Traditional marriage

by Idéfix Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:17 pm

Spot on... what makes this that much more satisfying is the quoting of Scalia from Lawrence v. Texas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

In defending their same-sex marriage ban, state officials claimed that "virtually all cultures through time" have recognized marriage "as the union of an opposite-sex couple."

But as U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in her 88-page ruling on Friday, that's simply not true.

"As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue," Crabb wrote in her opinion.

History alone wasn't enough to justify a ban on same-sex marriage, Crabb said.

"Like moral disapproval, tradition alone proves nothing more than a state's desire to prohibit particular conduct," she wrote, citing Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in a 2003 sodomy case, which stated that "'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples."

Crabb pointed out that tradition was used as an argument to keep women from voting.

by Rishi Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:41 am

>>>On one hand you support gay marriages.

On the other hand, you are sympathetic to Muslims and their right to practice their religion with no interference. Almost all Muslims in India would like gays and lesbians be punished for violating Allah's laws on sex. I bet majority of the Muslims in India support the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

How do you resolve this conundrum?

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:22 am

Rishi wrote:>>>On one hand you support gay marriages.

On the other hand, you are sympathetic to Muslims and their right to practice their religion with no interference. Almost all Muslims in India would like gays and lesbians be punished for violating Allah's laws on sex. I bet majority of the Muslims in India support the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

How do you resolve this conundrum?

That's equally true of other religions too. Forget homosexuality, chaddis get upset at even a boy and girl holding hands in India. Every Feb 14th, self appointed moral guardians - mainly Hindu - crawl out of the woodwork. That proves nothing.

Supporting someone's right to follow their religion does not mean one has to agree with every aspect of that religion. Every religion is medieval in its origins and outlook, some more rigid in enforcing that outlook than others. It takes an especially low intellect to be a person of faith. But that doesn't mean its ok to persecute them. Stupidity is not a crime.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:24 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rishi wrote:>>>On one hand you support gay marriages.

On the other hand, you are sympathetic to Muslims and their right to practice their religion with no interference. Almost all Muslims in India would like gays and lesbians be punished for violating Allah's laws on sex. I bet majority of the Muslims in India support the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

How do you resolve this conundrum?

That's equally true of other religions too. Forget homosexuality, chaddis get upset at even a boy and girl holding hands in India. Every Feb 14th, self appointed moral guardians - mainly Hindu - crawl out of the woodwork. That proves nothing.

Supporting someone's right to follow their religion does not mean one has to agree with every aspect of that religion. Every religion is medieval in its origins and outlook, some more rigid in enforcing that outlook than others. It takes an especially low intellect to be a person of faith. But that doesn't mean its ok to persecute them. Stupidity is not a crime.

is this driven largely by envy because they aren't getting enough warm and moist places to park themselves?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:26 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rishi wrote:>>>On one hand you support gay marriages.

On the other hand, you are sympathetic to Muslims and their right to practice their religion with no interference. Almost all Muslims in India would like gays and lesbians be punished for violating Allah's laws on sex. I bet majority of the Muslims in India support the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

How do you resolve this conundrum?

That's equally true of other religions too. Forget homosexuality, chaddis get upset at even a boy and girl holding hands in India. Every Feb 14th, self appointed moral guardians - mainly Hindu - crawl out of the woodwork. That proves nothing.

Supporting someone's right to follow their religion does not mean one has to agree with every aspect of that religion. Every religion is medieval in its origins and outlook, some more rigid in enforcing that outlook than others. It takes an especially low intellect to be a person of faith. But that doesn't mean its ok to persecute them. Stupidity is not a crime.

is this driven largely by envy because they aren't getting enough warm and moist places to park themselves?

Yep Hindus bad...Modi bad....Muslims good...Talibans best.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:30 am

Rishi wrote:>>>On one hand you support gay marriages.

On the other hand, you are sympathetic to Muslims and their right to practice their religion with no interference. Almost all Muslims in India would like gays and lesbians be punished for violating Allah's laws on sex. I bet majority of the Muslims in India support the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

How do you resolve this conundrum?

See how cunningly the iSlamo-apologists changed the topic and instead attack the hindus ?

