All true. But there still needs to be a reversal of no-fault divorce, gay marriage, and third party reproduction.
I appreciate you setting out your position on each of these with simple clarity.
No fault divorce isn't the problem, people entering into the relationship without preparation or a foundational commitment is the problem. No faults may grease the skids, but they also make it possible for people in horribly embarrassing and difficult circumstances to end the union without airing their private linen publicly, protecting themselves and often enough the children of that failed union from additional ridicule and/or intrusion. Because a divorce is a matter of public record and its particulars are subject to public scrutiny.
People willfully enter into this contract formalized by the state, there's no real justification for disallowing the undoing of it by the same mechanism and for no necessarily stronger reason.
Gay marriage, you've heard me on and it's really as simple as justifying or failing to justify a denial of right.
Third party reproduction sounds more like you worrying about homosexuals being able to respond to the "can't reproduce" argument, which never had any legs to begin with since marriage isn't predicated legally upon reproduction. And denying this would work a real and senseless harm against barren couples.