Someone PLEASE give me an argument against Marriage Equality

[hazlnut]

Let me clarify: I am not advocating that gays be denied the right to enter into civil unions with all the rights and privileges of hetero civil unions. What I am advocating is that the government make a titular distinction between a hetero civil union and a gay civil union. I am also suggesting that it would be more politic (and more polite) for the gay community to insist on this titular distinction out respect for those of the hetero community who are dismayed over the marriage tradition being distorted.



At what point in your life did you develop such intense solipsism? I am NOT interested in your personal feelings on the matter. This is NOT about you, dear. Frankly, I could not care a whit if gays get married, but that's just me.

This is not about "religion owning marriage" either. This is about society as a whole, the collective public feelings on the matter, and regardless of what the polls may or may not say, the fact of the matter is that there remains a very sizeable number of heteros who are opposed to gay marriage, many virulently so. As far as "majority rules" are concerned, that sort of attitude is of no help to the gay community who comprise only 2% of the population.



Cultural tradition and law are inextricably intertwined with this issue. It is impossible to discuss the legal issue of marriage while excluding its monolithic cultural and historial significance. Again, imagine the atheists wanting to establish their own Christmas holiday to be celebrated on June 17th, recognized as a legal federal holiday, and under the official title of "Christmas."

Sig, what part of stop posting in this thread until you have something other than appeal to tradition did you not understand????????

You're a broken record playing a logical fallacy.

You got a real case to make, make it. But Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy.

 

[Sig]

Sig, that is really well said. The existance of same-sex marriages, in my opinion, doesn't make my opposite-sex marriage any more or any less valid before God or man, but I can see why much of the religious poplulation doesn't want something they consider "holy" to be changed.

However, I think most would agree that divorce rate, in general, has made the concept of marriage much less valid than the ideal. Technically, the commonality of 2nd and 3rd marriages make the concept even less valid than divorce.

While I've argued many times for the idea of "gay union" vs. "gay marriage", I'm starting to re-think my position some. I think it's a much more palatable idea - one that would easily solve the issue - especially since the supporters of gay marriage usually claim legal/benefit reasons for why the status change is needed. But, I don't think that's it. I think homosexuals are looking for approval of the lifestyle in whatever form it can be obtained. The religious world is becoming accepting in practice. And, the religious world opinions change - look at some of the race issues or scarlet letter issues with marriage in the past.

Most of the religious world accepts the term marriage for lots of people who live life outside of the religious construct - the Bible or another - people cheat on their spouse, get divorced, get re-married and it's still call marriage. Two thiefs get married, and it's still called marriage. Two people live together for 7 years, and they have a common law marriage. By the way, my point isn't to put some kind of a judgement on the homosexual, what I'm really saying is that from a religious point of view, the word marriage has clearly already been stretched to further places than religion's original intent.

Lots of Christians celebrate Christmas intensely without ever going to church even once a year. That would not make it any less egregious for the atheist community to hi-jack the Christmas tradition and distort it with their own interpretation. Just the same, the high divorce rate amoung heteros does in no way entitle gays to hi-jack the marriage tradition.

If gays want to celebrate their civil unions, fine, but they should have the grace to call it something other than "marriage" out of respect for the hetero community. (I might suggest "partnership" or some other synonym.) This may seem like a petty matter of mere words but words are important in the context of cultural traditions.

 

[Dustmop]

Lots of Christians celebrate Christmas intensely without ever going to church even once a year. That would not make it any less egregious for the atheist community to hi-jack the Christmas tradition and distort it with their own interpretation. Just the same, the high divorce rate amoung heteros does in no way entitle gays to hi-jack the marriage tradition.

If gays want to celebrate their civil unions, fine, but they should have the grace to call it something other than "marriage" out of respect for the hetero community. (I might suggest "partnership" or some other synonym.) This may seem like a petty matter of mere words but words are important in the context of cultural traditions.

There is a very big difference between hijacking and distorting and simply wanting to take part in. Gays want to take part in the institution of marriage, not hijack it and distort it. They are not trying to take control of marriage and they are not trying to change the meaning of heterosexual marriage at all.

