father and daughter should be allowed to marry

[Amanda]

I love this topic.

I mean sure, you can bite the bullet and go along with it and be a considered a sick fuck by just about everyone, or you can man up and admit your hypocrisy.

The Left has been trying to be smug and claim some kind of moral superiority on the topic of gay marriage for so long, but this really presents an interesting conundrum.

So what's it going to be? Incest is a-ok or re-think that consenting adult thing? You can't be in favor of gay marriage and not be in favor of incestuous marriage without being a hypocrite.

This topic fucking rules.

Really, there is no logical or scientific connection between the two, it's twisting logic and reason in a perverted direction in an attempt to make something which harms no one sound bad. We can use the same logic twisting:

Do you support genocide?

If you don't then you don't support christianity. But if you do support christianity then you are vile or a hypocrite.

Who needs a scientific anything? The argument goes: If two people are consenting adults they should be allowed to do what they please, including getting married.

Ok, I believe that. I think that gays should have the right to a civil union. I think the term marriage should be strictly a religious term and everyone should be allowed to have a civil union. I think polygamous civil unions should be allowed. And I think consenting relatives (i.e. incest) should be allowed. Maybe I'm a sick fuck but I'm no hypocrite.

 

[KittenKoder]

I love this topic.

I mean sure, you can bite the bullet and go along with it and be a considered a sick fuck by just about everyone, or you can man up and admit your hypocrisy.

The Left has been trying to be smug and claim some kind of moral superiority on the topic of gay marriage for so long, but this really presents an interesting conundrum.

So what's it going to be? Incest is a-ok or re-think that consenting adult thing? You can't be in favor of gay marriage and not be in favor of incestuous marriage without being a hypocrite.

This topic fucking rules.

Really, there is no logical or scientific connection between the two, it's twisting logic and reason in a perverted direction in an attempt to make something which harms no one sound bad. We can use the same logic twisting:

Do you support genocide?

If you don't then you don't support christianity. But if you do support christianity then you are vile or a hypocrite.

I disagree. I have always thought gays should have the right to marry but this IS a monkey wrench.
How do we constitutionally prevent a consenting adult from marrying his adult daughter?

Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.

 

[mattskramer]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

WRONG, the left and the Gays have INSISTED that the ENTIRE issue rests on 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Thus using that argument and that logic, it makes incest between two CONSENTING ADULTS JUST AS VALID. And it opens the door to Polygamy since that is also CONSENTING ADULTS.

THAT has been the entire argument, that 2 consenting adults that love one another should be free to marry one another with the State's blessing. That anything short of that is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. If that is true then 2 consenting INCESTUOUS people also have the EXACT same argument. And anyone that previously USED that argument for Gays has no grounds to NOW claim it does not apply.

The argument has also been that what 2 CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their home is no business of the Government when it comes to sex. AGAIN that applies to INCESTUOUS Couples.

All of you that have argued for Gay rights are HYPOCRITES if you do not now support Incest and marriage between family members using the EXACT arguments you used to justify Gay marriage.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Uh. No. His shouting, gross generalization and fallacious domino theory reasoning did not leave any mark.

 

[manu1959]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

WRONG, the left and the Gays have INSISTED that the ENTIRE issue rests on 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Thus using that argument and that logic, it makes incest between two CONSENTING ADULTS JUST AS VALID. And it opens the door to Polygamy since that is also CONSENTING ADULTS.

THAT has been the entire argument, that 2 consenting adults that love one another should be free to marry one another with the State's blessing. That anything short of that is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. If that is true then 2 consenting INCESTUOUS people also have the EXACT same argument. And anyone that previously USED that argument for Gays has no grounds to NOW claim it does not apply.

The argument has also been that what 2 CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their home is no business of the Government when it comes to sex. AGAIN that applies to INCESTUOUS Couples.

All of you that have argued for Gay rights are HYPOCRITES if you do not now support Incest and marriage between family members using the EXACT arguments you used to justify Gay marriage.

The polygamy issue can be avoided by making the law state that marriage is between two people.

but the eight of us love each other......you are denying us the same rights as everyone else that loves each other and want to be married.....how does this hurt anyone....

 

[alan1]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

WRONG, the left and the Gays have INSISTED that the ENTIRE issue rests on 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Thus using that argument and that logic, it makes incest between two CONSENTING ADULTS JUST AS VALID. And it opens the door to Polygamy since that is also CONSENTING ADULTS.

