Prohibiting homosexual marriages in democracies is a pure non sense because democracy in itself leads to homosexual marriages.

Democracy, thanks to its conception of the individuals, has been blurring the traditional wife/husband parts in a marriage.

In a traditional society, a man or a woman assessing his/her options for choosing a marriage match is in dismay because of the scarcity of options.
If a man wants to marry another man, he has to take into account that the other man might have wealth, might be a splendid sex partner, might be educated but he might not have the expected (because too similar) sensitivity, also he is bad at cooking, at stitching, at sewing, at ironing, at householding, at going shopping, at dancing like a woman, at mothering children etc...
If a man wants to marry a woman, he has to take into account that a woman might have wealth, might be a splendid sex partner, might be educated, might have a lovely sensitivity, is good at sewing, at cooking, at stitching, at ironing, at householding, at going to the shops, at dancing like a woman, at mothering children etc...
So definitively, a man marrying another man is automatically at a loss.
The same for women.

In a democracy, it is very different:
If a man wants to marry another man, he has to take into account that the other man might have wealth, might be a splendid sex partner, might be educated, might have the expected ) sensitivity and might be good at cooking, at stitching, at sewing, at ironing, at householding, at going shopping, at dancing like a woman, at mothering children etc...
Actually, why should a man who got several relationships with both women and men compulsorily choose a woman because she is a woman whereas he met a man who was a much better choice? There is no reason. And democratic people are reasonable people, that is they assess different solutions through the screen of their best interests.
In fact, one could say that for democratic people who might not consider sex an essential compounent of marriage, they might enter a "homosexual" marriage as well, because a man/woman appears a the best partner.

What is at stake here is of a critical importance: that's the incredible improvement of the male condition and of his sexual pleasures brought by democracy. Anything that is a hinderer to homosexual marriages like the opportunity of getting children should be treated with a reasonable approach:like allowing homosexual couples to adopt.

Thanks to democracy, a well rounded male, able of fending for himself, or better, outcompetiting women in many daily activities send a clear message to every woman:
"At first, our relationship will boil down to sex only because I will depend on you only for that. You have to be highly seductive, no laisser aller with me, you have to be sexually available, and this often, you have to watch to my sexual satisfaction through a large variety of sexual practices etc..."
And all this comes with the democratic package. You dont have to ask, you just have to be and the rest will follow and be given to you.
That might explain why some democratic women trying to flee from the pressure of being sexually highly competitive prefer the macho man, the type of wretched male who say to the women " clean the house, do the washing up,iron my shirts, prepare the meal, bring me my beer while I'm watching the football game on tv and then maybe sex"
Everytime time those macho people should be remembered that in democracy their behaviour is tolerated on a private level but is not accepted on a general level. This includes that they must bring up their daughters according to the democratic principles in order not to put those future women at fault with democracy.