Now that gays can get married, do you really want to get married?

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

I think you should be able to get married to anyone or anything you want, including your dog, your horse, or a bunch of people. Of course, that includes polygamy and legalizing threesomes and foursomes.

On the other hand, it may be argued, why get married? I'm married and I couldn't care less that she's alive or dead. I mark the box that says "separated." Getting married means the government sanctions your union, and perhaps because of it, both institutions are equally dysfunctional.

Perhaps we should turn to Jesus for guidance. Did he ever get married? Him and Mary Magdalene are said to have had a torrid affair. Who cares, right?


-----------------------------------------------------------------

"The jungle has never been this much fun!"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

[Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I think you should be able to get married to anyone or anything you want, including your dog, your horse, or a bunch of people. Of course, that includes polygamy and legalizing threesomes and foursomes.
On the other hand, it may be argued, why get married? I'm married and I couldn't care less that she's alive or dead. I mark the box that says "separated." Getting married means the government sanctions your union, and perhaps because of it, both institutions are equally dysfunctional.
Perhaps we should turn to Jesus for guidance. Did he ever get married? Him and Mary Magdalene are said to have had a torrid affair. Who cares, right?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The jungle has never been this much fun!"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

Why he didn't get stoned to death according to the disposition of Moses Law
once caught in affair?
YOU GUYS TALK LIKE FOOLS

What, gays who are NOT getting married should be stoned to death?

If Jesus was having an affair with Mary Magdalena as the poster affirmed and this affair was known to the Public, they both -Jesus and Mary - would have been stoned to death under Moses Law. In other words, the poster is making it up.
LEARN TO READ FOR COMPREHENSION.

This sounds as extreme as Sharia Law, doesn't it?

Perhaps more. Neither Moses Law nor Sharia Law are very practical in this sense. Perhaps if you are not married neither law applies.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

And he was married.

Well, he had an affair or twenty. I don't think he spanked the monkey.
We are discussing the fact that he had an affair with Mary Magdalene.

One of the ancient texts reportedly discovered fairly recently
basically says Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had at least one
or two children. This text was of course one of those left out of the
Bible simply because the conmen church leaders creating their book of
fairytales didn't like what it said.
Of course, since he was technically the first Christian priest, he
probably also sexually abused a lot of choir boys and his apostles too
(which brings a whole new meaning to the "bread" being his "body" in
the Last Supper).

A man that denies his sex drive is more likely to commit sexual aberrations. A normal guy has sex with women.

[High Miles]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

And he was married.

Well, he had an affair or twenty. I don't think he spanked the monkey.
We are discussing the fact that he had an affair with Mary Magdalene.

One of the ancient texts reportedly discovered fairly recently
basically says Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had at least one
or two children. This text was of course one of those left out of the
Bible simply because the conmen church leaders creating their book of
fairytales didn't like what it said.
Of course, since he was technically the first Christian priest, he
probably also sexually abused a lot of choir boys and his apostles too
(which brings a whole new meaning to the "bread" being his "body" in
the Last Supper).

A man that denies his sex drive is more likely to commit sexual aberrations. A normal guy has sex with women.

Normal ????
Who's in charge of assigning that label ?

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by High Miles

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

And he was married.

Well, he had an affair or twenty. I don't think he spanked the monkey.
We are discussing the fact that he had an affair with Mary Magdalene.

One of the ancient texts reportedly discovered fairly recently
basically says Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had at least one
or two children. This text was of course one of those left out of the
Bible simply because the conmen church leaders creating their book of
fairytales didn't like what it said.
Of course, since he was technically the first Christian priest, he
probably also sexually abused a lot of choir boys and his apostles too
(which brings a whole new meaning to the "bread" being his "body" in
the Last Supper).

A man that denies his sex drive is more likely to commit sexual aberrations. A normal guy has sex with women.

Normal ????
Who's in charge of assigning that label ?

