I am amazed by the number of liberals who understand how the natural environment is interconnected and that all events have innumerable repercussions, most of them impossible to predict, and who appear completely unable to understand that the same principles apply to the social environment. If the social environment is radically altered, as it will be with the acceptance of the idea that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, widespread and fundamental changes with unpredictable repercussions will follow, yet so many rush heedlessly ahead. As with emitting CO2 in the natural environment, often the act that will radically alter the environment appears harmless at first glance. But unlike the situation with CO2, no one in academia, Hollywood, or mainstream journalism will alert the public of the dangers, lest they be blackballed. 

Since humans evolved in small groups, the construction of large, self-sustaining societies that provided well for the welfare of the members has been difficult and has quite often led to failure. Any large society we construct will likely be quite fragile, like a house of cards. The adoption of same-sex marriage throughout a society would be akin to simultaneously pulling out a great many cards in this fragile structure. 
One of the key elements in this fragile structure is the duty to protect or care for other members of the society. This obligation originates with the duty that all men have had historically to protect all women in the society and the corresponding duty of women to nurture all men. This has always made men feel obligated to and connected to all the women in the society and the women to the men. Reducing traditional gender roles has eroded the strength of this feeling of duty, but it can still persist as long as men feel an attraction to women and women to men. However, with equating homosexuality with heterosexuality, the universality of opposite sex attraction is eliminated, this duty vanishes, and the society is atomized. 

Liberals often claim that preferences for gender roles and heterosexuality are socially constructed, when it appears clear that biological differences developed from millions of years of evolution across the great majority of species explain the gender roles and the predominance of heterosexuality, while the beliefs that the genders are the same and that homosexuality is the equal of heterosexuality are completely socially constructed, in a somewhat Orwellian fashion. This Orwellian crusade resembles the efforts of alchemists of a bygone era who tried to alter what they did not understand. These modern crusaders will likely be about as successful as alchemists, but with far more tragic consequences. This crusade also brings to mind Mao’s Cultural Revolution, where people were deemed to be equal in ability and suitability to tasks regardless of their actual situation, and retribution was swift toward anyone who questioned this.

Given that lesbianism is rising rapidly among the lower socioeconomic classes, it’s probable that life will soon become hellish for most non-elite men, who will be lonely and lost, and that the middle class will disappear among a rising tide of violence, crime, poverty, and homelessness. This will terminate the social contract for young men, as they will no longer be assured of love, marriage, and children even if they work hard and follow all the rules, and many of them are likely to feel isolated and become alienated. I wouldn’t be surprised if a great many become antisocial and even violent, and I suspect that more than a few will go on shooting sprees. 

Political/legal systems are mostly arbitrary, while the laws of nature are not, implying that a political system delegitimizes itself, not nature, when it arbitrarily imposes an unhealthy and unnatural form of equality.