The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

21-04-2013 10:15AM

lmaopml wrote: »

That's pretty similar to any couple who have a child and the parent involves a new partner in their life?

Except we're not talking about "new partners", we're talking about partners who make a life-long commitment to each other. Heterosexual partners who get married do get legal protection. Homosexual partners do not

MrPudding · 21-04-2013 11:35AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Could you be more personally specific? Links are nice but kind of tiresome depending on whether there is any comment or no?

I'd like to know the problems - I have a gay brother in law who signed a civil partnership with his partner - I'm just wondering what he may be thinking that I haven't really considered, I'd like to know what I am missing?

Even if we leave aside all the legal stuff, even if there was another mechanism which resulted in the rights being identical, there is still a problem.

Marriage is considered to be the highest expression of love and the "best" relationship that is available. This is an opinion that is held by many and is the basis of one of the issues of marriage inequality, and one that is frequently ignored.

By refusing the title of marriage to same sex couples the state is impliedly saying that the relationships of same sex couples is inferior to those of opposite sex couples. They do not deserve access to the highest tier of relationship that the state recognises (and remember we are talking about civil marriage here, another thing that is often ignored).

Though the ages gay people have been the target of hate and derision. In recent history this has begun to change, but there is still not full acceptance. The state should be doing everything it can to reduce discrimination and promote equality. By continuing to restrict the use of the term marriage to opposite sex couples the state is effectively saying that same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. This is not conducive to an atmosphere of reducing discrimination and allows people to point to the state and say "even the government doesn't think same sex couples are as good as opposite sex couples."

Now, many people, including quite a few on this particular board, already hold the opinion that same sex couples are inferior, and that is fine. It is unlikely that anything, even a visit from your god, is likely to change that. But if you consider future generations the simple act of recognising same sex marriage could have a massive effect in the future for the acceptability of same sex relationships.

This, of course, give opponents of same sex marriage another argument to use against it. They do not want acceptance of same sex marriage or likely anything that will promote acceptance of same sex relationships, but unfortunately for them, it is coming. Society is moving on and whilst bigots, of both religious and non-religious flavours, may wail and gnash their teeth they will not win.

MrP

aloyisious · 21-04-2013 12:26PM

@ImaopmI:The status of marriage..... Getting Married - The General Register Office Ireland, webpage address below.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.groireland.ie%2Fgetting_married.htm&ei=4r1zUe69D8jLhAezpoDgAQ&usg=AFQjCNGETZ3WtIz9DUWGQd-Tynpt4212sg&bvm=bv.45512109,d.ZG4

Para 1 of the above: Marriage is a solemn legal contract; therefore it is vital that all the necessary preliminaries for a marriage be completed in order that the marriage is legally valid. The marriage provisions of the Civil Registration Act, 2004 became law on 5th November 2007 and a subsequently amended by the Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2012 which became law on 23rd January 2013. This legislation brought about major changes in the procedures for solemnising and registering marriages in the republic. The information on this webpage reflects the requirements of the new legislation and should be noted carefully.

To make an appointment to give Notification of Intention to Marry ("Three months notice") to a Registrar, you should contact your local HSE Civil Registration Office.

..................................................................................................................................................

Re the response from Imaopml to NuMarvel: Quote/NuMarvel:So even though that other parent will be just as involved in the upbringing of the child, they can make no decisions for the child. That could be for something as complex as medical treatment, or as simple as signing a permission slip for school outing. EDIT: Or even collect them from school in one case!

Imaopml:Unless there is an incredibly caustic relationship between parents, I have found that most schools know who and who is not allowed to take a student out of the yard home. Teachers are extremely vigilant, and they have to be... Unquote.

Re the above, I'm unsure of the grounds on which a school or other body may act in loco parentis of a parent recognized in law as such here, but I'm wondering if it might be possible (for anyone acting within the powers of loco parentis) to decline an adult access to a child on the grounds that the adult is not (by law or biology) a parent of the child. I've "googled" the topic of access and see that a step-parent is a person of loco-parentis, but can't find an answer to my question. I've posed it in respect of a CP/d partner with NO biology link to a child being brought up within a CP relationship.

