I find it odd that the LGBT community tends to hate anything to do with Christianity or traditional religion, yet they want to be recognized as "married" which is first and foremost a religious ceremony. So I guess I am more inclined to be less resistant to using the term "civil union" as opposed to marriage. I know this is merely semantics.

I also am somewhat confused by the LGBT movement, which seems to be focused to make the world convinced that alternative sexual lifestyles are normal and healthy. Which I feel they are not. Don't get me wrong... it is none of my damn business what somebody wants to do in private on their own property. But don't come into my home via entertainment or schools via the legal system and start to teach how this is normal and healthy. It isn't. It is hedonistic at best. Look at any of the pro-gay demonstrations / marches that happen..... it is frequently a freak show of scantily clad alternative types who merely are there to revel in their own individual sexuality.

A few years ago, I remember the Hispanic protests regarding the treatment of illegal residents. They protested, disrupted traffic, trashed parks, shut down businesses, and generally promoted anarchy. I would be more inclined to respectfully listen to their arguments and help them formally join our community if they were working together for the good of the community. Heck, same with the occupation protesters. Sort of same with LGBT.... make your cause more about love than about sexuality.

I am frustrated that LGBT groups and liberal causes are forcing their lifestyle onto conservatives. It tends to be an "in your face whether you like it or not" sort of situation.... much like the recent attack on the morality stance of the Boy Scouts. Rather than go and start their own scouting organization which would be less discriminating in terms of morality, and no association to divinity of any type, they have to attack the Boy Scouts... and demand that they change their policy. WTH? I see the same thing with the term "marriage". Same with the chik-fil-a story. Don't like it that the store supports traditional marriage? Go eat somewhere else. Call it a civil union or something other than marriage. Leave conservative traditions alone.

I am perfectly fine if we want to find a way by which a non-married person can have a civil union with someone else (hetero or not) which results in the second party having access to benefits of the first. I do not believe that sexuality needs to be a criteria for any of this. License it, charge them fees to make a union, and charge them fees to separate.

Anyone who stands in opposition is a declared a homophobe. What nonsense.