Marriage is about property and inheritance. How is the government in anybody's bedroom because the law does not recognize a marriage of homosexuals?But definitely, state needs to get out of our bedrooms and do not need to be paternalistic here.
Obama is a creature created by many people, such as George Soros. Those people I despise.Mr.Ewald seems to be overflowing with hatred for Obama. Notice how he uses 'zero' instead of 'O' when writing Obama (i.e. 0bama instead of Obama)
But your hate for Obama started not because of this right?Marriage is about property and inheritance. How is the government in anybody's bedroom because the law does not recognize a marriage of homosexuals?
Should the law recognize marriage of anybody, man or beast?
There is a reason why the homosexuals want to call their union a marriage. When the above terms were coined there were not many benefits associated with the union of two people, but in modern society marriage brings a lot of benefits( tax benefits on the economic front being one). Just because these people are in minority, they are denied these rights because their union is not called a marriage. If given the same rights after being termed sorority sisters as their married counterparts, many of them would not have problem in being called a sorority or fraternity.Matrimony is a union of two persons of the opposite gender. If it is two male homos, then it is fraternity, and for two female homos, sorority. The term marriage is inappropriate.
Here in Norway a union between a couple with the same sex is considered marriage in the strict sense.There is a reason why the homosexuals want to call their union a marriage. When the above terms were coined there were not many benefits associated with the union of two people, but in modern society marriage brings a lot of benefits( tax benefits on the economic front being one). Just because these people are in minority, they are denied these rights because their union is not called a marriage. If given the same rights after being termed sorority sisters as their married counterparts, many of them would not have problem in being called a sorority or fraternity.
On a side note, to avoid discrimination I would prefer to expand the definition of marriage to include them. There can be no hard and fast rule or appropriateness in this decision.
Everybody who disdains the USA agrees with 0bama.
Matrimony is a union of two persons of the opposite gender. If it is two male homos, then it is fraternity, and for two female homos, sorority. The term marriage is inappropriate.
I never advocated discriminating against homos. I never saying they cannot live together. I am also fine if they are afforded tax benefits as a de facto household.You have to change with time.
"It's the end of the World as we know... and I feel fine!"
However, I do not see myself changing the definition of marriage, even if times may change.
There is a reason why marriage is between opposite genders - so that they can have children together. It is impossible for homos. Adoption does not count.