If a civil union grants the exact same rights and benefits of marriage, then why must the definition of marriage be changed? We don't do that for other things and never have. The most glaring similar example is civil rights for the slaves. Black people didn't want to be called white, they simply wanted equal treatment (which is "supposedly" what the gay community wants here). Yet the gay and lesbian world is demanding that the term "marriage" be changed to suit them? That is exactly why this is an issue, as I said, the majority have no problems with approving civil unions and giving those civil unions the same treatment as marriages, but there is zero need to flip the term marriage upside down.
Apples and oranges are both fruit, but they are called by their respective names. Marriage and civil unions are both relationships, same as the fruit, but being different entities, they should have their own respective names.
Yeah, and how come only straight couples can make babies? Nature's nothing but a bigoted homophobe.
As to this comment, if anyone wants to "read into" what it says instead of what it actually says, then go with this:
"Mother nature is a bigot because gay and lesbian couples should be able to make babies and it's all her fault that they can't!"
Notice again how the word "marriage" never even comes into play.