Truly,

This is just yet another example of people wanting to make "laws" in an attempt to create a utopia society in their mind.

That just isn't reality, and never was.

Laws and governments (especially a "FREE" democracy) should not based laws on ideologies of what someone perceives to be "perfection" or even according to some sort of "moral standards".

That's just not the purpose of a FREE democratic government. Those kinds of decrees are what would be expected from a dictatorship, not a FREE democracy.

A FREE democratic government should only make laws the serve to PROTECT people from being harmed by other citizens. And that's it. Period. No moral values, or someone's ideals of perfectionism should be put into law. Those are the kinds of decrees that should be reserved for a dictatorship.

And getting back to religion. If a religion believes in a single egotistical Godhead who decides what all the laws should be, then that type of God would indeed be a totalitarian dictator. Let there be no doubt about that.

This is one reason why going to that particular heaven holds no interest for me. And I'm not even gay. There are many other reasons why I wouldn't want to live under a dictator for eternity.

Like Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" He said that thinking in terms of man-made governments, but it seems to me that it should also apply to a creator.

She because we have a creator (assuming that we even have one that has an ego) that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone would want to be its slave.

These people who want to become slaves to some dictator God are more than welcome to do that, but in the meantime LET FREEDOM RING here on Earth. It might be the only chance we ever get at FREEDOM.

question one

Would be that you don’t think sex with minors involved, or coerced as with some cases of incest, or with a person not mentally capable of understanding the proposition, should not be a matter for litigation.


my answer.. yes, I dont think sexual relations should be litigated AT all unless someone is physically harmed or arguably RAPED

the definition of CHILD and ADULT Is cultural and not universal so I only care about who gets hurt or raped and not ages(obviously pre pubescent children would be hurt during a sexual act with an adult)




question two

is this statement 'Marriage is significant because the bond of male and female is what CREATES life. '


the same as :
1.Since life is only created by the male / female bond, only
opposite-sex couples who are bonded should be allowed to marry.

2.Since life is only created by the male & female bond, and
marriage is an institution created for raising children only
those male & female couples who are married can raise children

3.Since marriage is the most ideal situation in which to raise
children, then only couples that have the potential of creating
children should be allowed to marry.

4.The bond that forms between a male and female who have the
potential of creating life, is more significant to marriage than
any other, therefore only male & female couples should be
allowed to marry regardless of any other reason a couple would
like to be married.


my answer,,NO, only statement one is REMOTELY close to what I was saying


Question three?

Of course I could make the mistake (and I may have in the past) of assuming you understand WHY such stand-alone statements are so offensive.

But if you don’t ask me why they are so offensive, I can only ‘assume’ you understand why and that it is your purpose to openly promote discrimination


my answer....my purpose isnt to offend or discriminate,, my point was to offer suggestions to answer the previously posted question
regarding the HARM in homosexual relations,,,



question four

Now for the problem of incest. There is little diversity in the gene pool- and the closer the degree of relatedness the less diversity exists. In the case of siblings or parent, child the egg and the sperm have the same two genetic strands thereby creating a 40% greater opportunity of any one of the existing recessive or dysfunctional genes that exist on BOTH strands to come together and cause severe problems for the baby.

As you say, there is no certainty but the percentage is great enough to warrant concern – don’t you think?

But whether you do or not – marriage and incest are incompatible, incest occurs within a family – marriage occurs to unite a family. A brother and sister do not need marriage to be part of the same family


my answer...No more reason for concern than with people with Huntington disease or other autosomal
dominant disorders whose offspring have a 50% risk of inheriting

but we leave it to THOSE Adults to have the right to bond and decide for themself



question five

Which actually highlights another essential quality of marriage. Marriage unites two people and their individual families to strengthen social bonds and create a more extensive safety net.

Would you agree that with that as being an essential quality of marriage?


my answer ,,,IT is as essential as having children but it is not a requirement, marriage unites two people


question six

To me – we should be connecting the “arguably risky results of incest and those of homosexual sex to marriage – as marriage is the category we are tying to define.
So how do the ‘possible risky results’ of either case relate to marriage


my answer....they relate to the previously posed question of what HARM a homosexual union can cause


question/statement seven

So far in this post: (without you’re your approval yet) we have two defining characteristics of marriage.


1. sex is inherently a part of marriage, and (if not otherwise illegal, like incest) can occur between consenting adults of sound mind without litigation.