Your distorted view of cultural traditions is still a fallacy, and it will still be a fallacy tomorrow, and they day after, etc. Also, even if tradition was a valid argument, it's completely hypocritical to say that heterosexuals can hijack and distort marriage, but by god you better not let those gays do the same exact thing! Really?

 

[Sig]

There is a very big difference between hijacking and distorting and simply wanting to take part in. Gays want to take part in the institution of marriage, not hijack it and distort it. They are not trying to take control of marriage and they are not trying to change the meaning of heterosexual marriage at all.

The "institution" of marriage is really not at issue here. It is the cultural tradition of marriage of which we are presently concerned. Two grooms or two brides on the wedding cake, etc., etc. is a gross distortion of the tradition.

Your distorted view of cultural traditions is still a fallacy, and it will still be a fallacy tomorrow, and they day after, etc. Also, even if tradition was a valid argument, it's completely hypocritical to say that heterosexuals can hijack and distort marriage, but by god you better not let those gays do the same exact thing! Really?

Heterosexuals cannot hi-jack the marriage tradition. Marriage has always been a heterosexual tradition (in fact, it is the heterosexual tradition) just as Christmas has always been a Christian tradition.


BTW: There is nothing "distorted" or "fallacious" about my view of cultural traditions. Traditions are traditions. It is really very simple.

 

[misterman]

First you say:

At what point in your life did you develop such intense solipsism? I am NOT interested in your personal feelings on the matter. This is NOT about you, dear. Frankly, I could not care a whit if gays get married, but that's just me.

Then you contradict it with:

This is not about "religion owning marriage" either. This is about society as a whole, the collective public feelings on the matter, and regardless of what the polls may or may not say, the fact of the matter is that there remains a very sizeable number of heteros who are opposed to gay marriage, many virulently so.

I don't care about "collective public feelings" or "a sizeable number of heteros" feelings on the matter either.

 

[misterman]

The "institution" of marriage is really not at issue here. It is the cultural tradition of marriage of which we are presently concerned. Two grooms or two brides on the wedding cake, etc., etc. is a gross distortion of the tradition.

Much like a black groom and white bride, huh?

BTW: There is nothing "distorted" or "fallacious" about my view of cultural traditions. Traditions are traditions. It is really very simple.

What's fallacious is saying they matter.

 

[misterman]

Quiz: who wrote this, and where?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Bonus - what fallacies, and how many, are contained it it?

 

[Sig]

First you say:

Then you contradict it with:

Where's the contradiction? Do you know what a contradiction is?

I don't care about "collective public feelings" or "a sizeable number of heteros" feelings on the matter either.

...and that is precisely why you are wrong (well, that the fact that you have brought no real argument to the table).

 

[Sig]

Quiz: who wrote this, and where?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

I don't know. I don't care.

Bonus - what fallacies, and how many, are contained it it?

How about the fallacies of irrelevance and false analogy?

Spare us yet another bad analogy with miscegnation. It failed the first, second, and ninth time around. It is not going to improve with age.

 

[Sig]

Much like a black groom and white bride, huh?

No, like a black groom and white groom.

What's fallacious is saying they matter.

No, what is fallacious is to assume that because traditions do not matter to you that they should not matter to anyone else.

 

[joko104]

What do you mean by "support" them? Give them money?

I know many GLTBs. Some are real assholes. Others are quite fine.

 

[misterman]

Where's the contradiction?

You say that simple feelings about the issue don't matter, then you invoke them.

 

[misterman]

I don't know.

Okay. Do you agree with the statement then?

Spare us yet another bad analogy with miscegnation. It failed the first, second, and ninth time around. It is not going to improve with age.

It's not a fallacy. You just can't handle it, so you're going to dodge it, over and over. You won't even discuss it. And we all know why - you're at least smart enough to know that it blows your argument out of the water.

 

[misterman]

No, like a black groom and white groom.

No, like a black groom and a white bride.

Keep dodging though.

No, what is fallacious is to assume that because traditions do not matter to you that they should not matter to anyone else.

That's not my argument.

My argument is that tradition doesn't matter to the law.

You are free to care all you want about tradition. Just don't impose that view on others. By all means, don't marry another man if you value traditional marriage.




