Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Tale as Old as Time

This blog is about relationship rights for all adults, especially the right to marry any and all consenting adults. It is not about criticizing nor promoting any philosophy towards religion, spiritual considerations, superstitions, the paranormal or supernatural, any religious text or writings/traditions/beliefs/practices/systems/organizations considered sacred, inspired, of authoritative by some, nor skepticism when it comes to such things.

There are both allies and opponents of relationship rights and full marriage equality in just about every religion and among those who claim no religion, and I welcome allies no matter what tradition, if any, they prefer or reject.

With that out of the way…

Considering the Bible as literature, which anyone can do whether they are a devout Christian, a Deist, a Hindu, an Atheist, or an Antitheist or take some other path, one can see that the Bible implies, outright portrays, and further addresses consanguineous sex.

Frequently, someone will ask “Where did Cain get his wife?” or “Did Adam and Eve’s children have sex with each other?” or some variation. Whether someone considers this speculation about fanciful myths or actual history is irrelevant to analyzing what the text itself says.



One common response says that there were other people aside from Adam and Eve, even claiming that Genesis 1:26-27 describes the creation of people other than Adam and Eve. That may work for someone who can find some other explanation for Genesis 3:20, which calls Eve the mother of all living, and other passages which indicate Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans.

Romans 5 says that sin and death came into the world through one man, Adam, and 1 Corinthians 15 says that in Adam all die. These passages imply that the Bible portrays every human as a descendant of Adam.  There’s a mention of Eve in the Apocrypha that agrees with this, in the prayer of Tobit (Tobit 8:6): "Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for a helper and a stay; of them came the seed of men…"

That the Bible portrays Adam and Eve as the ancestors of all humans is the interpretation publicly affirmed by a diverse group of Bible enthusiasts, who often vehemently disagree with each other on other matters about what the Bible says. For a few examples, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Some of those sources disagree very much on other aspects of Genesis, especially the first few chapters, but agree as to the Bible teaching that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans (and please note that Genesis 5:4 says Adam, in addition to the named sons, had other sons and daughters), and so it appears that the Bible portrays the origin of human beings as the result of consanguineous (incestuous) sex. Adam and Eve’s children reproduced with each other, if not also Adam and Eve.


It is also of note that the Bible portrays Noah, his wife, their three sons, and the sons' wives were the only human beings left (at least in that part of the world) after The Flood. (Genesis 6:18, 7:7, 9:1,7,18-19). Whether or not the Bible allows for a “local” Flood and other human beings in other parts of the world, Genesis 6:19 portrays least the people in that part of the world as all descended from Noah’s family. That would mean that the area (or the entire world) was repopulated through pairing up people who were no more distant than first cousins, coming from a pool of no more than eight total ancestors (Noah, his wife, and the parents of each of Noah's three sons.)

In the Biblical narrative, it wasn’t until much later that the first prohibition was placed on incest, in Leviticus, along with many other prohibitions (prohibitions on mixing fabrics, for example) that may have been listed to distinguish Israel from the other nations/tribes surrounding it. The narrative describes tribes who have left Egypt, where incest was common and accepted, and surrounded by other nations/tribes where incest was common and accepted. These were laws for the ancient theocracy of Israel. Also of note is that the concept of rights for women and children was very different than it is now; same goes for protecting the elderly. There was no domestic violence shelter, no secular county or state department with social workers attempting to protect people against child abuse or elderly abuse.  Children were literally the property of their parents to do with almost anything they wanted (note that the Torah says that parents must get permission from an authority to kill a disobedient child; presumably, there was no such requirement before.) As such, prohibitions on incest could have often been about preventing sexual assault or molestation.


However, applying the Biblical prohibitions to consensual sex, very few people who consider the Bible as an authority in their lives actually live by Mosaic law, nor want Mosaic law as national or state/province law. Secular laws should not keep any consenting adults from having sex or getting married.

