When my father died, beginning a few days after his death, I would have panic attacks; they would render me confused and unable to think clearly for a few minutes, and I might get 3 or 4 a day. They tapered off, and finally ended after a few months.

When my mother died, for the first 3 or 4 days, I felt sure my neighbors would call the police from the sound of my cries of anguish.

But, seven months after that, I learned what hell really consists of.

My little chihuahua (my mother's actually), almost 14 years old, had a heart attack and died as the vet's assistant began to take her away to be treated for congestive heart failure. Right in front of me, looking into her terrified eyes.

Every fifteen minutes or so for at least a week (maybe more; it seemed like forever) I relived the moment of her death, as if the nightmare were happening again and again. I finally could relate to Mel Gibson's character in "Lethal Weapon"... every single day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVl8tJrS...

My point being to establish just how dearly I loved that little dog; she was the first creature I ever knew with certainty needed me simply for my own existence in her world. I think normal people call that "love" or some such.

So when people who want to normalize the desire to simulate mating with members of the same sex sneer at the idea of marrying animals... you bet your ass I'd marry that little dog before pretty much any human I know, male or female. Because the thing the perverts (progressives) are trying to establish is the idea that love is inextricably linked to lust.

I think that's part of the problem we have in modern society, thanks to the perverts (progressives). Back in, say, Shakespeare's day, "brotherly love" was just that; love for another man that didn't involve sex or romance, but the kind of love that AR alleged; loving a person for his virtues and values.

Somehow, in recent years, in spite of our embracing of "different" relationships, we've somehow forgotten that love is an emotion with its own legs, its own worth and requires neither a penis nor a vagina to be fulfilled. Nor does it require a marriage contract. The purpose of a marriage contract is something else, something as useless to me and my dog as it should be to homosexuals.

Animals will come up again. In 10, 20, 50 years, when the oxymoron of "gay marriage" is taken as a given and it's time to advance the dissolution of traditional (aka "what worked and fit reality") American society again by normalizing yet another perversity.

What if they do?

Make up your mind, MikeMarotta... do you believe in evolution or do you not?

I didn't say a word about freedom of association, nor did I say that the feds were given the ability to regulate marriage from freedom of religion.

I said that the 1st Amendment covers marriage... marriage began as a religious institution, not a secular one.

You go ahead and eliminate the benefits related to marriage. Please. The country is already so far gone that anything to hasten its collapse so a decent nation has a chance of rising from its ashes is a good thing.

Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver... traditional American marriage institution was and would continue to be a positive force for American society, and cannot be replaced by some perversion based upon the idea that "anybody gets to do anything they want to do and we'll pretend it's equally good".

Which is why I'm *conservative* and NOT *libertarian* or *objectivist*.

But, the State of Oklahoma must recognize a Texas driver's license, they can't declare that you are not licensed to drive because you have an out-of-State license.

And, again, if I travel to the state of England, they may well not recognize my marriage license from the State of Oklahoma as valid.

Screw precedence. That has messed up the legal system since the first lawyer collected a check. The law is what the law says, not what some idiot judge said it says in a completely unrelated case decades before you were born.

The text is pretty clear; I never said anything about freedom of association. Each State shall give full faith and credit to the Acts, Records and judicial proceedings of every other State. So OK has to recognize a TX driver's license.

And Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts Records and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof... which means that Congress can pass laws determining how each State must define and recognize marriage.

By definition I would say tradition is sacred.

First principles; homo sapiens is a species with two sexes, the reproductive organs of each designed to perform the function of producing the next generation of homo sapiens. Emotional bondings exist because they promote, not just the creation of the next generation, but its survival until it also is able to procreate.

Religious beliefs and institutions evolve to server this purpose, as well, as evidenced by their existence in every tribe of people known to have existed.

The evidence of your senses should make it clear that there are two, and only two human sexes, and they they evolved or were designed to bond.

Or your senses could tell you that sex was given to us by a supreme being (or space aliens) so that we can have fun having orgasms, so anything that gives us an orgasm is as natural, normal, and purposeful as anything else that gives us an orgasm.

Actually, I lived/worked in Mexico (Monterrey) for a couple of years in the mid 90's. The Mexican people, by and large, have the same desires as do we in the US. They are not so much subjected to political tyranny as to economic tyranny. However, they are an incredibly innovative people - very craftsman oriented and shrewdly capitalistic. They have a different perspective on life for sure, derived from their Spanish ancestry that fits well with their climate.

naw - new software is cheaper than a boob-job, 'though.

Be fruitful = Be productive :-)

Yes it has, or at least is well on its way to losing all traditional meaning.

As Hiraghm indicates, there are numerous special interests trying to degrade the term, mostly to undercut the traditional religious/moral concepts that generated the term in the first place. Even if there were no financial benefits aspect I think that there would still be a push on in our current culture to corrupt the term.

My stand is that we should remove the term from the public sphere totally. If people want to have rights to medical decisions, then write it up in a medical power of attorney (which, as you identify is mostly required anymore these days in any case). If you want inheritance specified, then draw up a will. The IRS should treat dependents as just that, those who are dependent upon you that do not have independent means. If that's 4 women and 10 total children, then that is what should be allowed. If that's a second man in the household, that should be allowed as well.

We are no longer an agrarian society where we need many children to work the farm. And the tax benefit of each additional child is not going to be sufficient to incentivize population growth just to maintain such for economic growth, so that is a foolish rationale for such policy as part of the tax code. We will either have a growing economy which makes more children less of an overall burden on the family, or we will increase immigration to continue to expand the overall population.

So, MM, square the circle for us, please. How do you derive marriage and who/what it means from "first principles?"

To me, the first, first principle is that "I own myself." But, marriage is an act in essence of giving up part of oneself for another, an altruistic act if ever there was one. So, I'm curious how you deconflict this quandary.

My point exactly. I'm not sure where H gets the ability to regulate marriage from freedom of association. If he thinks it derives from freedom of religion, then what about the atheists? No, there is no Federal role related to marriage, and as such all benefits/penalties related to same should be eliminated.

As with most contracts, they have a stipulation of jurisdiction, so no need for other states to worry. They can merely shake these off and tell those with a dispute to go settle it where it was created.