This is a tendentious interpretation, as if intended to condemn same-sex relations and discredit the defenders of marriage equality. The J-Author uses the story of the separation of the originally ungendered human creature ("adam" is "mud beast") into a male and a female as an etiological myth to explain conventional sexual attraction and marriage: the sexual act is a recapitulation of the original state, that's all. And in terms of attraction alone, there's no reason the original couple could not have been Adam and Steve--cf. the parallel myth of Aristophanes in Plato's "Symposium," which refers to three erotic combinations; and if as we think the J-Author lived in the 900s BCE, he/she was a contemporary of the first collectors of David-material in the Books of Samuel, and knew of the love between David and Jonathan, "passing that of a woman"--save for convention and reproduction.

And there's nothing about reproduction's being a participation alongside God in creation. (to be cont'd)