LGBT Issues :: LGBT Perspective

Home About Contact Site Guide What's New

**Site Being Assembled**
Consider this a Beta.

  SCIENCE FAITH POLITICS HISTORY CULTURE  
template4_08

New

Follow us on Twitter
or
by our RSS feed

rss

 

Find Help

*unaffiliated with isocrat.org

**affiliated with selves

 

Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage Equality

by Dr. Scot O'Grair @ isocrat.org

Related Items...
2008-06-10
2008-06-20
2008-06-20
2008-06-20

Find more related items by: author or by topic

Keywords:: Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Marriage, Law, Religion, Economics, Family, Anti-Gay Rights

In other articles on isocrat.org we have addressed what society gains from legal same-sex unions (here), and why same-sex couples want the associated rights and responsibilities (here). On the other hand, the arguments presented by anti-gay rights activists against legal same-sex marriage are also many and varied in their focus. They are also varied in their robustness. In this article we will try to collect and address some of the more common arguments against same-sex unions.

Contents:

  • Familial Arguments
  • Sociological Arguments
    • The Slippery Slope. Legal same-sex unions will lead to socially condoned polygamy, bestiality, and so on.
    • The Effects in Other Jurisdictions. Where same-sex unions have been given legal rights, there has been a marked decline in some measure of the health of marriage or the family.
    • The Best Defense. Marriage is under attack by those advocating for same-sex marriage rights.
    • More Gays and Lesbians. Legal marriage equality for gay couples will cause more people to be gay, due to the eventual muted social stigma.
    • Definitions. You Cannot Redefine Marriage, or same-sex couples cannot be married by definition.
    • The Right. Society Has the Right to Define Marriage.
    • Anti-Democracy. Because a lot of same-sex marriage rights have been decided in the judicial branch of the government and were not voted on, these rights should not be given.
    • Unprecedented, Untried. We cannot let same-sex couples have equal rights, because we never have before and we don't know what will happen if we alter the definition of marriage.
    • Tried and Died. Where same-sex unions have been tolerated, they have been the or a cause of that society's demise.
    • Tradition. Marriage has never included gay couples, and therefore it should not now.
  • Religious Arguments
    • God. God says same sex relations are immoral.
    • Violating Religious Freedom. Because marriages are often religious ceremonies, and some religions frown on same-sex unions, to force them to perform same-sex unions would force them to compromise their articles of faith.
    • Adoption in Massachusetts. We have already seen religious discrimination because of gay marriage occur in Boston, where the Catholic Church has ended adoption services instead of adopting to gay couples.
  • Economic Arguments
    • Money. It Will Cost Us Too Much.
    • Economic Dissimilarity. Gay couples have economic needs so dissimilar to straight couples as to make marriage inapplicable.
  • Biological Arguments
    • Extinction. - If everyone were gay the human race would die off, and thus we should not condone such unions in law.
    • Mutants. Homosexuality is a deleterious mutation, akin to a genetic disease, and thus we should not condone such unions in law.
    • Artificial. Homosexuality is not natural, and only natural marriages should be recognized. There are two problems here.
  • The Miscellaneous and Peculiar Arguments
    • Geometry. Gay couples cannot get married because, for example, two male ends of an extension cord do not fit together.
    • We Had a Deal - We gave gays and lesbians some rights decades ago and were assured it would not lead to legal marriage; now they are going back on the deal.

1. Familial Arguments

I- The Ideal Family Argument. In the ideal family situation, children are created and raised by their biological parents. The state’s interest in marriages is in promoting the creation of children in that ideal. This argument is addressed in its own article, here.

II - Children Deserve a Mother and a Father. It should be made clear that this is not exactly an argument against same-sex marriage, but against same-sex parenting. As will be addressed in the next section, legal same-sex unions are often desired because children are already in their families. This particular argument, however, is addressed here.

III- The Children in General. Legalized same-sex unions will harm children. Firstly, not the gay children, and they count as important children too. Secondly, it is a common mistake of anti-marriage equality activists to assume giving legal marriage suddenly brings children into the picture. Many of their commercials and public statements seems to say marriage is solely an issue of child-adoption.

Actually, marriage for same-sex couples is very often wanted because children are already in the picture; marriage law is needed to protect these children and secure their homes. Laws forbidding their parent's legal union or even adoption obviously do not make children disappear, and do not seem to have an effect on these same-sex headed families. If anything, these laws may even promote more children to be raised by same-sex parents. Consider that, based on the 2000 US Census, the states with the highest percentage of same-sex couples raising children were some of the most conservative (1), and growing quickly (2) . These are states such as Mississippi, South Dakota, Utah, Texas, and Idaho. Utah not only has a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex civil unions; it has a law forbidding same-sex adoption, and yet it is number 2 in the nation in the percentage of cohabiting lesbian couples raising children at 42%. Many of these children of gay couples in conservative states are likely the result of gay citizens being coerced into a heterosexual marriage, leading divorces and, often, trauma for children. If we want to help children, we should encourage strong unions that accommodate people's innate attraction to men or women, instead of using government to coerce citizens into acting like something they are not.

On top of all that, the exact opposite is true. Giving marriage rights to parents, even same-sex parents, helps children in very clear and demonstrated ways. It keeps people to their obligations (here) and punishes the infidelity of parents (here). It strengthens a child's bonds to extended family (here). It gets children out of daycare (here) and out of foster care and into permanent homes (here). Marriage gives them greater access to health care (here), and more funds saved on taxes (here). With all these benefits, one has to wonder how this argument "for the children" ever gained traction in the anti-marriage equality camp, when they are out to weaken the rights of children and the responsibilities of parents, and no gay rights activist is hoping to take the same from any other family.

Because these children already exist and would benefit by marriage rights, denying marriage to parents for the good of children is baseless, even if children raised by same-sex parents belonged to a group that had a demonstrated deficit (as some children of other groups with marriage rights do, here). Nevertheless, we have created a separate article reviewing the research on the effects of having same-sex parents on children, here. In short, after many studies over many years, there has yet to be shown a significant and repeatable deleterious effect, when compared to the average heterosexual-headed family.

