>>>>>>I'm surprised that you equate a bond between man and a man equal to that of a bond between a man and a woman.
>>>>>
>>>>>So marriage is genital-based?
>>>>
>>>>It's a biblical thing. We wouldn't understand.
>>>
>>>I'm trying to be on your side. I'm for marriage of all kinds. Why just stop at gay marriage. Lets allow all kinds of marriage (gay, polygamy etc...) with some minor restrictions. After all, who are we to judge?
>>
>>I agree. Though, I think you aren't really trying to be on my side. ;) I think you're really mocking the concept.
>
>Yes and no.
>
>
>>
>>Anyway, as long as the partners are all of an age that they can reasonably understand the ramifications of their decisions, and it doesn't affect my life, then any objections I might make would really be just so much personal dogma. I'm not much into dogma.
>
>>I think that rules out marriage with children since just about every place has laws that mandate the age a person must be to make legal decisions.
>
>That can be challenged and not if a liberal judge, somewhere someday, has his say on it.

If that's the case, then what's the point in making laws to make such marriage, or homosexual marriage (which is what this is really all about) illegal in the first place?

>
>
>>
>>Marriage between siblings? I think we already know where procreation between siblings leads, so the legal rule should be about procreation, not about marriage.
>
>Just make it a law that married siblings are not allowed to have children of their own.
>Infact, mandatory sterilization. :) Ouch.

Doubt the sterilization issue would fly, but perhaps just making it unlawful for siblings to bear each others children. I don't know if that would fly either, but since there is scientific evidence that this can leads to very real problems in the children, then maybe it's worth a shot.

>And if you think marriage is about procreation, what does that mean for the homosexuals?

I don't.

>>I know the bible says that marriage is strictly for procreation, but in this day and age, I think that's no longer true. As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of marriage is to make sure, as much as possible, that certain legal rights are accorded to the partners.
>
>I believe the institution of marriage was setup to promote the best chance for a stable family unit.... especially for the children.

And the purpose of needing a 'stable family unit', if not a religious concept? Somewhere along the line, I think that we lost the real purpose of trying to make sure the children are raised to be responsible adults (responsible to society), and instead promoted this fantasy land idea that as long as the parents are strictly heterosexual, then everything will be roses.

>>Having said that, I can't really see any point to marriage between a person and his or her pet. I doubt the pet would be able to make use of such legalities.
>
>I never said anything about pets/animal. You think I'm nuts? :)

Somebody did. I don't recall who; so I was just covering it off.

>>As far as polygamy is concerned, again, if it really is a workable idea (which I kind of doubt), then I say let them have their fun - my life won't be changed by it.
>
>I think polygamy was outlawed becuase a typical man can't possibly support all the children that may result from such union(s). Again, for the best for the children and society.

I don't disagree, and that's why I said 'workable'. Personally, I don't believe it is.