I've labelled the CP'd couple as being a relationship, rather than as a family for context of this question only, as I'm unsure of how CP'd couples with children are actually viewed in Irish law, given how the constitution refer's to the family:Article 41.3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Being gay and a supporter of Civil Marriage being extended to LGBT couples, my personal view is that CP'd couples bringing up children are families.

aloyisious · 21-04-2013 02:11PM

Breda O'Brien column - Irish Times -Sunday 21 April - online address http://iti.ms/13nhg2G

However, as she included "It is an entirely different thing to legislate to declare that having both a mother and father has no intrinsic value" in it, I think her column loses reality. I doubt if any of our national legislators would have the courage to propose any such wording in legislation here.

NuMarvel · 21-04-2013 02:34PM

aloyisious wrote: »

I've labelled the CP'd couple as being a relationship, rather than as a family for context of this question only, as I'm unsure of how CP'd couples with children are actually viewed in Irish law, given how the constitution refer's to the family:Article 41.3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Being gay and a supporter of Civil Marriage being extended to LGBT couples, my personal view is that CP'd couples bringing up children are families.

Just on that point, the Supreme Court has interpreted family, in the legal sense, as being a married couple with or without children. And the courts have also ruled that a unmarried couple with children aren't a family.

Civil partners, with or without children, aren't a family in the legal sense, which is why the civil partnership act refers to the home as a shared home, instead of a family home, and so on.

Of course, this is all in the legal sense. In everyday terms, I think we all refer to people with children as families, regardless of their marital or civil status.

aloyisious · 21-04-2013 02:48PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Just on that point, the Supreme Court has interpreted family, in the legal sense, as being a married couple with or without children. And the courts have also ruled that a unmarried couple with children aren't a family.

Civil partners, with or without children, aren't a family in the legal sense, "]which is why the civil partnership act refers to the home as a shared home, instead of a family home, and so on".

Of course, this is all in the legal sense. In everyday terms, I think we all refer to people with children as families, regardless of their marital or civil status.

Ta for that, I hadn't known about that bit (middle para) showing separate but equal thesis in law.

Bannasidhe · 21-04-2013 03:01PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Just on that point, the Supreme Court has interpreted family, in the legal sense, as being a married couple with or without children. And the courts have also ruled that a unmarried couple with children aren't a family.

Civil partners, with or without children, aren't a family in the legal sense, which is why the civil partnership act refers to the home as a shared home, instead of a family home, and so on.

Of course, this is all in the legal sense. In everyday terms, I think we all refer to people with children as families, regardless of their marital or civil status.

Re: Part in bold.

So as according to the State which defines a 'family' as a married couple regardless of whether they have children or not - may I ask those who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds of 'what is best for children' what children have to do with Civil Marriage when the highest court in the land does not consider them to be necessary to be legally considered a 'family' i.e. Married?

aloyisious · 21-04-2013 03:46PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Re: Part in bold.

So as according to the State which defines a 'family' as a married couple regardless of whether they have children or not - may I ask those who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds of 'what is best for children' what children have to do with Civil Marriage when the highest court in the land does not consider them to be necessary to be legally considered a 'family' i.e. Married?

I'm waiting for some-one to respond with a "children are not accessories, they're part of the whole deal" comment

MrPudding · 21-04-2013 04:02PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Re: Part in bold.

So as according to the State which defines a 'family' as a married couple regardless of whether they have children or not - may I ask those who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds of 'what is best for children' what children have to do with Civil Marriage when the highest court in the land does not consider them to be necessary to be legally considered a 'family' i.e. Married?

It is to lend a slight veneer of reasonableness and reason to their arguments and attempt to hide what actually lies beneath it all, bigotry.

MrP

Bannasidhe · 21-04-2013 04:06PM

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm waiting for some-one to respond with a "children are not accessories, they're part of the whole deal" comment

My accessory is going on 29 with 2 little accessories of his own - always find it interesting how so many of the people who wouldn't consider my accessory and I a 'proper' family have no accessories of their own yet still feel qualified to judge the idealness of my (not a 'real') family.

