I am going to skip over most of this thread. Ephesians 5:22-33 states the man and women's job in marriage. Marriage is very important because it is a gift from God and it allows the husband and wife to support each other and raise kids. Divorce is a sin unless one has had sex with someone other than who they married to and they divorce. I mean no offense to homosexuals, but being gay is a sin. I don't hate gay people or anything, so don't get me wrong. If I did hate them and shun them, I would be an ignorant hypocrite because I also sin. A lot. But, in different ways. For those who don't appreciate my Christian point of view, here is a slightly more secular argument. A man and women's body parts match up. A guys and a guys don't and a women's and a women's don't. (I think it is for a reason). So no, I think gay marriage is wrong and not as important. Marriage is meant for a man and a women who love each other to become, in a sense, one flesh. Marriage is clearly important from a Christian point of view.
One thing to consider. Which would you rather?
1) Homosexuals having children (adopting or otherwise), getting married and being faithful to one another, cementing commitment to children and spouse through marriage, encouraged to practice or not practice a faith (they often don't feel the choice to practice), and ultimately, have homosexuals being engaged in the familial social structure alongside heterosexual spouses and their families.
2) OR; deincentivize homosexuals from having children (many children are currently in Foster Care/orphanages), discourage social cohesion in respect to political and societal conventions and attitudes between heterosexual and homosexuals (needlessly polarized politics), deincentivizing monogamy, strip away reverence to marriage and similar institutions by which mandate long term relationships, which, being a part of is a major indicator of happiness by numerous studies including Pew's 30-year happiness data collection reports, along with higher instances of STD transmission, anxiety, among other issues.
Essentially, what is to be gained or lost by society by public policy. Not a matter of, I believe, give an arbitrary strawman argument, and then ignore the societal impacts of that belief.
What duties and expectations should there be for gay people if not marriage and children?
Would you rather see a reemergence of the 70's, which would happen in part if pro same sex marriage/relationship laws were repealed? (meaning more multiple sex partners, dejection from family, risky behaviors as a result (drugs/alcohol/STD's), compromised mental health, and non-productivity as members of society.)
Or would you prefer that homosexuals, through egalitarian legal changes, continue to have children, develop long-term relationships, reduce the number of Foster children, and be productive and included members of society? (Essentially, do you want homosexuals to be
more "moralistic" as dictated by long-withstanding societal conventions and religious doctrine, or
less so? After all, it's not an option to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual. Homosexuals will always have sex with other homosexuals; why not encourage for those relationships to be more serious and align more closely with heterosexual counterparts? Further if your actions and beliefs are the cause of greater immorality, again, immorality as dictated by longwithstand conventions religious doctrine, would that not also be a sin, of even greater impact?