IV- The Family. Legal same-sex unions will harm the families of others. Many people do feel that if you help another's family yours must be hurt. Some just feel it in their gut and take that as evidence. Nevertheless, what is the mechanism or real evidence of harm here? There has been no harm shown to families where same-sex unions have been allowed equality under the law, and there may even be a benefit to heterosexual-headed families (Related isocrat.org article). Furthermore, there are many easily observed benefits to all sorts of families when same-sex couples are given equal rights and responsibilities (Related isocrat.org article), not to mention the clear benefit to families headed by and including same-sex couples (Related isocrat.org article). There is no evidence of or even a reasonable mechanism for harm to family to justify harming real world families in so many ways. To discourage marriages and advocate legally hobbling families under the banner of "pro-family" is merely classic political double speak.

V - The Purpose of Marriage. Legal same-sex unions will cause heterosexual couples to stop using marriage for the rearing of children. Currently about 46% of married heterosexual couples in the US, according to our government census, are raising children, while about a 30% of cohabiting same-sex couples are doing the same (1). That is not a big differences and it is one that is only likely to have shrunk since 2000. To deny couples with children marriage rights because of their sex betrays the premise of this argument, and sends the message that marriage is not about raising children, or love, dedication, sacrifice, or all that; it is all about sexual anatomy. That is the message that truly diminishes the importance of marriage in a society and mutes some of its best and most uplifting aspects, for even heterosexual couples considering their options.

With this argument also often comes some claim that, for instance, scandinavian countries which allow marriage equality have seen this change in the purpose of marriage occur. That data is reviewed and addressed here.

VI - Stability. Gay couples separate at a greater rate or are more promiscuous and therefore they would destabilize the family if they were allowed to marry. It is important to know what, exactly, the data is here. Take, for example, Dr. James Kennedy, an anti-gay rights author and mega-church pastor (3):

Well, what does a homosexual marriage look like? Well the longest term that we have to take a look at it is in the Netherlands. And one sociologist made a study of that and found out that the average marriage between two men lasts 1.5 years. Furthermore, they don’t even believe really in monogamous marriages. On average, the average married homosexual man has 8 other sexual partners per year. So those year and a half marriages involved also sex with 12 other men during that time.

That does sound bad. The study he is referring to is one used quite often by anti-gay activists. It was a 2003 bit of work conducted by Xiridou et al. (4), and the full text may be found by following the link in our library, here.

Contrary to Dr. Kennedy's claims the men in the study group were not married men, far from it. The Amsterdam Cohort Study on HIV and AIDS was the source of the data used in this research (5); it was meant to study AIDS, not marriage. As such, over the life of this study the admittance requirements changed (6). At one point only men with 2 or more sexual partners in the last 6 months were allowed to participate (monogamous men were effectively excluded). At another point participants were directed to the study because they were found to be HIV+. Furthermore, this study began in the 80's, at the peak of the western world's gay sexual adolescence, almost two decades before the first same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, and it only looked at gay men living in one of the most permissive cities in the world, Amsterdam. Finally, this study threw out all men over the age of 30, only looking at the most sexually active gay men in their teens and twenties.

In short, they rightly searched out high sexual activity in order to study their model of AIDS transmission, and what they term a "steady partner" in their study was not a marriage. It was a self assessed classification of the regularity with which a participant had a sexual relationship with a particular partner; they did not even need to live together. To use such data to make conclusions about married gay men is ridiculous, if not outright deceptive, but it is a common tactic of anti-gay rights activists, one of which all must be aware.

Men, in the general population, report about 10 sexual partners throughout their lives, while women report about half that (7, 8). There must be some reporting problems in those totals as about 45% of all men report having more than one sexual partner within the last 12 months (9). About 12% of all women report being non-monogamous, and that number is inversely proportional to age (between the ages of 18 and 24, about a quarter of all women report non-monogamy) (10). Furthermore between 40 and 50% of heterosexual marriages will end in divorce (11). So it must first be kept in mind that there is a significant background level of non-monogamy to consider when considering gays and lesbians in particular.

It is true, though, that back in 80s and early 90s a couple studies did find that gay male couples had a favorable view of and practiced non-monogamous relationships significantly more often than heterosexual or lesbian couples (12, 13). These, though, were not legally married couples and marriage does inarguably strengthen a union. One must keep in mind that gay couples are, if they are to find a relationship that matches their orientation, often put outside their society's sexual rules as a whole. Many gay men come out to parents who refuse to guide their gay children into monogamy and may even cut ties, particularly in decades past. One should expect things to be quite different if gay teens instead came out to accepting parents who still guided all their children to remain monogamous with either an eventual husband or wife.

Nevertheless, even without marriage and with the substantial pressures in the way of stable same-sex relationships, outcomes are not that dire for gay and lesbian couples. In an 18-month follow up on 3,656 married heterosexual couples, 658 cohabiting heterosexual couples, 969 gay couples and 788 lesbian couples, the percentage of unions that ended were 4%, 14%, 13% and 18%, respectively (12). Same-sex couples, without legal marriage, seem to do about as well as heterosexual couples without legal marriage. Another study looked at parenthood as well and found, over about 11 years, of cohabiting couples, 3% of heterosexual parents, 19% of heterosexual non-parents, 19% of lesbian non-parents, and 24% of gay male non-parents split up (14). In this study, it is important to note that heterosexual couples were all included just after their marriages, while same-sex couples were included even years into their relationships, and thus the true numbers for same-sex couples are likely lower.

Apparently both parenthood and marriage have stabilizing effects on a union. As more and more gays and lesbians become legal spouses and parents, and as their families become more supportive of their unions, one should expect these numbers to improve. If we truly want that and want to promote monogamy we should promote marriage and, along with it, all of those deep familial bonds that are never worth severing, for everyone.

On a personal note, this topic must be one of the most frustrating for this author, and I am sure it is for many other gay men (and lesbians who are about as monogamous as heterosexual couples anyway). It is bigotry to be judged by the actions of others, even if you do share some trait with those others, be it orientation, skin color, religion, or anything else. I have only ever had one sexual partner, and have been in a union that has lasted from my teens, 16 years now. I will be proud to recount my relationship history to my children, but I know from personal experience there are a good number of anti-gay activists who cannot say the same.