2.Marriage unites two people and their individual families to strengthen social bonds and create a more extensive safety net.


my answer....I dont concur that those are two required characteristics, although I do believe the first is USUALLY expected and that expectation supported in some degree by law



question/statement eight

I realize you are summarizing your thesis in the above quote, but you have made it entirely too broad. Because some 40% of all the children born in the last few years have not been born in the ‘bonds of marriage’.

So if there is anything unique about marriage it is NOT that it is required for any of us to be here. NOT ARGUING, just pointing out a flaw you might want to correct.


my answer.....I never posted marriage is required for us to be here, I said a male female bond is required, which is why I believe that bond should be supported and promoted through marriage

I personally feel that the whole idea of marriage was a social convention (with religious undertones) that came into being for a number of practical reasons, as well as possibly from jealousy and a desire to be possessive.

MsHarmony focuses on the idea that marriage is primarily associate with procreation and family units. However, polygamy would work very well for that. A solitary man who has many wives is actually a quite efficient means of procreation. In fact, some geneticists would argue that this type of procreation is actually genetically superior to the common idea of pairing people up only in pairs.

So from a procreation and family point of view polygamy could be argued to be a superior form of procreation, and it would also result in much larger and stronger family units.

Also, if we focus solely on the concept of procreation as the purpose of marriage, then should heterosexual couples who have vowed not to have any children be allowed to marry?

Or heterosexual couples who for whatever reason cannot procreate. Should they be allowed to marry?

Also, since there will always be children who are orphaned for whatever reason (including the death of their parents which is a natural god-given fact of reality), then the act of procreation is no longer important and all that's important in those cases are finding devoted loving parents. Those parents should not be required to be any particular gender.

The problem with trying to put idealizations into law, is that ultimately there aren't any genuine idealizations. Monogamy is not naturally better than polygamy, for example. There are a lot of animal species that procreate on the "Trophy" basis (that's a term used by biologists to describe animal species where the males tend to fight for control over harems of females, and this is quite natural in nature.

This idea that humans do best as monogamous couples, is a human ideal, and not necessarily a cosmic ideal at all. In fact, I highly question any mythological God who favors monogamy yet has designed many animal species that don't adhere naturally to monogamous behavior. As I say, there are geneticists who will argue that large polygamist families can actually be healthier from a genetic point of view.

In fact, I just watched a lecture on the human genome, and they were pointing out the fact that years go families used to be quite large. Not only in terms of individual couples having large amounts of children, but also their children having large amounts of children and grandchildren in turn. That type of behavior used to be the norm, and people also remained locally so there was much (distant incest) going on which is actually a good thing genetically. By "distant incest" I simply mean 3rd and 4th cousins often marrying and having children.

In today's modern age family units have become quite small. Usually only 2 or 3 children at most, and seldom 10 or more.

Geneticists actually see that as a 'breakdown' of the family units in terms of procreation.

The other thing two, is that because these small family aren't largely extended we are no longer getting the benefit of "distant incest" (which is actually a very healthy thing in terms of genetic evolution). People tend to marry far outside their original families and also travel large distances away from the original families.

This whole ideology that it's good to have small monogamous families in today's modern age may actually not be a good thing genetically speaking.

Genetic diversity is good to a point, but when it's broken up so drastically as it is in today's modern trends it actually has an 'unhealthy' effect on the masses in general.

So whether making laws aimed toward preserving family units is a good thing or now is open to much debate. We might actually be genetically better off by encouraging polygamy with larger family units. Buy instead we actually outlaw that behavior.

we still want people to be able to SUPPORT their family, which is hard enough with ONE set of kids

I am also not of the mind that PROCREATION is the only reason people do or should make bonds, as many infertile couples are married

I am only stating that in MARRIAGE the REASON That the male female bond should be upheld as a uniquely exclusive bond is because it is the bond from which life comes


that for me, sums up why marriage as an institution has solid ground to promote and encourage such bonding

other bonds shouldnt be illegal or banned but certainly shouldnt be put beside that which creates life as 'equally' significant to the community

I think that says a lot too about how drastically life has changed since these archaic and obsolete social conventions got started.

Years ago it was actually advantageous to have large families. People often farmed as a family and the more 'family worker' the better. So having large families was actually 'financially' or productively better.

However, today with our societies that are dependent upon a social economy and working for companies having large families is actually quite expensive and often not even a reasonable thing to do. Especially if the family is going to have to put the kids through college, hoping they do well there, and then hoping they do well in the work place.