THAT has been the entire argument, that 2 consenting adults that love one another should be free to marry one another with the State's blessing. That anything short of that is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. If that is true then 2 consenting INCESTUOUS people also have the EXACT same argument. And anyone that previously USED that argument for Gays has no grounds to NOW claim it does not apply.

The argument has also been that what 2 CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their home is no business of the Government when it comes to sex. AGAIN that applies to INCESTUOUS Couples.

All of you that have argued for Gay rights are HYPOCRITES if you do not now support Incest and marriage between family members using the EXACT arguments you used to justify Gay marriage.

No. I am not wrong about what I said. Different people draw the line at different points. Some gays would probably support legalizing inter-family marriage (marriage between a father and an adult daughter). Others might not. Some gays would probably add a disclaimer to the notion of “2 consenting adults” such as “We think that 2 consenting adults should be free to have sex as long as the relationship is not parent to son or parent to daughter”. Those that support gay marriage but oppose marriage between fathers and daughters are no more anti-family than those who would allow cigarette smoking but oppose legalizing cocaine being anti-freedom. Gay marriage does not open the door to incest and polygamy any more than does alcohol or cigarettes open the door to other drugs. These things are not dominos. We have draw the line (and adjusted the line) at different points at different times for generations. We tried legalizing alcohol. Then we prohibited it. Then we decided to legalize it again. We put some restrictions on smoking cigarettes but we are still allowed to smoke in the privacy of our own home. Yet, we still manage to keep marijuana illegal for the most part.

No. Those that want to move the line to allow gay marriage but keep incest illegal are no more hypocritical than are those who would allow cigarette smoking but prohibit marijuana smoking.

Same question to you,
So, if two brothers are gay and want to marry each other, where does that fit into your box?

 

[Amanda]

This is just another example of the classic fallacious domino theory and gross generalization. Yet, people are not dominos. Do you like freedom? People should be free to smoke cigarettes (at least in the privacy of their own home), right? Okay, should such people be allowed to smoke marijuana? If not, then you are anti-freedom. You say, “Perhaps people should be free to take marijuana”. Okay, should people be free to inhale cocaine? If you say “No”, then you must be opposed to freedom.

It does not come down to whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line. Perhaps someday incest among adults will be allowed. We might also debate the merits or demerits of polygamy.

WRONG, the left and the Gays have INSISTED that the ENTIRE issue rests on 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Thus using that argument and that logic, it makes incest between two CONSENTING ADULTS JUST AS VALID. And it opens the door to Polygamy since that is also CONSENTING ADULTS.

THAT has been the entire argument, that 2 consenting adults that love one another should be free to marry one another with the State's blessing. That anything short of that is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. If that is true then 2 consenting INCESTUOUS people also have the EXACT same argument. And anyone that previously USED that argument for Gays has no grounds to NOW claim it does not apply.

The argument has also been that what 2 CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their home is no business of the Government when it comes to sex. AGAIN that applies to INCESTUOUS Couples.

All of you that have argued for Gay rights are HYPOCRITES if you do not now support Incest and marriage between family members using the EXACT arguments you used to justify Gay marriage.

No. I am not wrong about what I said. Different people draw the line at different points. Some gays would probably support legalizing inter-family marriage (marriage between a father and an adult daughter). Others might not. Some gays would probably add a disclaimer to the notion of “2 consenting adults” such as “We think that 2 consenting adults should be free to have sex as long as the relationship is not parent to son or parent to daughter”. Those that support gay marriage but oppose marriage between fathers and daughters are no more anti-family than those who would allow cigarette smoking but oppose legalizing cocaine being anti-freedom. Gay marriage does not open the door to incest and polygamy any more than does alcohol or cigarettes open the door to other drugs. These things are not dominos. We have draw the line (and adjusted the line) at different points at different times for generations. We tried legalizing alcohol. Then we prohibited it. Then we decided to legalize it again. We put some restrictions on smoking cigarettes but we are still allowed to smoke in the privacy of our own home. Yet, we still manage to keep marijuana illegal for the most part.

No. Those that want to move the line to allow gay marriage but keep incest illegal are no more hypocritical than are those who would allow cigarette smoking but prohibit marijuana smoking.

Why is where you want to draw the line more valid than where someone else does?

 

[KittenKoder]

WRONG, the left and the Gays have INSISTED that the ENTIRE issue rests on 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Thus using that argument and that logic, it makes incest between two CONSENTING ADULTS JUST AS VALID. And it opens the door to Polygamy since that is also CONSENTING ADULTS.

