This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Section 28

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages
Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 		Feb 15th 5:44 PM
I'm not sure if all your respective countries have similar arguments gong on or not, but in the UK there is a huge debate going on about 'section 28', which is basically a piece of legislation which states:

A local authority shall not a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of such, or b) promote the teaching in any maintained schoool of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

There is an outcry in the right-wing press about plans to get rid of section 28, with one paper in particular leading a crusade against the very idea, on the grounds that it will lead to the corruption of our youth.

The legislation has been used to block proposals for sex education in schools which included encouraging children to consider whether or not they were gay and to explore any feelings they had. My feeling is that _even if_ you consider someone being gay to be a negative thing, no kid is going to be 'ad campaigned' by their sex ed into being gay. People either are or are not attracted to their own sex - giving people the chance, at an early age, to consider the possibility, is the only way to combat the kind of repression which leads to some married men 'discovering' that they're gay in their thirties and forties, causing no end of heartache for man, wife and kids.

If this kind of approach is _not_ included in sex ed, then where are kids who have feelings in this way going to get advice or information from? Whilst some media sources, religious influences and parents may be willing and able to help and listen, many kids are going to grow up confused when there is little need.

To be honest, what actually occupies my mind more than the issue itself here is the contorted 'logic' and reasoning used against the repeal of section 28 by people and institutions who, if 'PC' had never been invented, would probably do little to disguise their homophobia. The arguments 'for the benefit of our kids' are in fact for the benefit of the ideal of society held by those who consider homosexuality wrong and any deviation from the 'norm' of the family unit similarly wrong.

Comment, anyone?

Kristin
User ID: 9885643 		Feb 15th 10:14 PM
I believe there were some issues involving the Boy Scouts of America, saying that men known to be gay were not to be accepted as Scout leaders because they didn't present a good example to follow, or something.
Min
User ID: 0074284 		Feb 16th 6:54 AM
OK, I am interested: What exactly is wrong in homosexuality? Perhaps one of you Americans can tell me, it seems so much more the big deal of discussion as it is here in Europe.
So where's the problem?
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Feb 16th 8:25 AM
Oooh, this could be good. Okay, I don't have too much of a problem with Section 28. I don't believe in harassing homosexuals, and I don't believe that they are bad people. But as I read Section 28, the two things it bans are "promoting" homosexuality, and saying that homosexuality was a valid option for a "pretended family relationship". I think "promoting" homosexuality is probably not a good thing, and that the _best_ family structure for a child is having a mother and father. I wouldn't want to promote single motherhood as the best option either.

As for Boy Scout thing, I'm with the Scouts.

The thing that bothers me about homosexual activists is that many of them are hypocrites. First, they say "hey, we're no different than you except we're attracted to people of the same sex." I happen to agree with that statement. But then they contradict themselves by asking us to believe that, unlike the rest of us, they can turn their sexuality on and off like a switch. Would I want a girl scout troop of 13-17 year old girls to go on a camping trip with a 22 year old male scoutmaster? Absolutely not. So why would I want a Boy Scout troop of 13-17 year old boys to go on a camping trip with a 22 year old homosexual man?

Same thing in the military and the lack of privacy associated with military life. For example, showers are open with no privacy. Homosexual activists tell us that a gay man taking a shower with a group of other men won't have any sexual thoughts. That's crap. Put me in a shower room with 20 naked women and I'd have to turn the cold water on very early to avoid embarrasment.

Min, I'll admit to being "homophobic". That does not mean that I think homosexuals are evil, sinful, or unworthy of friendship or respect. I just find the thought of sex with another man to be gross. Very gross.

I suppose another aspect of it is the whole macho thing. Because of natural selection, cultural biases, or whatever, men always have competed for the affections of women. It's a biological necessity that perpetuates the species and perhaps our strongest drive. Men compete on the basis of strength and power -- the physical characteristics necessary for survival throughout most of human history. We still judge each other, at least in part, on that same basis. Winners are admired and losers look down upon, at least in that respect.

