May 21, 2012 -- 8:50AM, teilhard wrote:

I wouldn't call it a "Can of Worms," but rather, "Life," which IS complicated and rife with Possibilities ...

But having said that ... My "Minnesota" Fishing License is Valid ONLY in Minnesota -- NOT in Montana or Texas ... I dunno ...

Does a quicky Las Vegas marriage license become null and void when the married couple leaves Las Vegas and returns home?  Nope.  Why not?  Because the U.S. Constitution requires the states to recognize the marriage contract created in Las Vegas.  Conversely, a divorce can be obtained in Nevada by anyone who establishes residency for at least six weeks.  And that divorce is valid and recognized by all fifty states for the same reason.

May 21, 2012 -- 10:11AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

The States must give "Full Faith and Credit" to laws of other states EXCEPT when they violate Fed statutes OR do violence to OTHER state laws such as property, family, estates etc

"Or do violence to other state laws."  Thank you, Ron. 

Other state laws cannot "trump" the laws of the state one lives in ...

May 22, 2012 -- 2:25PM, Jasr wrote:

May 22, 2012 -- 11:07AM, Bodean wrote:

In contrast, all of the other "unions" wanting to jump on the bandwagon and "claim" they are the same thing as Traditional Marriage is just a bunch of alternative union folk wanting to get in on the benefits and privileges that have long been associated with Traditional Marriage for eons.

Benefits, privileges, responsibilities and obligations. Why do rightists always leave those out?

 

It's quite simple Jasr.

The responsibilities and obligations for unions are not the same as Marriage.

With Marriage, the responsibilities and obligations are almost exclusively towards future generations.  As I've said, and many others have insinuated, Marriage is very much about having and raising children.  It is a contract that a Mother and Father will be committed to each other in a single purpose goal, of raising children to be successful and moral citizens of humanity. 

IF .. All of Society observed and adhered to the Principles of Traditional Marriage, there would be no chldren available for adoption. [all illegal activity not withstanding].

The above goal is the moral ideal.  It is the point towards which society should progress.  True Progressivism strives to achieve this lofty, just, moral goal.

In contrast, other unions are about self gratification.  They are about the two people involved in the union, not about future generations.  The "loose" contract that is formed is about two people committing to their relationship to each other, with no other real considerations outside of that.  No suprise, such "lose" contracts are easily broken, as their "responsibilities and obligations" are to each other, and no one else.  If a Gay Couple splits, there is less probability of collateral damage due to Children.

Of course, there are exceptions, There are the couples, both Gay and Straight that choose to take a path of adoption, For Which, I totally support granting privileges to any two individuals committing to taking in a child for the child's benefit.

But ... this is not the IDEAL.  As already mentioned, the IDEAL is for all children to be born into the commitment of a Traditional Family, where both mother and father are committed to each other and the shared goal of raising the children.  Of course, I recognize that we don't live in an ideal world.

However, being as such that we don't live in an ideal world is no excuse to reward and promote the condition that is leading in the opposite of the ideal, that being relationships based on "passion", on "self", on "the couple", thus leading to lose, uncommitted relations that result in a need for children to be adopted because of broken families.

There is no other way around it Jasr.  Traditional Marriage should be PROMOTED. Society should strive to reach the IDEAL, where every child is born to a committed Mother and Father committed to the shared goal of the childs wellbeing.  If providing a perk or two to couples, to encourage such helps, then so be it.

Leftism opposes this, becauase of the "focus" of leftist thought.  Leftist thought is purely based on the "child" and not on the condition that is best for the child.  Thus, Leftist policies promote the opposite, rewarding single motherhood, and all other manners of existence, except for Traditional Marriage. 

May 22, 2012 -- 8:24PM, Find1Answer wrote:

so what about childless couples that do not adopt?

folks that choose to adopt and I notice you include both straight and gay, should be able to obtain these rights as a form of encouragment except for when they are not straight?    help me out here.   is it so be it or not?

by your logic   If Leftist thought is purely based on the "child" and not on the condition that is best for the child  THEN Rightist thought is based on the condition that is best but not on the "child".      Leftist policies promote rewarding single motherhood so therefore Rightist policies promote punishing single motherhood.      by your logic Leftist policies promote the opposite of Rightist policies.   do I 'got it?'

I think what gets in your way is your " marrying " of your professed libertarian thought processess with social conservatist thought processes.    I see irreconcilable differences between the two.

Find .. I"m not trying to be hostile .. but you're missing the point.

