Replies

"Celibacy cannot of course propagate a species, either. How many "nuns and priests", however, may one find relative to the global population, and of these, how many have accepted and practice a vow of celibacy? How many break the vow, leave their respective orders? How does this correlate to the number of individuals who engage in homosexual acts?"

I used nuns and priests as a stand-in, perhaps a better example would be the "Shakers". The Shaker Society existed less than 150 years ago (they married) and praticed celibacy. There are no Shakers, or their families, alive today. I'm not sure of their total number at the height of their movement, but it was greater than 500. Did the state have a moral obligation to deny Shakers the right/privalege to marry given that they were all sworn to and devote in their pledge of celibacy, meaning they would not propagate?
The number of Shakers in relation to the overall population in their heyday was probably less than the homosexual population today, but their devotion to celibacy did lead to the demise of their percentage of the population. What societal interest did government have in allowing or denying them the right to marry?
If the state has a vested interest in the propagation of the species - does it also have a right to require other types of behavior or the health of the species?

Would state-sanctioned marriage of two same gender individuals who wish to engage in homosexual acts somehow produce results that differ than what I've already noted? Will the lack of this distinction preclude or prevent certain individuals from engaging in homosexual acts?

What happened ultimately to a society that did not engage in behavior that resulted in the propagation of its individuals? Too, the Shaker analogy is specious at best. Were those outside the society who wished to practice this religion excluded from membership in the society?

Engaging in a homosexual act or acts has no equivalent or comparison to nuns and priests, Shakers, or any other individual of any other religious faith. Having faith or practicing one's religion is not a sexual act.

It's just that simple.

At its most pure, what is the purpose of marriage?

Your question, does the state "also have a right to require other types of behavior" should have given you pause: are there not crimes such as rape, murder, theft, and so forth, "other types of behavior" that the state regulates? Am I to understand you believe it should not?

The state is not unique, per se: what, after all, is "the state"? If it is not concerned with the well-being and furtherance of its members, will it continue to exist?