Homosexuals, particularly those who adopt overtly feminine characteristics, are the antithesis of how men have competed and judged each other for thousands of years. So its rather natural to view homosexuals as being un-masculine and therefore less worthy of respect from other males.
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Feb 16th 9:32 AM
Jeff;

I can (sorta) get the Boy Scout argument - considering how it is not in a professional context (this is based on volunteers, right?) in which the team leader would have had a great incentive to behave - he could lose his job.

If you'd take it into professional context as well (my example would be schools), however, you'd have to have only girl schools with only female heterosexual teachers. Because male heterosexual teachers would be equally tempted into unprofessional behavior.


But to drag the _military_ into this???

Yeah, they may have 'sexual thoughts'. So what?
I mean, these are _grown men_ we are talking about? If a woman came parading into the shower, and leered at you, would you be really be bothered by that?
If she _chose_ to take a shower with you, would you kick her out?

I mean...huh? :o)
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Feb 16th 11:06 AM
Kay-Arne, the Boy Scout argument has to do with overnight camping trips. I don't care if my 16 year old daughter has a 23 year old male math teacher. I do care if my 16 year old daughter is going on an overnight camping trip with a 23 year old male.

As for the military thing, the argument that they're all "grown men" sounds nice but its meaningless. I won't bore you with the details of prostitution rings during the Gulf War, allegations of favoritism, and fraternization that disrupts the chain of command and weakens unit cohesion. All by "grown" men and women.

Unless you're willing to freely mix men and women -- communal barracks, showers, santitation facilities, then you shouldn't be willing to mix in homosexuals because the same privacy concerns apply. Take your shower example. I admittedly might not mind if someone I was interested in leered at me. But I really have no desire to be naked and ogled in front of random groups of women. And flip it around -- how many women do you think would want to be naked in a shower room full of men? For that matter, I don't think most women would want to take their showers even with only one man present in an open shower room.

Emily
User ID: 2192024 		Feb 16th 11:19 AM
Section 28 is a blatantly homophobic piece of legislation, and it is quite unbelievable that it still exists in a 21st century Western society. How dare it state that homosexuality is 'unacceptable' and a '_pretended_ family relationship'??? Who did the Government think it was - God? (Er...probably yes, given that the PM in question was Margaret Thatcher.)

Jeff, do you think that because women are 'un-masculine' that it is natural that they should get less respect from men?

I'm not convinced that having a mother and father is the best family option. It is preferable, for practical and financial reasons, to a single parent household. And I also prefer it to having two fathers, not because I think homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children, but because men are more likely to commit child abuse than women - having two men in the house doubles the risk. The best option for a child is therefore to have two lesbian 'mothers' - they'd be a lot less likely to abuse the child, to indulge in domestic violence, and, best of all, the child could be very sure that it was wanted, not an unfortunate accident...

Not that I mind having a father myself, of course - though his blissful ignorance of the concept of housework was probably responsible for my own life-long contempt for the marital state.

I have to agree with Kay-Arne that big brave soldiers ought to be able to cope with being seen naked by someone who might fancy them. If they don't like it, tough. They weren't exactly keen on admitting women or black people either (in the UK, anyway) and their prejudices should not be pandered to.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Feb 16th 11:57 AM
Emily, I don't judge women as inferior to men at all, though I doubt you could say the same about the way you judge men. As for "downgrading" women because they are less "masculine" than men, that makes no sense. Men don't compete with women as to their masculinity, so most men wouldn't downgrade a women because she's not "masculine". Women are biologically different from men and would naturally excel in some areas where men do not -- and vice versa.

Its not a case of whether "big bad soldiers" can cope with being seen naked. You are talking about how you think the world _should_ be and how people _should_ act. From a military perspective, I could care less about the "shoulds". The reality of how people actually _do_ interact is more important. If you want to argue that there are no problems caused by mixing genders in close environments, fine. But it sounds more like you're saying that it _shouldn't_ have an effect, not that it _doesn't_.



Perhaps the folk that make up the rank and file in the military are not as pc, or as sophisticated, or as mature as all of us college-educated folk. I don't care about _why_ being naked in front of persons of the opposite sex bothers so many people. I just care that it does.
Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 		Feb 16th 12:35 PM
Jeff, your boyscout example is fine _if_ you take both parts of it into account. _if_ you want to ban male scout leaders from leading groups of female scouts or whatever, then yes, you can also rationally say that homosexual scout leaders should follow the same rules. However, whilst I'm no expert on the scouts, in this example and in this kind of thing in general, there seems to be an innate readiness to legislate against the homosexual and not against the same concern when homosexuals aren't involved.

