I'm not against it, but I'm not for it.
Simply because, I think that this is the worst topic to polarize yourself politically, and a middle ground is simply not found to satisfy both parties, for the sole purpose of gathering votes.
Since marriage is synonymous with getting married in a church or whatever in western countries, and it has a tradition behind it that was exclusively between a man and a woman, people may oppose it. I understand them, because I think that the union of two genders does not constitute a family, nor a real marriage.
But gays may want to share the same legal property rights, tax cuts and etc. with a partner they are in a committed relationship with.
So, give them "civil unions". I think those would work great for America, allowing gays to share the same legal rights, but at the same time, satisfying the people that are against gay marriage.
Simply because, I think that this is the worst topic to polarize yourself politically, and a middle ground is simply not found to satisfy both parties, for the sole purpose of gathering votes.
Since marriage is synonymous with getting married in a church or whatever in western countries, and it has a tradition behind it that was exclusively between a man and a woman, people may oppose it. I understand them, because I think that the union of two genders does not constitute a family, nor a real marriage.
But gays may want to share the same legal property rights, tax cuts and etc. with a partner they are in a committed relationship with.
So, give them "civil unions". I think those would work great for America, allowing gays to share the same legal rights, but at the same time, satisfying the people that are against gay marriage.