VII - Forbidden Vocabulary. Gay Marriage will lead to a genderless world where even the terms 'mom' and 'dad' are forbidden. It seems this argument generally springs from the use of genderless terms in marriage certificates and in other areas of government. There are really two choices here: either call a man a woman in a government form and a woman a man, and mislable the biologically intersexed, or use genderless words like spouse and parent. The latter is simply the most accurate and applicable to all humans and their unions.

Nevertheless, a M or F on a government form or lack thereof has no bearing on true gender. There will always be people who are male or female; there will also always be people who are, from birth, neither (or both) male or female (15). A broadly applicable government form or law does not change that fact. When, for example, voting became gender blind gender did not disappear with the increased promise of justice. Gender was with us long before we had government forms and will remain regardless.

Furthermore, it is simple fear mongering to claim terms such as 'mom' and 'dad' are being attacked by gay rights activists. What terms do anti-gay rights activists think the children of same-sex couples use for their parents? The same is true for 'husband' and 'wife'. The gay community is every bit as invested in those words, they use them frequently, and those words are going nowhere.

VIII - Accidental Children. Gay couples do not have children by accident and therefore marriage is not applicable to them. This argument has much in common with the Ideal Family argument, which is addressed here, but it does have some unique considerations. First, the assumption here is not true. Gay couples do become parents by surprise when, for example, a relative dies who has expressed their will for the gay couple to be their dependent children's parents. This author is personally aware of a couple of same-sex headed families which grew due to such an unfortunate and surprising event.

Secondly, planning out your family size in no way negate the usefulness of marriage to either families or society. Most pregnancies in the US, even to heterosexuals, are planned (16). Those children still depend on their parents living up to their vows. Should most existing families be legally punished for not having children by accident too? Is marriage honestly not applicable to the families that do not have or risk unwanted children, or is this just another excuse for prejudice?

Certainly, marriage helps couples who are risking unintended pregnancies, but it also undeniably helps couples who are carefully planning their families. Helping one group does no negate marriage's usefulness for another. In both cases society's interests are served by keeping families intact. In fact, sending the message that couples with children, gay or straight, planned or not, should not have legal marriage is a message that tells people who are risking unintended pregnancy that they can reasonably do so outside of marriage.

2. Sociological Arguments

I- The Slippery Slope. Legal same-sex unions will lead to socially condoned polygamy, bestiality, and so on. This argument is addressed in its own article, here.

II - The Effects in Other Jurisdictions. Where same-sex unions have been given legal rights, there has been a marked decline in some measure of the health of marriage or the family. This argument has been addressed in a separate article, here.

III - The Best Defense. Marriage is under attack by those advocating for same-sex marriage rights. This argument must represent one of the greatest recent coups PC language has had over literal meaning in american politics. People can now advocate for children to be kept off of their parent's health insurance. They can fight to keep couples from being responsible for their promises, fight to annul marriages, and encourage them to use state welfare and daycare. Anti-gay rights groups can advocate for all those clearly anti-family consequences we have outlined elsewhere. They can do that and still somehow politically label themselves "pro-family" and "pro-marriage" and pose the other side, the side fighting for marriage, as out to harm the institution.

Gay couples want legal marriage because they see the great value in it. They see it for themselves, their spouses and their children. They want to promote marriage for more people, more families. The last thing they want is to damage the institution. Furthermore, there is nothing but respect for man-woman marriage in the vast majority of the population. Outside of hysteric imaginations, no one of consequence wants to end, or harm man-woman unions in any way.

Not being in the majority is simply not an insult to the majority. Not normal is no more anti-normal than redheads are anti-brunet, or blind people are anti-sight. The fact remains, though, what is best for one person's home is not necessarily best for another's. For a minority of people, most gay men and women, man-woman marriage is not what is right for the man, the woman, possible children, or society on whole. It is not anti-majority to account for the rights and responsibilities of that minority in such an important institution as marriage. It is humane; it is pro-family, pro-marriage.

IV - More Gays and Lesbians. Legal marriage equality for gay couples will cause more people to be gay, due to the eventual muted social stigma. This argument is problematic for a couple reasons.

i. Distribution. Sexual orientation for humans is not a bell curve with the predominance of orientations being bisexual. The distribution is more like that of handedness. It is bimodal, and strongly (17, 18, 19, 20, 21). In fact, nearly all men are either gay or straight, with bisexuals as a tiny minority, much smaller than the gay population. Women's distribution of orientation is, again, bimodal; though, they do have a greater percentage of bisexuals than men. In all, we are talking about under one percent of the population who are truly bisexual. Even if legal rights changed those minds, it would be an insignificant number of minds.

ii. Nature. There is a natural and strong motivation for true bisexuals to end up in heterosexual relationships. Unless the person is infertile as well, a bisexual will favor a heterosexual relationship not only because it is socially simpler; it is the easiest way to become a parent. Cliche, but most people do know examples of this in so-called "college lesbians" who go back to heterosexual relationships when time comes to settle down, even when they remain active promoting GLBT rights. Simply, no law or social stigma will change the fact that heterosexuality is easier.

iii. Children of gay parents. If the hypothesis is that less of a stigma on being gay causes measurably more people to become gay, we would expect to see children raised by same-sex parents to have a significantly greater occurrence of same-sex orientation. While these children may consider homosexuality in their adolescence more often, they are not seen to have a greater gay or lesbian population when adults (related isocrat.org article). It seems most people will have their orientation, regardless of punishments or acceptance; they were doing so even when the legal consequence was capital punishment.

iv. Cheating. While there may not be that many bisexuals, it is true some gay men and women are coerced into marrying people they are not attracted to in that innately purposeful way orientation affords. Nevertheless, that is not something society should actively encourage. Consider, in a 2007 study by Pathela et al., it was found 70% of self-identified straight men who had sex with men in the last year were married to women (22). Similar research findings are not rare (23, 9). It is tragically common for gay men to leave women and children after trying to make a marriage without attraction work. Though they should be supported in their marriages, they should not be pressured in the first place, for their sake and for the sake of many others. These unions often put the resulting families and extended families in the way of emotional harm, on top of the health concerns for the spouses, and financial concerns for the household.

v. The Nature of Coercion. Really this argument comes down to suggesting that we should not give equal rights to a minority, because that may mean we will not be able to coerce an even smaller minority into doing what they do not want to do. Neither of those desires--1. to keep rights for yourself that you would not give to your neighbors, and 2. to coerce people away from an innately fulfilling coupling--neither of those are ethical desires. To say that if we are stopped from one it will be more difficult to accomplish the other is an argument for equal marriage rights, not against.

