Homosexual union cannot constitute a procreative family. It CAN provide a stable environment in which to raise children, but there seems little evidence that it WOULD. Most homosexual relationships are transient and concerned entirely with sexual gratification, not establishing a family unit (even one that is perverse). What if? I don't know. What if pigs could fly?
You have no evidence that it will dusrupt society by letting two women who love each other get married.
Yes, I do. By definition, it "disrupts" (your word, not mine) the tradition of marriage by forcing us to redefine it more broadly. An expansion of that definition, to respect the perverted wishes of such an insignificant minority, erodes the value of the tradition and gains us nothing.
"Marriage" is an institution consisting of two dimensions: one temporal, one religious. The state has no business proscribing the business arrangements between two people of the same sex. But neither does it have the right to enforce a religious validation of an abhorrent practice.
Homosexuals can be "married" in the eyes of the state without benefit of it being "marriage" in the strictest sense of the word. There is no need to redefine the yardstick to fit the measurement.
Why not impose harsh penalties for divorce?
Separate issue.
Wouldn't that help "stabilize" society?
Probably, but that isn't the issue here.