A very provocative question, certainly one I would not be at liberty to breach without stern rebuke
Let’s look at it as a logical or reasonable issue of debate. We have to use facts of biology, since most here cannot or will not see the side of faith.
• Nature developed two sexes, female and male, the male and females have sexual parts that are to fit or work with that of the opposite sex, we can agree with that I hope.
• Nature doesn’t specify age, when the female hits a certain level of development she is able to reproduce, mental state notwithstanding as it has no bearing with nature.
• Any male mating with a female once hitting that level of development is still using the male parts with the female parts, and if the timing is right, life is promoted and the species carried on.
• It would be the same before that development but it would be useless, and physically not possible without physical damage to the female.
• In a same sex situation it is totally outside the sphere of nature as it has parts not made to go together, so apart from ideology the union is completely useless in procreation, species surviving sense.
• By biology alone, it cannot be said to be better because it is outside what nature intended where the other would be possible misuse of biological intentions.
Now, if one sees it from the aspect of faith, both are in the same boat, because a miss is a miss, and there is only one correct way sexuality can be acted upon, acting on it any other way is amiss.
Of course most want to have their cake and eat it too with a large glass of milk, so they filter it through ideology that has nothing to do with biology, but want the biology to somehow be important.