I know they are different but my question was if you stop it, so I was simply trying to respond to your post saying "WHAT if, What if" and the answer is it wouldn’t matter LOL
Thing is, the "what if" was pointless, as I never supported "stopping" anything. I'm a bit of a libertarian in my views in some ways.
also I didn’t assume anything just answering again to your post. My own religion is against it I just don’t care because I understand based on AMERICA its wrong to stop it and not my business
Perhaps not, but your post sure gave me the impression you were.
thanks for telling me your stance though its insightful
the only problem is marriage is NOT religious unless you want it to be and that’s how it is RIGHT NOW. You can get married by religion and the state accepts it or by someone with a license and the stat accepts it so gay marriage wouldn’t change that. So renaming them would be discrimination IMO, no need to rename anything. Its discrimination because religion is a secondary thing to marriage not primary. Religion is NOT needed to marry so no need to rename it NOW because of gay marriage. I bow that’s not exactly what you said I’m just making a point, You are for any marriage not with religion being called something else but that didn’t happen before why should it happen now.
How would renaming all legal marriages to "civil unions" or some such be discrimination? Everyone would have to have one if they wanted the tax breaks, no matter the sex of the partners.
As for the reason I think this necessary, it is because of the people who hold "marriage" as a sacred part of their religion.
If you legislate that "marriage" will be between any two persons, regardless of sex, as opposed to it's current state of only male-female (in most states), it seems you would effectively be legislating a religious matter.
Now, IMO it's just a word, but for some persons that's a big deal.
If you take all religious overtones out by renaming all legal unions, it would seem probable that at least a portion of the resistance would be removed.
Then if a religion wants’ to allow gays to “marry”, they can, and if they don't want to, they don't have to. As is currently the case, I think. But the very word “marriage” is sacred to some, apparently.
I'm saying separate the religious aspect of a marriage/union (and there obviously is one) from the secular aspect.
I cant see any reason why they should be separate, gay or not. Marriage is a marriage period. then you choose yourself to involve religion, family, lifestyle etc no need for separate names for them all when they all share and should share identical rights.
It is precisely
because of the need to preserve rights that I suggest this.
Lastly, explain to me why "YOU" get to decide if "I’m" a centrist or not? LMAO I am a centrist/independent because it is supposed to be a party undefined, in the middle, allowed to lean either way depending on the issues. The majority or Reps and Dems, especially Reps don’t want you in their group unless you side with them on just about everything. And then if you don’t maybe you aren’t looked at as on the other side but they want to add adjectives on to your title. A type Republican, C type Democrat etc
No thanks Ill stay right here in the middle where the most common sense is.
You even want to kick me out of the middle group based on one issue where my stance is both sides get a win, doesn’t get more middle than that
I don't.
But I had always thought of a centrist as someone who was wholly in the center, with no leanings either way.
Personally, I have leanings to both sides of the center, and I always thought of that as being both left and right, which one depending on the issue.
For that matter, I don't identify with any current party, but classify my views according to "liberal" or "conservative" sides, corresponding with "left" and "right" accordingly.
But meh.