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:09 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

See how cunningly the iSlamo-apologists changed the topic and instead attack the hindus ?

Aunty, where did you see any hint of 'apology' in this thread?? And oh ya, if you're feeling superior compared to some barbaric Iranians, don't. You and your limpwristed ilk are no better - its just that you folks lack any spine and will only applaud barbarity committed by 'your' thugs from a safe distance. As evidence, one only has to look at your gloating posts of how some passerby was bludgeoned to death by the Hindu Rashtra Sena thugs.

by truthbetold Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:53 pm

If marriage is described as the union of opposite secession, how is it discredited by one man and multiple women union?

As I said before, gay marriage is a conflict of words. Let them call it civil union and let them establish a history for their own rituals and culture.

by Rishi Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rishi wrote:>>>On one hand you support gay marriages.

On the other hand, you are sympathetic to Muslims and their right to practice their religion with no interference. Almost all Muslims in India would like gays and lesbians be punished for violating Allah's laws on sex. I bet majority of the Muslims in India support the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

How do you resolve this conundrum?

That's equally true of other religions too. Forget homosexuality, chaddis get upset at even a boy and girl holding hands in India. Every Feb 14th, self appointed moral guardians - mainly Hindu - crawl out of the woodwork. That proves nothing.

Supporting someone's right to follow their religion does not mean one has to agree with every aspect of that religion. Every religion is medieval in its origins and outlook, some more rigid in enforcing that outlook than others. It takes an especially low intellect to be a person of faith. But that doesn't mean its ok to persecute them. Stupidity is not a crime.

is this driven largely by envy because they aren't getting enough warm and moist places to park themselves?

>>>What on earth gave you that idea?

I personally know seven people with Ph.Ds who are almost fanatical in their religious beliefs.

Person #1 has B.Tech(Honours) from IIT KGP, M.S and Ph.D in finance. He used to spend at least 6 hours a day in the temple conducting and organizing all kinds of Pujas.

Person #2 has B.S from MIT and has a Ph.D from another top school. He is a Professor. He has taken a young chap as his guru because of kid has mastered Vedas.

Person #3 has a Ph.D in Chemistry from an Ivy league school. Whenever he goes to India, he visits Varnasi and takes a dip in the Ganges. He is not bothereed about the dead bodies and feces floating in the holy river. He told me faith and logic do not mix.

Person #4 has a Ph.D in Physics. He rolls there once in a year shouting Govinda Govinda.

Person #5 has a Ph.D in Math from an Ivy league school. He believes that Kanch Paramacharya was GOD incarnate.

Person #6 has a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering. He believes that SaiBaba really performed miracles.

Person #7 has a Ph.D in Economics. One time he went to a funeral of a lady who died in an accident. He told the grieving husband who was standing near the gasket "I can get you Moksha for your wife."

Btw Are you aware that this woman has more intellect than you and me but still it was her faith that drove her to engage in terrorism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aafia_Siddiqui

by Rishi Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:48 pm

Correction

Person #4 has a Ph.D in Physics. He goes to Trupathi every year and rolls there once shouting Govinda Govinda.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:20 pm

Unkil, you've provided excellent illustrations of why educational qualifications should not be confused with intellect. As #3 put it, faith and logic don't mix. A preponderance of the former is a sure indicator of a deficiency in the latter.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:26 pm

rishi's post if true should make people depressed.

gasket? because her spirit was leaking out?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:41 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rishi's post if true should make people depressed.

gasket? because her spirit was leaking out?

Well Rish was having a oil leak problem and hence was thinking of Gasket. Or, was it basket?

by Rishi Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:44 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rishi's post if true should make people depressed.

gasket? because her spirit was leaking out?

Person #7 is a religious wacko. If I give more details, someone here will figure out who he is. He is the guy whose wife walked out on him. He got mad when she and her parents were watching desi movie videos.

Gasket may not be the correct word. Her body was there for viewing.

It was her husband who told me that. The man was really sad when he narrated the incident. I could see how that hurt him.

Btw picture of funeral gasket

https://www.google.com/search?q=gasket&oq=gasket&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2431j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=funeral+gasket+picture

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:53 pm

that's a casket, not a gasket.

by Rishi Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:57 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:that's a casket, not a gasket.

