All this marriage talk got me interested in the history of the tradition. So I googled the internet, and copied some of the more interesting comments.

>Perry,
> Gotta ask...
> Do you know this stuff by memory? Haha!
>
> Actually, quite interesting info. Thanks man!
>Steven-
>P.S. Feminist author Andrea Dworkin (labeled as 'radical') asserts that all marital sex is a form of rape. But again, she really is very "radical" because, in fact, I've know many self-labeled feminist women over the years and only one of them has agreed with this -- nonetheless, we were married for 5 good years. ;-)
>
>>Allow me to jump in here.
>>
>>Okay!!! Don't allow me, but's it's too late, I'm here.
>>
>>I believe our moral decay can't be traced to our forgetting the ideals our forebearers had in mind when they invented the institution of marriage. I believe that to truly reverse the decay that has befallen us, we must revert to the initial intent. Hence, we really need to go back to the beginning:
>>
>>- In 1076, Pope Alexander II issued a decree prohibiting marriages between couples who were more closely related than 6th cousins.
>>- From the 1690s to the 1870s, “wife sale” was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man. (This one I'm going to try tonite!!!!)
>>- Until 1662, there was no penalty for interracial marriages in any of the British colonies in North America. In 1662, Virginia doubled the fine for fornication between interracial couples. In 1664, Maryland became the first colony to ban interracial marriages. By 1750, all southern colonies, plus Massachusetts and Pennsylvania outlawed interracial marriages.
>>- Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.
>>- As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).
>>
>>Where our problems began:
>>- In 1978, New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. By 1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. In thirty-six states rape in marriage was a crime only in certain circumstances. In four states, rape in marriage was never a crime.
>>- In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia.
>>As a result of the decision, Virginia and fifteen other states had their anti-miscegenation laws declared unconstitutional. Those states were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.
>>
>>And here's a couple really interesting comments or homosexual relations throughout history:
>>
>>the Sambia of New Guinea have traditionally believed that for an adolescent boy to grow into a man, he absolutely must fellate an adult male and chug the semen down. I'm not making this up; see Gilbert H. Herdt, Guardians of the Flutes (Columbia University Press, 1981). Now you and I would see that as a kind of child abuse, but to the Sambians, it's just common sense. It's been that way for well over 3,000 years of their history. (You might want to ask yourself: does that 3,000 year record make it right?) Some ancient Greek tribes had a similar notion of the necessary reception of semen to make a boy a man, only with them it was an anal-routed process. (See works by Jan Bremmer, for starters, on this practice as an "initiation rite" among various Indo-European peoples.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>So marriage is:
>>>>>>>1) Genital-based
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is it also offspring-based?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, In some ways yes. It is a part of it.
>>>>>>Wait a moment how come you won't answer my question(s)?
>>>>>
>>>>>Pardon. No, I've not met a homosexual couple that have, of their own accords, given birth to children.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Man, I didn't think my opinion would stir up so much messages.
>>>>>
>>>>>Easy, nothing to worry about. I just want to see 'marriage' directly defined as you assert it. Is that a problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>So far...
>>>>>
>>>>>Marriage is (assuming two persons):
>>>>>1) Genitals-based
>>>>> One *must* have a vagina and one *must* have a penis.
>>>>>2) Offspring-based
>>>>> The two are disqualified if unable to produce offspring.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok Sam, your turn. Help me tweak this much before we move further.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm just answering your questions.
>>>
>>>And I appreciate it. Thank you.
>>>
>>>>Seems like you have problems anwsering your own question.
>>>How's that? Would you please help me define 'marriage' as *you* see it? I am quite serious an sincere about this.
>>>
>>>1) Genitals-based
>>> Tell me Sam, if a couple have same-sexed genitals, does this disqualify them of 'marriage' accoding to you? Yes/No or please describe specifically the "some ways" you mentioned above.
>>>
>>>2) Offspring-based
>>> If a couple is unable to produce offspring, does this disquality them of 'marriage' according to you? Yes/No or please describe specifically the "again, in some ways" you've mentioned above.
>>>
>>>Thanks so much Sam. I know this is difficult and I am *not* baiting or gaming you. I want desperately to see 'marriage' as you define it spelled out before me.
>>>
>>>Hey, this might be helpful: let's function just like we'd need to create a good VFP application? Let me explain -- how you define 'marriage' is, yes, your "business". And as this "business" owner, you are attempting to explain how this specific business practice called 'marriage' is to work. I'm your lowly software developer visiting for the "needs analysis". Namely, what does your business' 'marriage' gotta have to be a 'marriage'?
>>>
>>>Shall we?
>>>Thanks Sam,
>>>Steven-