The High Council! ;)

Well, sex is normal among people. Monks and priests are not normal.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I think you should be able to get married to anyone or anything
you want, including your dog, your horse, or a bunch of people.
Of course, that includes polygamy and legalizing threesomes and
foursomes.
On the other hand, it may be argued, why get married? I'm
married and I couldn't care less that she's alive or dead. I
mark the box that says "separated." Getting married means the
government sanctions your union, and perhaps because of it,
both institutions are equally dysfunctional.
Perhaps we should turn to Jesus for guidance. Did he ever get
married? Him and Mary Magdalene are said to have had a torrid
affair. Who cares, right?

Marriage ....
The US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case, is a funda-
mental right, and responsibility, of consenting individuals.
In that light, it views marriage as a fundamental right that
must be recognized, not "sanctioned", by governments.
In particular it can't be *denied* by governments of states.
Family is an important institution in modern society. When a
spouse works, and the other one desires to stay home, he/she
must have spousal insurances (health, properties, etc.), and
retirement benefits. And when a spouse becomes sick or faces
death, the other one must have the powers to take all necess
-ary actions. A family is also the legal basis for children,
before they reach the legal age. When a child is sick and go
-es to a hospital for treatment, for example, one recognized
"parent" must sign a consent for his/her treatments. Similar
-ly, legally only a family can be allowed to adopt a child -
not two persons that are legally "unrecognized" and "unrelat
-ed".
Legally, those are instituted by modern governments, through
family laws. The basis of family, is the recognized marriage
between two individuals. And the basis of a marriage are two
The responsibility to fulfill ....

Do gays qualify as a family or as an union in search of recognition?
It sounds likw recognition. And what is it sacred about the number "two"? Why not polygamy?

Now my divorce costs me much more than my union. Why? Is the government trying predation on us? There's no property or valuables. I would support the union expiring every 5 years if not renewed, not unlike a driver's license.

Otherwise young people should live together for a long time before taking the plunge. Beware of the trap!

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I think you should be able to get married to anyone or anything
you want, including your dog, your horse, or a bunch of people.
Of course, that includes polygamy and legalizing threesomes and
foursomes.
On the other hand, it may be argued, why get married? I'm
married and I couldn't care less that she's alive or dead. I
mark the box that says "separated." Getting married means the
government sanctions your union, and perhaps because of it,
both institutions are equally dysfunctional.
Perhaps we should turn to Jesus for guidance. Did he ever get
married? Him and Mary Magdalene are said to have had a torrid
affair. Who cares, right?
Marriage ....
The US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case, is a funda-
mental right, and responsibility, of consenting individuals.
In that light, it views marriage as a fundamental right that
must be recognized, not "sanctioned", by governments.
In particular it can't be *denied* by governments of states.
Family is an important institution in modern society. When a
spouse works, and the other one desires to stay home, he/she
must have spousal insurances (health, properties, etc.), and
retirement benefits. And when a spouse becomes sick or faces
death, the other one must have the powers to take all necess
-ary actions. A family is also the legal basis for children,
before they reach the legal age. When a child is sick and go
-es to a hospital for treatment, for example, one recognized
"parent" must sign a consent for his/her treatments. Similar
-ly, legally only a family can be allowed to adopt a child -
not two persons that are legally "unrecognized" and "unrelat
-ed".
Legally, those are instituted by modern governments, through
family laws. The basis of family, is the recognized marriage
between two individuals. And the basis of a marriage are two
The responsibility to fulfill ....
Do gays qualify as a family or as an union in search of
recognition? It sounds likw recognition. And what is it
sacred about the number "two"? Why not polygamy?
Now my divorce costs me much more than my union. Why?
Is the government trying predation on us? There's no
property or valuables. I would support the union
expiring every 5 years if not renewed, not unlike a
driver's license.
Otherwise young people should live together for a long
time before taking the plunge. Beware of the trap!