No, what is fallacious is to assume that because traditions do not matter to you that they should not matter to anyone else.[/QUOTE]

 

[roguenuke]

Lots of Christians celebrate Christmas intensely without ever going to church even once a year. That would not make it any less egregious for the atheist community to hi-jack the Christmas tradition and distort it with their own interpretation. Just the same, the high divorce rate amoung heteros does in no way entitle gays to hi-jack the marriage tradition.

The problem with your analogy is that there is nothing legally tied to Christmas, except for legal rules regarding pay and federal holidays. No one is under any legal obligation to do anything for or on Christmas, with the exception of paying those who do work more pay for working on a federal holiday.

And, if it were to be fought over the legal implications of Christmas being a federal holiday but mainly because of religion, it is likely that the federal government would be forced to just change the name of the federal holiday of "Christmas" to something less religious than making a new federal/legal holiday called "Christmas" sometime in July.

Do I think that the government should be forced to change the name of Christmas to something less religious? No. But I also do not think the government should have to change the word marriage on a civil contract to something else based on the type of couple entering into that contract.

Many places have (unofficially) "Christmas in July". Legally, there is nothing a religious group can do about the use of the word "Christmas" in such a way.

If gays want to celebrate their civil unions, fine, but they should have the grace to call it something other than "marriage" out of respect for the hetero community. (I might suggest "partnership" or some other synonym.) This may seem like a petty matter of mere words but words are important in the context of cultural traditions.

Religion stole the word marriage before government did. Marriage was originally owned by the people in communities, not the religions of those people.

Government, however, currently does use the word marriage in an other than religious way. They should not have to change that word, which would cost a lot of money, just because some feel that the word somehow belongs with their definition alone, for whatever reason.

 

[Sig]

It's not a fallacy. You just can't handle it, so you're going to dodge it, over and over. You won't even discuss it.

We have discussed this ad nauseum.

Once again:

Race and sexual-orientation are not analogous in this context.

Marriage is a tradition. Miscegenation is a policy.

Interracial marriage does not structurally and asthetically alter the marriage tradition. Same-sex marriage does.

And we all know why - you're at least smart enough to know that it blows your argument out of the water.

I am smart enough to recognize that you are intellectually repugnant. I am putting you on the Ignore List with Hazlnut.

Congratulations.

 

[roguenuke]

The "institution" of marriage is really not at issue here. It is the cultural tradition of marriage of which we are presently concerned. Two grooms or two brides on the wedding cake, etc., etc. is a gross distortion of the tradition.

And, culturally, marriage has changed and does change all the time. Even within specific religions, who could and couldn't get married has changed.

But we are talking about laws, and laws must abide by the 14th Amendment, which says that all laws must be free of discrimination unless that discrimination can be justified to meet an actual state interest. It is not a state interest to ensure that only opposite sex couples are allowed to marry just to maintain a cultural or traditional definition of the word "marriage".

Heterosexuals cannot hi-jack the marriage tradition. Marriage has always been a heterosexual tradition (in fact, it is the heterosexual tradition) just as Christmas has always been a Christian tradition.

BTW: There is nothing "distorted" or "fallacious" about my view of cultural traditions. Traditions are traditions. It is really very simple.

Heterosexuals can hijack the marriage tradition, since there have been several kinds of marriage traditions that did not last or have been changed.

In fact, in other cultures marriage has been between members of the same sex, now and in the past.

Also, although the word "Christmas" specifically refers to a religious holiday, many non-Christian people celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday, including me and my family.

There has always been a holiday around the time of "Christmas". It can easily be argued that the specific holiday of the time has been hijacked by Christians in the form of "Christmas" and insisting that all people are allowed to observe their beliefs on that holiday and participate in any federal offerings of that holiday make the time of year fair.

In fact, it can easily be argued that non-Christians have taken the Christmas holiday for themselves, since a person does not have to be Christian or even have plans to celebrate Christmas in any way in order to be guaranteed the extra pay that comes from working on Christmas, since it is a federal holiday.

 

[misterman]

Race and sexual-orientation are not analogous in this context.

Marriage is a tradition. Miscegenation is a policy.