Incest has always been a theme in literature and storytelling. See: Greek mythology. The fact is, incest has always been a part of life, in all socioeconomic and geographic areas. Even though a majority of people don't get involved, enough people do get involved in consensual incest that you know people who are involved.

Marrying a first cousin is legal and common in much of the world today, and for thousands of years most people married a first, second, or third cousin, once or twice removed or not.

From the perspective of science, DNA reveals inbreeding, and thus incest, in our past. In some cases, it might have helped to spread helpful characteristics.

Friday, January 17, 2014

Frequently Asked Question: Why Is Incest Illegal?


It shouldn’t be illegal anywhere, as you’ll see. As always, we note that we are talking about consensual incest, such as between consenting adults and between minors close in age. We are not talking about anything involving coercion or force or molestation. There are laws against rape, assault, and molestation, and they should remain. We are talking about consensual incest, consanguineous sex and marriage, and consanguinamory, whether initiated through Genetic Sexual Attraction or not.

Short answer: It isn’t illegal everywhere, but where it is, it is the lingering result of sex-police holdovers, superstition, prejudice, and legislative inertia.

Long answer:



A significant part of the reason is that some cultures have an ancient taboo against incest, which begs the question, “Why is incest taboo?”

There seems to be more than one plausible reason why some cultures have had an incest taboo, in addition to protecting the power of the leaders.

1) The taboo appears to be an adoption as law or culture of the biological Westermarck effect, which is a common experience but not one experienced by everyone. Because of this effect, many people develop an avoidance of their close family members as sexual partners, and people have often expected that everyone feels the same way they do, and in many cases try to discourage people from acting differently than they do. But for those who, due to separation or some other reason, don’t experience the Westermarck effect, the bond becomes especially strong if it grows into a consanguinamorous one. It could be that if nobody had experienced the Westermarck effect, most people wouldn’t have ever “left the nest” (unless driven out by the dominant male) and the human race would have had a harder time developing genetic diversity, which was very important to survival when the human population was low. Without a growing and genetically diverse population, the entire population could have easily been wiped out by one disease. We hardly have that problem anymore. So in that respect, the Westermarck effect is vestigial and the taboo is no longer needed. (Note that the need for a growing population was also important when everything was accomplished through much physical labor, requiring many people. This was also one of the reasons why some cultures discouraged same-gender pairing that excluded males from bonding with females and making babies.)

2) Also, in patriarchal societies, it was common to trade daughters away in a business deal or to form alliances with other clans or nations. Especially if virginity was valued in new brides, it didn’t help matters if she was in love with, and making love with, her brother. But as with the previous reason, life has changed much and fewer segments of humanity are trading daughters like bargaining chips.

3) When the entire town or village was expected to attend the same church or temple, the taboo was reinforced if that religion had a prohibition against it. But in many places, this is no longer the case.

Incest was one of many things prohibited in the ancient nation of Israel, per the Torah. Church and political authorities have found incest prohibitions useful not only as part of overall control of sexuality, but for making accusations against opponents and the inconvenient (and how does one prove that they didn’t have sex with someone else?)… and to prevent any one other family from building up and retaining too much power. While royals in Egypt, Hawaii, Europe, and elsewhere married siblings, cousins, and other relatives to retain power, they often  denied other people that right for the same reason.

The religion-imposed taboo should not be underestimated, and leads us into the Other Reasons Incest is Illegal in Some Places.

In many places, there has been an official national or state religion, perhaps with a religious organization having at least some direct influence on the laws. Even in the US, where the Constitution now guarantees freedom of religion and there has been a firmly established separation of church and state, some states were originally colonies established with their own official churches. New states often set up their laws by copying from existing states, and the US has had some Puritan origins, later Victorian influence, and so forth. Famously, alcohol was banned under Prohibition less than a hundred years ago. Before that, women couldn’t even vote and there were many restrictions placed on women that were not placed on men, and thus there was gender inequality under the law and a woman was more or less the property of her father or brother until or unless she married, at which time she became the property of her husband.