No one ....
Is forcing anyone to get marry. It has to be between consent
-ing adults of legal age. Cohabitation is certainly a choice
for many. While marriage is an option for many who value re-
sponsibilities to each other. Which was previously denied by
many governments in the USA before yesterday's Supreme Court
landmark ruling.
Yesterday, it ruled that all states had to stop doing that.
Marriage, is a legal contract between two individuals. Which
is recognized in courts. And divorce is the annulment of the
contract. Which can be done at anytime and anywhere, between
two consenting adults who have a valid marriage contract. So
in that light, a timed contract is quite unnecessary. And it
makes things a bit less messy for forgetful couples.
Can one imagine all the extremely serious legal consequences
that follow, when one is bringing his/her child to the emerg
-ency room for treatment. Only to be informed that he/she is
not any longer a legal guardian of the child because his/her
marriage contract expired? How about when one's spouse died,
and the state confiscated his/her properties - leaving noth-
ing for the family because their timed marriage contract ex-
pired?
Many countries in the world, the Islamic ones in particular,
do recognize polygamy. However, it's unlikely that they have
equal rights conferred between man and women. And it's quite
unlikely that in those countries, one woman is allowed to be
marrying many men.
Moreover, the "head" woman, and the rest of the harem, quite
likely are accorded unequal rights. But one really has to ex
-amine the Sharia law carefully to understand exactly how it
works.
Currently, the USA does not recognize polygamy - because the
US Supreme Court never had such constitutional challenge be-
fore it. Even if someone were to bring that to the court the
constitutional rights to individuals would be a very complex
issue. Because polygamy, by its very nature, appears to vio-
late the US Constitution. Since it appears to confer unequal
rights to all the individuals in the marriage contracts. So,
in that light, it would most likely be struck down by the US
Confers unequal rights to all individuals involved ....
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Rancho del Canto, Paso Robles, California.

I hope this means another nail in God's coffin. He was definitely OK with polygamy but staunchly opposed to homosexuals.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I think you should be able to get married to anyone or anything
you want, including your dog, your horse, or a bunch of people.
Of course, that includes polygamy and legalizing threesomes and
foursomes.
On the other hand, it may be argued, why get married? I'm
married and I couldn't care less that she's alive or dead. I
mark the box that says "separated." Getting married means the
government sanctions your union, and perhaps because of it,
both institutions are equally dysfunctional.
Perhaps we should turn to Jesus for guidance. Did he ever get
married? Him and Mary Magdalene are said to have had a torrid
affair. Who cares, right?
Marriage ....
The US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case, is a funda-
mental right, and responsibility, of consenting individuals.
In that light, it views marriage as a fundamental right that
must be recognized, not "sanctioned", by governments.
In particular it can't be *denied* by governments of states.
Family is an important institution in modern society. When a
spouse works, and the other one desires to stay home, he/she
must have spousal insurances (health, properties, etc.), and
retirement benefits. And when a spouse becomes sick or faces
death, the other one must have the powers to take all necess
-ary actions. A family is also the legal basis for children,
before they reach the legal age. When a child is sick and go
-es to a hospital for treatment, for example, one recognized
"parent" must sign a consent for his/her treatments. Similar
-ly, legally only a family can be allowed to adopt a child -
not two persons that are legally "unrecognized" and "unrelat
-ed".
Legally, those are instituted by modern governments, through
family laws. The basis of family, is the recognized marriage
between two individuals. And the basis of a marriage are two
The responsibility to fulfill ....
Do gays qualify as a family or as an union in search of
recognition? It sounds likw recognition. And what is it
sacred about the number "two"? Why not polygamy?
Now my divorce costs me much more than my union. Why?
Is the government trying predation on us? There's no
property or valuables. I would support the union
expiring every 5 years if not renewed, not unlike a
driver's license.
Otherwise young people should live together for a long
time before taking the plunge. Beware of the trap!
No one ....
Is forcing anyone to get marry. It has to be between consent
-ing adults of legal age. Cohabitation is certainly a choice
for many. While marriage is an option for many who value re-
sponsibilities to each other. Which was previously denied by
many governments in the USA before yesterday's Supreme Court
landmark ruling.
Yesterday, it ruled that all states had to stop doing that.
Marriage, is a legal contract between two individuals. Which
is recognized in courts. And divorce is the annulment of the
contract. Which can be done at anytime and anywhere, between
two consenting adults who have a valid marriage contract. So
in that light, a timed contract is quite unnecessary. And it
makes things a bit less messy for forgetful couples.
Can one imagine all the extremely serious legal consequences
that follow, when one is bringing his/her child to the emerg
-ency room for treatment. Only to be informed that he/she is
not any longer a legal guardian of the child because his/her
marriage contract expired? How about when one's spouse died,
and the state confiscated his/her properties - leaving noth-
ing for the family because their timed marriage contract ex-
pired?
Many countries in the world, the Islamic ones in particular,
do recognize polygamy. However, it's unlikely that they have
equal rights conferred between man and women. And it's quite
unlikely that in those countries, one woman is allowed to be
marrying many men.
Moreover, the "head" woman, and the rest of the harem, quite
likely are accorded unequal rights. But one really has to ex
-amine the Sharia law carefully to understand exactly how it
works.
Currently, the USA does not recognize polygamy - because the
US Supreme Court never had such constitutional challenge be-
fore it. Even if someone were to bring that to the court the
constitutional rights to individuals would be a very complex
issue. Because polygamy, by its very nature, appears to vio-
late the US Constitution. Since it appears to confer unequal
rights to all the individuals in the marriage contracts. So,
in that light, it would most likely be struck down by the US
Confers unequal rights to all individuals involved ....
I hope this means another nail in God's coffin. He was definitely
OK with polygamy but staunchly opposed to homosexuals.