You can't just declare them different. Like all policies related to marriage, same-sex marriage, or the lack thereof, is a policy. It is controlled by the government. Just as many states once banned marriage between races, many now ban marriage between genders. No different. On the other hand, the same lame appeal to tradition that you're trying to use now was once used to justify miscegenation laws. That is the point.

Interracial marriage does not structurally and asthetically alter the marriage tradition. Same-sex marriage does.

No it doesn't. It's still a marriage. Two people, two rings, a preacher, all that crap.

I am smart enough to recognize that you are intellectually repugnant. I am putting you on the Ignore List with Hazlnut.

No, you are smart enough to recognize that you are beaten, and that you've met your match, so you run away. But that's consistent with your logic, which boils down to "because I say so." Lame.

 

[roguenuke]

We have discussed this ad nauseum.

Once again:

Race and sexual-orientation are not analogous in this context.

Anti-SSM laws do not discriminate based on sexual orientation though. They discriminate based on sex/gender.

Two homosexuals can get legally married today if they so wish, and it would be recognized by every state and the federal government. Two men, however, cannot get legally married today and have it recognized by most states nor the federal government, no matter what the sexuality of either man is.

Marriage is a tradition. Miscegenation is a policy.

Interracial marriage does not structurally and asthetically alter the marriage tradition. Same-sex marriage does.

It was traditionally not allowed that a person who was attracted to people of a different race than them could get married to a person of a different race as them.

Same sex marriage no more alters the structure of legal marriage (which is what we are discussing), than interracial marriage does. There is nothing legally required by either state or federal marriage laws that the members within a same sex marriage cannot fulfill just the same as the members of an opposite sex marriage.

 

[hazlnut]

We have discussed this ad nauseum.

Once again:

Race and sexual-orientation are not analogous in this context.

Marriage is a tradition. Miscegenation is a policy.

I told you to stop posting in this thread if you're to just going to continue making the same appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

But you chose to ignore me and repeat the same logical fallacy over and over and over and over....

No matter how many times you repeat a fallacy, it doesn't magically become a valid argument.

Do you understand what a ?fallacy is. A statement that you may believe, feel, or know in your heart to be true, but fails to be legitimate argument/case/reason for anything.

Tradition is not a reason. Tradition is not a case for something. Tradition can not support any argument.

And you call us ignorant....

 

[Sig]

The problem with your analogy is that there is nothing legally tied to Christmas, except for legal rules regarding pay and federal holidays. No one is under any legal obligation to do anything for or on Christmas, with the exception of paying those who do work more pay for working on a federal holiday.

A is not B,
A is B
A is not B,
A is B
______________
Ergo...

Not very sound logic.

And, if it were to be fought over the legal implications of Christmas being a federal holiday but mainly because of religion, it is likely that the federal government would be forced to just change the name of the federal holiday of "Christmas" to something less religious than making a new federal/legal holiday called "Christmas" sometime in July.

And, perhaps, this is the true quagmire with the issue of gay marriage: It may lay the legal ground work for social and cultural disintegration in the multi-cultural society, which is dependent upon mutual respect for each other's cultural traditions.

Like it or not, "marriage" is historically a heterosexual tradition, not a gay tradition. Ergo, the gay community can request to co-opt the tradition, but they cannot insist upon it. What is more, they should have the manners to withdraw the request in the face of considerable protest from the hetero community.

Do I think that the government should be forced to change the name of Christmas to something less religious? No.

Well, I'm sure that's a relief to the Christian community. After all, it would be rather absurd to change it to something else just for the sake of same-sex marriage.

But I also do not think the government should have to change the word marriage on a civil contract to something else based on the type of couple entering into that contract.

The word "marriage" can continue to be used on heterosexual civil union contracts. Some other word can be adopted for same-sex civil union contracts. No biggee.

Many places have (unofficially) "Christmas in July". Legally, there is nothing a religious group can do about the use of the word "Christmas" in such a way.

There is something that the government can do, or rather not do, and that is decide not to recognize "Christmas in July" as a legal holiday. In the same way, the government can decide not to recognize same-sex marriage under the title "marriage".

Religion stole the word marriage before government did. Marriage was originally owned by the people in communities, not the religions of those people.

WRONG. The marriage tradition dates back to the Pleistocene Era when law and religion were one and the same.

