Christine the Lioness (3122)
Christopher the Pyro (1986)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1253)
Trouble the Pirate (601)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (533)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
John1040 the Soldier (59)
Andy Dabydeen the Virgin asserted
Homophones — the same group that have made lesbian and hetrosexual anal sex such a hit in the porn industry and the internet.
Christopher the Pyro spake, and sayeth
Well I’ve helped make lesbian sex popular also! 
Christine 2 the Mercenary hunt n' pecked this
I like this list.
Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this
Christopher’s right… after 18 months of his shit, I’m ready to give up dick and start eating pussy! 
Ben the Kingpin added
Abolish marriage entirely.
Every union between “adult humans” become “civil unions”–and you can even have “civil unions” that involve more than two “adult humans” at a time.
Laws govern all “civil unions” and the breaching of the contract carries specific penalties and rules (ala “divorce”–also abolished).
If you want a “marriage” (or a “divorce”), then you go to your local cleric after your “civil union” (or “civil union dissolution”).
Simple as that. Fixed. Society is now perfect.
Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this
Well… it’s not quite that simple.
Under Ben’s theory… marriage is solely a religious institution and not a legal one. But in reality, it is recognized as a legal one first and foremost and only a religious one if both entities in the marriage see it as such (agnostics and aetheists have never been barred from getting married).
AND… marriage is intended to be more than simply a contractual agreement between two people. If it were as Ben described, we could enter in and out of them freely and even include termination dates in our civil unions. Marriage is supposed to be based on values, respect, commitment, love. And I believe those feelings that are more difficult to define than any clause you’d read in any contract, can happen between two people whether it’s a man and a woman, two men, or two women. And because it’s more than just a “civil union,” I think that’s why lots of gays want the right to be married… they don’t see a “civil union” as duly representing the institution they want to enter into.
Ben the Kingpin commented
Christine,
I disagree. A “marriage” is a life-long covenant sanctioned by God.
It has evolved to include secular concepts, but as a nation that is supposed to be separating Church and State, we should separate religious institutions from civil institutions–and marriage is definitely, clearly rooted in religion.
Thus, all relationships should be defined civilly. What’s wrong with putting in an escape clause? What do you call a “no contest divorce”? Remember when we used to have to have “reasons” to divorce? Like “irreconcilable differences”? In your own state of California you can have a divorce for the sole reason of “I don’t want to be married anymore.”
Might as well make a civil union, pre-nupt, post-nupts, turn it over to the lawyers and if you want to have a “marriage”–then go to a priest, pastor, cleric, mullah, Bob or whatever and have them say some mumbo-jumbo to make you “married.”
However, to keep things fair and non-discriminatory, you need to reduce it all to the common denominator: Everyone–gay, straight, whatever–get “civil unions”. Write it up in civil law. Treat it as a contract. Make it as tight or as loose as you like. Tie in 2 or more people (group unions would be possible), define parental rights as part of the arrangements and let the religions who want to bless and condone the relationships pick and choose as they see fit.
Christine the Lioness stated
Ben, it is only sanctioned by “God” for those who believe in God. The ancient Romans and Greeks had marriage as well… and they didn’t believe in the same monotheistic God you believe in. So it didn’t “evolve” in the way you’re trying to suggest.
Trouble the Pirate hunt n' pecked this
Unions between animals have existed in nature from the beginning of time as we know it. They have many forms; sexual and symbiotic, monogamous and polygamous, hetero and homosexual, and serve a plethora of interests such as; procreation, companionship, safety, solidarity, or even despotism. Unions between humans were patterned after these animalistic ones [as we too are animals,] and instituted long before Christianity was developed. They were formed for similar reasons; companionship, protection, increasing wealth, dominion and power, and extending lineage etc? Historically, homosexual relationships were encouraged between men in the greatest armies the world has known, notably the Macedonians who kick?d [and dick?d] more than their fair share of ass, because it was found they fought with more conviction when defending their ?tent-buddies??
Christianity popularized the notion of the ?lifelong? bond called marriage between man and woman, the main reason was to distance the relatively new religion from its pagan predecessors, which incidentally, supported such crazy notions as; equality between men and women, communal property, sexual freedom etc? Whilst protecting the assets of the church which was deeply intertwined with state [as it still is in some countries?]
Back in the days when humans only had to remember a few things like; what plants were poisonous, which animals wanted to eat us [and more importantly? which ran faster than us], how many shekels to pay for a good horse, how to make fire to cook our food, and what metal made the sharpest sword, etc? Much time could be devoted to the research and experimentation of our sensual and sexual relationships? Nowadays with so much more occupying our minds and time, we have very little room left in our brains to contemplate such expansive topics, it?s just safer to be closed minded about it. Narrow things down to the nitty-gritty, leaving the mind more opportunity to contemplate the things that really matter, like; whether eating Fugu is worth the risk, do sharks attack surfers more than swimmers, how much the new Ford Mustang costs, how to work the new halogen/microwave oven and whether or not our governments are spending too much on building/searching for WMD.
