differently, the state does not create marriage but is to create complimentary environments in which martial life is legally recognized and protected. Redefining marriage by legal fiat changes this point of reference. It shifts the legal posture of the state from recognizing a preexisting institution to creating the institution after its own image and likeness. The state would become the originator of your marriage. Case in point, the Hawaii Supreme Court called marriage “a state conferred legal partnership status.” Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 58 (Haw. 1993).

Do our rights come from Nature's God or do they come from the bench?

You can also see what we wrote about harms at The Opine Editorials.