Government, however, currently does use the word marriage in an other than religious way. They should not have to change that word, which would cost a lot of money, just because some feel that the word somehow belongs with their definition alone, for whatever reason.

My sentiments exactly. The gay community should come up with their own word to describe their own version of civil union, and the government can adopt it for use in legal same-sex civil unions.

 

[Sig]

And, culturally, marriage has changed and does change all the time. Even within specific religions, who could and couldn't get married has changed.

That may be true. On the other hand, the one constant in the marriage tradition for the last 10,000 years has been that it a heterosexual affair between a man and woman.

But we are talking about laws, and laws must abide by the 14th Amendment, which says that all laws must be free of discrimination unless that discrimination can be justified to meet an actual state interest. It is not a state interest to ensure that only opposite sex couples are allowed to marry just to maintain a cultural or traditional definition of the word "marriage".

I disagree. The state has a definite interest in recognizing and supporting some cultural traditions. Christmas is one of them. Marriage is another.

Heterosexuals can hijack the marriage tradition, since there have been several kinds of marriage traditions that did not last or have been changed.

You cannot hi-jack something that already belongs to you.

In fact, in other cultures marriage has been between members of the same sex, now and in the past.

Actually, marriage has, by-and-large, consistently remained a heterosexual affair across cultures and continents, since the dawn of human civilization. Same-sex marriages have been so historically exceptional that they represent little more than cultural plagiarism and parody. I believe we have discussed this already.

Also, although the word "Christmas" specifically refers to a religious holiday, many non-Christian people celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday, including me and my family.

Just the same, non-heterosexuals can and do get married (ie: Edward II of England for one). Indeed, over the ages, many a non-hetero has married often out of family expectations or political necessisty.

There has always been a holiday around the time of "Christmas". It can easily be argued that the specific holiday of the time has been hijacked by Christians in the form of "Christmas" and insisting that all people are allowed to observe their beliefs on that holiday and participate in any federal offerings of that holiday make the time of year fair.

The government does not refer to Christmas as Yule, or Saturnalia, or Winter Solstice, Channukah, or any of a long list of names for various winter festivals which have existed throughout the course of human history. It recognizes Christmas as "Christmas" due to its historic popularity with the overwhelming majority of its citizenry.

In fact, it can easily be argued that non-Christians have taken the Christmas holiday for themselves, since a person does not have to be Christian or even have plans to celebrate Christmas in any way in order to be guaranteed the extra pay that comes from working on Christmas, since it is a federal holiday.

No, they have taken nothing. They are just going along for the ride, which is something that gays can do with the marriage tradition as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. If they want to enter into a same-sex civil union they should do so under a different title.

Nativity scene with "Gary" and Joseph.​

 

[Sig]

Anti-SSM laws do not discriminate based on sexual orientation though. They discriminate based on sex/gender.

Two homosexuals can get legally married today if they so wish, and it would be recognized by every state and the federal government. Two men, however, cannot get legally married today and have it recognized by most states nor the federal government, no matter what the sexuality of either man is.

They do not discriminate at all. They just do not recognize a civil union between two men as a marriage, just as kosher laws do not recognize non-kosher foods as kosher.

It was traditionally not allowed that a person who was attracted to people of a different race than them could get married to a person of a different race as them.

We already discussed this. It is irrelevant.

Same sex marriage no more alters the structure of legal marriage (which is what we are discussing), than interracial marriage does.

We are discussing marriage in its cultural and sociological context.

There is nothing legally required by either state or federal marriage laws that the members within a same sex marriage cannot fulfill just the same as the members of an opposite sex marriage.

That is irrelevant to the fact that marriage is traditionally a heterosexual affair and that the State has an interest in preserving the cultural integrity of the tradition.

 

[hazlnut]

Like the other poster said, if you're going to appeal to tradition, Sig, at least get the tradition correct.

 

[roguenuke]

A is not B,
A is B
A is not B,
A is B
______________
Ergo...

Not very sound logic.

I will admit that came out wrong.

My point was supposed to show that the federal holiday of Christmas does not provide legal benefits to only those who are able to participate in the event. There is no actual legal contract associated with Christmas that cannot be found somewhere else.