V- Definitions. You Cannot Redefine Marriage, or same-sex couples cannot be married by definition. Honestly, no one can redefine a word for the rest. Societies and the evolution of their languages are really more like the weather than a conscious process. Nevertheless, that change in the meaning of the syllables in "marriage" has long ago come about. Society already defines gay marriage as marriage. What's more is that this is nothing new. Even when western society was burning gay men to death in the 16th century, they recognized wedding ceremonies performed between same-sex couples as “marriage” (See this article). Today, we’re comfortable enough with gays and lesbians being married that marriage for same-sex couples has even made its way into our dictionaries (See here, for example).

The definition of "marriage" has actually changed a great deal throughout our history (Related isocrat.org article), and there was nothing impossible or tragic about the redefinitions. Furthermore, there are many instances of same-sex marriages in western history, and in a number of other cultures (Related isocrat.org article). This definition of human coupling is simply nothing novel, impossible, or untried.

Ironically, anti-marriage equality activists are now hoping to define marriage as a thing that hinges on one's sexual anatomy or ability to produce children. Truly, which then is the group out to radically redefine marriage? Who is ignoring what is important in a home? Gay couples have changed over the decades as they escaped the national closet, many to better fit the definition and purpose of marriage than the average married couple. They now build homes, raise children, and make long and vital connections to their spouses. Most of the world, outside of heated and distracting GLBT politics, do know the heart of marriage is in commitment, dedication, sacrifice, love and those familial bonds. That's the definition humans live in the real world. To try to reduce it to sex and ignore the rest where it exists misses the absolutely beautiful point, and to succeed would be the truly radical and damaging redefinition of marriage.

VI- The Right. Society Has the Right to Define Marriage. They do, legally. The majority of individuals, rightly or wrongly, can do as they please and have done much worse to gays than define their families out of their taxes and Social Security.

If given enough individuals, society has the legal right to make any law they want (moral right, though, is another matter); they could even go back to burning gays. If they want, they can and will alter the constitution, recall representatives, and remove judges, and same-sex couples, a constant minority, are at their whim. Our form of government in the US smartly allows the minority to slow the process in courts of law, but they cannot stop a sustained effort by the majority.

Nevertheless, if to legally define family means that our government can take tax dollars from a US citizen, and go on to discriminate against them, their children, and their spouse because of the geometry of their sexual anatomy, the US Constitution will have to be changed. Until then, no one has that legal right, and they will never have the moral right to define another man's family.

For now, there are, in our state and federal constitutions, grantees of equal rights and protections put there by the people, and society will have to demote that wonderful ethic first to legally keep those in families headed by same-sex couples from eventual equal rights. Some states have done this, and it could happen on a national level as well. Consider though that, when interracial marriage was okayed by the US Supreme Court (24), 72% of Americans disagreed with the ruling and 48% even thought interracial unions should be a crime (25). That resistance to the redefinition of a valid marriage was a far greater hurdle than what gay couples face today, and the public could have altered even the Constitution to meet their will, but they did not. Minds changed, practicality and justice won the day, and hearts softened. Given enough votes and time, the public could change the Constitution to demote equal protection for any family, and gay couples cannot stop them. Only the majority's realization of higher values has gotten in the way in the past.

Society will inevitably define a legal family in a way that addresses same-sex couples, and same-sex couples, as did interracial couples, are actually counting on it.

VII - Anti-Democracy. Because a lot of same-sex marriage rights have been decided in the judicial branch of the government and were not voted on, these rights should not be given. It certainly is a valid concern when a government does not listen to the voice of its people. First, though, one should keep in mind here that the people did speak long ago, if not realize the power of their ideals. Where these judicial decisions were made the judges were reading the supreme voice of the people, in their state constitutions. Their constitutions stated that citizens should have the same rights and protections regardless of their sex, and those guarantees were put there by the people. On the other hand, state law was attempting to give citizens different legal standings in their families based on sex and this affected not only the rights of couples, but the rights of their children. In a conflict between state law and the state constitution, the judges of Massachusetts and California rightly found that their constitutions win the day.

Furthermore and again, while the US is not technically a democracy, the will of the people was only made to be slowed down by the judicial branch by our founding fathers, so as to keep us from flying off the handle. The people of Massachusetts, for example, could have gone on to throw out their legislature and put an anti-marriage equality amendment into their constitution and/or removed judges. They chose not to do that. They spoke, as other states have spoken differently. As another example, the elected legislature of California voted to allow gay marriage, and that was blocked by the executive branch, not the judicial.

Lastly, the value of the actual rights is not decided by how they were given. Only wealthy white men were voting at the time of our founding fathers, but, for example, freedom of the press and religion are still great ideals. The same goes for equal rights. Even if the path to them left out one-man-one-vote, that in no way says that when each person does vote they should harm their neighbors in hopes of slapping the hand of a handful of judges, who don't even benefit from the equity. Revenge is simply not a proper motivation.

In the end, no minority can trump the majority in the US, only slow them down. Which is actually what the anti-gay activists fear; they hope to change the constitutions before cooler heads democratically prevail with the next generation.

VIII- Unprecedented, Untried. We cannot let same-sex couples have equal rights, because we never have before and we don't know what will happen if we alter the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage has actually changed a great deal throughout our history (Related isocrat.org article); change is not unprecedented or dangerous. Furthermore, this is not untried; there are many instances of same-sex marriages in western history, and in a number of other cultures (Related isocrat.org article). Finally, we know where it has been implemented for many years, there are no signs of deleterious effects (Related isocrat.org article).

Also we must keep in mind that gay couples have changed a great deal after escaping the historical closet. What is unprecedented are the consequences we now see of having so many married couples, couples with children, being treated as legally single. This has had some damaging economic and familial consequences for the population in general (Related Isocrat.org article).