>>>OOps. I stand corrected.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:15 pm

Actually #7's claim is in line with his qualifications. Economists are snake oil salesmen anyway, wrapping themselves in esoteric math so laypeople believe economics is also a science.

by Rishi Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:44 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Unkil, you've provided excellent illustrations of why educational qualifications should not be confused with intellect. As #3 put it, faith and logic don't mix. A preponderance of the former is a sure indicator of a deficiency in the latter.

>>>A Person who is logical in one area need not be so in other aspects of life. Just because you think critically in the field you are trained in is no guarantee that you will apply similar thought process when it comes to faith.

by bw Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:26 pm

Rishi wrote:

Person #4 has a Ph.D in Physics. He rolls there once in a year shouting Govinda Govinda.

rolls where?

by Rishi Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:31 pm

https://such.forumotion.com/t24259-traditional-marriage#160570

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:09 pm

bw wrote:
Rishi wrote:

Person #4 has a Ph.D in Physics. He rolls there once in a year shouting Govinda Govinda.

rolls where?

Where do people "roll" shouting "gOvinda gOvinda?"

It is ok...to answer...yu wont be labelled Chaddi.... Wink

by bw Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:16 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Rishi wrote:

Person #4 has a Ph.D in Physics. He rolls there once in a year shouting Govinda Govinda.

rolls where?

Where do people "roll" shouting "gOvinda gOvinda?"

It is ok...to answer...yu wont be labelled Chaddi....

i read that it was tirupathi in a later post - i have never been there and don't intend to. i have eaten the laddus though. my parents were religious but no one did any rolling anywhere.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:35 pm

bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Rishi wrote:

Person #4 has a Ph.D in Physics. He rolls there once in a year shouting Govinda Govinda.

rolls where?

Where do people "roll" shouting "gOvinda gOvinda?"

It is ok...to answer...yu wont be labelled Chaddi....

i read that it was tirupathi in a later post - i have never been there and don't intend to. i have eaten the laddus though. my parents were religious but no one did any rolling anywhere.

going to temples - in themselves - is not being religious.

I am a temple freak from my young days as a temple is a reflection of our 1000s of years of culture, a place where our ancestors stepped in (this is true of family deities), and a sense of permanency. While everything around the cuntry and town and surroundings have changed, a temple inside has changed little (I notice even this is changing with devotees getting much moolah).

by confuzzled dude Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:46 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Rishi wrote:

Person #4 has a Ph.D in Physics. He rolls there once in a year shouting Govinda Govinda.

rolls where?

Where do people "roll" shouting "gOvinda gOvinda?"

It is ok...to answer...yu wont be labelled Chaddi....

i read that it was tirupathi in a later post - i have never been there and don't intend to. i have eaten the laddus though. my parents were religious but no one did any rolling anywhere.

going to temples - in themselves - is not being religious.

I am a temple freak from my young days as a temple is a reflection of our 1000s of years of culture, a place where our ancestors stepped in (this is true of family deities), and a sense of permanency. While everything around the cuntry and town and surroundings have changed, a temple inside has changed little (I notice even this is changing with devotees getting much moolah).

*ahem* tell us the real reason.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:50 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:

rolls where?

Where do people "roll" shouting "gOvinda gOvinda?"

It is ok...to answer...yu wont be labelled Chaddi....

i read that it was tirupathi in a later post - i have never been there and don't intend to. i have eaten the laddus though. my parents were religious but no one did any rolling anywhere.

going to temples - in themselves - is not being religious.

I am a temple freak from my young days as a temple is a reflection of our 1000s of years of culture, a place where our ancestors stepped in (this is true of family deities), and a sense of permanency. While everything around the cuntry and town and surroundings have changed, a temple inside has changed little (I notice even this is changing with devotees getting much moolah).
*ahem* tell us the real reason.

Oh really a young boy going to temple was a fundamentalist and terrorist, while a muslim "allah O akbaring" five times a day and screaming death to kafir and infidels is fine ? Since when did temples in India asked its devotees to bomb everyone unlike the Maulanas do that in every mosque and madarsas?

by confuzzled dude Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:55 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Where do people "roll" shouting "gOvinda gOvinda?"