That 'promoting' homosexuality is not a good thing all depends on how you look at it - please look at myexamples of the kind of sex ed which has been blocked due to this clause, and tell me how that's a good thing. And, in terms of the 'pretended family relationship', what's beiung legislated against isn't even the promotion, but the 'promotion of the _acceptability_'. You may disagree that homosexual couples make good families, but are you actually saying that they are unacceptable?

In fact, forget about kids being involved, what part b) is saying is that a homosexual _couple_, who may have no desire to have kids, should not be accepted as a valid relationship. Section 28 basically bans teaching people that homosexuality is not wrong. Sure, equal ops modules can tell you not to kill them with pointy sticks anymore, but the legislation perpetuates the view that homosexuality is wrong and should be avoided. It _can't_ be avoided. It can be suppressed, but that's it, and if you think that's a good thing, I have to disagree.

As regards the military, to be honest I don't care how they work it, the fact is that the military is a job. Equal Opportunities means you _cannot discriminate against a person on a professional level due to their sexuality. The military has to allow homosexuals, how they arrange the ins and outs is their problem. (as an aside, the Army in the UK were actually banned from using the slogan 'The Army is an Equal Opportunities Employer' due to their stance on Gays. Damn right they shouldn't be able to use it.


Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Feb 16th 6:28 PM
Boy Scouts do limit scoutmasters to men, so their position is consistent because they don't permit women scoutmasters. In any case, the boy scouts are a private organization that has certain religious tenets as basic beliefs. If the boy scouts want to exclude homosexuals because homosexuality is incompatible with their religious beliefs, what business is it of anybody else's?

If you read my initial post carefully, I was not sayng that I support Article 28. I did say that the specific language described as being in the Article did not seem that offensive. I'll stick by that.

As I understand it, Article 28 does not mandate that kids be taught that homosexuality is wrong. I would oppose that. It simply says that schools should not be used to "promote" homoosexuality or promote the acceptability of homsexuality. I agree with that because I don't like the idea of the government sticking its nose into my morality. What parents might do on their own is up to them -- I don't see why this needs to be brought into schools at all.

Sphinx, as for the military, we have a fundamental disagreement. You view it as just a "job". If someone's pet social policies causes a problems that adversely impacts military effectiveness, too bad. I disagree.

The military is _not_ an equal opportunity employer, nor should it be. I agree with the ban on homosexuality for two very simple reasons: 1) open homosexuality in the military would adversely impact unit cohesion --a contention no-one here as directly disputed -- and 2) there is no corresponding military benefit. Whether or not it is "unfair" to homosexuals doesn't enter into the equation. It's also not "fair" that the military excludes fat people, old people, handicapped people, colorblind people, or women from ground combat.

BTW, for those who think this same reasoning justifies the exclusion of blacks, it doesn't. Prejudice against blacks is based upon untrue stereotypes that naturally will be reduced over time when you mix the races. The prejudice against homosexuals is based upon a demonstrably _true_ "stereotype" -- that homosexuals are attracted to persons of the same sex. This isn't a moral judgment. Its just a fact. A soldier who thinks that blacks are inferior to whites is wrong. A soldier who thinks that homosexuals are attracted to persons of the same sex is correct.
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Feb 17th 9:44 AM
OK, Jeff, considering how you bothered to make the full argument, I can see how my argument is 'meaningless'.

Now, as to the tensions that might be aroused by sexual mingling, well, I suppose that can be a point (BTW, I'd rather have you boring me with the details, than leaving me in the dark on exactly what I'm arguing against).

OTOH, one cannot infer that introducing women/homosexuals in the military would add a problem where no such problem existed before. People antagonize eachother and fraternize with eachother over a lot more dimensions than just sex, although these probably don't get so much news coverage as 'new' dimensions of conflict.

I suppose that one could argue that they should not add one more dimension of conflict, but I'm questioning just how much the military would hurt because of it.