Many conceptual confusions ....
In just two simple sentences. Firstly, it's not at all clear
that God is a "He", a "She" or an "It". Secondly, one should
be very clear about the differences between society's and re
-ligion's views on marriage. The former it is law and rights
It is not clear that "God" "definitely is OK" with polygamy.
For one thing, except for a small tribe in S. China, this hu
-mble netter has never seen a woman marrying many men - any-
where else in the world. And in the Bible, it's always a man
with many wives. For the Chinese tribe all properties belong
to the woman, and they are passed along to her first daught-
er. Her husbands have to work, and live in a separate house.
Sons are chased out of the family, when they reached certain
age. This is not unlike a tribe of elephants. Which is matri
-monial.
Moreover, on homosexuals, even that prominent religious head
of the Catholic wold, the Archbishop of Rome said when asked
how he felt about homosexuals - "Who am I to judge!" In that
light, it is quite clear that the gentleman never heard that
his "God" is opposed to homosexuals.
Let alone doing so "staunchly" .... :)
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Rancho del Canto, Paso Robles, California.

'Sodom and Gomorrah have been used as metaphors for vice and homosexuality viewed as a deviation. The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages, including the English word sodomy, used in sodomy laws to describe a sexual "crime against nature" consisting of anal or oral sex...'

Sorry, God is against any deviation. We need to dethrone God. Perhaps adopting the Greek pantheon is the way to go.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Again, better to abandon the strict biblical god and embrace
the fun-loving Greek gods.
There are plenty of anti homosexual passages in the Bible.

Greek gods ....
Are not fun loving. They all have anthropomorphic qualities,
fixations and foibles. And abandoning the Biblical God, just
an FYI, is an extremely serious and glaring violation of the
very top item in the Ten Commandments. Which does not have a
single item on homosexuality, "plenty of homosexual passages
in the Bible" (let's assume it is true) notwithstanding. So,
in that light, the Bible appears to have better things to do
About homosexuality .... :)

While the Greek gods may feel like humans, God seems to be an old patriarch bent on eliminating every possible human deviation. You may go on worshiping him, but he's definitely anti homosexual and anti feminist. I know, those are big charges.

