I am honest. I am guessing that you are attacking my "I have met many decent, hard-working gays and lesbians" comment. This is true, although I suppose there is no way to prove it online. I have worked with a few homosexuals, and they tended to do well and I have not had any problems with their work or working with them. I also have a lesbian friend, through which I have met many homosexuals. Also, in college there were a number of gays I met through class and in my dorms. I can't say that I met any delinquents, and while I did find the effeminate nature of many male homosexuals annoying, I was not bothered by them. It seemed that some of them (male and female) cared very deeply for their partners, and I saw no reason to prohibit their marriage. I think these people are just that, people. They have a different sexual preference, and a few have told me that they wish they were straight. However, they just do not get aroused by the opposite sex, and find themselves happier with a partner of the same sex. Not my gig, and I don't agree with most of them politically (homosexuals tend to be liberal; hence pro-gun-control and anti-Israel), but I still believe that they should have the right to get married as heterosexuals would.
What % are gay in America? About 3%. What % want to get married? Let me throw out a number, a guess. 20% I pick a low number, because most men are horndogs (or would like to be if not constrained by societal pressure, religious morality etc), most gay men are VERY promiscuous. The average gay man, according to surveys, have had hundreds of lovers. Not marriage material. So maybe 20% of 3% of the population would be in a gay/lesbian marriage, that is .6%
What % would be likely to be involved in a 5th amendment situation? Let's say 20%. Obviously, any of these numbers can be argued. so 20% of .6% =.12%
So for the benefit of about .12% of the population, you would discard millenia of tradition, tradition that a solid majority of people want to see untouched.
For .12% you would go against the religious beliefs of the majority of the country. You would contribute to the weakening of the foundations of an institution that is CRITICAL to children, and to the mainenence of a society that is not totally dependent on the govt (face it, without families, welfare becomes "daddy").
This is why I question your motives, there is no logic to counter this. I cannot explain it any better, and I find it hard that someone would need this much of a breakdown to get it.