Then best commence the marginalizing, shunning, and absorbing.
This is an issue no Christian need feel guilty about opposing. The Bible states explicitly God's view of homosexuality, and all the oogy, kumbaya talk in the world won't change the fact that it is an abomination before the Almighty. It doesn't mean we have to hate. It doesn't mean we have any right to hurt or injure homosexuals. It just means that we're under no moral obligation to accept their abhorrent behavior, nor to lend it our collective sanction.
It is a perfect wedge issue for the dialectical Left, since accepting homosexuality destroys the traditional notion of marriage and family and opposing it causes an ideological tension that can erupt into violence, which can also be used to destroy the status quo.
Marx would be proud.
This is an issue no conservative skeptic need feel guilty about opposing.
No non-Christian should decry any Christians for believing homosexual behavior is immoral or acting on that belief (short of harming or publicly humiliating folks). The thing completely missing from the liberal side is respect for traditional beliefs.
They also view the government as this generous source of largesse and approval. I favor limited government, but I also want the government to do a few modest things to protect various well-known institutions. This includes a few modest perks to help along the traditional family structure, which is so vital. It is beyond absurd to extend these perks to gay couples.
At the same time, I have no problem with some legislation, that would make it easier for a gay person to name his companion as his next of kin for various purposes. That would be almost no cost to the taxpayer. Once you take away benefit and approval-related issues, what you are left with is the next of kin thing and divorce law.
It's no more complicated than that.