Civil Unions Debate - Marion, IN

first they wanted the bennefits and protection afforded married couples; giving them that but calling it a civil union shud be enough. somehow, or so I've read elsewhere, the demand has changed to having "marriages", I wonder why? I guess waiting 20 yrs after folks have gotten used to gay civil unions AND then asking for the term 'marriage' is just not compromise enough.
less IS better

Why not?

why not wait for acceptance? if one wants to cause 'in your face' confrontation, or, to simply make a point, then by all means do as they have. and what has been the result? more hostiltiy and division in stead of acceptance and compromise.
with out any reference to morality or reigious beliefs, remember, biologically, homosexuality is ab, repeat that, ab-normal. like webbed toes or six fingers, such abnormalities don't really hurt anything but still shock people, normal people who are used to encountering other normal people, when ever they first see such abnormality. that is simple human nature, period.
the radicals and/or activists from all factions or POVs, always ask for compromise. compromise what?
compromise the status quo, the standard(s) of the day, the normal. okay, the majority hetro community finally gets it and gives in and compromises on 'civil unions'. now, such compromise is no longer enough... it never, ever, never is, is it? no matter what the issue: seat belt wearing, smoking bans, welfare, etc... do we need the extremism of another Prohibitin Era to reign in such calls for 'compromise', again?
less IS better