It is ok...to answer...yu wont be labelled Chaddi....

i read that it was tirupathi in a later post - i have never been there and don't intend to. i have eaten the laddus though. my parents were religious but no one did any rolling anywhere.

going to temples - in themselves - is not being religious.

I am a temple freak from my young days as a temple is a reflection of our 1000s of years of culture, a place where our ancestors stepped in (this is true of family deities), and a sense of permanency. While everything around the cuntry and town and surroundings have changed, a temple inside has changed little (I notice even this is changing with devotees getting much moolah).
*ahem* tell us the real reason.
Oh really a young boy going to temple was a fundamentalist and terrorist, while a muslim "allah O akbaring" five times a day and screaming death to kafir and infidels is fine ? Since when did temples in India asked its devotees to bomb everyone unlike the Maulanas do that in every mosque and madarsas?

Saamiyaar, You need to take your mind off of terrorism once in a while. My comment was in the lighter vein.

by Rishi Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:27 am

bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Rishi wrote:

Person #4 has a Ph.D in Physics. He rolls there once in a year shouting Govinda Govinda.

rolls where?

Where do people "roll" shouting "gOvinda gOvinda?"

It is ok...to answer...yu wont be labelled Chaddi....

i read that it was tirupathi in a later post - i have never been there and don't intend to. i have eaten the laddus though. my parents were religious but no one did any rolling anywhere.

bw

Are you aware that at Tirupathi, the guys who make laddus use their sweaty feet to give it a round shape?

No wonder the devotees find them tasty.

by Idéfix Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:38 pm

Rishi wrote:>>>On one hand you support gay marriages.

On the other hand, you are sympathetic to Muslims and their right to practice their religion with no interference. Almost all Muslims in India would like gays and lesbians be punished for violating Allah's laws on sex. I bet majority of the Muslims in India support the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

How do you resolve this conundrum?

There is no conundrum here. Religious freedom does not include the ability to tell other people how to live their lives. Muslims have no right to punish homosexuals. They do have a right to practice their religious beliefs including a moral opposition to homosexuality, but they can't force others to live their lives in accordance with those beliefs.

by Idéfix Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:41 pm

truthbetold wrote:If marriage is described as the union of opposite secession, how is it discredited by one man and multiple women union?

As I said before, gay marriage is a conflict of words. Let them call it civil union and let them establish a history for their own rituals and culture.

Marriage is not described by opponents of marriage equality as "the union of opposite sexes." They define it as the union of one man and one woman. For instance, the Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage thus: "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman." The judge called out -- rightly -- that traditional marriage was not between one man and one woman.

by Idéfix Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:01 pm

The federal DOMA is not the only law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. There are several others:

Alabama Amendment 774: Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman.

Alaska Ballot Measure 2: To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

Arizona Proposition 102: Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.

Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 3: Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.

And those are just the states whose names begin with the letter A.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:53 pm

Rishi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rishi wrote:>>>On one hand you support gay marriages.

On the other hand, you are sympathetic to Muslims and their right to practice their religion with no interference. Almost all Muslims in India would like gays and lesbians be punished for violating Allah's laws on sex. I bet majority of the Muslims in India support the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

How do you resolve this conundrum?

That's equally true of other religions too. Forget homosexuality, chaddis get upset at even a boy and girl holding hands in India. Every Feb 14th, self appointed moral guardians - mainly Hindu - crawl out of the woodwork. That proves nothing.

Supporting someone's right to follow their religion does not mean one has to agree with every aspect of that religion. Every religion is medieval in its origins and outlook, some more rigid in enforcing that outlook than others. It takes an especially low intellect to be a person of faith. But that doesn't mean its ok to persecute them. Stupidity is not a crime.

is this driven largely by envy because they aren't getting enough warm and moist places to park themselves?

>>>What on earth gave you that idea?

I personally know seven people with Ph.Ds who are almost fanatical in their religious beliefs.

Person #1 has B.Tech(Honours) from IIT KGP, M.S and Ph.D in finance. He used to spend at least 6 hours a day in the temple conducting and organizing all kinds of Pujas.

