I don't have time tonight to reply at length, Iano, and the thread will doubtless close by tomorrow morning.
Suffice it to say that I believe your objections are indeed religiously inspired: since homosexuality is not a religion, I do not see it as religious intolerance, merely the intolerance of the religious.
You invoke your religion incessantly in your participation here, and you assure us that it informs all your thoughts and deeds.
It is a bit late to get shirty at being taken at your word.
Yes, rights, rights, rights: we rarely see intolerance moving to deny people their duties. Many former social institutions were crucial to the economies and general welfare of entire nations and their familial institutions--slavery, for example: its preservation, too, was held to be a bulwark between continued social order and chaos; empire, the white man's burden, was seen as both a right and a duty, no?
I do not need a guarantee of social stability to seek the overthrow of oppressive institutions or the correction of unjust denials of them; if society must quake to be just, so be it.
My country nearly tore itself apart over slavery, and a great blood debt was paid. But that was not the cost of a grand social experiment, it was the price of past injustice. If your nation's institutions of heterosexual marriage need strengthening, then look to it: your own dreams aren't more likely to come true just because you crush someone else's.