Lesbian and gay unions
Let's use some common sense
In the Universe there is a force that tries to defend and perpetuate life. This force has encrypted in the natural law how to behave to obtain that purpose.
The big difference is that natural law does not allow gays and lesbians to procreate, because natural law has established that for procreating humans need the opposite sex.
Too many politicians are making the subject into a moral issue, but for the legislator at the public level it is not! It is a moral issue at the personal level, but that is the discretionary choice of the individual not the concern of the legislator, besides possible impact at the social level, politicians need to have this in mind.
For the legislator it is not a question of morality but a question of natural law. Gays and Lesbians cannot procreate in a natural way, people of the opposite sex can. For that reason for millennia under all kinds of civilizations and religions Marriage was and is reserved only for individuals of the opposite sex.
The ancient Romans, for example, ancestors of many modern law systems did not even pose themselves the question. The ancient Romans had a high respect for the law of nature and knew that following these laws would give them much better results. Why are so many ancient Roman roads still intact? Because of the respect for nature. For example, in the Adige river valley in Italy, the ancient (still existing) Roman road is halfway up the hills to avoid the floods of the river. Modern Italian engineers put segments of the highway along the river and when the river got wild washed them out with all the consequential costs. A mistake the ancient Romans did not make.
Were Gays and lesbians accepted in ancient Rome? Yes they were. The famous ancient poet Catullo was gay and his poetry was popular for its beauty, but they did not change the marriage laws for that. For them some deviations from the natural law were part of nature and were accepted, but they still considered them deviations. For that reason they did not even pose themselves the question of whether it was necessary to consider the union between Gays and Lesbians a marriage or not, because for them only a couple that can procreate were entitled to a marriage. Ancient Romans were not Christians, to the contrary for a long while they were persecuting the Christians. The same for millennia across all kinds of religions and civilizations the question was never posed, because gays and lesbians can not procreate. We need to arrive at the craziness of the modern times for considering a marriage the union between individuals of the same sex that are not in a condition to procreate.
Breaking natural laws has its consequences, nature is able to defend her purpose of perpetuating life. The consequence of deviations are all the ancient sexual diseases and the modern ones like AIDS. It is not the punishment of a sin simply the consequence of breaking the natural law.
Do Gays and Lesbians deserve respect? Yes they do. Do their unions deserve the same rights? Yes they do, because the moral judgement is at a personal level and not in the hands of the legislature. Do their unions deserve the word marriage? No, they do not. One of the main purposes of a marriage is the possibility of a natural procreation. They do not have that. Consequently those unions are not a marriage, rather they are civil alternative unions. Let us simply call them that.
If those legislating for the same rights for the same sex unions want to call these alternative unions a marriage, it clearly demonstrates a hidden agenda with the purpose of destroying life, because it will diminish the natural value (procreation) of the regular marriage. Marriage will become whatever, and as such one of its main purposes will be lost in time. This is simply not acceptable from any person with only a little bit of common sense.