Person #2 has B.S from MIT and has a Ph.D from another top school. He is a Professor. He has taken a young chap as his guru because of kid has mastered Vedas.

Person #3 has a Ph.D in Chemistry from an Ivy league school. Whenever he goes to India, he visits Varnasi and takes a dip in the Ganges. He is not bothereed about the dead bodies and feces floating in the holy river. He told me faith and logic do not mix.

Person #4 has a Ph.D in Physics. He rolls there once in a year shouting Govinda Govinda.

Person #5 has a Ph.D in Math from an Ivy league school. He believes that Kanch Paramacharya was GOD incarnate.

Person #6 has a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering. He believes that SaiBaba really performed miracles.

Person #7 has a Ph.D in Economics. One time he went to a funeral of a lady who died in an accident. He told the grieving husband who was standing near the gasket "I can get you Moksha for your wife."

Btw Are you aware that this woman has more intellect than you and me but still it was her faith that drove her to engage in terrorism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aafia_Siddiqui

Well, you only listed one group.

There are several other kinds. Here are just two examples.

There are those who can' live without finding fault with every person on earth. These guys think that they are intellectuals. Dr. Phil will suggest that they need psychiatric help.

There are those who think that believing in anything without "scientific" evidence is a sign of being a moron. These guys are like the typical "traditional" IIT graduates in India - they want to find the most beautiful, subservient and faithful wife, and reject every nice girl they see, wait until they are in their late 40's and conclude that women in India are ugly. Some of them will be charged with behaving inappropriately on planes with female passengers sitting next to them - LOL. If you are wondering how the above three sentences are related, you are an extremely brilliant rationalist.

by truthbetold Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:13 pm

Idéfix wrote:
truthbetold wrote:If marriage is described as the union of opposite secession, how is it discredited by one man and multiple women union?

As I said before, gay marriage is a conflict of words. Let them call it civil union and let them establish a history for their own rituals and culture.
Marriage is not described by opponents of marriage equality as "the union of opposite sexes." They define it as the union of one man and one woman. For instance, the Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage thus: "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman." The judge called out -- rightly -- that traditional marriage was not between one man and one woman.

You are talking about legal and christian definition of marriage.

My point is marriage as a word , as a cultural activity, as commonly understood across the world , is a socially acceptable arrangement between people of opposite sexes. Why are the gay people clamoring for something that they reject?

My two cents. Legally the word marriage will get them rights to property and benefits of a spouse. I am ok with that. That is a smart tactic.

But socially they should called marriage modified. It is not a marriage in historical sense. They are not creating families in natural way. Their method is different. It is different enough that it is likely to produce some different social structure. so they should name it appropriately.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:08 pm

the sort of discomfort voiced on this thread is a thing of the past. i interact with folks <= 25 all the time. they have put this issue behind them. it's irrelevant what old fogies think of gay marriage. we are not getting married anew and it really doesn't affect our lives. it's really younger people who matter in this conversation and they have accepted gay marriages as equal to man-woman marriages.

by truthbetold Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:23 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the sort of discomfort voiced on this thread is a thing of the past. i interact with folks <= 25 all the time. they have put this issue behind them. it's irrelevant what old fogies think of gay marriage. we are not getting married anew and it really doesn't affect our lives. it's really younger people who matter in this conversation and they have accepted gay marriages as equal to man-woman marriages.

One can convince oneself by coming up with some logic whether the logic is central to the discussion or not.

Young people may also want to try illegal drugs more than elderly people. Does that it make it OK?

There are religious arguments for some people and some people argue based on traditions.

Gay Marriage is now acceptable to majority of the population. Gay activits did a good job in pushing their agenda to a successful end. There are few more steps but they will get there.

But my question goes beyond the immediate. What kind of a union (or marriage if you prefer that) will a gay marriage be? what will be the relationships? what will be the bondages? how will they be different from male or female friendships? What will replace a mother's pull to her natural born? what will replace a parent's extraordinary affection to their child?

20 or 30 or 40 years down the road we will know. Whether gay marriage will go the hippie way or become another section of normal society.

by Sponsored content

Traditional marriage

Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage

Re: Traditional marriage