THAT has been the entire argument, that 2 consenting adults that love one another should be free to marry one another with the State's blessing. That anything short of that is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. If that is true then 2 consenting INCESTUOUS people also have the EXACT same argument. And anyone that previously USED that argument for Gays has no grounds to NOW claim it does not apply.

The argument has also been that what 2 CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their home is no business of the Government when it comes to sex. AGAIN that applies to INCESTUOUS Couples.

All of you that have argued for Gay rights are HYPOCRITES if you do not now support Incest and marriage between family members using the EXACT arguments you used to justify Gay marriage.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Uh. No. His shouting, gross generalization and fallacious domino theory reasoning did not leave any mark.

Aah, but over-simplification is the world they live in. Those so against gay marriage have nothing but "black and white" to argue with, they cannot see the rainbow after the storm.

 

[elvis]

Really, there is no logical or scientific connection between the two, it's twisting logic and reason in a perverted direction in an attempt to make something which harms no one sound bad. We can use the same logic twisting:

Do you support genocide?

If you don't then you don't support christianity. But if you do support christianity then you are vile or a hypocrite.

I disagree. I have always thought gays should have the right to marry but this IS a monkey wrench.
How do we constitutionally prevent a consenting adult from marrying his adult daughter?

Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.

can you explain to me how it's illegal for a father to marry his adult daughter?

 

[alan1]

That's gonna leave a mark.

Uh. No. His shouting, gross generalization and fallacious domino theory reasoning did not leave any mark.

Aah, but over-simplification is the world they live in. Those so against gay marriage have nothing but "black and white" to argue with, they cannot see the rainbow after the storm.

The argument of "2 consenting adults" is the "black and white" without the rainbow that the proponents for gay marriage have consistently used.

 

[elvis]

WRONG, the left and the Gays have INSISTED that the ENTIRE issue rests on 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Thus using that argument and that logic, it makes incest between two CONSENTING ADULTS JUST AS VALID. And it opens the door to Polygamy since that is also CONSENTING ADULTS.

THAT has been the entire argument, that 2 consenting adults that love one another should be free to marry one another with the State's blessing. That anything short of that is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. If that is true then 2 consenting INCESTUOUS people also have the EXACT same argument. And anyone that previously USED that argument for Gays has no grounds to NOW claim it does not apply.

The argument has also been that what 2 CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their home is no business of the Government when it comes to sex. AGAIN that applies to INCESTUOUS Couples.

All of you that have argued for Gay rights are HYPOCRITES if you do not now support Incest and marriage between family members using the EXACT arguments you used to justify Gay marriage.

The polygamy issue can be avoided by making the law state that marriage is between two people.

but the eight of us love each other......you are denying us the same rights as everyone else that loves each other and want to be married.....how does this hurt anyone....

you have the same right as anyone else. between two people.

I know what you're going to say next.

 

[KittenKoder]

I disagree. I have always thought gays should have the right to marry but this IS a monkey wrench.
How do we constitutionally prevent a consenting adult from marrying his adult daughter?

Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.

can you explain to me how it's illegal for a father to marry his adult daughter?

Most states have a law preventing those who are closer than second cousins or further from marrying. Again, it's an over simplification. There are many more things that have to "break" in order for this to even come close to being a connected issue. Also, the offspring of such a union would be so in danger of mutation and disability that it's not a good idea to any intelligent person, and would run the risk of ruining that offspring's life, since gay couples cannot produce offspring that is another degree of separation. Also, you open up the world of abuse from the parent in such an instance, which is another can of worms you would have to sort out, yet even more degrees of separation. Now, if you want to live in a world of black and white, there are a few third world nations that are stuck in that mindset, luckily in the US we can see all the rainbow as a whole.

 

[elvis]

Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.

can you explain to me how it's illegal for a father to marry his adult daughter?

Most states have a law preventing those who are closer than second cousins or further from marrying. Again, it's an over simplification. There are many more things that have to "break" in order for this to even come close to being a connected issue. Also, the offspring of such a union would be so in danger of mutation and disability that it's not a good idea to any intelligent person, and would run the risk of ruining that offspring's life, since gay couples cannot produce offspring that is another degree of separation. Also, you open up the world of abuse from the parent in such an instance, which is another can of worms you would have to sort out, yet even more degrees of separation. Now, if you want to live in a world of black and white, there are a few third world nations that are stuck in that mindset, luckily in the US we can see all the rainbow as a whole.

how would it be abuse if the daughter is an adult?