The history of marriage is fairly irrelevant; If a country claims separation of church and state, then it should practice what it preaches. You can?t make the claim, if your Commander in Chief prays for God?s council before sending a few hundred thousand boys off to fight a war, or if you place a monument of the bible in the courtyard of a legislative building, or allow the puritanical, religious right to be one of the most powerful lobbyists in the governmental system? Either come out of the proverbial confessional, and admit that one?s country is run by religious zealots, or take steps to cut the umbilical chord that binds them together? I?m inclined to agree wholeheartedly with Ben on this one? Democratically elected Governments cannot please all of the people all of the time, their decisions, whether supporting or resisting the peoples? concepts, should be rooted in practicality? Marriage is a dying concept [look at the stats in the USA alone where over 60% end in divorce] does the Government keep it on ?life-support?, or just do the humane thing, and pull the plug?
Christine the Lioness pontificated
I agree with you, Trouble, that marriage existed long before Christianity and even after Christianity became popular, the institution of marriage was more about creating political alignments and securing wealth than about love. And because it had nothing to do with love, or God, or religion, many men and women had lovers on the side to get the sex and affection they needed.
In terms of separating Church and State… yes I agree it should be separate. Marriage from the state’s point of view is a legal, binding agreement. Each state sees it differently, but once you are married in that state, you are subject to that state’s laws defining marriage and the break up of it (ie– community property states, spousal support, exemption from testifying in court against your spouse, etc.). So it is inarguably an institution governed by the state. Now… many people also make it a religious institution as well. They could be married by a justice of the peace, but they choose to be married by a minister or priest or rabi. That’s their choice. And however they choose to see their marriage defined by religion is also up to them. Catholic religion does not allow for divorce. Do Catholics get divorced? Sure. That’s because when it comes down to it, the state’s ability to sanction a divorce overrides the church’s voice that divorce is not allowed. And this is as it should be.
Legal institutions are simply words on paper. It is the people involved that make it more if they want to make it more. The law says John and Mary can get a divorce tomorrow if they choose. It’s up to John and Mary (who could possibly influenced by their religion among other things) to decide to stick it out and work through their marital problems instead of opting for a divorce. Does that mean John and Mary shouldn’t view their relationship from their religious perspective simply because marriage is also a legal institution? Not at all… that would be stupid. But to say that it’s only a religious institution and not a legal one is simply not true.
Trouble the Pirate penned this
Christine, I was more pointing out that ‘marriage’ WAS instituted by nature… NOT religion or the law [both human concepts]… The ‘Law’ of nature pre-existed, and allows for many types of unions, even those considered ‘unnatural’ by modern humans who think we know better than good ole ‘mother’ nature…
Humans live by rules, legal rules, and spiritual rules, we construct these rules, because our brains need the restrictive confines, because they are too powerful, they would run rampant and we end up insane, because we do not possess the ability to completely control our own thought processes on our own, unaided. Look at serial killers, dictators, and terrorists for example, they succumb to their instinct and shun society’s rules… Most have been found to possess genius level I.Q.’s… These are results of broken fences, chinks in the mental armor caused by an erosion of our confining laws.
So when things around us do not follow the rules we have invented, we must either force them to comply, amend the rules to encompass the new concept, or get rid of those particular ‘unruly’ elements. There are very few options, a choice has to be made to maintain the social order that we perceive and depend upon for our sanity.
The Pepsi paradox… Naked natives of the rainforest, completely self-sufficient and self-governing when discovered… Are introduced to Pepsi and chocolate by missionaries… They give up their way of life to live in squalor on the outskirts of town, begging for money to buy Pepsi, because they do not possess the specific skills needed to survive in that modern alternate society, they become a blight on the same community that has invited them in.
By our very nature, we will take something that is completely natural and self-sustaining, and because it doesn?t fit within the concepts we?ve formed, we corrupt it in one way or another, knowingly or unwittingly? Change it to suit us, out of fear and ignorance?
I?m saying that marriage IS neither a religious nor legal institution, the very concept of marriage transcends our gods and laws? These two particular ?institutions? have corrupted the very concept of natural union, subjected it to our Pepsi and chocolate? Fated it to extinction? This whole debate is the last-ditch effort to push the bloated, heaving whale-carcass back into the water?
Christine the Lioness asserted
OMG… imagine what would have happened if they’d given those natives Coke instead.
Trouble the Pirate added
They couldn’t taste the difference…:”>
Christine the Lioness quibbed this
I was just kidding, darlin’…
Trouble the Pirate thought this
So wuz I hotstuff… 
Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