IX - Tried and Died. Where same-sex unions have been tolerated in history, they have been the or a cause of that society's demise. This argument is addressed in a separate article regarding gay and lesbian history, here.

X - Tradition. Marriage has never included gay couples, and therefore it should not now. While it is true that western culture has not officially recognized same-sex unions for a long time, other cultures and other times have (Related isocrat.org article). It is also important to keep in mind that an average heterosexual marriage today is not technically traditional either. Marriage today is very different from a marriage of even 50 years ago, and the idea of what constitutes a valid marriage has changed dramatically through the years (Related isocrat.org article). Traditions did not stop, say, interracial marriage, and simply do not decide what should be. Humans have had some great traditions and some traditions that have been plainly inhumane, and a behavior's longevity gives it no immunity to judgment.

3. Religious Arguments

I- God. God says same sex relations are immoral. The trouble with arguing in the realm of faith is that there is no tangible measure to which two people may mutually, humbly defer, and thus tempers are bound to climb. There is no science, or experiment to conduct. Some people take their holy book more literally than even the authors seemed to intend and others may take the whole of the same book as allegory or decide entire sections are inapplicable.

The Bible is certainly the religious text most applicable in the US. Consider that, right along with the commands to murder homosexuals in the Bible (Lev 20:13), there are commands to kill your rebellious children (Deut 21:18-21, Lev 20:9, Ex 21:15), worshipers of other Gods (Deut 13-6-11), those who work on the sabbath (Ex 35:2, Num 15:32-36), non-virgin women at marriage (Deut 22:13-21), and even the children and babies of conquered opponents (Num 31:17, Psalm 137:9). Homosexuality is called an abomination, but so is eating shrimp (Lev 11:10).

The point is that all followers of the Bible, to some extent, must interpret the Bible for themselves. What does a book, most of which was written by and for a small tribe in the desert thousands of years ago, mean to the world today? Some people draw their line of what they feel God means to include holding on to anti-gay commands, justifying themselves in throwing out the rest of the laws that shock the conscience by, for example, claiming those laws were removed by the death of Jesus. Other Christians draw the line at the Golden Rule (Mat 7:12, Luke 6:31), where, if, for example, a man would not want to be treated badly for his union with a woman, he should not treat a lesbian badly for her union.

It all comes down to morality. What is right, and what can you morally force into your neighbor's home? Is your religious text written by imperfect men inspired by God, or is it all 100% absolutely perfect, and in your chosen translation? Is Paul, the man, for example, necessarily right in his correspondence to the Romans describing homosexuals as "worthy of death" (Rom 1:26-32)? Or is he merely expressing his personal views? Is he right in his letter to the Corinthians where he writes celibacy is the best choice for people and that the unmarried should remain unmarried (1Cor 7:8)? Paul also says the divorced should never remarry (1Cor 7:11). Why are people not eager to force that biblical command into the homes of their neighbors?

The fact is that the authors, translators, and transcribers of all religious texts were, even if inspired by God, human. We all necessarily interpret our holy texts, and many come to different conclusions.

To impose your religious conclusions onto those who do not share them is a dangerous practice. Consider that, though your particular interpretation may be the most popular today, tomorrow is a different story, and you do not want to be on the other end of religious persecution, particularly when you were the one who established the practice. This problem was realized by the founding fathers of the United States, and for that reason our law forbids government from favoring any specific interpretation of the divine. While Catholics, for example, will not remarry a divorced person, the government will. Such a solution is the right solution in the state's role in marriage.

Regarding the church's role, though, it should be made clear that it is our position this is a two way street. Just as a faith's doctrine should not be imposed into the homes of others, no faith should be forced into changing their doctrine regarding homosexuality or what defines a marriage. While legal marriage equality does not cause lawsuits against people holding an anti-gay rights faith, anti-discrimination laws might, in some instances. In those instances, we would have to come down on the side of religious freedom.

II - Violating Religious Freedom. Because marriages are often religious ceremonies, and some religions frown on same-sex unions, to force them to perform same-sex unions would force them to compromise their articles of faith. That is true, and it would be disturbing if that happened. Fortunately the vast majority is not aiming for such coercion, and it is not a consequence of legal same-sex unions.

Currently all sorts of marriages are recognized by law, from those performed recognizing no god, to those of pagans, to those of your average protestant. Yet no Baptist has ever been forced to perform a wedding invoking Shiva, and no Catholic has been forced to marry couples who have been divorced, as is legal but against catholic faith. It really is a strange fear to imagine suddenly things will change with same-sex marriage, and, say, reluctant Imams will be forced to wed two men in the mosque. However, if it ever somehow came to that, you could count on isocrat.org to be there protesting for religious freedom, side-by-side with the persecuted church.

In actuality, though, arguments of religious freedom cut more strongly in favor of same-sex unions. There are religious institutions that sanction and perform same-sex unions (e.g. Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, the United Church of Christ, and the Metropolitan Community Church). No one is being forced to perform a marriage with which they disagree, but, because the marriages willingly performed by only some faiths are given legal recognition, a real case could be made that there is governmental religious discrimination currently occurring against the churches that consecrate same-sex unions.

III - Adoption in Massachusetts. We have already seen religious discrimination because of gay marriage occur in Boston, where the Catholic Church has ended adoption services instead of adopting to gay couples.

The facts of this case are as follows. Catholic Charities of Boston (CCB) was established over a century ago to take care of "poor Catholic children" and to assure orphaned Catholic children were not placed in protestant homes (26). For about two decades, though, CCB had been placing children with same-sex couples (27, 28), which means they were doing so even before Massachusetts' anti-discrimination law included sexual orientation, and well before there was gay marriage in Massachusetts. Of the minority placed "The children placed with the gay couples [were] among those most difficult to place, either because they have physical or emotional problems or they are older". The Catholic Church claims it was made aware of this decades old fact by a Boston Globe article in 2005, which made this practice public (29).

Without any government official taking action to shut them down, the church leadership decided to halt finalizing all adoptions in Boston. They could have continued their adoption work while attempting to clear up the non-discrimination law in the courts, but they chose to shut themselves down. They did this even though Catholic Charities in a couple other areas of Massachusetts were (and by all accounts we've found are still) operating while refusing to adopt to same-sex couples, and after being told by the state's legal representative "We're going to wait and see how the legislation plays out".