Female schoolteachers were expected to abstain from sex or resign if they married. Female pageant contestants had to swear that they were virgins. Until recently, it was common for college dormitory buildings (if not the college itself) to be segregated by gender, complete with curfews and supervisors to try to make sure that students, who were 18 years and older, were not having sex (heterosexual, anyway). Innkeepers, landlords, and property sellers would routinely (often by law) refuse to accommodate or do business with unmarried, mixed-gendered couples.

Boys and young men routinely faced criminal charges for consensual sex with females (or men of any age could be civilly charged with “breach of promise”.)

It was common to have laws against anything but heterosexual intercourse between a husband and a wife. That meant oral sex between a husband and wife was technically illegal, as was any gay or lesbian sex (gay bars were raided by police), unmarried sex or cohabitation; even sex toys and birth control have been illegal in some places. There are still places in the US where someone can be sued for “alienation of affection” for having sex with a married person. Never mind that, even where illegal, brothels have always existed, and fathers have taken their sons to them for their son to have pleasant sexual encounter with a professional, and have mingled with people in power as fellow customers. Never mind that quietly having lovers on the side has been something that has always taken place.

There have also been, and in many ways remain, laws against and restrictions on various forms of dancing, nudity, “crossdressing,” and erotica.

With this sex-negative attitude, it isn’t surprising that there have been laws against incest. What may be surprising is that such laws have remained on the books. There has been a progression of civil rights in places like the US that is moving towards an adult having the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, but we’re still not there. Loving v. Virginia struck down bans on (heterosexual, monogamous) interracial marriages. The Lawrence s. Texas decision struck down laws against gay sex. Cases regarding polyamory and (monogamous) same-sex marriage are currently winding their way through US courts.

In order for remaining laws against consensual incest to be removed, we'll likely need a good test case for the courts. What that would require is a respectable and otherwise law-abiding (and attractive wouldn’t hurt) long-term consanguinamorous couple to fight a state law against consensual incest. The catch-22 is that since people can be, and are, prosecuted for engaging in this consensual relationship, lovers have a strong motivation to hide these relationships, and that is a hindrance to getting the laws changed. It would help if a couple in a state, such as Rhode Island, with no law against consensual incest, applied for a marriage license and subsequently got the courts to overturn prohibitions on consanguineous marriages. However, in addition to fear of prosecution and other legal problems, some people who are, or have been, involved in consanguinamory would prefer the law and/or the taboo remain in place, either because they like being the rebel, they are self-loathing, or they can’t (anymore) have what they want and they don’t want anyone else to have it, either. But they are the minority; most people involved in these relationships very much want their rights.

Throughout all of history, around the world, royal or peasants, urban or royal, rich or poor, there have been close relatives engaging in experimentation or having lifelong spousal-type relationships, and everything in between. You know people who have been involved in consanguinamory whether you know it or not, and whether or not your genealogical charts reveal it, chances are that you don’t have to go too far back in your family tree to find an ancestor whose true biological parents were close relatives.

There are people in relationships right now who would benefit if they had their right to marry. There is now no good reason to keep these laws and the taboo that deny an adult the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. We’re not all going to want the same love lives as each other, but we should allow people to have the relationships of their mutual choosing, the ones in which they will function best.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without being subjected to prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

How You Can Help


Question: Why is incest illegal? Is incest illegal? Why is incest wrong? Is incest wrong? Why is consensual incest illegal? Is consensual incest illegal? Why is consensual incest wrong? Is consensual incest wrong? Why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

Monday, December 30, 2013

Porno Pete Has The Rose Bowl Sadz

"The 'gay wedding' float is symbolic of America’s ongoing moral disintegration: in the name of  'tolerance,' 'diversity' and 'inclusion,' we proudly parade our sin down our streets – defying our Creator and aggressively corrupting the minds and souls of future generations. As historians have documented, sexual immorality, escalating fornication and the abandonment of fidelity in marriage bring about the collapse of civilizations; the United States will be no exception. No wonder developing nations like Jamaica don’t want to emulate us." - Porno Pete LaBarbera, from a press release published today by Christian Newswire.