But shure what do the gays know about commitment...

aloyisious · 22-04-2013 12:09PM

As the people who defined the ideal Irish family are long since gone, so maybe it's about time the definition was updated to include your's

JimiTime · 25-04-2013 10:52PM

A good Christian response to a college student who left the church because of his gay friends. The article also links to this college guys original blog.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39234-a-fathers-response-to-an-open-letter-to-the-church-from-my-generation

aloyisious · 26-04-2013 10:58AM

I fast-speeded through the article by Dr Brown and took a similar glance at the Kid's letter. The Dr had a good point about taking a loving stance towards the O/P, and the Kid mentioned two sides in his open letter (4th & 5th sentences of Para 3) quote:We want to hear about equality and love in a gentle way. We’re sick of the harsh words of both sides;unquote. I guess from that part of what the kid said that he was putting himself into a third camp, one separate from what he saw as two warring sides. like he was sick of the "can - cant" cant from both sides.

For the Kid's letter, click on "dear College Kid"

While we're on the topic, this from today's online PinkPaper: Catholic bishops in Northern Ireland are writing to assembly members urging them to vote against a motion which would legalise equal marriage.

The Stormont Assembly will debate the issue on Monday 29 April.

The proposed motion is being pushed by Sinn Fein following an overwhelming vote in favour of a referendum on legalising same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland.

A previous motion in Northern Ireland was put forward in October 2012, but was defeated by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Father Bartlett, from the Catholic Council for Social Affairs, told the BBC: “Any debate about this matter from a Christian point of view has to be framed in terms of respect, love, kindness towards each other and for each other as human beings and respect the dignity of each other.

“Mums and dads are important and that difference between men and women in the rearing of children is important and society has always recognised that and given it a special place.”

Northern Ireland’s Presbyterian Church has also written to assembly members re-stating its opposition to marriage equality.

There will be a demonstration, organised by Equal Marriage Northern Ireland, outside of the Stormont Assembly on Monday to coincide with the debate.

Zombrex · 26-04-2013 11:11AM

JimiTime wrote: »

A good Christian response to a college student who left the church because of his gay friends. The article also links to this college guys original blog.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39234-a-fathers-response-to-an-open-letter-to-the-church-from-my-generation

That seems to be just the same old same old. No one should be bullied but we shouldn't celebrate homosexuality either. God wants only man and woman to marry. Children need a mother and father. Its a slipper slope. If we change the definition of marriage we will regret it. Christians should find something better than being gay. Go read your Bible.

None of these deals with the central point of the "Open Letter ...", that being the reality of the situation, of actually being close to and observing gay people, does not add up to what the Church teaches about them.

It might as well be the church saying the world is flat and when this kid says in an open letter "Actually..." the good Christian response is to just say go read your Bible, it says the world is flat.

If the Christian response is we don't care how it appears to be, the Bible says this, well you guys are just going to end up being this centuries Creationists.

JimiTime · 26-04-2013 01:48PM

Zombrex wrote: »

That seems to be just the same old same old. No one should be bullied but we shouldn't celebrate homosexuality either. God wants only man and woman to marry. Children need a mother and father. Its a slipper slope. If we change the definition of marriage we will regret it. Christians should find something better than being gay. Go read your Bible.

None of these deals with the central point of the "Open Letter ...", that being the reality of the situation, of actually being close to and observing gay people, does not add up to what the Church teaches about them.

It might as well be the church saying the world is flat and when this kid says in an open letter "Actually..." the good Christian response is to just say go read your Bible, it says the world is flat.

If the Christian response is we don't care how it appears to be, the Bible says this, well you guys are just going to end up being this centuries Creationists.

Shame thats what you took out of it. Though it was meant for a Christian audience, so I don't think it matters much that you didn't get it.

VinLieger · 26-04-2013 02:59PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Shame thats what you took out of it. Though it was meant for a Christian audience, so I don't think it matters much that you didn't get it.

So since its only meant for a christian audience other peoples opinions on it dont matter? Funny to see that argument coming from a religious person. Wonder what your reaction would be if someone said the same to you regarding gay people getting married? In that a gay person getting married has nothing to do with you therefore your opinion doesnt matter and shouldnt be taken into consideration?

