Context matters here. The passage is about the marital covenant (10:9). Specifically, it's a refutation of the premise that men should be able to abandon their wives whenever they want in a culture that made little to no provision for divorced women (Mark 10:2)
It's also important to note that this passage does NOT include Mark 10:6b "but God did not make homosexuals, and those who find themselves attracted to people of the same gender shall live their lives in the condition described in Genesis 2:18, for God hath forgotten what God hath said."
Ultimately, assuming that Mark 10:6-8 is somehow anti-gay fails on three accounts
1)It is an argument from silence. "God did not say that it was ok to be gay [we'll conveniently ignore how the church has frequently used a declaration of fidelity between women (Ruth 1:16-17) for marital vows] , therefore it must be WRONG!"
2)It misses the point and context of Mark 10:1-9.
3)It weakens the institution of marriage, reducing it from a covenant grounded in upholding the image of God in the other to a matter of genital differentiation on the level of the five year old's observation "boys have a / girls have a...."
"Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight. You gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight, when you're lovers in a dangerous time"
"The pain that you feel / you only can heal / by living"