 

[manu1959]

The polygamy issue can be avoided by making the law state that marriage is between two people.

but the eight of us love each other......you are denying us the same rights as everyone else that loves each other and want to be married.....how does this hurt anyone....

you have the same right as anyone else. between two people.

I know what you're going to say next.

lol.....

If taxpayer money isn't used to allow people to get married - then why do taxpayers get a say on whether or not poligamists marriage should be allowed or dis-allowed?

Simply put if it doesn't take a dime out of my pocket and actually could PREVENT my local city from raising sales tax revenue due to the increased revenue from poligamist marriage licenses, why should poligamist marriage be legislated or voted upon? Who am I to say you can or cannot get married? Who are YOU to say it?

This whole argument doesn't make sense.

Sure you can say "I don't morally agree with poligamist marriage" that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But to say "poligamist marriage should be against the law" well that's just silly. It doesn't make any sense.

(courtsey david s.............)

 

[alan1]

Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.

can you explain to me how it's illegal for a father to marry his adult daughter?

Most states have a law preventing those who are closer than second cousins or further from marrying. Again, it's an over simplification. There are many more things that have to "break" in order for this to even come close to being a connected issue. Also, the offspring of such a union would be so in danger of mutation and disability that it's not a good idea to any intelligent person, and would run the risk of ruining that offspring's life, since gay couples cannot produce offspring that is another degree of separation. Also, you open up the world of abuse from the parent in such an instance, which is another can of worms you would have to sort out, yet even more degrees of separation. Now, if you want to live in a world of black and white, there are a few third world nations that are stuck in that mindset, luckily in the US we can see all the rainbow as a whole.

I'll ask again, since you seem to have missed it the first two times,
So, if two brothers are gay and want to marry each other, where does that fit into your box?
Hey, guess what, no mutated offspring to be concerned about.

 

[Yurt]

Really, there is no logical or scientific connection between the two, it's twisting logic and reason in a perverted direction in an attempt to make something which harms no one sound bad. We can use the same logic twisting:

Do you support genocide?

If you don't then you don't support christianity. But if you do support christianity then you are vile or a hypocrite.

I disagree. I have always thought gays should have the right to marry but this IS a monkey wrench.
How do we constitutionally prevent a consenting adult from marrying his adult daughter?

Thing is this, there is no connection to gay marriage. The constitutional loophole already exists, the only reason it's illegal is because the majority and law makers already agreed to make it illegal. So again, if you don't support genocide you can't support christianity by the same logic.

the connection to gay marriage is absolute. what "loophole" are you referring to?

nice logical fallacy with the genocide, more censor logic from KK.....

 

[KittenKoder]

can you explain to me how it's illegal for a father to marry his adult daughter?

Most states have a law preventing those who are closer than second cousins or further from marrying. Again, it's an over simplification. There are many more things that have to "break" in order for this to even come close to being a connected issue. Also, the offspring of such a union would be so in danger of mutation and disability that it's not a good idea to any intelligent person, and would run the risk of ruining that offspring's life, since gay couples cannot produce offspring that is another degree of separation. Also, you open up the world of abuse from the parent in such an instance, which is another can of worms you would have to sort out, yet even more degrees of separation. Now, if you want to live in a world of black and white, there are a few third world nations that are stuck in that mindset, luckily in the US we can see all the rainbow as a whole.

how would it be abuse if the daughter is an adult?

By looking into the "possibilities" ... you people are so good at only seeing unrelated possibilities yet you cannot see the obvious ones. If it were legal then parents who wanted to do it would "prep" their offspring for it, through many of the same brainwashing methods used by parents already to push their religious beliefs into the children's minds. Duh.

 

[elvis]

but the eight of us love each other......you are denying us the same rights as everyone else that loves each other and want to be married.....how does this hurt anyone....

you have the same right as anyone else. between two people.

I know what you're going to say next.

lol.....

If taxpayer money isn't used to allow people to get married - then why do taxpayers get a say on whether or not poligamists marriage should be allowed or dis-allowed?

Simply put if it doesn't take a dime out of my pocket and actually could PREVENT my local city from raising sales tax revenue due to the increased revenue from poligamist marriage licenses, why should poligamist marriage be legislated or voted upon? Who am I to say you can or cannot get married? Who are YOU to say it?

This whole argument doesn't make sense.

Sure you can say "I don't morally agree with poligamist marriage" that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But to say "poligamist marriage should be against the law" well that's just silly. It doesn't make any sense.

(courtsey david s.............)

