but that cannot be called a 'marriage', in every sense of the word, because there will be no unaided reproduction. A civil union is apt in their case because it is a civil partnership, not a religious one which adheres to religious teachings around both genders.

3. Gays cannot

Yes they should be allowed this for three main reasons.

1. The term marriage is synonymous with reproduction as a definite purpose. That has been the main reason for people getting hitched and sharing a life together down the centuries. That reason might have lost emphasis over the years but it is still acknowledged as the heart of marriage and long-term relations. Marriage has always been a religious act ever since the Church took it over in the 12th century. It means that the ceremony itself has been indicative of the symbol of love and affection between two people and their desire to procreate and continue our species.

2. A gay couple might not love each other any differently than a heterosexual couple, but they cannot reproduce anything. In fact, left up to gay couples, our species would die out within a generation. When one chooses a lifestyle which goes against the natural order of continuing our world, and adding to it, then the same rules cannot be applied in exact measure. Without doubt, gay people also needed a public affirmation ceremony to show that they too share commitment, loyalty and love, but that cannot be called a 'marriage', in every sense of the word, because there will be no unaided reproduction. A civil union is apt in their case because it is a civil partnership, not a religious one which adheres to religious teachings around both genders.

3. Gays cannot

r the years but it is still acknowledged as the heart of marriage and long-term relations. Marriage has always been a religious act ever since the Church took it over in the 12th century. It means that the ceremony itself has been indicative of the symbol of love and affection between two people and their desire to procreate and continue our species.

2. A gay couple might not love each other any differently than a heterosexual couple, but they cannot reproduce anything. In fact, left up to gay couples, our species would die out within a generation. When one chooses a lifestyle which goes against the natural order of continuing our world, and adding to it, then the same rules cannot be applied in exact measure. Without doubt, gay people also needed a public affirmation ceremony to show that they too share commitment, loyalty and love, but that cannot be called a 'marriage', in every sense of the word, because there will be no unaided reproduction. A civil union is apt in their case because it is a civil partnership, not a religious one which adheres to religious teachings around both genders.

3. Gays cannot

n two people and their desire to procreate and continue our species.

2. A gay couple might not love each other any differently than a heterosexual couple, but they cannot reproduce anything. In fact, left up to gay couples, our species would die out within a generation. When one chooses a lifestyle which goes against the natural order of continuing our world, and adding to it, then the same rules cannot be applied in exact measure. Without doubt, gay people also needed a public affirmation ceremony to show that they too share commitment, loyalty and love, but that cannot be called a 'marriage', in every sense of the word, because there will be no unaided reproduction. A civil union is apt in their case because it is a civil partnership, not a religious one which adheres to religious teachings around both genders.

3. Gays cannot

e chooses a lifestyle which goes against the natural order of continuing our world, and adding to it, then the same rules cannot be applied in exact measure. Without doubt, gay people also needed a public affirmation ceremony to show that they too share commitment, loyalty and love, but that cannot be called a 'marriage', in every sense of the word, because there will be no unaided reproduction. A civil union is apt in their case because it is a civil partnership, not a religious one which adheres to religious teachings around both genders.

3. Gays cannot

but that cannot be called a 'marriage', in every sense of the word, because there will be no unaided reproduction. A civil union is apt in their case because it is a civil partnership, not a religious one which adheres to religious teachings around both genders.

3. Gays cannot have it both ways. They cannot insist on being acknowledged as different from the rest of most of society in their sexuality, yet want all the trimmings etc which goes with being heterosexual. Anything new in society carries new rules, new accessories, a new order of seeing and perceiving. It is inevitable that there will be new untried approaches to how gays are treated, with lots of trial and error, until what feels comfortable by all sections of society is accepted. Moreover, gays can't be at pains to point out their sexual difference and expect to be treated as such, yet be heterosexual in their provisions.

In simple terms, a marriage is for a heterosexual couple. Gays are not heterosexual. It stands to reason that something else needs to be introduced which suits gays and their situation and is equally acceptable to them. I think a civil union is a very good start because it has full legal backing. It means gays and their relationships can no longer be ignored or treated as invisible and it also lays the foundation for other gradual developments which are both suitable to the gay community and accepted by t