<p>I still don’t understand how gay being a choice should influence the argument at all. People should still have the right to marry whoever they want in my opinion.</p>
<p>^ It’s legitimating rationale. If one accepts that being gay is a choice and that this choice is undesirable, then one can convince one’s self that gay marriage need not be institutionalized on the grounds that a gay couple has the option of choosing the more desirable option to be straight, meaning that gay marriage becomes redundant and unnecessary. Somebody arguing from this point of view would claim that he or she is not necessarily against gays but the actual need to have gay marriage institutionalized. By using this argument, he also attempts to give off the impression that he is not biased and that the argument should therefore hold more weight than a candid “I don’t like gays” opinion. </p>
<p>This argument, based on my observations, are almost never used alone. To provide a counterargument, an opponent of gay marriage might defer to several arguments appealing to the status quo, morality, or authority, ranging from “homosexuality is socially/economically. undesirable” to “it is against my religion.” If claiming that homosexuality is undesirable, the opponent of gay marriage might go a step further and state that homosexuality is also morally undesirable, and that it’s continued practice would lead to continual moral decline.</p>