you should call it marriage

Just want to let people know I have only secular reasons for my arguments. Same-sex marriage is impossible. It is possible for same-sex couples to have the benefits/etc. of a straight marriage. I am completely okay with same-sex couples having the benefits/etc. of a straight marriage. Nonetheless, it isn't true marriage and therefore shouldn't be called marriage. Same-sex marriage shouldn't be called marriage because if we call it marriage then we are denying facts. I am okay with same-sex couples having every benefit/responsibility/right/etc. of a straight marriage. It just shouldn't be called marriage. The same-sex union should be called something else. They don't need the marriage label to describe their union. They should create a new word to describe their union. They don't need the marriage label. The reason why people wanted same-sex marriage legalized wasn't because they cared about what word is used for describing their union. They wanted same-sex marriage legalized because they wanted all the benefits/responsibilities/rights/etc. of a straight marriage. As long as they have the rights/etc. of a straight marriage, that's all that should matter. How is it that it is okay to redefine marriage yet it is wrong for us to redefine words like male, gender, and female? If we can redefine marriage, then that means we can redefine male, gender, and female. Here are 4 words: male, gender, female, and marriage. Either we can redefine all those 4 words or we cannot redefine all those 4 words. If I accept the redefinition of marriage, then it is illogical/irrational/ironic/hypocritical for me to resist the redefinition of words like male, gender, and female even if the government/society redefines male, gender, and female. The established definition of marriage has been around for a long, long time. Same-sex unions were never part of the established definition of marriage. This means that same-sex marriage isn't true marriage. I've seen dictionaries from a long time ago that define marriage and these dictionaries define marriage as between man and woman. The tradition of marriage is between man and woman. That is part of the established definition of marriage and the established definition of marriage has existed for a long, long time. I know that interracial marriage may have been considered fake marriage, but that isn't a good argument for why we should redefine marriage. Interracial marriage being forbidden was never the value of marriage. That was racism. The government simply didn't want black people to marry white people most likely because the government just thought that black people were inferior and, therefore, weren't worth being allowed to marry white people. There isn't any comparison at all between same-sex marriage and interracial for one important reason: there isn't any difference at all between two people of different races but there are major differences between people of the 2 genders. The idea that there is a similarity between gender and race is false. There isn't any difference at all between a white human and a black human but there are major differences between a male human and a female human. We allow boy scouts and girl scouts. Is that the same as black scouts and white scouts? We have a men's restroom and a women's restroom. Is that the same as a white people restroom and a black people restroom? We have a boy's locker room and a girl's locker room. Is that the same as a white people locker room and a black people locker room? It could be that interfaith marriage has been considered fake marriage. This doesn't mean this is an argument for why same-sex marriage can be called marriage. Interfaith marriage being banned would be a religious thing. While there is religious marriage, not all marriage is religious. The thing is, I only have secular reasons for refusing to call same-sex marriage true marriage. Interfaith marriage is most often contracted as civil marriage even though, in some instances, they may be contracted as religious marriage. Interfaith marriage is most often contracted as civil marriage and civil marriage may be entirely secular. According to thespruce.com (citation at bottom), "a civil marriage is a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale." Same-sex unions were never part of the established definition of marriage. This means same-sex marriage isn't true marriage. Facts are facts. Facts don't care about your feelings. Your feelings never affect facts and your feelings never affect the definitions of words. Your feelings don't define marriage. The established definition of marriage that existed for a long, long time is what defines marriage. There isn't really any control over a same-sex couple's life if they can have every benefit/responsibility/right/etc. of a straight marriage while their same-sex union is given a different word other than marriage instead of being called marriage. The "separate but equal" argument cannot be used. Separate but equal was an excuse for separating blacks from whites or was an excuse for discriminating against blacks. There is no similarity at all between race and gender. There isn't any difference at all between 2 people of different races but there are major differences between people of the 2 genders. There aren't any differences at all between a black human and a white human but there are major differences between a male human and a female human. It can be called separate but equal if there are things like: White people restrooms and black people restrooms White people locker rooms and black people locker rooms. White scouts and black scouts It isn't separate but equal at all if there is boy scouts and girl scouts, a men's restroom and a women's restroom, or a boy's locker room and a girl's locker room. It just shows that isn't separate but equal at all if same-sex unions with the rights/etc. of straight marriage are called something else instead of marriage. It could be possible that people could create a word that describes both actual marriage and even same-sex unions with the rights/etc. of straight marriage. If we call that word "unionage", then that would mean marriage is a type of unionage and the same-sex union with rights/etc. of straight marriage is another type of unionage. This means if we call these same-sex unions with rights/etc. of straight marriage "matchage" instead of marriage, we could say that matchage is a type of unionage. We cannot call same-sex marriage true marriage because that is calling it something that isn't. It's denying facts. I don't deny facts. The reason people will call same-sex marriage "marriage" instead of calling the same-sex union something else is because people want to be politically correct. Who has said if you deny politically incorrect facts then that is bigotry or discrimination? Who has said that? No wonder people are now trying to redefine words like male, gender, and female. No wonder some people now believe there are more than 2 genders. No wonder some people now believe some males have vaginas or some females have penises. No wonder some people now believe that your chromosomes/etc. don't define your gender. I remember seeing on the news stuff about transracial people. Transracial means they identify as another race/ethnicity. If we tolerate transracial people (I tolerate transracial people), then should we redefine words like race and ethnicity and think your DNA doesn't define your race/ethnicity? Just because I tolerate transracial people doesn't mean I pretend they are the race they identify as. Just because I tolerate transracial people doesn't mean I pretend their DNA doesn't define their race/ethnicity. Being transracial doesn't mean you should deny what your actual race/ethnicity is and being transgender (including non binary, bigender, etc.) doesn't mean you should deny what your actual gender is. www.thespruce.com/civil-marriage-2303277