For example:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality

[High Miles]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I think you should be able to get married to anyone or anything
you want, including your dog, your horse, or a bunch of people.
Of course, that includes polygamy and legalizing threesomes and
foursomes.
On the other hand, it may be argued, why get married? I'm
married and I couldn't care less that she's alive or dead. I
mark the box that says "separated." Getting married means the
government sanctions your union, and perhaps because of it,
both institutions are equally dysfunctional.
Perhaps we should turn to Jesus for guidance. Did he ever get
married? Him and Mary Magdalene are said to have had a torrid
affair. Who cares, right?
Marriage ....
The US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case, is a funda-
mental right, and responsibility, of consenting individuals.
In that light, it views marriage as a fundamental right that
must be recognized, not "sanctioned", by governments.
In particular it can't be *denied* by governments of states.
Family is an important institution in modern society. When a
spouse works, and the other one desires to stay home, he/she
must have spousal insurances (health, properties, etc.), and
retirement benefits. And when a spouse becomes sick or faces
death, the other one must have the powers to take all necess
-ary actions. A family is also the legal basis for children,
before they reach the legal age. When a child is sick and go
-es to a hospital for treatment, for example, one recognized
"parent" must sign a consent for his/her treatments. Similar
-ly, legally only a family can be allowed to adopt a child -
not two persons that are legally "unrecognized" and "unrelat
-ed".
Legally, those are instituted by modern governments, through
family laws. The basis of family, is the recognized marriage
between two individuals. And the basis of a marriage are two
The responsibility to fulfill ....
Do gays qualify as a family or as an union in search of
recognition? It sounds likw recognition. And what is it
sacred about the number "two"? Why not polygamy?
Now my divorce costs me much more than my union. Why?
Is the government trying predation on us? There's no
property or valuables. I would support the union
expiring every 5 years if not renewed, not unlike a
driver's license.
Otherwise young people should live together for a long
time before taking the plunge. Beware of the trap!
No one ....
Is forcing anyone to get marry. It has to be between consent
-ing adults of legal age. Cohabitation is certainly a choice
for many. While marriage is an option for many who value re-
sponsibilities to each other. Which was previously denied by
many governments in the USA before yesterday's Supreme Court
landmark ruling.
Yesterday, it ruled that all states had to stop doing that.
Marriage, is a legal contract between two individuals. Which
is recognized in courts. And divorce is the annulment of the
contract. Which can be done at anytime and anywhere, between
two consenting adults who have a valid marriage contract. So
in that light, a timed contract is quite unnecessary. And it
makes things a bit less messy for forgetful couples.
Can one imagine all the extremely serious legal consequences
that follow, when one is bringing his/her child to the emerg
-ency room for treatment. Only to be informed that he/she is
not any longer a legal guardian of the child because his/her
marriage contract expired? How about when one's spouse died,
and the state confiscated his/her properties - leaving noth-
ing for the family because their timed marriage contract ex-
pired?
Many countries in the world, the Islamic ones in particular,
do recognize polygamy. However, it's unlikely that they have
equal rights conferred between man and women. And it's quite
unlikely that in those countries, one woman is allowed to be
marrying many men.
Moreover, the "head" woman, and the rest of the harem, quite
likely are accorded unequal rights. But one really has to ex
-amine the Sharia law carefully to understand exactly how it
works.
Currently, the USA does not recognize polygamy - because the
US Supreme Court never had such constitutional challenge be-
fore it. Even if someone were to bring that to the court the
constitutional rights to individuals would be a very complex
issue. Because polygamy, by its very nature, appears to vio-
late the US Constitution. Since it appears to confer unequal
rights to all the individuals in the marriage contracts. So,
in that light, it would most likely be struck down by the US
Confers unequal rights to all individuals involved ....
I hope this means another nail in God's coffin. He was definitely
OK with polygamy but staunchly opposed to homosexuals.

Many conceptual confusions ....
In just two simple sentences. Firstly, it's not at all clear
that God is a "He", a "She" or an "It". Secondly, one should
be very clear about the differences between society's and re
-ligion's views on marriage. The former it is law and rights
It is not clear that "God" "definitely is OK" with polygamy.
For one thing, except for a small tribe in S. China, this hu
-mble netter has never seen a woman marrying many men - any-
where else in the world. And in the Bible, it's always a man
with many wives. For the Chinese tribe all properties belong
to the woman, and they are passed along to her first daught-
er. Her husbands have to work, and live in a separate house.
Sons are chased out of the family, when they reached certain
age. This is not unlike a tribe of elephants. Which is matri
-monial.
Moreover, on homosexuals, even that prominent religious head
of the Catholic wold, the Archbishop of Rome said when asked
how he felt about homosexuals - "Who am I to judge!" In that
light, it is quite clear that the gentleman never heard that
his "God" is opposed to homosexuals.
Let alone doing so "staunchly" .... :)
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Rancho del Canto, Paso Robles, California.