And, perhaps, this is the true quagmire with the issue of gay marriage: It may lay the legal ground work for social and cultural disintegration in the multi-cultural society, which is dependent upon mutual respect for each other's cultural traditions.

No. If it is pushed, the government could simply just remove Christmas from being recognized as a federal holiday. That would not change how it is celebrated, but it would change whether or not people get paid extra for working on that holiday. Businesses would be free to decide whether or not they are open, just as they are now.

In fact, even just changing the federal holiday from "Christmas" to generic "Winter Holiday" or something along those lines would not steal anything from anyone. It would simply show that the date is available for anyone to celebrate as they wish. The only reason that it should even be kept on the date of Christmas would be because that is the date that the majority of people (currently) will wish to be off. In the next 50 - 100 years, that could change.

Christians have no more right under US law to have their holidays legally recognized than any other religious group. We do so simply because it was done in the past. We keep it because the majority of Americans use that day to be with family and therefore, want that day off, even if they are not Christians.

Like it or not, "marriage" is historically a heterosexual tradition, not a gay tradition. Ergo, the gay community can request to co-opt the tradition, but they cannot insist upon it. What is more, they should have the manners to withdraw the request in the face of considerable protest from the hetero community.

You seem to not be able to understand that marriage has never only been a heterosexual tradition. Marriage has included homosexuals in many cultures, and currently includes them in more than ever before. In fact, in our own culture, homosexual couples are legally recognized as "married" in some states.

And like it or not, under the law, heterosexuals do not own marriage. The law cannot discriminate against sex/gender when it comes to a legal contract, which is what marriage is.

Another thing that you fail to understand is the fact that homosexual couples already use the term "marriage" to describe themselves.

Well, I'm sure that's a relief to the Christian community. After all, it would be rather absurd to change it to something else just for the sake of same-sex marriage.

I don't care how the Christian community feels about it. The law is the law and we are supposed to be a secular nation. If they wish to push this "same sex relationships should be named something else" then they are going to find that people will start pushing back. That could very well include taking Christmas as a federal holiday away from them, whether it is just changing the name of that holiday or removing the holiday altogether as a federal one.

The word "marriage" can continue to be used on heterosexual civil union contracts. Some other word can be adopted for same-sex civil union contracts. No biggee.

Even if the word marriage is simply not used for same sex unions, it would cost the government extra money because they would still have to draft up a complete set of new laws with whatever word is used for same sex relationships in place of marriage.

This is a "biggee" to me. You may wish to waste government money like that, but I don't.

Marriage should be used to describe all civil contracts drawn up for that particular type of relationship, two adults who wish to make each other legal family due to the nature of their relationship.

There is something that the government can do, or rather not do, and that is decide not to recognize "Christmas in July" as a legal holiday. In the same way, the government can decide not to recognize same-sex marriage under the title "marriage".

As the government could easily decide (or be forced to) not recognize "Christmas" as a legal holiday as well. It can also decide to not recognize "Christmas" as a legal holiday under the title of "Christmas".

WRONG. The marriage tradition dates back to the Pleistocene Era when law and religion were one and the same.

You might want to check your facts.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage predates recorded history.

History of Marriage

Note: "There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses." The church did not mandate marriage as a ceremony until the 1500s.

My sentiments exactly. The gay community should come up with their own word to describe their own version of civil union, and the government can adopt it for use in legal same-sex civil unions.

On the contrary, that is not what I said. Opposite sex marriage has changed so much throughout history, but especially in the last century, that it cannot be said that heterosexuals are merely trying to maintain their traditions. The only part of marriage that is traditional throughout every culture in history is that marriage ties together the families of those involved, specifically the people entering into the marriage become each others legal family.

There have been cultures that have had more than two partners within the marriage. There have been cultures who recognized same sex marriages as legal. In most cultures (some still today), it was considered "traditional" that the parents decide who their children married. Love was not involved at all. In fact, there have even been a couple of cultures that approved of marriages between a living and dead person simply to make legal family ties. (China and Sudan and possibly even France)

In fact, at least one culture felt it was alright to marry two dead children to each other to make those legal ties.
User:StateOfAvon/Marriage of the Dead - Wikisource