The point of those being uncomfortable by having their nakedness exposed in the showers - well, one could argue that this shouldn't be a legitimate concern.
I was rather shy as a child, the first time I had to take a shower together with other boys. I cannot say the school was wrong in (in effect) making me 'get over it'.

Of course, you're supposing that this is the _only_ reason that women do not want to shower with men - I'm not so sure if that's the case.

There might be a certain _intimidation_ factor as well.
For instance, women are far outnumbered in the military by men, right? Women are also, on average, weaker than men, right? [this is, after all, a point you have argued long and vocally]
And, given the law of great numbers, a few men in the military also would be rapists - either potential or people who have already committed rape.

Now, if one woman would take a shower in between a hundred men, I would not particularly fault her for being nervous - much as I wouldn't particularly fault a lone heterosexual man for being a bit nervous if he showered in between a hundred gay men (eventhough in this case, he would
be a _lot_ less conspicuous than the woman in the earlier example).
Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 		Feb 17th 2:40 PM
Jeff, i disagree that your argument cannot logivcally be extended to prevent black from taking opportunities - certainly with regard to your first example, which is based on religious beliefs not reason as your argument about blacks is.

You say that you agree that schools shouldn't be able to promote the acceptability of homosexuality because you don't like the government sticking its nose into your morals - excuse me, but that's exactly what they are doing. The simple fact that the legislation is there is imposing a moral set which finds homosexuality unacceptable. Even if you don't subscribe to the argument that the acceptability of homosexuality should be included in the curriculum, to have legislation specifically against it is draconian. It supports narrowmindedness and prejudice, because as I've stated, if at school level kids aren't made aware of all the different kinds of families and that none of them are wrong, the stigma society often attaches to gays will be perpetuated.

It needs to be brought into school for two reasons: a) kids who have sexual feelings towards their own sex (how old were you when you started thinking about girls that way?) will not think that there is something wrong with them and begin a cycle of guilt and repression. (The guy in American Beauty is a melodramatic but good example of this), and b) kids will be less likely to pick up stereotypes which are prejudicial towards homosexuals. It may not be an untrue stereotype that homosexuals are attracted to their own sex, but it is an untrue stereotype that they are bad parents, that there is something perverted about it, or that heterosexuals have any more to fear from homosexual of their own sex than they do heterosexuals of the opposite sex.

Jeff, I have to say that calling the kind of view espoused by myself and Kay 'someone's pet social policies' is just a tad dismissive - we're not talking about a sociology project here, homosexuals are real people with real lives, hopes, fears, dreams just like anyone. The only argument you have used re the military which I feel has a validity is about 'unit cohesion', and yes, it might affect unit cohesion - but it would affect it for two kinds of people: a) people bigoted against homosexuals (to which my answer is - fuck them), and b) homophobes:

You have admitted to being a homophobe, and indeed the whole basis of a phobia is that it is an irrational fear. I don't feel that it should be held against anyone that they are homophobic any more than if they are arachnophobic or clustrophobic, and certainly, being honest about it makes it all the more understandable. However, I _do_ feel that it should be held against people if they do not try and overcome that phobia. Encouraging the viewing of homosexuals as nothing to fear has to be encouraged, and the best way to do that is to allow them in the military.

BTW - You say you find the idea of having sex with another man gross - I am sure you must know women who are so unattractive that you also find the idea of sex with them gross - are you afraid of them?

As an aside: I'll understand if you don't want to answer this as it's a) highly personal, and b) difficult to say, but how do you think you'd react if one of your kids told you they were gay?



Claidhaim
User ID: 8590713 		Feb 17th 3:31 PM
By allowing the teaching of 'homosexuality is okay' and same sex parents are a good 'simulated parental unit' into the schools aren't we also imposing a moral code on the children? Isn't it just the other side of the coin? If we are to allow, or promote, this discussion in schools, then I say fine. Do it. But promote both sides of the issue, not just one.
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Feb 17th 3:41 PM
Claidhaim;

I agree somewhat on the latter point - about same sex parents.
Starting to discuss if 'homosexuality is OK' sounds akin to discussing if it's OK to be a Jew or a Catholic to me.
Claidhaim
User ID: 8590713 		Feb 17th 3:45 PM
So, is the idea that homosexuality is wrong a differing opinion or a wrong opinion? If it is judged to be a wrong opinion, then by whose standards is it wrong?
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Feb 17th 3:56 PM
Claidhaim;

Well, I'm supposing that you're not a relativist - just because someone's opinion differs, does not necessarily mean the opinions are equally worth.

