The question is whether gay marriage somehow affects straight marriages. There is a simple tests we can apply to this question:

If a person in a "straight" marriage has no knowledge of a "gay" marriage in the house next door, does he or she have any sort of tangible harm to his or her own relationship? Removing the knowledge of the "gay" marriage removes personal bias. If the harm comes only when someone has knowledge of the "gay" marriage, then the "harm" is nothing more than personal prejudice.

The simple answer here is no. A homosexual marriage may offend some people, but it doesn't harm their relationship in any way. For it to be harmed there has to be some mechanism for harm, and there isn't.

If marriage were entirely a religious institution, then it would be controlled and sanctioned by religious authorities. While we pretend that it is religious, a "legal" marriage neither requires a religious component nor recognizes any marriage that doesn't meet legal requirements (in other words, one that is solely religious - try doing it without a marriage license or the proper paperwork). So marriage is legally not a religious institution, only culturally - which has no force of law - it is a legal one, and so law is the only proper thing to consider when discussing laws about marriage.

The real issue here is that by allowing a type of marriage that is not "religiously" sanctioned, this polite cultural fiction (that marriages are religious) is thrown into the light. And that disturbs a lot of people who like to think that their marriage is sanctioned and enforced by some god or another.

But that leads to another question. What about pagans or atheists (i.e., not Christians, Jews or Muslims) who are married by a Justice of the Peace? The social conservatives don't have a problem as such with a marriage that is not religious, because that doesn't highlight the self-contradiction in their argument. Their cognitive dissonance isn't pinged, and so they just ignore it.

If you really think that marriages are defined, enforced and created by a god to be one man and one woman, then just try falling through on your child support or alimony payments and see whether it is God or the government that sends you nasty letters.

Mosaic laws don't apply to Christians. Paul, in the new testament does speak against homosexuality, but not against shrimp. So unfortunately the argument is fairly good for standard Christians. Of course... whether or not Paul is a prophet of God just like Jesus was is open to a far more interesting debate.

Poverty is a measure of the ability of a social infrastructure (social wealth) to provide for the needs (and less so, desires) of a population. So the simple math becomes something "Wealth divided by Population". This gives us two things to change to cure poverty:

1) Increase Social Wealth. More technological infrastructure means a better ability to create food and shelter, or to decrease the costs of these. Education increases a society's ability to do the same. Other factors include things like social stability (ability to pursue freedom / happiness versus various fears), raw resources (technology can increase the efficiencies and find new alternatives), and so on.

2) Decrease Population. No, not shooting people (that causes social instability and fear): ubiquitous, cheap and easy to use contraception.