'Sodom and Gomorrah have been used as metaphors for vice and homosexuality viewed as a deviation. The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages, including the English word sodomy, used in sodomy laws to describe a sexual "crime against nature" consisting of anal or oral sex...'
Sorry, God is against any deviation. We need to dethrone God. Perhaps adopting the Greek pantheon is the way to go.

Go back to goddesses, they're not so unreasonable.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by High Miles

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I think you should be able to get married to anyone or anything
you want, including your dog, your horse, or a bunch of people.
Of course, that includes polygamy and legalizing threesomes and
foursomes.
On the other hand, it may be argued, why get married? I'm
married and I couldn't care less that she's alive or dead. I
mark the box that says "separated." Getting married means the
government sanctions your union, and perhaps because of it,
both institutions are equally dysfunctional.
Perhaps we should turn to Jesus for guidance. Did he ever get
married? Him and Mary Magdalene are said to have had a torrid
affair. Who cares, right?
Marriage ....
The US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case, is a funda-
mental right, and responsibility, of consenting individuals.
In that light, it views marriage as a fundamental right that
must be recognized, not "sanctioned", by governments.
In particular it can't be *denied* by governments of states.
Family is an important institution in modern society. When a
spouse works, and the other one desires to stay home, he/she
must have spousal insurances (health, properties, etc.), and
retirement benefits. And when a spouse becomes sick or faces
death, the other one must have the powers to take all necess
-ary actions. A family is also the legal basis for children,
before they reach the legal age. When a child is sick and go
-es to a hospital for treatment, for example, one recognized
"parent" must sign a consent for his/her treatments. Similar
-ly, legally only a family can be allowed to adopt a child -
not two persons that are legally "unrecognized" and "unrelat
-ed".
Legally, those are instituted by modern governments, through
family laws. The basis of family, is the recognized marriage
between two individuals. And the basis of a marriage are two
The responsibility to fulfill ....
Do gays qualify as a family or as an union in search of
recognition? It sounds likw recognition. And what is it
sacred about the number "two"? Why not polygamy?
Now my divorce costs me much more than my union. Why?
Is the government trying predation on us? There's no
property or valuables. I would support the union
expiring every 5 years if not renewed, not unlike a
driver's license.
Otherwise young people should live together for a long
time before taking the plunge. Beware of the trap!
No one ....
Is forcing anyone to get marry. It has to be between consent
-ing adults of legal age. Cohabitation is certainly a choice
for many. While marriage is an option for many who value re-
sponsibilities to each other. Which was previously denied by
many governments in the USA before yesterday's Supreme Court
landmark ruling.
Yesterday, it ruled that all states had to stop doing that.
Marriage, is a legal contract between two individuals. Which
is recognized in courts. And divorce is the annulment of the
contract. Which can be done at anytime and anywhere, between
two consenting adults who have a valid marriage contract. So
in that light, a timed contract is quite unnecessary. And it
makes things a bit less messy for forgetful couples.
Can one imagine all the extremely serious legal consequences
that follow, when one is bringing his/her child to the emerg
-ency room for treatment. Only to be informed that he/she is
not any longer a legal guardian of the child because his/her
marriage contract expired? How about when one's spouse died,
and the state confiscated his/her properties - leaving noth-
ing for the family because their timed marriage contract ex-
pired?
Many countries in the world, the Islamic ones in particular,
do recognize polygamy. However, it's unlikely that they have
equal rights conferred between man and women. And it's quite
unlikely that in those countries, one woman is allowed to be
marrying many men.
Moreover, the "head" woman, and the rest of the harem, quite
likely are accorded unequal rights. But one really has to ex
-amine the Sharia law carefully to understand exactly how it
works.
Currently, the USA does not recognize polygamy - because the
US Supreme Court never had such constitutional challenge be-
fore it. Even if someone were to bring that to the court the
constitutional rights to individuals would be a very complex
issue. Because polygamy, by its very nature, appears to vio-
late the US Constitution. Since it appears to confer unequal
rights to all the individuals in the marriage contracts. So,
in that light, it would most likely be struck down by the US
Confers unequal rights to all individuals involved ....
I hope this means another nail in God's coffin. He was definitely
OK with polygamy but staunchly opposed to homosexuals.