More US Hate Exported To Jamaica

J. Lester Feder reports at Buzzfeed:
Brian Camenker, founder of MassResistance, was the keynote speaker at an event organized by the Jamaican Coalition for a Healthy Society in the Jamaican capital’s Emancipation Park on Dec. 10. The organization has led a campaign to preserve the sodomy provision — known locally as the “buggery law” — following Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller’s suggestion just before her 2011 election that she might allow a vote on its repeal. “I am here to warn you that [repeal of the buggery law] will have terrible consequences,” Camenker said, according to a video of the event uploaded by MassResistance on Saturday. “A law that contradicts God’s law is the beginning of a slippery slope that you cannot imagine.” Camenker described a series of events that he said flowed from the decriminalization of sodomy in Massachusetts, including the “indoctrination” of children in schools and the suppression of religious people opposed to LGBT rights.
Camenker was there just three days after Porno Pete.

Linda Harvey Publishes Anti-Gay Book

Jeremy Hooper tips us that anti-gay crackpot Linda Harvey has published a new book which (surprise) endorses the torture of LGBT youth. From the book's description on Amazon:
“I’m gay.” As more and more young people decide this is their identity, it’s time to take a closer look. It’s a profound declaration, a new civil right (they are told) and it’s “who you are.” But there’s a problem. Are we sure this is the truth? Does this identity bring the promised liberation and the key to a whole new life? Does it lift the burden of secrecy – or begin a different kind of struggle? Maybe He’s Not Gay: Another View on Homosexuality by Linda Harvey addresses these critical questions. This book is for America’s youth and the bright future they can all have, regardless of the turmoil of adolescence, which for some, may include same sex attractions or gender confusion. What do those feelings mean? Is there another possibility that transcends the seeming finality of a homosexual identity? Teens, college students, parents, youth group leaders and many others will appreciate the practical insights and faith perspective of Maybe He’s Not Gay.

Pope "Shocked" By Gay Adoption

From the Times Of Malta:
The Pope is “shocked” by Malta’s Civil Unions Bill, which will allow gay couples to adopt children, Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna has told The Sunday Times of Malta. Defending his decision to use his Christmas homily to reiterate that a family had to be built around a man and a woman, Mgr Scicluna said he had aired these concerns with Pope Francis when he met him on December 12. “We discussed many aspects...and when I raised the issue that’s worrying me as a bishop [the right for gay couples to adopt] he encouraged me to speak out," Bishop Scicluna said.
Over the weekend the bishop's claim got widespread coverage on anti-gay sites, most of which then mocked the Advocate's person of the year selection.

Michelangelo Signorile Vs HRC

"It's not really a reversal [to reinstate Phil Robertson]. We think it's actually a positive outcome, and we want to thank A&E for their attentiveness and collaboration over the course of the last few weeks. We've received assurances also that the Robertson family is now open to working with African-American and (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people to address the real harm that such anti-gay and racist comments can cause. That's been our 'ask' since Phil's comments ran in GQ, and while it's a positive step, it certainly cannot and should not be the last one." - HRC vice president Fred Sainz, speaking to CNN.

Brian Brown Appears On MSNBC

Brian Brown appeared on an MSNBC panel this weekend where he declared that if a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage were to make it onto the Indiana ballot, "We'll see North Carolina all over again." Josh Barro gets in some good shots.