At this decision by the Bishops, 8 board members of CCB resigned in protest of the church's move, not the state's. Furthermore, the board had voted unanimously to continue offering such adoptions "saying many gays and lesbians have proven to be exemplary parents who took in some of the toughest foster children" (30). Now, ironically, many are using the church's actions here to claim they were "forced" to make such a move when it did, and using this sad event as an effective tool of propaganda against marriage equality, as though this whole event was a PR stunt.

Marriage equality opponents tend to make two main claims here.

The first is that religious freedom was compromised by gay marriage. It should be clear that non-discrimination law was the law in question here, and, even still, church doctrine was not asked by the state to be changed, let alone insisted upon. To say this is a case about religious freedom would be akin to claiming, for example, Scientologists have the right to promote their faith in state funded drug rehab programs.

Simply, where the state is involved it cannot act favoring any particular faith's doctrine over equal treatment and rights of its citizens, both the prospective parents and adoptive children in need of homes in this case. If the Catholic church cannot work with the state because of such state responsibilities, they can always keep their doctrine and others will work with the state. For example, the Lutheran Social Service spokes person in Boston commented on their continued desire to aid in adoptions, saying "We're one social service agency, not one church body. We know our parent bodies have firm positions not to ordain practicing gay persons, but on this issue, that's got nothing to do with the welfare of children" (26) .

The second claim is typically that, even if the Church was wrong, this event still harmed Boston children as a side effect and therefore gay marriage should not be allowed. First and again, this was the result of anti-discrimination law, not marriage. Next, disallowing gay couples to adopt harms children by only allowing them to have one legal parent when being raised by gay couples. Also, CCB did not end all of its adoption services (see here), only those in need of a state contract. CCB still assists in adoptions. All those Catholics interested in adoption may do so through the state, or organizations such as the Lutherans that do not violate non-discrimination laws, against gays or Catholics. There is clearly more harm to children done when adoptions are conducted without the best interest of the children primary in the mind.

Lastly, no harm is seen in the available data. We only have half a year's worth of adoption data after CCB stopped finalizing adoptions, but from 2005 to 2006 the number of adoptions increased from 833 to 858. Furthermore, the average time between termination of parental rights and finalization of an adoption decreased from 15.34 to 15.16 months. There were more adoptions and they were processed more quickly in the year during half of which CCB stopped some of their adoption work (31).

Forgetting marriage and regarding the non-discrimination law and adoption alone, though, the state has a solemn responsibility to children without parents in its care to find the best home available as quickly as possible. As the state cannot rely on, say, a particular Muslim faith that gay parents (or even Jewish parents) are evil, or an Episcopal faith that such parents are fine in the eyes of God, the state must use research and the opinions of professionals. Research on families headed by same-sex couples has shown over and over again that there is no significant deficit found in these children (Related isocrat.org article). Regardless of how anyone feels about them, and given the fact that willing and qualified adoptive parents are always in need, sometimes the objectively best option for a child will be a same-sex couple, over a single person, gay or straight, or even over some heterosexual couples. The state would be ignoring its responsibility to these children to delay their journey to a loving home and to discriminate for a prospective parent's sex.

Besides all that, isn't it clear a church's threat to stop helping children if they cannot keep on discriminating, to be blunt, ethically problematic?

4. Economic Arguments

I- Money. It Will Cost Us Too Much. Quite the contrary. Legal same-sex unions would save us all wasted dollars (Related isocrat.org article) (32, 33, 34). Regardless, what if it did cost you more? The person using this argument should explain what makes him or her entitled to take a disproportionate cut of the income of his neighbor's family in taxes, social security, and health insurance premiums just because they have certain sexual anatomy. Even if they did have to give some money back to these families, it would be money they took, and by threat of legal force, unfairly.

II- Economic Dissimilarity. Gay couples have economic needs so dissimilar to straight couples as to make marriage inapplicable. This argument primarily shows that the person using it is going off stereotypes regarding gays and lesbians. In the US only 46% of married heterosexual couples are raising children (1). Over 60% of those children are in day care (35), indicating most families now do not meet the original economic aims of marriage. Nevertheless, same-sex parents are about as likely to have a stay-at-home parent as heterosexual parents (36). In this way many same-sex headed families actually meet the traditional reasons behind the economics of marriage law (e.g. a claim to a breadwinner’s income, health benefits, social security, and so on) better than the majority of straight couples who have two income families and are less economically interdependent.

5. Biological Arguments

I -Extinction. If everyone were gay the human race would die off, and thus we should not condone such unions in law. That, of course, is something to fear. No one wants an end to humanity.

Fortunately that is not how nature works with regards to orientation or most any other minority trait. Even without health insurance and inheritance laws favoring heterosexual couples, the animal kingdom is full of homosexuality and in nearly any successful species you can think of, from flies to dolphins to our closest relatives, the chimps (37, 38, 39, 40) (Related isocrat.org article).

Same-sex orientation is so prevalent throughout species and cultures that it has often been theorized that there must be a survival benefit associated with having a minority of homosexuals in a population. Indeed, homosexuality has been shown to go hand-in-hand with increased fecundity in families. In other words, it has been repeatedly shown that not only do the mothers of gay men produce more children than the average female (41), so do other female relatives of gay men (42, 43, 44) . Homosexuality only exists because it is associated with a genetic advantage on a family level, as should be expected for such a reproduction-hindering trait on an individual level. It must be kept in mind that the rule of nature is not that every individual reproduce; the majority of individuals in some of the most successful species on the planet will never reproduce (e.g. ants). Almost all of creation uses both sterility and fertility to best produce the next generation.

Secondly, while nature does keep to a general, working plan for most individuals in a species, a species would not survive without its minority side projects. The mutation that hindered our ability to produce skin pigment, for example, made those holding it more susceptible to skin cancer, but it also boosted vitamin D production as we migrated away from the equator. Nature keeps its mutants handy, though in a minority. To be successful, not everyone can be homogenous, else we may end up with a world of starving adventurers, and no settlers.