MrPudding · 26-04-2013 03:59PM

VinLieger wrote: »

So since its only meant for a christian audience other peoples opinions on it dont matter? Funny to see that argument coming from a religious person. Wonder what your reaction would be if someone said the same to you regarding gay people getting married? In that a gay person getting married has nothing to do with you therefore your opinion doesnt matter and shouldnt be taken into consideration?

No, it is probably because us non believers read it with our eyes and our brains whereas the believers will read it with their blood pumping organ and will, therefore, see the actual meaning of the words that eyes and brains can't detect. Or something...

MrP

aloyisious · 26-04-2013 04:10PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Shame thats what you took out of it. Though it was meant for a Christian audience, so I don't think it matters much that you didn't get it.

Excellent proselytizing

Kiwi in IE · 26-04-2013 11:12PM

VinLieger wrote: »

So since its only meant for a christian audience other peoples opinions on it dont matter? Funny to see that argument coming from a religious person. Wonder what your reaction would be if someone said the same to you regarding gay people getting married? In that a gay person getting married has nothing to do with you therefore your opinion doesnt matter and shouldnt be taken into consideration?

The above is entirely correct. Gay people getting married has nothing to do with anyone except gay people who want to get married. The opinions of others, Christian or otherwise, SHOULD be completely irrelevant.

aloyisious · 27-04-2013 12:18PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The above is entirely correct. Gay people getting married has nothing to do with anyone except gay people who want to get married. The opinions of others, Christian or otherwise, SHOULD be completely irrelevant.

You put it in a nutshell. The problem lies with the people who are of the persuasions that "believe" they have sole rights to the ceremony of marriage and the use of the word.

1ZRed · 27-04-2013 12:43PM

JimiTime wrote: »

A good Christian response to a college student who left the church because of his gay friends. The article also links to this college guys original blog.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39234-a-fathers-response-to-an-open-letter-to-the-church-from-my-generation

This first comment sums up the group of crazy that follows these articles. It'd hardly say they have anything rational to say at all.

Like many others "I have found something better than being gay".

So I speak as an insider and this is my fight, in the culture war.

By the unmerited favor of the Creator, I found a treasure hidden in a field, and I went and sold everything. Everything in my life. Even my homosexuality, that I might buy that field.

Here is something missed by a lot of gay Christians, who refuse to give up the lifestyle. Because they have been misstaught "justification by faith" they never learn the fact that:

Holiness is by Grace, through faith.

The Spirit of Christ causes holiness. The cross is heavy, and the road is narrow, that follows Messiah away from the world and its worldliness.

The new birth, causes by nature, a transformed life... and there comes a time when its time, as a believer to stop having your diapers changed, and to put away childish things. Maturity as a believer is an inevitability. Why? Because the same grace that justifies also transforms. You do not get one without the other.

As I look at my only child, a 6 month old, I feel grave concern for the post-judeo-christian world he will grow up in. My wife, and I are in full agreement. We have no choice. For his spiritual welfare, we are going to home school.

As I am a 38 year old, ex-homosexual male, I look at the effects of 60 years of "Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll" and I see the blood of 55 Million aborted Americans crying out for God's Justice, more drug-related criminals and their families destroyed by the rock (now rap) culture underpinned by the "do what thou wilt, is the whole of the law" philosophy of Satanist Alistair Crowley

We live in a time when the entertainment teaches a corrupting immorality, Lady GAGA informs the listeners that "we are born this way" To be Gay is the same thing as being black or any other minority... I am a witness to the Power of God. I am not born again, THAT way.

If this nation does not repent of iniquity, it will be destroyed.

But no one is listening. To the truth. Our radios blare out "I kissed a girl and I likkked it" by Katy Perry and even Christians seem to like it, based on what I hear the men and women of the church saying after-hours, Monday through Saturday.

The disciple Luke, wrote a two volume Gospel. Luke and Acts...Acts 15 makes it crystal clear that "abstaining from sexual immorality" is necessary to be saved. In the name of seeker friendly churches, we make the salt that gives light and life, less salty by sugar-coating the message, until its all sugary sweet death.

The church needs to return to calling sin, sin... and sinners to repent, before the kingdom slips through peoples fingers. Because the schools won't be the means of God's grace revealed in Yeshua, the Messiah.