Brian Brown's Final Money Beg Of 2013

"Dear Joe, Today, more than ever, marriage needs a vibrant and vigorous defense. New assaults seem to be popping up every month — like the recent one from the Obama-appointed judge in Utah — and we must dig deep and engage in the battle with increased fervor. The good news is that 2014 promises to be a year full of opportunity for the marriage movement to regain ground and seize back the momentum! We'll be working to energize and engage grassroots, citizen-led efforts to defend marriage in states where it's strongly supported, like Indiana and Ohio. In addition, we are aiming to win crucial victories on the federal level — like working to win back the United States Senate, and to rally support behind the ‘silver bullet' of a federal marriage amendment. Please, if you haven't donated recently — or even if you have — I'm humbly asking you to click here right away and make a generous donation to support NOM and our work to defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it." - Hate group leader Brian Brown, via email.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

AMC Theatres To Host National Screening Of Movie Featuring Anti-Gay Activists

On May 6th, AMC Theatres will host a one-time national screening of Irreplaceable, a movie produced by Focus On The Family. Among the anti-gay talking heads in the film is Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, who is perhaps best known for his campaign against the publication of gay wedding announcements in Jewish newspapers. Also in the movie is ex-gay torture advocate Dr. Miriam Grossman, the author of You're Teaching My Children WHAT? Other anti-gay figures that appear in the film include right wing talker Eric Metaxas and film critic/Prop 8 proponent Michael Medved.
IRREPLACEABLE follows one man’s journey to determine if traditional families are still relevant to our world. The documentary explores the importance of family with a diversity of experts who enlighten audiences on whether the concept of the traditional family is meaningful, or in fact outdated. IRREPLACEABLE asks families of all faiths and backgrounds to consider the questions, “What is a family?,” “Is today’s family dynamic in trouble?,” “Are families relevant in today’s society?,” and “Is my family worth fighting for in an era where divorce is so prevalent?”
JMG reader Jim reports that a brief trailer for Irreplaceable began playing in AMC multiplexes this week. Here's a longer trailer posted by the studio in October. You'll note that there is only a fleeting mention of same-sex marriage.

RELATED: The second-largest exhibitor in the United States, last year AMC was acquired by the Chinese conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group. The $2.6B deal made the Chinese company the largest movie exhibitor in the world.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

HomoQuotable - Robert Oscar Lopez

"Since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has invited me on its show in the United States. In-depth interviews with me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number of other nations. In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the American Family Association and Frank Sontag's 'Faith and Reason' show in Los Angeles have interviewed me. And I'd been interviewed, prior to the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and NPR, as well as a number of newspapers. Since GLAAD's blacklisting, none. Prior to GLAAD's blacklisting, I had received calls from people at universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and give speeches. Three were working with me to set up dates. Since GLAAD's blacklisting, none. Those who had discussed this with me said point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy. That is the power of GLAAD." - Anti-gay activist Robert Oscar Lopez, writing for American Thinker.

RELATED: In addition to appearing on stage at an anti-gay Manif Pour Tous rally in France, Lopez has testified against LGBT equality before several state legislatures and he co-signed an anti-gay homocon brief to the Supreme Court.  You really must read the Media Matters take on Lopez' trilogy of gay erotica.

OMG! Gay Wedding! Boycott!

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is sponsoring a same-sex wedding to take place atop a float in the coming Rose Bowl Parade. And that has some busybodies very upset.
Karen Grube, of San Diego, said the Tournament of Roses should remove the AHF float from the parade. She has also called on corporate sponsors to remove their support of the parade if the wedding goes on as planned. And, she has set up a Facebook page seeking support for her cause. “Gay marriage is illegal in over 30 states, why would they promote something that is blatantly illegal?” Grube said. “That’s just stupid.” The 2014 Rose Parade is the first where gay marriage has been legal in California, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that deemed Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Grube also said she didn’t think the Tournament should be involved in a group’s “political agenda.” “It used to be a family thing, to get up on New Year’s Day morning and watch the parade,” she said. “It no longer is.”
Here's the Facebook page for the boycott.

Television Boycotts In The Name Of Jesus Are Totally OK With Teabagistan

Censorship! Freedom of speech! Religious liberty! OUTRAAAAAGE! Oh, wait. That deafening sound you hear is crickets, because the weekly boycott demands by the American Family Association, one of the nation's largest Christian advocacy groups, are totally OK with the Tea People.  Because when Christianist groups call for nationwide boycotts of television shows and their advertisers, that is a righteous use of the free market in order to preserve morality, marriage, family, and the American way. But when GAY groups use or threaten the use of a boycott, THAT is homofascist intimidation, intolerance, bullying, a stifling of religious liberty, and an attempt to deny the freedom of speech. Just so we're clear.