I mean, if someone stated that it was OK to murder someone based on religion, or political view, or whatever, I'm supposing you wouldn't agree that this would be an OK opinion, just because we lack an unquestionable standard to measure it against?

I'm not saying that I disagree totally with you, of course. Having the schools impose anymore than a basic respect for human life and integrity would not sit very well with me.

So, is someone's private sexuality something that falls into that category? I would say yes, insofar that private sexuality does not harm people. Which I would argue that homosexuality do not.
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Feb 17th 4:43 PM
Kay-Arne, I'll answer your question as follows: Aristotle described four distinct categories of love - "romantic" love, "sexual" love (basically sex), "filial" or brotherly love, and the love between a parent and child. He made the point that the first and second (to a lesser degree) are forms of exclusive love. A couple in love share a relationship unique to them that cannot feasibly be expanded to others. You don't see triangles without tension because of this. To back him up, think of all the wars, murders, etc caused or triggered by jealously. The Trojan war, as passed down to us, is a tale of jealously.

Contrast this with filial or brotherly love. You can have a group of friends who are very close in a way that is non-exclusive. Jealously is not an issue. It is that type of love that makes a military unit strong. I think even a cursory review of our own lives and human history will reveal an incredible number of friendships damaged or ruined by competition over a person of the opposite sex.

When you add sexual or romantic love into a military mix, it creates a host of problems. How about a sergeant who falls in love with a corporal under his command? Can he truly treat that person objectively, just as any other? Or how about if another sergeant in the same platoon is attracted to the same corporal? Jealousy, infighting, and favoritism are inevitable. We can talk all we want about how people _shouldn't_ feel those emotions, but the fact is that they do.
That is the essence of the problem when you mix men and women in an 24 hour, close quarters environment. There is no reason to assume that gays will act differently.

As for nakedness in the showers, I think you're still debating a theoretical "should" rather than reality. Most people here in the states would think its reasonable to want to take a shower in an environment without sexual overtones. Mix in gwithout Fine. Mix men and women equally in showers and post guards. In the States at least, you are stillgoing to get complaints from o

Sphinx, you're right about race being the same as homosexuality in the boy scout context. But its not the same in the military context because the concern is over a real difference, not a perceived one.

I used the term "homophobia" loosely and incorrectly. I'm homophobic only in the sense that I find homosexual sex to be "gross". I'm not afraid of homosexuals, nor do I think they are somehow inferior or morally corrupt.

As for the "pet theory" comment, I apologise. But my point remains. To you, military effectiveness should be subordinated to your conception of social justice. To me, it should be the other way around.

LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 		Feb 17th 11:01 PM
Interesting to see this topic come up on the list at last.

Here is the thing with scouting. They are a nongovernmental organization. They do not believe people should be in situations like camping trip with young people of the gender for which they have a sexual preference. They would not want gay men taking young boys on camping trips, straight men taking young girls on camping trips, gay women taking young girls on camping trips, etc. It seems fair enough to me and I think the government should not interfere and force them to change what is essentially not a discriminatory regulation.

I think the thing about the military is not so much how the gay person feels whilst showing. Arousal would only be natural and it would be hypocritical to expect arousal not to take place. Its how the fellow showerees feel if they know a gay person is showering with them. Personally, I would not want to take a shower with a gay woman or with a straight man (well, unless I were ...umm...involved with the straignt man). It would feel like a violation of my privacy to have to expose my body to any random straignt man in my platoon, and it would feel the same way to have to expose my body to a known gay woman.

