Marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman. The title of marriage also denotes that a heterosexual male and female joined in marriage can beget children. And as such a married heterosexual couple should be accorded all the benefits that the laws allow.
Homosexual male couples and lesbian couples cannot beget children. That is the main difference between these two groups. The term marriage must be reserved for heterosexual couples, and the term civil union should be applied to homosexual/lesbian couples. Couples who choose a civil union cannot call themselves married, because they cannot bear children. And they should not be accorded the title...yet this doesn’t stop them from demanding the same title and status/benefits as that of married couples.
I have nothing against couples who want to form a union and share a home life. But I am against a homosexual who understands the difference between him/herself and a heterosexual, yet demands that he/she be granted the same title and benefits of a same sex union as heterosexual couples share. They are two different groups, and different titles and laws should apply to each.
It is a fluke of nature that homosexual men and women feel the same desire to form a family union and nuture children. But it is unfair for a child to be raised by two men or two women. Males and females were put on this earth because each have different qualities, and each of their qualities are necessary in the upbringing of children.
It remains to be seen where all of this goes, but I do feel for the children of homosexual unions, who will never know the care and nuturing of a mother and a father in the true sense of the word. What a confusing world this must seem to these children.
How all of this turns out remains to be seen.
I've noticed this attribute among many of the Bishops who were appointed by John Paul II, and those who have been appointed by Benedict XVI! They are replacing the old liberals who were young during Vatican II, and were putty in the hands of those who wanted to change the Church, and started putting in place all manner of silliness in the 'Spirit of Vatican II'.
I don't reject Vatican II, there were changes that were needed, and none of those affected basic Dogma and Doctrine. The liberals in the Church WANTED Doctrinal change, so they just acted as though they were made, and worse, convinced regular pew sitters there had been changes to things that hadn't actually changed. So now, when Benedict wants to roll back some of the abuses that occurred, the average Catholic thinks he's taking away something real and important, when it was actually likely a fad introduced by liberals in the 60s.
This continuing attitude among liberals has created division among regular Catholics and the Pope, and it's been going on since Paul VI, and Humanae Vitae. They're trying to step it up now by claiming the issues of Holy Orders for women, and 'marrage' for homosexuals, are a matter of 'justice' and 'fairness'.