Let me ask something... Where does it specifically say in The Bible that homossexuality is bad/wrong? I mean so bad/wrong that it damns you, and is against God's will. I guess it does say, but because I'm not Christian I don't know where/what exactly.
Also, does The Bible put any other "sexually immoral" acts in the same category? Like... "having sex before marriage makes you just as bad as a homosexual." Or... "having multiple partners (i.e. sleeping around) is just as immoral as homosexuality." Anything like that? Or is homosexuality one of the most grievous sins of perverse lust?
The Bible (and modern revelation) equate all sexual sins as big No-No's. It is not a sin to have hetero- or homo- inclinations or attractions. The sin comes in using your procreative powers outside of their intended place and purpose. So adultery, fornication, masturbation, and homosexual ACTS are all serious sexual sins. So sleeping around is just as bad. They are all sins and should be avoided. This does not mean that the people who commit these sins should be hated. All people sin, as Christ said, he who is without sin may cast the first stone. So we should love all people.
I know Ozone was likely be facetious with his comment of forcing all religions to accept gay clergy and perform gay marriages, however, it is not entirely off topic. There is a great fear in the religious community that there could be a push in that direction. Why? Because they are prejudiced? Not entirely. There are people who DO want that to happen. Not all are happy to let religions do as they will. I've seen and heard folks touting that kind of thing, very vehemently in some cases.
-serve openly in the armed forces?
I have no problem with gays SERVING in the military. I do think that studies should be done to preserve morale (because it is a delicate thing). If it is determined not to have a detrimental psychological effect on the soldiers, then I say: Absolutely! I have never been a soldier, but I know there is a special connection among soldiers put in constant danger together. So that should be decided by smarter folks than I.
Though, I kinda lean in the direction of them having separate quarters and/or shower areas. Not out of a desire to further separate them artificially. Men and women do not shower together. Not because they have different bits (or not entirely). I dunno. Maybe that wouldn't work, maybe it would. Like I said, it is an interesting conundrum.
-Marry their partner?
Again, we get into that fuzzy area of church rights. I absolutely believe that religions should NOT be forced to perform these.
-Adopt children? -Have children by a surrogate?
I do not think that same sex couples (or single people of either sex) should be allowed to adopt. This is not due to the lack of the ability of ANYONE to love a child, provide for them, raise them, etc. I think that a child needs the direct influence of both a man AND a woman in a stable relationship to perfectly raise a child. Their are societal roles (traditional and modern) and biological roles. I believe that adoptive children need as close to a perfect situation as possible.
What about divorcees, widows, etc, you ask? Obviously not an ideal situation, but they make due. They should not have their children taken from them, but neither should they seek to add new children to such an arrangement.
Again, single women and same sex couples while perfectly capable of love are not the best arrangement for child development.
Again, this is not to say a same-sex couple or a single person cannot love, raise, etc. However, I think that it better for the emotional, social, etc development to have a mother and a father. A same sex couple is not going to "turn" the child gay, but neither is it the perfect situation in which t rear a child.
Often at this point people bring up the numerous examples of failed marriages and broken homes. These are bad. They should not happen. I am not, however, comparing these to singles or same-sex couples. Bad examples of hetero marriages do not mean that a same-sex couple is better than a hetero couple, only that they are better than a broken home. Again, love is possible no matter what your sexual preference. I still hold that we should shoot for the best possible when starting a child out on the path for the rest of their life. The formative years are important. Therefore, the hetero couple seems to have the advantage.
That is up to the religion. If a religion considers homosexual acts to be a sin, they most likely will not be allowing it. This is not something against gays in particular. Priests aren't allowed to have sex outside of marriage either. So someone who sleeps around won't be allowed to be a priest no matter whether they sleep with a member of the same gender or different.