** As a graduate with Honors (Golden Key National Honor Society) from FSU (The Florida State University) -- and the resultant holder of a B.S. degree (Double Major: Biological Science / Chemical Science), I've indeed studied which ingredients comprise the best recipe for romance ... and marriage. (And, I've, of course, been curious as a human being having taken on human form ...) MARRIAGE: Second in importance to Nothing! except the Almighty Creator GOD!!!

OK, let's kick it off with a short quiz: one question (and, no peeking!)

Which is best (over all other methods) for romantic success?
a) Things in common between man and woman
b) Opposites attract
c) neither a. nor b. is a factor

(I know some people will say "The LORD's will" or "fate," but, the Lord would want us also to use wisdom, and we cite our reference for those who trust & believe the Bible: The Book of Matthew, Chapter 10, Verse 16 says: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." So, put on your thinking cap: we need an answer, and here it is ...)

ANSWER: a) Things in common.

Yeah, I know, some of you will say "I'd get bored with someone like myself." Well, here's what I say to that: You do the studies and see which works best. The more similar, the better they get along; the less similar, the worse, the research indicates. I cite an expert for The Register's reference here. (Warren, N.C., Finding the Love of Your Life: Ten Principles for Choosing the Right Marriage Partner, Pocket Books, pp. 48-49, ISBN 0-671-89201-0)

Now, I directly quote Dr. Neil Clark Warren, PhD. and Christian Psychologist/Author: "Principle #3: Make sure the person you marry is very similar to you." (Ibid., p. 162)

*_MY_* PRINCIPAL POINTS (not Dr. Warren's here) to be made:
((( #1 ))) Similar Personalities build stronger relationships -- romantic and otherwise.
((( #2 ))) Similar Appearances are "more attractive."
((( #3 ))) Similar Blood Types avoid Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn -- the Rh-incompatibility disease.

Dr. Warren was a dean of Fuller Theological Seminary's Graduate School of Psychology, author of books, one of which is available from Focus on the Family Publishing, and a featured guest on radio and TV, including Geraldo and The Oprah Winfrey Show.

He is a trained expert to be sure; yet, he researched other studies to check the facts. Check out what he uncovered: (Please, don't consider this a copyright infringement, Pocket Books; these are only selected for review and academic purposes, according to law.)
"J. Phillippe [see note about spelling below] Rushton, a professor at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, summarizes a considerable body of research:

Several studies have shown that not only the occurrence of relationships but also their degree of happiness and stability can be predicted by matching of personal attributes.

Finally, after a careful review of the literature, researchers White and Hatcher conclude:

Clinical studies available indicate that similarity is associated with marital success and is less associated with marital instability and divorce. Evidence suggests that dissimilarity per se is associated with instability and divorce." (Ibid., p. 49)

Note about spelling for above: I, editor Gordon Watts, found many web pages spelling Mr. Rushton's first name two ways: "Phillippee," and, more commonly with only one "p" as "Phillipe." Thus, even thought Dr. Warren uses the less common spelling, it seems ok to me: it stays as is.

Dr. Warren lists as important or "absolutely essential" the following similarities (pp.53-54):
Intelligence (not Education); Values; Intimacy; Interests; and, Expectations about roles. (It is noteworthy to note that he didn't list ethnic background or race as essential to compatibility. Marriages are usually within the same ethni-racial and religious background, but I and other researchers are not prejudiced nor inflexible.)

Some "Differences that spell trouble" include:
Energy level; personal habits; use of money; and, "verbal skills and interests." (There is "interests" again!) He also cites flexibility as a quality or trait that can compensate for a multitude of differences.

Finally, Dr. Warren lists among his other principles that one must not be too young, too impatient, must not marry someone with a behavioral problem, must learn to be intimate, to resolve differences, be comfortable with your decision, wait for a deeper love, consider advice from friends, relatives, and so on. This list I am citing IS NOT comprehensive for his book. (The Register only does a book review to support the claims being made here; We will leave the rest to his book since we do not hold copyright.)