Friday, December 27, 2013

A&E Caves On Phil Robertson

More from the Denver Post:
In a statement Friday, A&E said it decided to bring Robertson back after discussions with the Robertson family and "numerous advocacy groups." The channel had put Robertson on what it called "hiatus" following his comments in a magazine article about how the Bible informs his view of gays. His comments were slammed by groups including GLAAD, the gay media watch organization. But A&E's decision drew a backlash from those who said they supported Robertson's comments and others who defended him on the basis of freedom of speech.
Here is A&E's full statement:
As a global media content company, A+E Networks' core values are centered around creativity, inclusion and mutual respect. We believe it is a privilege for our brands to be invited into people’s home and we operate with a strong sense of integrity and deep commitment to these principals. That is why we reacted so quickly and strongly to a recent interview with Phil Robertson.

While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the “coarse language” he used and the mis-interpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would “never incite or encourage hate.” We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family… a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about. So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.

We will also use this moment to launch a national public service campaign (PSA) promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in Duck Dynasty. These PSAs will air across our entire portfolio. In addition, an A&E source says the family and the network are going to work together to promote tolerance moving forward.

Tony Perkins: We Were Winners In 2013

"Dear Joe, With the end of the year right around the corner, FRC can look back and be proud of all we've accomplished in 2013. We took the Obama Administration on headfirst. We challenged its unconstitutional breaches into our lives. We fought back. And we are winning. The momentum is on our side and your support has never been more necessary. We will never back down in standing for advancing faith, freedom, and family. But the Obama Administration has unlimited resources and federal courts that are growing more supportive of its agenda with every passing day.

"We Need Your Help: Protect traditional family values. Fight for stronger religious liberty protections for those serving in the military. Force the Department of Justice to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Challenge the provisions of Obamacare that force Christians to violate their convictions and fund abortion. Joe, stand with FRC as we fight to uphold our values in the face of the Obama Administration and its relentless supporters." - KKK-affiliated hate group leader Tony Perkins, claiming to be a winner without actually having won a single battle in all of 2013.

NALT Responds To Duck Dynasty Flap

The pro-gay NALT Project (Not All Like That) has responded to the Duck Dynasty furor. An excerpt:
As is usual in these debates, the real loser is Christianity itself. Millions of Christians around the world affirm the dignity and equality of LGBT people, and their voices go unheard when public figures like Phil Robertson and his supporters in the right-wing media claim that their discriminatory beliefs represent Christianity. As The NALT Christians Project and a growing grassroots movement of loving, supportive Christians shows, this is not the case. Robertson was suspended because he made hateful comments about minorities, not because he’s a Christian. He and others who couch racist and anti-gay bias in religious language do not own Christianity, nor do they even speak for a majority of Christians.
(Tipped by JMG reader David)

Brian Brown Has The 2013 Sadz

"Hope necessarily drew the Wise Men from the East to glorify the newly born Savior... but the people of Bethlehem didn't see that — they only saw the vindictive and brutal retaliation of King Herod. You and I are often very much like those poor townsfolk, who see only the brutality without seeing the underlying magnificence of God's blessings. These days, to watch the news you might wonder if there's any decency or morality left in America. But what about those other stories that came out several days before Christmas? Where is the hope to be found in them? The Hope I hold onto in the case of Ohio is the same Hope I have for our whole country and indeed our whole world. It is, in fact, the very Hope of Christmas itself. And that's the true and profound message of Hope I want to share today." - Hate group leader Brian Brown, who lost every single battle of 2013, in yesterday's money beg. (There's already been another one today.)

January 21st: Chick-Phil-A Day

This event is the work of the teabagger site Grassfire, which is home to numerous bits of hilarious crackpottery, such as their claim that President Obama has ordered unisex uniforms for the Marine Corps.

Categories