Many conceptual confusions ....
In just two simple sentences. Firstly, it's not at all clear
that God is a "He", a "She" or an "It". Secondly, one should
be very clear about the differences between society's and re
-ligion's views on marriage. The former it is law and rights
It is not clear that "God" "definitely is OK" with polygamy.
For one thing, except for a small tribe in S. China, this hu
-mble netter has never seen a woman marrying many men - any-
where else in the world. And in the Bible, it's always a man
with many wives. For the Chinese tribe all properties belong
to the woman, and they are passed along to her first daught-
er. Her husbands have to work, and live in a separate house.
Sons are chased out of the family, when they reached certain
age. This is not unlike a tribe of elephants. Which is matri
-monial.
Moreover, on homosexuals, even that prominent religious head
of the Catholic wold, the Archbishop of Rome said when asked
how he felt about homosexuals - "Who am I to judge!" In that
light, it is quite clear that the gentleman never heard that
his "God" is opposed to homosexuals.
Let alone doing so "staunchly" .... :)
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Rancho del Canto, Paso Robles, California.

'Sodom and Gomorrah have been used as metaphors for vice and homosexuality viewed as a deviation. The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages, including the English word sodomy, used in sodomy laws to describe a sexual "crime against nature" consisting of anal or oral sex...'
Sorry, God is against any deviation. We need to dethrone God. Perhaps adopting the Greek pantheon is the way to go.

Go back to goddesses, they're not so unreasonable.

I have. Haven't you heard of the Banana Goddess?

When in the jungle you better have a jungle god or goddess. Here's the BANANA GODDESS (mother nature), who's worth praying to when there's nothing you can do. This goddess favors those trying to "burn the calories" and "have fun" in the jungle. Consider you are riding a bike and cars ignore you, just because the system doesn't make you a priority. You are there "praying" not to get hit. Get your gear right and make sure they know you are not alone in this struggle for survival. You don't want to be like this missionary:
One day in Africa, a missionary was walking around Bible in hand. All of a sudden a lion, who happened to be hungry, decided that the missionary was a fine meal and charged at him. The missionary went on his knees and prayed, "Jesus, make this beast stop." The lion stops and goes, "Thank you, Jesus, for this wonderful dinner!"

[High Miles]

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
I think you should be able to get married to anyone or anything
you want, including your dog, your horse, or a bunch of people.
Of course, that includes polygamy and legalizing threesomes and
foursomes.
On the other hand, it may be argued, why get married? I'm
married and I couldn't care less that she's alive or dead. I
mark the box that says "separated." Getting married means the
government sanctions your union, and perhaps because of it,
both institutions are equally dysfunctional.
Perhaps we should turn to Jesus for guidance. Did he ever get
married? Him and Mary Magdalene are said to have had a torrid
affair. Who cares, right?

Marriage ....
The US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case, is a funda-
mental right, and responsibility, of consenting individuals.
In that light, it views marriage as a fundamental right that
must be recognized, not "sanctioned", by governments.
In particular it can't be *denied* by governments of states.
Family is an important institution in modern society. When a
spouse works, and the other one desires to stay home, he/she
must have spousal insurances (health, properties, etc.), and
retirement benefits. And when a spouse becomes sick or faces
death, the other one must have the powers to take all necess
-ary actions. A family is also the legal basis for children,
before they reach the legal age. When a child is sick and go
-es to a hospital for treatment, for example, one recognized
"parent" must sign a consent for his/her treatments. Similar
-ly, legally only a family can be allowed to adopt a child -
not two persons that are legally "unrecognized" and "unrelat
-ed".
Legally, those are instituted by modern governments, through
family laws. The basis of family, is the recognized marriage
between two individuals. And the basis of a marriage are two
The responsibility to fulfill ....

Do gays qualify as a family or as an union in search of recognition?
It sounds likw recognition. And what is it sacred about the number "two"? Why not polygamy?
Now my divorce costs me much more than my union. Why? Is the government trying predation on us? There's no property or valuables. I would support the union expiring every 5 years if not renewed, not unlike a driver's license.
Otherwise young people should live together for a long time before taking the plunge. Beware of the trap!

One hundred percent agreement one both points.