The whole basis of family 'units' has broken down because lifestyle no longer revolve around family farming, etc.

Kids quickly move away, and get their own careers, etc. They are only related by name, but not by lifestyle anymore.

In a very real sense the whole idea of 'family units' is a meaningless concept in today's modern world. About all it amounts to anymore is a matter of having larger family 'reunions' once in a while for a fleeting day or weekend.

If we want to reestablish the true value of a 'family unit' we really need to return to a lifestyle where families are once again living off the land, growing their own food, making their own clothes, etc.

I'm all for that, but in today's modern world that's hard to do even for those who desire it.

In short, those old-fashioned family values are pretty well shot. And they aren't likely to return unless there is a world-wide financial collapse that is so intense that it renders technology useless thus forcing everyone to go back to living off the land in primitive ways.

This may be a dumb question but I'm going to ask it anyways.

On the subject of family, since Eve was made from Adam's rib, would she not be Adam's flesh? Would that not make her related to Adam?

No, i'm honestly not being a jerk, I'm just asking something that I have always wondered.

I would like to think that marriage has evolved beyond this idea that it is only for procreation purposes seeing as how you do not need to be married in order to get pregnant. Having children has only ever relied upon a couple ability to have intercourse, not whether they can get married or not. Marriage is supposed to be about spending the rest of your life with someone you love and wish to grow old with. Instead it is more about your gender than about whether you love a person or not.

Even if I were heterosexual I would never marry someone for the sole purpose of having kids. My mom proved to me that you don't need marriage to raise a good family. Just need loving parents (gay or straight) and patience.

if marriage is only about love, I go back to my original question of why we dont also allow siblings in love to marry, or teenagers in love with adults to marry,


would it be acceptable to people if we mandated that such couples first receive birth control to make sure they didnt produce children with defects?

would it be acceptable if we took out the procreation altogether and just looked at the love aspect and the union without children

brother and sister who cant have kids...ok?
father and daughter who cant have kids ...ok?


I support any couples personal choice to bond with whomever they choose, but I still see no other bond worth the promotion and encouragement of government besides the one which produces life(which is a pretty SIGNIFICANT factor , regardless of how many try to downplay it,,,)

The Adam and Eve story is most likely just man-made mythology like everything else. It never happened, and thus asking serious scientific questions about genetics would be a moot point.

The story is silly to begin with because it flies in the face that the creator already had a plan to begin with. If the creator had already planned to create both man and woman, then the creator would have most likely created them side-by-side. The idea that woman was an afterthought is already an implication that the creator is just experimenting around not sure what his ultimate plan might be.

So these fables need to be taken with a gain of salt. In fact, let's not forget that these same fables have God turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. So how silly does this story get anyway?



The original laws were no doubt made with religious superstitious beliefs in mind to begin with. So in answer to your question of we don't allow for certainly things, it's probably because superstitions have been wide-spread for many eons.

I think the whole institution of marriage shouldn't even be a legal matter at all. There's religious "Holy Matrimony" which is clearly a religious concept, and then there are civil unions and contracts which should be viewed from a more governmental point of view.

Again, you ask things like, "why do we allow or not allow certain things by law?"

Well the answer to that question is quite easy. Historically the Church an religious superstitions were often the very basis for making laws.

Those days are over and now we need to move forward, not look back to repeat the same superstitious mistakes we've already made in the past.

Religion and superstition needs to be set aside, and we must now tackle these issues head-on on their own merit.

What about China?China has over a billion people.Nearly everyone is Atheist.The country always has been Atheist.Atheist is the official religion.Do they not have marriage in that country and have always had marriage in that country since it's founding?

You keep blaming religion over and over yet fail to look at marriage around the world and more importantly countries with populations 3 times what Americas is.

Does China support same sex marriages?No.China is strongly opposed to homosexuality including sending them to jail.

Hard to blame religion on the denial of same sex marriage when you have over a billion people in China alone who do not believe in God or have any religion at all.

You really need to stop blaming religion for this problem.Homosexuality is not accepted anywhere in the world no matter what country you are looking at.Religon may play are part in this issue but it certainly isn't the main factor as any Atheist from China will tell you.

It's funny that you should suggest that China is an atheistic nation since I just took a course on religion that traced various religions through China and how the Chinese contributed to those religions.