Similarly, homosexuality will never leave a species, but it will never be the majority. The great majority of men and women will always naturally be heterosexual, and that is what the data shows (17, 18, 19, 20, 21). Even if humans were completely in the wild, without laws and without sex taboos, we would be far from in danger of going extinct, and it is baseless fear mongering to somehow claim equal legal treatment would mean a mass exodus from heterosexuality.

Furthermore, a person using this argument should answer a couple question to be sure they are not simply looking for an anti-gay argument out of bias. For example: Do they feel similarly about a fertile man who knowingly marries an infertile woman? Should they be allowed to marry? Is the Catholic church and their priests advocating extinction similarly by requiring celibacy? Why does everyone have to produce biological children, instead of keeping a minority of infertile couples to take care of those children that already exist and whose biological parents cannot care for them?

Lastly, it should be taken into consideration that gay couples are now producing children through a variety of fertility treatments that were not available in our history. Not only are their family members more fertile than average, they are much more fertile than they would be in the wild of nature. Simply they pose no risk of human extinction, particularly in this time when the 6-billion plus human population is at its absolute greatest and our resources are being stretched.

II - Mutants. Homosexuality is a deleterious mutation, akin to a genetic disease, and thus we should not condone such unions in law. First, let us accept that premise, and assume homosexuality is like, say, genetic blindness. This argument would then be akin to saying that, because seeing is undeniably good and we want to promote seeing, all brail books should be removed from the public library. It makes no sense. Homosexuals exist; what should society do with them? Coerce them into marrying people they are not attracted to? Considering the risks to these marriages (22, 23, 9), the answer is no. They should be allowed to "read" the way they best "read", just like their heterosexual counterparts, for their sake and for productivity's sake.

In actuality, though, homosexuality is not like blindness. Gay women, for example, simply see women the same way straight men see women, and, for many, that is not a detriment in their lives. Nature does not judge that phenotype, or any other as good or bad; individuals do. We could similarly judge red hair or a taste for spicy foods evil, if we wanted. It is up to us to decide if we like the build we were given by nature or nurture, and it is up to us to decide how we treat those created differently from us. We can choose the Golden Rule or something else, something lesser.

Lastly, this should really not need to be said, but some do not have an accurate idea of inheritance. Legal accommodation of a genetic trait, even a harmful one such as blindness, does not increase the prevalence of that mutation. Only biological reproduction does that and no one, yet thank goodness, has been advocating governments hand out procreation licenses. Besides, if the argument is that gays should not be allowed to procreate because they'll create more gays and that will lead to extinction, then that is a self-defeating argument. A person using it should be a gay marriage advocate for their dislike of homosexuality and desire to keep them out of biologically fertile unions.

III - Artificial. Homosexuality is not natural, and only natural marriages should be recognized. There are two problems here. First the premise is a great distance from true. Homosexuality is present in nearly any species one could think of (37, 38, 39, 40)(related isocrat.org article). It is as natural as hunger, and gay men and women are building their families in the way their nature tells them they should build a family. Secondly, the naturalness of a thing does not govern the goodness of a thing. Humans are able to step far beyond our natural limits using the albeit natural asset of our reasoning. Even if human homosexuality was somehow unnatural, we are capable of the moral reasoning to offer just treatment, regardless.

6. The Miscellaneous and Peculiar

I - Geometry. Gay couples cannot get married because, for example, two male ends of an extension cord do not fit together. One has to assume this argument is some allusion to human sexual anatomy? It also comes in a pipe-fitting variety. Nevertheless, let's first take the assumed premise here as true and that men are not anatomically matched with men. The problem remains: gays and lesbians are, by definition, not psychologically matched with their opposite sex. If, for example, you, in the dead of night, surgically altered your average straight man to have female sexual morphology, another man would not suddenly become his ideal marriage partner. His orientation matters, not his shape, particularly in a marriage. Why would it be different for gay men and women?

Regardless, gay men and women are built for sex with each other just fine. Though what happens in the bedroom is not really anyone's business but those involved, what does occur is far from rare in the heterosexual bedroom (7). Besides, taking moral guidance from electrical outlets is far from a reliable method; one could easily counter it by the Lego argument.

II - We Had a Deal - We gave gays and lesbians some rights decades ago and were assured it would not lead to legal marriage; now they are going back on the deal. When we have encountered this argument it is typically unclear with whom the person using it felt they were negotiating decades ago (we would be interested to see record of any such deal). Nevertheless, even if such a conversation did occur, what should be clear is that no one has the right to bargain away another person's rights, even if they do share a trait, be it orientation or skin color or anything else. The gay community is not like a religion; there is no head or official platform for us all. Those, for example, who have had monogamous sexual practices throughout their lives are naturally going to be less concerned about AIDS funding than getting their stay-at-home parent on their health insurance.

Yes, there was a time gay people were even thrown in jail for merely associating with each other and those laws were taken off the books, and today's generation should be grateful that happened. It was immoral and unconstitutional for the government to enforce such laws in the first place, though, and righting a wrong part of the way is no excuse for not finishing the job of attaining equal rights, protections and responsibilities, no more, no less.

lines

REFERENCES ::

1. Bennett, L.; Gates, G. J.. The Cost of Marriage Inequality to Children and Their Same-Sex Parents. hrc.org, (2004).

2. Gates, G.J.. Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian,Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey. Williams Institute Study, pp. 1-25, (2006).

3. Kennedy, D.J.; Newcombe, J.. What’s Wrong with Same Sex Marriage?. Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois. (2004).

4. Xiridou, M.; Geskus, R.; de Wit, J.; Coutinho, R.; Kretzschmar, M.. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. vol. 17 (7), pp. 1029-1038, (2003).

5. Netherlands HIV Monitoring Foundation. Amsterdam Cohort Studies on HIV and AIDS. http://www.amsterdamcohortstudies.org/.

6. Krol,A.. Overview of the Amsterdam Cohort Studies among homosexual men and drug users. The Amsterdam Cohort Studies on HIV infection and AIDS, pp. None,

7. Mosher, W.D.; Chandra, A.; Jones, J.. Sexual behavior and selected health measures: men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002. Advance Data, pp. None, (2005).

8. Smith, T.W.. Adult sexual behavior in 1989: Number of partners, frequency of intercourse and risk of AIDS. Family Planning Perspectives. vol. 23 (3), pp. 102-107, (1991).

