[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Is there a species restriction? And must all parthers be alive or even born at the time of the marriage. And, if the 'number 1' is eliminated (2 people), why restrict it to '2 or more'? How about less then 2? This way, many people could marry themselves to great tax advantage and personal enjoyment.

The possiblities are endless. Think about possible 'honorary marriages'. A public personality could be married by his or her entire fan club membership. Or, a future dictator could marry the entire country population.

See post #10... I am interested in all of your thoughts on it...

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

The familiy institution, as we know it - heterosexaul, monogamous - is a 'de facto' state of affairs in our society. I agree that monogamy is not the only possible heterosexual family arrangement but 'our family' is monogamous. Of course, monogamy is in peril if we agree to see ourselves as a 'multiculturally diverse' type of human amalgamation instead of a 'Western', largely Christian nation.

On the other hand, there is no example anywhere in the world and at any time in the past of 'homosexual' families. We know that people used to seek pleasure in fornicating with children or humans of the same sex, or with animals, or corpses, or with themselves but such practices never turned into 'families'.

The 'homosexual family' would be something completely knew and probably impossible to sustain. Its only drivers - tax and other 'welfare society'-type 'benefits'.