His claims, however, are supported, by a U.S. News & World Report quote I found: "More than 90 percent of all people marry and, they typically chose mates who closely resemble themselves, from weight and height, to intelligence and values, to nose breadth and even earlobe length." (p. 59 of the July 19, 1993 issue)

The implication above is that the natural tendency for persons is to gravitate towards those similar to them is beneficial. The implication is supported by the evidence.

OK, how about some support from the Bible? (Don't cringe, atheists: we must consider all the facts.) * Genesis 2:22: "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
TRANSLATION: Woman is from man -but *not* the same gender: She must be female. (I don't mean this in any way to disrespect or insult homosexuals -I love homosexuals and gays, yes, I do, but I am straight, not gay. LOL)

Amos 3:3 says: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" This is a rhetorical (obvious) question: the answer is a resounding "No."

--> From the New Testament, I just now realized: IT AGREES:
1st John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

This is significant, since we are the 'bride of Christ,' and the bride and groom are SIMILAR: Look at that again: We shall BE LIKE Him [Jesus].

This accords with 2nd Corinthians 6:14, which says: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:..."

Yes, the 'significant other' has to be saved ALSO (read: Spiritually 'SIMILAR'), but it is much more that that -THAT is why Dr. Warren and I do our respective research!

Also, I, editor Gordon Watts, cite my own informal but scientific personal study. It seems to confirm the other studies. But before you take my word too far, let me point out that since it is "good," therefore it ** IS ** from God! My scripture reference:
The Book of James, Chapter 1, Verse 17 "Every **GOOD** gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." ~ WHICH AGREES WITH: Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are *TRUE*...think on **THESE** things." (I ask you: Is Dr. Warren's research not true and good? ~ But of course: Think on THESE things - I rest my case.)

How imprinting affects young birds' later sexual preferences: SOME CONFLICTING DATA POINTS!
Here, we see the effect of imprinting on apparent sexual selection of birds. (It is only apparent because the birds may only want to spend time with similar birds for non-sexual reasons.) It is a well-known fact among biologists that experiences of animals when they're young will influence the thing that they consider "mother" or "mate." In fact, ethological biologist Konrad Lorenz, one of the first scientists to do imprinting experiments, is famous for convincing young gosling birds the he was their mother as shown by their following him. He also convinced a male jackdaw bird (similar to a crow) that he was its mate as evidenced by the bird's attempts to shove chewed-up worms in Lorenz' mouth to feed its "mate." (How the bird was raised trains the bird to look for mates similar to its parents, which, of course, would lead it to other birds similar to itself. Aren't humans kind of like that? We tend to look for someone like our parents when we marry, don't we?)

The picture to the right shows the result of imprinting. The genetic code of the birds, then looks for "similar" mates. This supports my theories. But, look! -- There's a fly in the ointment (conflicting data!). The birds' preference for other birds seems to decrease/decline as the prospective mate is *very* similar. This rather opposes or conflicts with my theories here. Oh well, as an honest scientist, I must present ** all ** the data, even if it disagrees with my hypotheses. Yet, these birds may be an anomalous (unusual) case. OK, I say that given more studies, most (but not all) animals will show more attraction as they are more similar. Perhaps, we humans should learn a lesson and take a cue from our less advanced winged neighbors here and see the value in common interests.

(Source for the picture, Figure 8.15, along the right-hand margin of the screen, the bird attraction graph: Goodenough, J., et al., Perspectives in Animal Behavior, Publishers: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 0-471-53623-7, p. 268. Other data: ibid, pp. 261-269.)

And, also, don't the intuitions and gut feelings also bear witness to these claims? But, there are some popular misconceptions that must be addressed first:
some say that people start looking and acting like one another after they get married. The Holy Books tell us that two become one, and they Do, but, we are only so flexible as humans. Stop and consider: when is the last time you saw an old high school friend start looking (or acting) like his or her spouse? Maybe, they were older, heavier, and/or grayer haired, but really, anything else? Didn't think so! So, the moral of the story is this: Don't assume something without careful study, consideration, and input from others as well! Especially something as important as Romance. (Please pardon my sentence fragment or non-standard capitalization of "Romance" etc.)

