Let's come up with our own government!

[Professor Smooth]

As far as religion goes, I say go for it. But religions will not be granted any special privilages. No tax-exemptions, for example.

Marriages... Marriages can be performed by churches, but are also state-approved civil-unions.

Civil Unions...what are we allowing? Man and Woman? Man and Man? Man and Two Women? Five Dudes? Man and Animal? Woman and Child? Relatives? Any age restrictions?

[Kaylee]

As far as religion goes, I say go for it. But religions will not be granted any special privilages. No tax-exemptions, for example.

Marriages... Marriages can be performed by churches, but are also state-approved civil-unions.

Civil Unions...what are we allowing? Man and Woman? Man and Man? Man and Two Women? Five Dudes? Man and Animal? Woman and Child? Relatives? Any age restrictions?

I saw religions may be allowed to practice marriages and other ceremonies as they wish- however to be recognised by the state a couple must also undertake a legal 'contract'.

Marriage is basically a legal contract identifying adults as adhering to a particular relationship. I don't see why that should be restricted to just couples, we could have different classes of legal relationships for all sorts of things- a legal 'ceremony' for a foster child to be adopted by their new parents for example, or for a group of individuals to unite under one family name as a unit why not?

When you leave behind the religious concept of marriage suddenly you have a wide variety of possible legal contracts people may wish to enter into. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.

[Professor Smooth]

Do we need "marriage" at all? Perhaps the concept, as a whole, is outdated.

[Predabot]

Anyone who has aided and abetted the career of Jon Bon Jovi gets shot as soon as they set foot on our soil though.

NOOO!!! Why the hatin' on my beautiful hair-metal??

Do we need "marriage" at all? Perhaps the concept, as a whole, is outdated.

If it means that I will be allowed to move my 15 pseudo-wives here and utilize them legally then I'm all for it. Legalizing some form of union would be useful however, since I have promised my first-born daughter to the fiftieth son of Shaitan.

[Kaylee]

Do we need "marriage" at all? Perhaps the concept, as a whole, is outdated.

Sounds good to me. Like I was saying, perhaps just some form of legal contract stating the nature of their relationship such that the state is aware of it (next of kin rights, pensions etc.).

[Professor Smooth]

If it means that I will be allowed to move my 15 pseudo-wives here and utilize them legally then I'm all for it.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's not illegal (in the US) to live with 15 women whom you have a sexual relationship with. It's just illegal to try to marry them all. Which is...odd...

[sprunkner]

Marriage:

Marriage within society generally encourages fidelity and personal responsibility for offspring. Unless we are going to provide some kind of tribal culture where the children are raised by the community, marriage seems like a good idea to me. The notion of an ultimate commitment within a relationship allows for healthier and often deeper relationships. And it allows for children who can perceive themselves as part of a valuable commitment. It doesn't have to be called marriage, but using the word marriage recognizes all the associations involved.

Polygamous relationships are a difficult matter. In looking at polygamous marriages, there are several different factors that cause trouble: 1) the creation of the father figure as a definite authority. It is hard to say that there is an equal partnership in a group of five; usually one person must have final say to maintain order. Also, the authority leads into 2) religion. While gay marriage is apparently outside religion, it is difficult to find polygamists who are not religous. As such, they can often proclaim "God told me to marry your fifteen-year old daughter," or even "God has given me your wife and daughters. Take your male children and get the hell outta Dodge."

A polygamous relationship could theoretically work under a few rules-- one being the approval of the first spouse over all additional partners. In a polyandrous relationship, this would be the first husband, in polygynous, the wife. It also may be wiser to allow these later spouses greater divorce privileges-- so if it appears that they are being forcibly oppressed within a system of authority, they are given an easier route out.

I like Impy's idea of serious religious education. If children are given a chance in school to understand and observe the practice of almost all major world religions, they will be less likely to dismiss things out of a dogmatic observance of one particular faith.

[Professor Smooth]

We need a flag. Any thoughts on a flag?

[Kaylee]

Marriage:

Marriage within society generally encourages fidelity and personal responsibility for offspring. Unless we are going to provide some kind of tribal culture where the children are raised by the community, marriage seems like a good idea to me. The notion of an ultimate commitment within a relationship allows for healthier and often deeper relationships. And it allows for children who can perceive themselves as part of a valuable commitment. It doesn't have to be called marriage, but using the word marriage recognizes all the associations involved.

Polygamous relationships are a difficult matter. In looking at polygamous marriages, there are several different factors that cause trouble: 1) the creation of the father figure as a definite authority. It is hard to say that there is an equal partnership in a group of five; usually one person must have final say to maintain order. Also, the authority leads into 2) religion. While gay marriage is apparently outside religion, it is difficult to find polygamists who are not religous. As such, they can often proclaim "God told me to marry your fifteen-year old daughter," or even "God has given me your wife and daughters. Take your male children and get the hell outta Dodge."

A polygamous relationship could theoretically work under a few rules-- one being the approval of the first spouse over all additional partners. In a polyandrous relationship, this would be the first husband, in polygynous, the wife. It also may be wiser to allow these later spouses greater divorce privileges-- so if it appears that they are being forcibly oppressed within a system of authority, they are given an easier route out.

I like Impy's idea of serious religious education. If children are given a chance in school to understand and observe the practice of almost all major world religions, they will be less likely to dismiss things out of a dogmatic observance of one particular faith.

I'm not convinced how legal polygamy or permitting other forms of 'marriage' would really be any different to allowing divorce- families can still break up and a child may have to handle multiple parents, one parent or a unique family dynamic. One way or another it's state sponsored, why not recognise that rarely is the optimum situation the one that happens and make allowance for it?

As for a flag, I'm seeing a chimpanzee sitting on a toilet. Doing a Victory sign. No objections to that, I hope?

[Predabot]

We need a flag. Any thoughts on a flag?

Surely, the wreckers modded Autobot-symbol from Botcon should suffice? Or naturally, since it's logical, Shockers ugly mug that we already have.