The polygamist can stand on freedom of religion. (mormons) After all, peyote is illegal unless you are Native american, as are Eagle feathers. Why? freedom of religion.

 

[mattskramer]

WRONG, the left and the Gays have INSISTED that the ENTIRE issue rests on 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Thus using that argument and that logic, it makes incest between two CONSENTING ADULTS JUST AS VALID. And it opens the door to Polygamy since that is also CONSENTING ADULTS.

THAT has been the entire argument, that 2 consenting adults that love one another should be free to marry one another with the State's blessing. That anything short of that is a violation of their rights under the Constitution. If that is true then 2 consenting INCESTUOUS people also have the EXACT same argument. And anyone that previously USED that argument for Gays has no grounds to NOW claim it does not apply.

The argument has also been that what 2 CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their home is no business of the Government when it comes to sex. AGAIN that applies to INCESTUOUS Couples.

All of you that have argued for Gay rights are HYPOCRITES if you do not now support Incest and marriage between family members using the EXACT arguments you used to justify Gay marriage.

No. I am not wrong about what I said. Different people draw the line at different points. Some gays would probably support legalizing inter-family marriage (marriage between a father and an adult daughter). Others might not. Some gays would probably add a disclaimer to the notion of “2 consenting adults” such as “We think that 2 consenting adults should be free to have sex as long as the relationship is not parent to son or parent to daughter”. Those that support gay marriage but oppose marriage between fathers and daughters are no more anti-family than those who would allow cigarette smoking but oppose legalizing cocaine being anti-freedom. Gay marriage does not open the door to incest and polygamy any more than does alcohol or cigarettes open the door to other drugs. These things are not dominos. We have draw the line (and adjusted the line) at different points at different times for generations. We tried legalizing alcohol. Then we prohibited it. Then we decided to legalize it again. We put some restrictions on smoking cigarettes but we are still allowed to smoke in the privacy of our own home. Yet, we still manage to keep marijuana illegal for the most part.

No. Those that want to move the line to allow gay marriage but keep incest illegal are no more hypocritical than are those who would allow cigarette smoking but prohibit marijuana smoking.

Why is where you want to draw the line more valid than where someone else does?

Why is anyone’s position on where to draw the line more valid than anyone else’s? Why do you think we should draw the line here instead of there – or there instead of here? It all comes down to each person’s opinion – and opinions come from experiences, thoughts, readings, research, and a wide variety of variables – perhaps some prejudices - perhaps some incorrect information, personal biases and preferences, values, etc.

I think that civil union status for gay couples should be granted. In my opinion it might decrease promiscuity to at least a small degree. I think that gay couples should have just as easy access to benefits that heterosexual couples have. There are probably some other reasons too. I think that I understand the value that people put to the term “marriage”. I think that it is undue sentiment and that if gay couples were to be allowed to get “married” then there would not be the societal destruction that some people might imagine.

I’m somewhat hesitant about allowing parents to wed their children – primarily due to the risks of inbreeding. I also think that we should address these issues carefully and slowly – one at a time. Let’s not make multiple changes all at once. I think that we should first see how civil unions work out. Then we can address gay marriage. If there are no disastrous consequences to America as a result of gay marriage, then we can see about polygamy and other items.

Remember how we handled alcohol. We allowed it. Then we tried prohibition. Then we went back to allowing alcohol consumption.

 

[elvis]

Most states have a law preventing those who are closer than second cousins or further from marrying. Again, it's an over simplification. There are many more things that have to "break" in order for this to even come close to being a connected issue. Also, the offspring of such a union would be so in danger of mutation and disability that it's not a good idea to any intelligent person, and would run the risk of ruining that offspring's life, since gay couples cannot produce offspring that is another degree of separation. Also, you open up the world of abuse from the parent in such an instance, which is another can of worms you would have to sort out, yet even more degrees of separation. Now, if you want to live in a world of black and white, there are a few third world nations that are stuck in that mindset, luckily in the US we can see all the rainbow as a whole.

how would it be abuse if the daughter is an adult?

By looking into the "possibilities" ... you people are so good at only seeing unrelated possibilities yet you cannot see the obvious ones. If it were legal then parents who wanted to do it would "prep" their offspring for it, through many of the same brainwashing methods used by parents already to push their religious beliefs into the children's minds. Duh.

what "people" do I belong to?

 

[KittenKoder]

I still say, marriage is bullshit anyway and should have no legal connection, benefit, or protections. If you want it to be a religious thing, fine, but no laws for it, none, zero, zilch. No legal contract.