And, intuition tells us that couples will never get bored because of being "too similar" due to sexual attraction! Both emotional attachment and physical attraction will always be positive factors. When added to our efforts AND a similar core of values & personalities, the end result is ... compatibility. Now, did y'all get all that?

This just in:
WJZT-FM Stereo 100.7 MHz (Smooth Jazz 100.7), a Tallahassee radio station, has what is called "Romance Connections" or something like that. The reason I mention it? Because, according to the advertisement, their compatibility software matches people by making sure only persons who AGREE on at least 95% (that's ninety-five percent!) of 'things' are 'connected.' What those "things" are is currently unknown, but it probably consists of personality traits and 'likes-and-dislikes.' As a matter of fact, many dating services match people based on similar interests. Thing that make you go "Hmmm..." (E.g., maybe I'm right about my theories, here.)

Good luck on your 'Romance Connections,' Smooth Jazz.

The bottom line: 'Things in common' and Honesty are good in relationships.

It is the simple things of romance that work: Effort and consideration for all parties' feelings. Just remember: if we try to get "perfect matches" in organ transplants (ugh! yuk! the tissues themselves sure aren't perfect!), then should we not also try for the same "similarities" in romance too?

One last point: just as in a heart transplant, the heart needs a body, NOT another heart; thus, the male needing a female & vice versa is only logical. This supports the heterosexual (straight) method, but I am not prejudicial nor against the love of our homosexual fellow citizens. They are beautiful people too. Indeed, in some cases, their homosexuality protects them from "straight" heartbreak until the right moment. We straight people, I must confess, probably have more fatal lovers' quarrels than our gay neighbors. I don't say for certain on this point, but I sure don't like our approximately 50 to 55 percent divorce rate here in the United States now-a-days.

PS: Please see my 'Debate' page for further info about AIDS/HIV/.and./AZT. Apparently, some people may have missed this section of my website, but you just scroll on down to the bottom, and click on it there. PS: A recent email to me from a doctor I'll keep anonymous, suggested that the influence of genetics was stronger, and that the influence of environment was weaker, in causing homosexuality, than I have estimated. (I estimate a 50/50 split, based on recent research that I have read.) I will research this claim as I have time -- and it may be true, as many other personality traits are VERY strongly influenced by genetic makeup, as shown by the STRONG similarities in the personalities, preferences, and behavior of identical twins that are raised in separate environments -- and by separate families for most of their lives. But, here is *this* section's info about Homosexual-related topics:

A little bit more needs to be said about homosexuality to do justice to the topic & people wanting info on the subject:

CAUSES: To the best of my memory, I recall that some of the causes of homosexuality are bad childhoods, particularly abusive or absent relationships with the father -- true for both male and female children. This makes sense in light of the findings that homosexuality is about 50% influenced by environment. But, remember that with hormones and other bodily chemicals influenced by genetic composition of each person, it's not surprising that identical twins who are separated at birth and grow up apart are later found by scientists to be VERY SIMILAR in many personality characteristics.

(Most other personality traits were found to be virtually identical in identical twins separated at birth and raised apart. Thus, most other personality traits may be considered to be nearly 100% controlled by inherited genes. On another note, the average intelligence for persons of one race is not measurably different from those of another race, when considering the different opportunities and oppression experienced by different races. It could be, but, as it turns out, it is not. Yet, two brothers raised together usually have DIFFERENT personalities, but not as different as non-relatives.)

Other Causes of Homosexuality: It then seems reasonable that bad adulthoods could push one to homosexuality. In fact, I've read several magazines that indicated well-known homosexual Ellen DeGeneres had some heartbreak with some guy. It is unclear who was at fault, or if they were just "incompatible."

The conclusion of these findings, however, is that people can get burned and become sensitive, pushing them to look for a "cooler" or "slower" relationship. (I personally don't favor a homosexual love life, and I think it's another form of impatience in addition to the fact guys are not attractive -and women are. Yet, "straight" heartbreak can be bad!)