In fact that FAT Buddha image is actually a Chinese image. Buddha wasn't depicted as being FAT in India where Buddhism had originated. There were actually quite a few different religions running through China.

You are aware that both Taoism and Shamanism originated in China? Two very different religions. Tantra Buddhism is also said to have been heavily influenced by Chinese religious beliefs, even though it worked it's way back into India and became.

It's not surprising to me thought that you would view the Chinese as being atheistic since it is often the Christian view that mysticism = atheism.

Although many Chinese have incorporated personified Gods into their mysticism, and those influences may have actually come from the Mediterranean region.

In any case, whether it be religious based, or merely prejudiced based, I doubt very seriously that it was based on any genuine open-minded intellectual considerations.

It can truly be hard to draw a line between superstition, religion, and just outright prejudices. After all, is is human superstition and prejudices that created our religions in the first place.

Finally, is China a FREE DEMOCRACY? If not, then your speaking about a communistic dictatorship and all that amounts to is the prejudices of a few people in power being pushed onto the masses in general.

If we're going to speak about what laws should be in a FREE DEMOCRATIC society then we should stick with looking at those kinds of societies. Communistic dictatorships only reflect the opinions of those few people who dictate what the laws should be.

I wonder what the masses of Chinese would actually have to say about these laws.

A quick question regarding


There are currently many tax incentives, and government programs and other legalities that provide benefits to parents. Should those laws ONLY pertain to MARRIED couples who have children?

China has always had a diverse religious population. Religion was only outlawed for a short time but Freedom of religion was reinstated aftere the cultrual war in the 1970's.

Today the larger religions are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism.

Their equivalent to our constitutions included the words that marriage is between one man and one woman. But there have been ongoing attempts to amend that law.

Homosexuality is niether supported or nor promoted by the government. Religion has nothing to do with their law. But China is in the midst of great change and there is growing support among the population for the homosexual community.

It should be noted that the majority of religious proponents are not of Judeo-Christian affilations. That may make a big difference in how quickly homosexuals gain recognition in China.

It might also be noteworthy, that nonprofit organizations do not YET exist and there are no 'social' benefit programs exept for higher education which is totally paid or by the government. For those who teach at the university level and those who become a 'Party' official there are retirement benefits, everyone else either works for a life-time or is cared for by family members.

Perhaps THAT is the reason there is little divorce and especially today with strict population control, it is even more important for people to stay together becasue they have only one child (two if a farmer)on whom to depend for support in their old age.

no, if they are intended for parents, than marriage shouldnt be a requirement

If you remove marriage from the equation, you can still have children. Being married does not grant a special child bearing priviledge that no one else gets. A good number of my friends are single parents that have never been married.

Any wedding I have ever been to was due to the bride and groom being in love with each other. Why would you agree to spend the rest of your life with someone if you only really need 18 years to raise a child?

It just seems silly to me to base my entire life around 18 years, adn what about infertile couples? Should they not be allowed to marry simply because they can not have children? Why do we feel that we have the right to tell people who can and can not get married? Shouldn't that be their decision alone?

IF I ever decide that I want to get married, I would hope that I am marrying for love and not for some archaic way of looking at life.

Marriage is a unifying ceremony between a man and a woman deep in love that wants to spend eternity together.

Humans can have no clue what "eternity" can even mean.

Most couples seldom make it through human adult life together which would be far less than a mere 100 years at best.

Humans can't have a clue what it would be like to be devoted to a single other human for even a mere 1000 years, much less for 10,000 or 100,000 or a million years, much less for eternity.

The very idea that what humans do in a very short spurt of time, often quite significantly less than 100 years will somehow determine their continued existence for all of eternity is truly an absurd and asinine idea really.

And what about the people who never found their soulmate? I wanted to be 'married' by the time I was in my late teens. But not just for the sake of being 'married'. Marriage wasn't what I was seeking, but rather I was actually seeking a soulmate that I felt so compatible with that I would truly desire living with that person as a singular wholesome 'couple' for the rest of our Earthly lives and potentially into some after life.

But guess what? I never found that soulmate. This most certainly doesn't reflect that idea that I wasn't interested, on the contrary that has always been my life's greatest dream and ambition. I just never found that special partner. At least not one who was also single, available, and felt the same way about me. It takes two to Tango.

So what happens when I die and go to heaven? Do I have to remain single for the rest of eternity? Or will God provide me with that perfect soulmate that I could never find during my Earthly life?

If the latter is true, then maybe not finding her here was the best thing that ever happened to me.