Marriage ... is not about purple passion, and all that jazz.  It's not about the crap you find on E-Harmony.com.  It's not about what's on some reality TV show.  It most certainly is not about what you see in Hollywood.  MARRIAGE is NOT about the individual's involved desires.  It's not about the "couple's rights".

Think about it, in some cultures, still today, Marriages are arranged.  People are put together based on knowlege, not based on Romeo and Juliet.

Rather, Marriage is about committment, not to each other, but to the ideal of marriage itself, and the goals of marriage.  It is two people who can become ONE with the Goals of the Marriage, not one with their individual goals.

The reason that so many Marriages today don't work out, is because the Goals of Marriage have been replaced with the "desires" of the individuals involved.  Marriages split, just because .. so n so didn't make "me" happy.  I got bored with my marriage.  ... or ... I "fell in love with another". .. and all that other "I", ME .. MINE stuff.  Even relationships today are founded on the false mask of an individual.  Ya know .. the guy who can make me laugh .. or the chick who is mind blowing in bed.  It all has become how does this person fit into "MY" personality.  It's about "chemistry" ... personalities. ... the FALSE.

Characteristics of honesty, integrity, a good provider, a good mother, faithfullness, commitment, etc never enter the picture in a good number of the relationships of today .. to be specific .. about 50% of them. [I believe that is the divorce rate these days]

The Qualities of a Sound Marriage are not the same as a mind blowing relationship.  There actually is Codependence in a Marriage.  There is a VALUE .. one so strong that it prevents an individual from straying from the marriage because of loyalty, and a fear of losing what they have.

Gay Marriage is not of the original cloth of Traditional Marriage.  It is of the cloth of the "new relationship" .. the fancy, glitzy, ME centric crap that has lead to a divorce rate of 50%.

As for your objections:

There are a lot of good couples, committed coupled who CAN'T have children.  This is not to say that they did not intend on it before they got married.  To take your analogy, one would have to become pregant before they got married in order to prove to the world they could have kids.  That's just wrong thinking.  OTOH,   Gays and Lesbians can't intend to have kids together within the union.  End of story. 

And .. you lie when you say I said it's ok for heteros who want to adopt but not homos ... wrong.  I specifically said that "privileges should be afforded to any two committed people who would adopt a child".

As for Leftist vs Conservatives ... you are wrong again.  Leftist ONLY focus on the child, because they discredit Marriage.  This is not abstract, this is proven in the results of their policies.  They rewarded single motherhood, and practically destroyed the Black Family.  The overfocus on the Women and Children involved left the Man out, and also the "marriage".

Conservatives, OTOH, are focused on promoting a society where Leftist Policy is not even needed .. ie., the FAMILY, MARRIAGE .. but at the same time, they are aware and see to the needs of the needy.  Granted ... they don't go the route of the Leftist, who uses political policy to create voting blocks by inpoverishing entire sects of the population and making them dependent wards of the State, thus ..."votes", but they whole heartedly support the wellbeing of all.  Within that context .. Conseratives PUSH for a society that prevents the very impoverished, enslaved cohorts that Leftist create.  They promote this by 1) Supporting MARRIAGE .. 2) Responsible SEX, thus lowering the possibility of teen and single motherhood, with the responsible characteristic that Absteninence IS the only 100% policy.

There is no friction between my libertarianism and these views.  My Libertarianism supports personal responsibility of one's own business, including those characteristics that give an individual the best chance for success on their OWN.  Sorry, those characteristics do not include casual sexaul relations, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and risky relationships.  Personal Responsibiity is a CENTER POINT of Libertarianism, and Personal Responsibility cannot be attained if one is continueally relieved of that responsbility by the STATE.  My Libertarianism most certainly does not support STATE solutions, such as rewarding single motherhood with all kinds of goodies.  Defending STATE policies by hiding behind the false premise that "it's for the poor", is an atrocity IMO .. and is the source for my motto regarding Leftists .... "Exploit the Poor for Political Gain"!  ... because let's face it .. your beloved Leftist Policies have not even made a dent in poverty ... it's still here.  But hey .. the Left did manage to push through Obamacare, and a whole host of other Leftist Agenda Items that don't do squat for the poor.

May 22, 2012 -- 10:39PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Yada yada yada.

 

Do you ever listen to the inanities you type?

The feeling's mutal DUTO.

I don't value the same empty crap that leftist do.  But you can't argue with a single point of it.  All you can do is type what you did.