Abuse can make one sensitive -- too sensitive -- to the hard bumps and fast twists (no sexual puns, thank you) of the fast drive down love lane.

So, the CONCLUSION of the matter is this: for people of any sexual orientation, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As they say, prevention is the best medicine. "Marriage classes," which I hear the State of Florida now mandates for people seeking a marriage license, are good for looking for a cure for "differences" in opinion, whether it be money matters or sex, but what about prevention? Thus, I advise you check out The Register's web page, which apparently you already did -- but, this time with the theme in mind to NOT BE IMPATIENT. You might research the scientific studies to see what has worked for other people. Yes, science can help you by letting you learn from ** other ** peoples' mistakes -- or successes, and not your own, ouch! You can also check my references for accuracy and completeness.

Speaking of sexuality, here below are two links to Gemma's Twilight Zone. Gemma is a hermaphrodite, born with both male and female attributes, that is, transsexual or with LACK of sexual orientation. Also known as the Transexual Zone, her story is found at...

http://freespace.virgin.net/gemma.brunswick

and

http://www.oocities.org/WestHollywood/Cafe/2899

Remember points two (2) and three (3) above? Well, on point #2, the claim that similar appearances are more attractive, I will only offer scant evidence: see the quote below that says: "Scientists have long known that people typically chose mates who closely resemble themselves in build..." This supports the intuition that "birds of a feather flock together." Yes, people sometimes find that "opposites" are exciting, but this facination with the different is usually short-lived. That covers all I say about point 2, but what about point 3?

Knowing your blood types can prevent Kell or Rh Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn (and other blood mis-matches will do this, too!) should you ever become pregnant. What is a "hemolytic disease?" Well, when the mother is Rh-Negative, this means that she has NO genes for Rh-Positive, thus hinting that the father should NOT either. And...? Sure enough, if the father does, then the baby might be Rh-Positive, and he/she would provoke an immune response from the mother's immune system, which is unfamiliar with the Rh antigens. The baby would probably survive due to the slow response time of the immune system -- this due in part to the fact that the woman would not have "broken blood" until late in the pregnancy. However, the second child, if Rh-Positive, will usually get attacked by the mother's immune system. Thus, in those cases, which comprise about one out of seven pregnancies here in USA, the mother is typically given antibodies that are strong enough to destroy the any antigens leaking out of the baby but not strong enough to actually kill the baby. This way here, the mother's immune system remains unaware of the problem.

You might ask, "What happens if both the parents each have one gene for Rh-Positive and one for Rh-Negative?" This would make it appear that the matching of two similar partner (both "Rr" for the Rh-gene) -- and both Rh-Positive as this is a "dominant" trait -- well, this possibility makes it look as if they could have an "rr" or Rh-Negative child whose immune system would attack his/her mother's Rh-blood antigens. But, you see, this is just not so. Why? ... Well, it's like this: First, the child's immune system is not yet strong enough to detect the mother's blood antigens. Second, the child's immune system, even if it could detect something, is not yet strong enough to go on the offensive. Third, the child's immune system, even IF provoked, will probably NOT come in contact with that scenario again as would the Rh-Negative mother above. To illustrate, recall that type-O blood CAN be infused into a type-A individual even though it possesses antibodies. This is usually NOT a problem because the amount of antibodies in the transfused blood is small as it is usually just a liter or so. But, if the type-A blood is given to a type-O person, then the full defenses of all of the body's blood come into action and there is a major problem. So, where does that leave us? ...?

MORAL of the STORY: Marry someone who is a LOT like you if you want to be successful here.

Now, about that breaking news about the three day "waiting period" for licenses:
Here's the deal: because of our monstrously high divorce rate (Florida, about #1 in crime in the US, surprisingly has only about a 50% divorce rate like the rest of the nation)... well, ... because of that high divorce rate, legislators have passed this bill. Couples can bypass the 3-day wait and, possibly get a small discount on fees by taking a pre-marital preparation course. The law suggests (but does not require) it cover such areas as financial issues, conflict management, communication skills, and parenting.