9. Laumann, E.O.; Gagnon, J.H.; Michael, R.T.; Michaels, S.. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. (1994).

10. Adimora, A.A.; Schoenbach, V.J.; Bonas, D.M.; Martinson, F.E.A.; Donaldson, K.H.; Stancil, T.R.. Concurrent Sexual Partnerships Among Women in the United States. Epidemiology. vol. 13 (3), pp. 320-327, (2002).

11. Andersson, G.. Dissolution of Unions in Europe: A Comparative Overview. Max-Plank Institute for Demographic Research, pp. 1-17, (2003).

12. Blumenstein, P.; Schwartz, P.. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. William Morrow, New York. (1983).

13. Bryant, A.S.; Demian. Relationship Characteristics of American Gay and Lesbian Couples: Findings from a National Survey. Hawthorn Press, New York. (1994).

14. Kurdek, L.A.. Are Gay and Lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples?. Journal of Marriage and Family. vol. 66, pp. 880-900, (2004).

15. Hughes. Intersex. British Journal of Urology. vol. 90, pp. 769-776, (2002).

16. Henshaw, S.K.. Unintended Pregnancy in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives. vol. 30 (1), pp. 24-29, (1998).

17. Burr, C.. A Separate Creation. Hyperion, New York. (1996).

18. Lippa, R.A.. The Relation Between Sex Drive and Sexual Attraction to Men and Women: A Cross-National Study of Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Homosexual Men and Women. Archives of Sexual Behavior. vol. 36 (2), pp. 209-222, (2007).

19. Bailey, J.; Dunne, M.; Martin, Nicholas G.M.. Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. vol. 78 (3), pp. 524-536, (2000).

20. Ellis, L.; Burke, D.; Ames, M.A.. Sexual orientation as a continuous variable: a comparison between the sexes. Archives of Sexual Behavior. vol. 16 (6), pp. 523-529, (1987).

21. Case, P.; Austin, S.B.; Hunter, D.J.; Willett, W.C.. Disclosure of sexual orientation and behavior in the Nurses' Health Study II: results from a pilot study. Journal of Homosexuality. vol. 51 (1), pp. 13-31, (2006).

22. Pathela, P.; Hajat, A.; Schillinger, J.; Blank, S.; Sell, R.; Mostashari, F.. Discordance between Sexual Behavior and Self-Reported Sexual Identity: A Population-Based Survey of New York City Men. Annals of Internal Medicine. vol. 145 (6), pp. 416-425, (2006).

23. Smith, A.M.A.; Rissel, C.E.; Richters, J.; Grulich, A.E.; de Visser, R.O.. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. vol. 27 (2), pp. 138-145, (2003).

24. U.S. Supreme Court. LOVING v. VIRGINIA. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1. (1967).

25. Graff, E.J.. What is Marriage For?. Beacon Press, Boston. (2004).

26. Paulson, M.. Church's rift with Beacon Hill grows. www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/. (2006).

27. Wen, P.. Bishops to oppose adoption by gays, Exemption bid seen from antibias laws. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/16/bishops_to_oppose_adoption_by_gays/. (2006).

28. Pink News. State allows gay adoption discrimination. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1166.html. (2006).

29. Wen, P.. Archdiocesan agency aids in adoptions by gays. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/10/22/archdiocesan_agency_aids_in_adoptions_by_gays/. (2005).

30. Wen, P.. Bishops' gay ban may cost millions, Private donors wary of adoption policy . http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/05/bishops_gay_ban_may_cost_millions/. (2006).

31. US Federal Goverment. FedStats. http://www.fedstats.gov/.

32. Holtz-Eakin, D.. The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages. Congressional Budget Office, (2004).

33. Badgett, M.V. Lee; Sears, R. Bradley. Equal Rights, Fiscal Responsibility: The Impact of A.B. 205 on California'S Budget., (2003).

34. Badgett, M.V. Lee; Sears, R. Bradley; Goldberg, Suzanne. Supporting Families, Saving Funds: A Fiscal Analysis of New Jersey's Domestic Partnership Act., (2003).

35. US Department of Health and Human Services. Average Monthly Percentages of Children in Child Care by Age Category and Type of Care (FFY 2005). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/data/ccdf_data/05acf800/table13.htm. (2005).

36. Black, D.A.; Sanders, S.G.; Taylor, L.J. Gary. The Economics of Lesbian and Gay Families. Journal of Economic Perspectives. vol. 21 (2), pp. 53-70, (2007).

37. Bagemihl, B.. Biological Exuberance. Saint Martin's Press, New York. (1999).

38. Roselli, C. E.; Larkin, K.; Resko, J. A.; Stellflug, J. N.; Stormshak, F.. The Volume of a Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus in the Ovine Medial Preoptic Area/Anterior Hypothalamus Varies with Sexual Partner Preference. Endocrinology. vol. 145 (2), pp. 478-483, (2003).

39. Pareded, R. G.; Baum, M. J.. Altered Sexual Partner Preference in Male Ferrets Given Excitotoxic Lesions of the Preoptic Area/Anterior Hypothalamus. Journal of Neuroscience. vol. 15 (10), pp. 6619-6630, (1995).

40. Field, K. L.; Waite, T. A.. Absence of Female Conspecifics Induces Homosexual Behaviour in Male Guppies. Animal Behavior. vol. 68, pp. 1381-1389, (2004).

41. King, M.; Green, J.; Osborn, D.P.; Arkell, J.; Hetherton, J.; Pereira, E.. Family Size in White Gay and Heterosexual Men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. vol. 34 (1), pp. 117-122, (2005).

42. Iemmola, F.; Camperio Ciani, A.. New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line. Archives of Sexual Behavior, pp. None, (2008).

43. Camperio-Ciani, A.; Corna, F.; Capiluppi, C.. Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. vol. 271, pp. 2217-2221, (2004).

44. Vasey, P.; Pocock, D.; VanderLaan, D.. Kin selection and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine. Evolution and Human Behavior. vol. 28 (3), pp. 159-167, (2007).

lines

Comment on this page in the forum Comment on this page here

 

 

 

isocrat > politics > marriage > anti_marriage
Created: 2008-07-28; Last Edited: 2008-07-28; (ID365)