But then what about our kids? We wouldn't have had any kids during out time on Earth. Would we then get to have children in heaven? After all, isn't the "Family Unit" suppose to be the whole focal point of all this talk of divine purpose, etc.?

The problems that this God will be facing with his 'gift' of eternal life seems to be tremendous if you ask me. Especially considering that he failed to make the game plan crystal clear to the souls he created in the first place.

There are so many problems associate with this dream of an eternal life. What about families where only one of the married couple EARNS his or her way into heaven, and the other one falls short of EARNING Grace?

So much for their 'eternal plans'.

It just seems like a really complicated sweepstakes game. I can't be judged in this life on how good or poor of a spouse I've made because I never married. I can't be judged in this life on how good of poor of a parent I've made because I never had children. Kind of like Jesus, I haven't really done much to be judged on.

What becomes of the broken-hearted in an eternal heaven?

Surely there must be some single people who make it to heaven. So do they need to then remain single for eternity, or are they awarded the perfect divine soulmate?

If that's the case then people would be far better off to never marry on Earth in the first place. But then according to the religion they shouldn't be procreating outside of wedlock. The whole thing becomes a dead-end. Don't pick an Earthly mate because you could do better in heaven, and therefore don't procreate because you're not married, and suddenly the whole game comes to a screeching halt.

It just doesn't seem like a very efficient system for a supposedly 'all-perfect' creator.

Where's the efficiency and great wisdom in all of this?

The chaotic random meaninglessness of the Atheism seems to fit the picture of what's actually happening far better then the idea that some 'all-perfect' creator designed this as some sort of eternal plan.

I mean, if we're going to stand back and just look at the big picture then Atheism certainly appears to have the better description of what's actually going on.

If this is a 'divine plan' it sure doesn't appear to be very well planned out.

marriage is not required for anything, technically


I think on gp that the institution of marriage encourages men and women who might normally bond to make it official and COMMIT to each other legally and publicly,,,,for the purpose of giving children solid foundation(not the only form but the only AGREED upon form)


but perhaps technically the government should stop aknowledging marriage for anyone and just aknowledge parenting,,,,

let those who want 'commitments' have them, with no recognition for doing so from the government

men and women could bond in whatever way they chose and same sex could bond and it would be nobodys 'business' but their own

Im sure my christian friends would still acknowledge my being married the same as the same sex crowds would aknowledge their marriages

and then everyone could be happy and noone could claim government was violating their 'right' to be married(which has never really been a right,, but ,,thats another topic)

And with the divorce rate in America at about 66%, it's a pretty short eternity. But hey, who's counting, right?

Besides, you can slip the Vatican a few thousand dollars and get an annullment. God will forget it ever happened...

-Kerry O., "Just ask Mel Gibson."

Well that's Jesus' calling card isn't it? Forgiveness and forget?

Repent and your "sins" will be washed away with the blood of Christ.

I wonder if marrying the wrong person qualifies as a "sin"?

Just exactly how are two people supposed to know that they are genuinely compatible enough to even want to live together for eternity if they haven't even lived together at all first?

The whole idea of marrying someone that you haven't even lived with yet seems like a ludicrous idea to begin with.

I like the Witch's traditions of handfasting for a year-and-a-day. I couple basically marry for a year-and-a-day to see how things are going to work out. After that time they can either decide to continue to consummate their relationship, or simply part ways.

Of course, the idea is not to have any children during that time. Doesn't mean they can't have "sex". They should just be responsible about it.

The mere fact that people get pregnant when they haven't planned to only tells me that most people are either completely irresponsible, or simply aren't intelligent enough to know how to take reasonable precautions. Religion has nothing to do with that. That has more to do with pure stupidity.

In fact, if people hadn't treated sex with such an ignorant attitude for so many millennium we probably wouldn't be having the sexual rebellion that we're having today.

Religions is what made sex 'filthy'.

Young adults should be taught how to mutually satisfy each other without even having a need for intercourse. The only reason that most people require intercourse for sexual satisfaction is because they're basically ignorant about sex to begin with.

Religion made sex 'ignorant' by keeping people 'ignorant' of it by basically making it a "sin" to even discuss the topic between anyone who isn't married.

Ummmm, no. A 61 year old man suggesting that 5th graders take a "circle jerk" class is what makes sex "filthy". Wasn't the last time you said something like that in a thread that got pulled?



That sir, offends my sensibilities!