This is one of the most insane posts I've ever read.
You "made an old gag about no sex after marriage"? No. You didn't. Pathetic attempt at an excuse.
As for the rest of your post, how in the world did you come to any of these outlandish conclusions from my statement that "By the way, being an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with love of family. No doubt. Or do you think only believers love their families? " Your ridiculous rant would be amusing if it weren't just so crazy.
Let me give you a tip. When a sentence begins with the words, 'Seriously, though', that is a clue as to the nature of the previous sentence/s.
The sentence, 'Then people marry and the sex stops', was the sentence immediately previous to the words, 'Seriously, though'.
Let me know if you are still unclear as to whether it was a joke or not.
Incidentally, your claim that your model is the only acceptable model of 'happily married' is once again naive and misconceived. There are plenty of couples who are happily married and don't have much sex. for example, because of things like prostate cancer, diabetes, heart trouble, etc., etc. Then there are those happy to live as carers to their relatives, or as a gay couple, or where the woman has just had a baby and her hormones aren't in the mood, or, even <gasp> as single.
So please think before claiming you are the golden mean as to what is 'normal sex'. Your being an atheist is completely irrelevant. It was you and acbytesla who brought up the argument, 'It's Christians who hate the idea of Amanda Knox sleeping around promiscuously, and it is because of their ideology'.
Wrong. It is a recognised behavioural disorder of psychopathy.
Yes, many students sleep around, but how many actually go into explicit detail in 'MySpace' or write half a book about it as though they invented it?
Fact is, Knox was writing rape-porn long before she even got to Perugia.
Raff said he wanted 'extreme experiences', so no doubt the pair thought they'd try out their depraved fantasies whilst no-one was home but Mez.