We live in a time when young impressionable middle school student girls are being told to kiss other girl students, by adults in classrooms. 6, 7, and 8th graders... look up Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, N.Y.
42^ 2|

robp · 27-04-2013 01:21PM

Zombrex wrote: »

That seems to be just the same old same old. No one should be bullied but we shouldn't celebrate homosexuality either. God wants only man and woman to marry. Children need a mother and father. Its a slipper slope. If we change the definition of marriage we will regret it. Christians should find something better than being gay. Go read your Bible.

None of these deals with the central point of the "Open Letter ...", that being the reality of the situation, of actually being close to and observing gay people, does not add up to what the Church teaches about them.

It might as well be the church saying the world is flat and when this kid says in an open letter "Actually..." the good Christian response is to just say go read your Bible, it says the world is flat.

If the Christian response is we don't care how it appears to be, the Bible says this, well you guys are just going to end up being this centuries Creationists.

What are you suggesting the various churches teach? The impression I got is that as biologically children are impossible (as a rule so this does not apply to infertile heterosexual couples) there is inherent social reasons why this is the case but I guess that is just bigotry so it must not be discussed.

Why use the flat earth myth as an analogous example when a flat earth wasn't even a real belief?

Bannasidhe · 27-04-2013 01:45PM

robp wrote: »

What are you suggesting the various churches teach? The impression I got is that as biologically children are impossible (as a rule so this does not apply to infertile heterosexual couples) there is inherent social reasons why this is the case but I guess that is just bigotry so it must not be discussed.

Why use the flat earth myth as an analogous example when a flat earth wasn't even a real belief?

My biological son will be interested to hear his existence is 'impossible' - which in turn makes the existence of his two children 'impossible'.

Do people think the anatomy of homosexuals is different to heterosexuals???

lazygal · 27-04-2013 02:45PM

What's biologically impossible about gay people having children? Straight people pro create without having sex, don't they? Or do my friends with IVF babies have the wrong end of the stick?

MrPudding · 27-04-2013 04:05PM

robp wrote: »

What are you suggesting the various churches teach? The impression I got is that as biologically children are impossible (as a rule so this does not apply to infertile heterosexual couples) there is inherent social reasons why this is the case but I guess that is just bigotry so it must not be discussed.

Can you please explain why children are a biological impossibility for a same sex couple but not for an infertile couple?

MrP

aloyisious · 27-04-2013 05:16PM

robp wrote: »

What are you suggesting the various churches teach? The impression I got is that as biologically children are impossible (as a rule so this does not apply to infertile heterosexual couples) there is inherent social reasons why this is the case but I guess that is just bigotry so it must not be discussed.

Why use the flat earth myth as an analogous example when a flat earth wasn't even a real belief?

You have got the wrong impression if you think that Lesbians and Gay men cannot procreate. It's more that they have the inclination to fancy some-one of the same sex. I personally know people who, for the sake of Irish tradition and social pressure, married persons of the opposite sex and procreated within those marriages.

Brian Finnegan, the editor of GCN, is an example of this and was on RTE today (playback of John Murray Show item) talking about how he came out to his son and worried if he would get bullied in school as a result.

robp · 27-04-2013 05:47PM

lazygal wrote: »

What's biologically impossible about gay people having children? Straight people pro create without having sex, don't they? Or do my friends with IVF babies have the wrong end of the stick?

In lesbians relationships one partner can bear a child but not the couple as the other women is an adopter. Its not a biological parent. For men its the same plus it requires the legal minefield of surrogacy and a lot of cash for a Ukrainian surrogate. It really is a unique situation.

MrPudding wrote: »

Can you please explain why children are a biological impossibility for a same sex couple but not for an infertile couple?
MrP

As I explained in brackets infertility is the exception rather then rule so its fundamentally different.

aloyisious wrote: »

You have got the wrong impression if you think that Lesbians and Gay men cannot procreate. It's more that they have the inclination to fancy some-one of the same sex. I personally know people who, for the sake of Irish tradition and social pressure, married persons of the opposite sex and procreated within those marriages.