My dilemma with those feelings is this: suppose it means the world to a woman to have a career in the military. Are my feelings of embarrassment at being stripped in front of her sufficient to deny her the right to a career in the military? We can say that the solution is to build private showers, but thats no real solution as battlefields can never be private. So, I am a bit undecided on this one.
LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 		Feb 17th 11:45 PM
I'd like to say that I think the adjective "pretended" in Section 28 seems pejorative and unfair. However, if that word were not there, I wonder if the section is so terrible. I know, I am American, but my opinion is really about such laws in any country, and not particularly about the UK law.

I will share a further opinion here. I am a secondary school teacher. I have had gay friends though the years. I have thought a great deal about the issue of teaching kids regarding homosexuality.


My feeling is this. Kids need some instruction in values. There are things we agree on. Its wrong to murder, cheat, steal, .....its right to be responsible, prejudice is wrong. These things should indeed be part of education.

There are other things that are, at the present time, plainly matters of disagreement amongst good people. I do not believe children should be taught that a certain religion is "right" for example, because it is a matter of opinion as to whether it is right or not.

As the world stands now, people disagree about whether homosexual acts are right or wrong. I happen to believe they are not wrong. However, imagine if you child were in public school and were taught "Christianity is right" and you were Jewish. Not a pleasant thought. Now, imagine that your belief that homosexual acts is wrong is important to you. Is it fair for the government to take you child and teach them that "homosexual acts are right"? Section 28 has been used to prevent things like this. In the states were have two books that are sometimes given to children in public schools called "Heather has two mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate". They teach that homosexuality is right. (They show a real cute sketch of men in bed with each other for gosh sake...yes, they are clothed.) I read an article in a national newspaper on Section 28 last week and explained that there is a similar book in Britain, though I have forgotten the name. I personally do not think it is bad that British schoolchildren were were not taught a curriculum using that book. Conservative parents have right too. The morality of the left should not be imposed in public school any more than the morality of the right.

I have suffered for my feelings on this. One woman said gay teens would just go out and kill themselves if people were not taught "tolerance" ......of course they should be taught tolerance, but this woman clearly believed that you cannot tolerate wrong, and so people must be taught homosexuality is right, or else gay teens will die. You may think the woman was just hysterical, but it hurts me to this day that she thinks I wanted gay teens to die.

The states are just somewhat different from Europe on sexual mores and morays. We are sort of "middle of the road" as far as the globe goes. Heck, I heard this week that a woman basically faces death if she loses her virginity before marriage in certain countries. I would say to try not to hate us for our beliefs about sex. Lets agree that we are good hearted people influenced by our culture in the area of sex, and while there is a definite right and wrong here, lets not be conceited enough to believe we have the ultimate knowledge of it. (I know I don't I do, though I have worked and thought hard to try to come to moral conclusions in this area.)

Last, I have to say that I think its a fact that children do better with a mother and father, not two mothers or two fathers. Sure, its my opinion that its a fact. But heres the thing. We did so very well, so very well, as the human race, with the unit of a family. Now, we want to redefine it. That is not fine by me. Kids will be extremely confused if they try to marry a person of the opposite sex, when they had parents of the same sex. Kids need role models. It is heartbreaking that so many families are broken by divorce and that so many kids grow up without a parent of one sex, usually male, in the home. Our prisons are disproportionately full of people who lacked a father in the home and the necessity of a father should never, never be dissed. Two women cannot take the place of the lack of a father. The necessity of a mother should not be dissed and two men cannot make up for the lack of a father. You say one of the men is the "mother", or one of the women is the "father". Why is the title "Heather has two mommies"? It is a rank insult in the gay community the tell a man he is not straight acting and I have speant enough evenings in gay male bars with my friends to know this for an undisputed fact.

A child needs a father and a mother, not two mothers and not two fathers. We must put our sexual needs behind the needs of our children as a society. We must do what is best for our children.

(Ok, I know the argument....better to be with two Lesbians that a father who beats you. Yeah, maybe it is better, but two wrongs do not make a right. It is not right to bring a child into the world knowing that it will be deprived of a father and offered two mothers instead.)
LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 		Feb 17th 11:49 PM
PS...I know the other argument. And yes, if there were a way to know that a child would grow up to have a homosexual orientation, it is indeed quite possibly better for that child to grow up in a home with two gay parents.
Next 20 Messages Newest Messages