Dismissively because I've argued them all in-depth over the years and it all ended up being (as you're seeing with pickledick) veiled bigotry.
I like the 14th amendment, that's a good argument. I also like the word "freedom." I think that gays being married doesn't harm society in any way I've eva eva eva eva seen proven, and so discriminating against them (in terms of the legal contract) to me, is based on bigotry or religion. If anyone can show another reason that is actually substanciated through study or 1 + 1 = 2 logic, I'll look into it.
PickledPunk's colorful language aside, gay marriage advocates always use the most egregious examples of dissent with gay marriage to broadly dismiss everyone. I don't buy for one second that "it all ended up being veiled bigotry".
How does the 14A have anything to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is a fairly novel concept, and there's no way people can "prove" that it harms society. People can argue it, but it's easy to simply not care. It's all a matter of perspective, and you're asking people to objectively prove your perspective wrong. That's never going to happen, because neither perspectives are mired in absolute objectivity.
Whatever about discrimination and legal contracts and bigotry. You're using how you feel about gays as your guiding principle for how you feel about gay marriage, and you figure that's all those opposed to it consider as well. There's no right to government recognition of your relationship, and trying to hide the fact that that's your actual assertion behind stuff like "legal contracts" isn't going to work. I doubt it's bigotry and religion that's behind the reticence to alter the definition of marriage. That might be apart of it, but it's also a cop-out. In any issue, there are people with basest motives.