Brian Finnegan, the editor of GCN, is an example of this and was on RTE today (playback of John Murray Show item) talking about how he came out to his son and worried if he would get bullied in school as a result.

They cannot procreate in their meaningful same sex relationship. Of course they can bear children if someone else comes into the picture but that is missing the point. Say in the case of lesbians all IVF is doing is creating a single parent and an adopter. Good intentions and all the couple hasn't born children. Adoption is a great thing but its not the same as raising one's own.

MrPudding · 27-04-2013 06:37PM

robp wrote: »

As I explained in brackets infertility is the exception rather then rule so its fundamentally different.

See, you can't just declare this beause it suits your purposes. If child bearing is such an important part of marriage the you need to explain why other people that can't or won't have children are still allowed to get married. Without some reasonable explanation for the difference in treatment it just seems like more bigotry and discrimination.

Further, where did this idea that the primary purpose for marriage is pro-creation come from? What happened to good old fashioned love? It seems to me that this argument only really appeared once it was made clear that "my god(s) said so" was no longer sufficient reason for discrimination.

MrP

robp · 27-04-2013 07:14PM

MrPudding wrote: »

See, you can't just declare this beause it suits your purposes. If child bearing is such an important part of marriage the you need to explain why other people that can't or won't have children are still allowed to get married. Without some reasonable explanation for the difference in treatment it just seems like more bigotry and discrimination.
MrP

Well of course there are several issues and several arguments on each side on the debate. The claim for marriage is not the same as the claim to be treated as a couple for adoption purposes. For instance no one is arguing that gay people be excluded for adoption application as single parents. My post was examining religious opposition to gay marriage. Infertility is usually unknown but very often can be treated without IVF. I presume religious acceptance of infertile marriages revolve around the fact that infertility is a malfunction and not biologically intended. That is my guess.

MrPudding wrote: »

Further, where did this idea that the primary purpose for marriage is pro-creation come from? What happened to good old fashioned love? It seems to me that this argument only really appeared once it was made clear that "my god(s) said so" was no longer sufficient reason for discrimination.

MrP

Well I am sure you could look at marriage from any number of ways legal, economic, evolutionary, religious etc. I don't think a law view really gives much depth on the matter but I would surmise that from a religious or indeed evolutionary perspective marriage has always centred around reproduction. Its hardly a recent argument. Anthropology is full of this notion. Sadly the idea of marriage just being about love is probably largely a recent thing.

MrPudding · 27-04-2013 07:44PM

robp wrote: »

Well of course there are several issues and several arguments on each side on the debate. The claim for marriage is not the same as the claim to be treated as a couple for adoption purposes. For instance no one is arguing that gay people be excluded for adoption application as single parents. My post was examining religious opposition to gay marriage.

But you can't use your religious debate as justification for discriminating against a class of person. If you want to discriminate against a person, or class of persons, you need to be able to explain the reason for that discrimination in a way that is accessable to them, otherwise, quite rightly, you will be unable to persuade them that you are correct in your discrimination. How can you persuade a person that does not believe your religion that you are correct to discriminate against them? This is one of the reasons why religious reasons are not sufficient for a basis of law.

robp wrote: »

Infertility is usually unknown but very often can be treated without IVF. I presume religious acceptance of infertile marriages revolve around the fact that infertility is a malfunction and not biologically intended. That is my guess.

But some religious organisations don't support IVF either... But again, where is the basis for this requirement of pro-creation and why is there an exception for opposite sex couples that cannot or will not have children? You are the one deploying the argument, I would expect you to know the basis of the argument.

robp wrote: »

Well I am sure you could look at marriage from any number of ways legal, economic, evolutionary, religious etc. I don't think a law view really gives much depth on the matter but I would surmise that from a religious or indeed evolutionary perspective marriage has always centred around reproduction. Its hardly a recent argument. Anthropology is full of this notion. Sadly the idea of marriage just being about love is probably largely a recent thing.

Marriage has never been a requirement for procreation anf pro-creation has never been a requirement of marriage. The idea that children will be born in a marriage is somewhat obvious, but it deployment as a thin veil over bigotry and an argument to justify continued discrimination seems reasonably new.

MrP

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments