DREADUPDATE: SBS Insight, John Heard + The 'Gay Marriage' Debate II
[UPDATE] The transcript and podcast are live. Here are the DREADNOUGHT cut-outs.
On 'gay marriage' being unpopular with same sex attracted men:
JENNY BROCKIE: Peter?
PETER POWER: Ian and myself, we've been together 28 years.
IAN LAWRENCE: Have you had a love in your life? Do you know what it's all about?
JOHN HEARD: I don't think we're saying anything against specific examples of love. I don't think anybody would say that a committed relationship of any kind, if there's that kind of give and take between them is a bad thing. We're talking, though, about encouraging something at the highest levels and about, you know, either protecting the family or opening it up to whatever else happens. And I'd like to challenge, at the beginning, this idea that gay people actually want to get married or that they're in relationships.
ADRIAN TUAZON: What is there to fear from our family?
JOHN HEARD: The research shows the private lives...
JENNY BROCKIE: Can we just let John finish for a sec?
JOHN HEARD: The Private Lives Survey, which was released about two months ago by La Trobe University - which was the largest survey of its kind of same-sex attracted people in Australia - demonstrated that the majority of gay men aren't in any kind of relationship at all, not only that, that the majority of gay men did not want to formalise their relationships and indeed the majority of lesbians* were in the same situation.
IAN LAWRENCE: Absolute rubbish.
JOHN HEARD: Who wants gay marriage? Where is this coming from?
JENNY BROCKIE: John, I'm interested in the position you're taking on this. Because you're gay, yes?
JOHN HEARD: I am, absolutely.
JENNY BROCKIE: And you're opposed to gay marriage?
JOHN HEARD: I certainly am.
JENNY BROCKIE: Is that because you're Catholic?
JOHN HEARD: No, it's because I'm a thinker. I can look at the arguments and see that this idea...
MAN: You don't have to get married.
JOHN HEARD:..no, but this idea that we should legislate each and every person's individual desires, even if it's the most ridiculous minority of a minority, at the point where it disrupts marriage, which is the central institution of civilisation.
IAN LAWRENCE: No, you're wrong.
JENNY BROCKIE: Comment over here.
JOHN HEARD: The Australian people agree with me.
JENNY BROCKIE: Yes, Ian and Peter?
PETER POWER: As I was saying before - before I was rudely interrupted - we've been together 28 years, we've got a very strong, loving relationship. We've registered our relationship with the Tasmanian Deed of Relationship Legislation.
IAN LAWRENCE: Which has been in 2.5 years now and the sky hasn't fallen in.
PETER POWER: It's been embraced by the Tasmanian Government, it's been embraced by...
IAN LAWRENCE: Our community.
PETER POWER: ...our community. We live in a community of 500 people.
JOHN HEARD: You're not talking about gay marriage or marriage.
IAN LAWRENCE: You're blurring the issue, you're blurring the issue.
JOHN HEARD: No, you're blurring the issue. That is not marriage. I'm not specifically arguing against a relationship register. I'm arguing against gay marriage.
*(I made one mistake: the majority of lesbians surveyed were in a relationship. However only 5-10% of respondents indicated that they had formalised their relationship while the vast majority of respondents [52% men and 39% women] did indeed indicate that they had no intention of ever formalising their relationships').
On parents' responsibility to put the interests of their children before personal desires:
JENNY BROCKIE: We've just had a child brought forth over here, I think. Lou, do you want to say something?
LOU: Yeah, I actually find that highly offensive. And in fact, Deb and I, the way in which we did it, had to really think about how we were going to do it. We weren't just like heterosexual people that think, "Oh, let's go to bed, let's have sex, Oops, I'm pregnant. What are we going to do? Oh, my God, we'll just have to fumble through." We actually have thought about our baby and thought about how we're going to raise him so he has a great self-esteem, so he has a good education.
JENNY BROCKIE: John wants to respond to that.
JOHN HEARD: With all due respect and compassion and the rest of it, and you seem like wonderful people, people seem to be saying that, you know, you're naturally having children and the Government's legislating against you. You chose to have children, even though you knew that the situation was not ideal for the child.
DEB: May I ask you a question now? Let me finish.
JOHN HEARD: You chose to have your child even though you knew that there were all these things that would count against her. How can you say that at that point you have the child's best interests and not your own in the forefront of your mind?
JENNY BROCKIE: Let's hear from the child. We've been talking a lot about children here.
JOHN HEARD: Can we hear from the parents first and then the child? The child didn't make the decision.
JENNY BROCKIE: But the child wears the consequences.
JOHN HEARD: I'm sure she's a wonderful mother.
JENNY BROCKIE: The child wears the consequences of the decision.
MAN: No child makes the decision.
JENNY BROCKIE: Can we hear from a child?
JOHN HEARD: I'm talking about bad choices, not bad parents.
On the State's obligation to encourage the best outcome (Note the host's attempt to shift the debate back to emotive personal issues, rather than the wider implications of suspect choices and 'gay marriage'. This frustrating situation was, ultimately, why DREADNOUGHT became unruly. Note also that the homoactivists admit that they have no serious interest in 'marriage' yet they want to define it for everyone else!):
JENNY BROCKIE: Doesn't mean you wouldn't have a dispute. How would you settle a dispute? Who'd adjudicate a dispute between the two of you?
JASON McCHEYNE: The Family Court would do that and we would trust them with that at the end of the day. But we don't plan on splitting up. And I'd like to say something. And I appreciate what you've said tonight, and it's sad that it is a pioneering thing in your mind.
JOHN HEARD: We don't want gay marriage.
JASON McCHEYNE: Irrespective of gay marriage, it's not the point.
JOHN HEARD: You may not. But it's something that nobody wants. I'm sure... Just let me speak for a moment. I'm sure the audience does. Can I just say the obvious thing? The young lady, I don't think there's anybody in Australia who would claim that she's, you know, in any way anything other than articulate and wonderful and yet her parents aren't married. How was that, you know, an argument that we have to have gay marriage?
JASON McCHEYNE: It's about creating pathways.
TRICIA SZIROM: It's not about marriage at this point.
JOHN HEARD: It's not about marriage, well, apparently not.
TRICIA SZIROM: I said right through, when I was speaking, that I wasn't concerned about the issue of marriage, I was... Will you stop for a minute, please, because you've been putting me down.
JENNY BROCKIE: Just let her finish, please. John, let her finish.
TRICIA SZIROM: What I am arguing for is that this child has rights.
JOHN HEARD: Absolutely.
TRICIA SZIROM: And they are not being recognised...
JOHN HEARD: Because of your choices.
JENNY BROCKIE: Could you let her just finish.
TRICIA SZIROM: Heterosexual people make choices that aren't necessarily good....
JOHN HEARD: And we don't legislate to encourage them.
TRICIA SZIROM:..that are no necessarily good...
JOHN HEARD: And we don't legislate to encourage them.
JENNY BROCKIE: I'm going to stop you right there because you're not giving other people a chance to speak.
[UPDATE] Here are two somewhat indicative negative responses.
1/. DREADNOUGHTER writes first and DREADNOUGHT responds in italics:
"Dear John,
You rude, self-hating hypocrite! (Most same sex attracted men disagree with the homoactivists, we can't all be self-hating. Why am I a hypocrite?)
There was a reason the presenter had to tell you to shut up, it is a suggestion you should take into the rest of your life. (This might be a valid bit of advice!)
Why weren’t you up front about your religious beliefs? Dishonest mate, you are dishonest. (I was upfront, I just rejected the bigoted notion that Catholics cannot think for themselves)
And don’t ever pretend to speak for the whole gay community, you aren’t even a member of the gay community. Gay men and women have sex. (There is a sexual/performative test for membership of the 'gay community'? Doesn't this describe a sex-cult? Why should such people be entrusted with the care of children?)
Do they teach dishonesty in “how to be a good catholic” classes these days? Is it taught before or after the class on protecting paedophiles? (This is plain old anti-Catholic bigotry. It is sad in any context, but even more disappointing in those who claim to speak on human rights)
'Les Mallett'
PS I have no intention in trying to debate with you the pros and cons of gay unions of any sort with you. You are clearly too sick to be reasoned with. (My interlocutor has contributed no rational arguments, no new ideas, no evidence, and he's not even very funny)."
The email and many of the comments represent a catalogue of mistaken and rather offensive assumptions. After over a year of arguing this issue, I'm sorry to say that this kind of nonsense too often characterises the feedback from the homoactivists. They don't have ideas, they don't have evidence, they just have a huge amount of hatred and suddenly have their sights set on the ruin of the family. No wonder they remain so vastly unpopular.
2/. Another more challenging email followed:
I'd ask DREADNOUGHTERS to take these facts into account. Ignore my obvious personal failings, I'm not and don't want to be a packaged politician or a marketing product, and engage with the ideas. What is marriage? What makes same sex relationships worthy/unworthy? Why do some people want recognition from the Government? Why is the idea ridiculous or offensive to others? Why does talk about marriage usually end up in a discussion of childrearing? What part can religion play in the wider debate?
[UPDATE] The survey I mentioned, the Private Lives Report from LaTrobe University, is available here (pdf file). It contains the findings on what same sex attracted men and women think about 'gay marriage' (i.e., most men are not in a relationship with another man and a majority of those who are in a relationship said they don't plan to ever formalise their relationship). So I ask again, if 'gay men' don't want 'gay marriage', then why alter the definition to please a tiny minority of the tiny minority?
[UPDATE] The comments are open and DREADNOUGHT will respond to any questions on things I said during the show or on why I oppose 'gay marriage' generally. Watch the podcast here.
:: Touch Down ::
DREADNOUGHT just flew in from Sydney. Filming went well. However, if the Safran interview displayed a calm, collected DREADNOUGHT; this Insight program might show a feisty, certainly louder, perhaps more forceful young man. Prepare for fireworks.
:: Contradictions ::
The audience was, probably understandably, stacked. We were four anti-'gay marriage' guests versus basically the rest of the room. This meant that the host could go from one 'gay marriage' activist to the next, allowing them to support each other and build momentum before one of us had a chance to interject. And I had to interject, frequently.
:: Echo Chambers ::
Such a consensus, however incoherent the individual arguments, does not reflect the opinions of the wider community, rather demonstrates that homoactivists are more likely to give up their Friday nights to argue about something that remains deeply unattractive/uninteresting to ordinary voters. Indeed, all the major parties in Australia, the US and most other Western nations are content to ignore or explicitly reject 'gay marriage'.
:: Promises Loosened ::
Even the - surely former - poster-boy of the 'gay marriage' set, Jon Stanhope (Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory) refuses to lend his support to the thing by name. His relationships legislation is a 'civil union' scheme, that - in its decidedly limited practical impact if not its motivation - might even satisfy DREADNOUGHT. This is very bad news for the homoactivists.
:: Tsu-nothing ::
The legislative tide is actually turning against the idea: there is no inexorable wave change on its way. For example California and Massachusetts have either rejected or are about to reject 'gay marriage' laws. These were foisted on an unwilling people by activist judges or legislatures intent on social engineering. Now even Canada is debating a reversal. Anti-'gay marriage' amendments have been passed in a majority of US states and far from looking like pioneers, the Spanish, Belgians and Dutch look set to remain marriage pariahs. If you don't believe me, ask a homoactivist why he doesn't advocate for a referendum or any other kind of vote on the issue. They cannot win the thing anywhere.
:: Traps ::
A final point, the show was supposed to be on 'marriage', but it ended up being mostly about 'gay' adoption. There was a heavy focus on specific, emotive cases rather than a calm examination of the facts of the matter and the wider moral implications. While such a thing made it hard to argue the negative without coming across as a bastard, I can't imagine it will play well in the wider community.
:: What is Marriage? ::
No one is claiming that some 'gays' can't sometimes be good parents. No one is claiming that heterosexuals are always good parents. However, we know that the ideal is one man plus one woman for the sake of the family in the service of the common good. The rest of society seems to have worked this out ages ago. Indeed, thousands of years ago. I wonder why the homoactivists continue to ignore common sense.
:: The Upshot ::
The fact that most of the other guests were either opposed to marriage per se, divorced or admittedly not much interested in the thing anyway, only serves to demonstrate why homoactivists, who are usually either ignorant of or opposed to marriage, are the very people who should have nothing to do with defining what a marriage is. It certainly explains why the rest of the community continues to ignore their advocacy. We're made for so much more.
On 'gay marriage' being unpopular with same sex attracted men:
JENNY BROCKIE: Peter?
PETER POWER: Ian and myself, we've been together 28 years.
IAN LAWRENCE: Have you had a love in your life? Do you know what it's all about?
JOHN HEARD: I don't think we're saying anything against specific examples of love. I don't think anybody would say that a committed relationship of any kind, if there's that kind of give and take between them is a bad thing. We're talking, though, about encouraging something at the highest levels and about, you know, either protecting the family or opening it up to whatever else happens. And I'd like to challenge, at the beginning, this idea that gay people actually want to get married or that they're in relationships.
ADRIAN TUAZON: What is there to fear from our family?
JOHN HEARD: The research shows the private lives...
JENNY BROCKIE: Can we just let John finish for a sec?
JOHN HEARD: The Private Lives Survey, which was released about two months ago by La Trobe University - which was the largest survey of its kind of same-sex attracted people in Australia - demonstrated that the majority of gay men aren't in any kind of relationship at all, not only that, that the majority of gay men did not want to formalise their relationships and indeed the majority of lesbians* were in the same situation.
IAN LAWRENCE: Absolute rubbish.
JOHN HEARD: Who wants gay marriage? Where is this coming from?
JENNY BROCKIE: John, I'm interested in the position you're taking on this. Because you're gay, yes?
JOHN HEARD: I am, absolutely.
JENNY BROCKIE: And you're opposed to gay marriage?
JOHN HEARD: I certainly am.
JENNY BROCKIE: Is that because you're Catholic?
JOHN HEARD: No, it's because I'm a thinker. I can look at the arguments and see that this idea...
MAN: You don't have to get married.
JOHN HEARD:..no, but this idea that we should legislate each and every person's individual desires, even if it's the most ridiculous minority of a minority, at the point where it disrupts marriage, which is the central institution of civilisation.
IAN LAWRENCE: No, you're wrong.
JENNY BROCKIE: Comment over here.
JOHN HEARD: The Australian people agree with me.
JENNY BROCKIE: Yes, Ian and Peter?
PETER POWER: As I was saying before - before I was rudely interrupted - we've been together 28 years, we've got a very strong, loving relationship. We've registered our relationship with the Tasmanian Deed of Relationship Legislation.
IAN LAWRENCE: Which has been in 2.5 years now and the sky hasn't fallen in.
PETER POWER: It's been embraced by the Tasmanian Government, it's been embraced by...
IAN LAWRENCE: Our community.
PETER POWER: ...our community. We live in a community of 500 people.
JOHN HEARD: You're not talking about gay marriage or marriage.
IAN LAWRENCE: You're blurring the issue, you're blurring the issue.
JOHN HEARD: No, you're blurring the issue. That is not marriage. I'm not specifically arguing against a relationship register. I'm arguing against gay marriage.
*(I made one mistake: the majority of lesbians surveyed were in a relationship. However only 5-10% of respondents indicated that they had formalised their relationship while the vast majority of respondents [52% men and 39% women] did indeed indicate that they had no intention of ever formalising their relationships').
On parents' responsibility to put the interests of their children before personal desires:
JENNY BROCKIE: We've just had a child brought forth over here, I think. Lou, do you want to say something?
LOU: Yeah, I actually find that highly offensive. And in fact, Deb and I, the way in which we did it, had to really think about how we were going to do it. We weren't just like heterosexual people that think, "Oh, let's go to bed, let's have sex, Oops, I'm pregnant. What are we going to do? Oh, my God, we'll just have to fumble through." We actually have thought about our baby and thought about how we're going to raise him so he has a great self-esteem, so he has a good education.
JENNY BROCKIE: John wants to respond to that.
JOHN HEARD: With all due respect and compassion and the rest of it, and you seem like wonderful people, people seem to be saying that, you know, you're naturally having children and the Government's legislating against you. You chose to have children, even though you knew that the situation was not ideal for the child.
DEB: May I ask you a question now? Let me finish.
JOHN HEARD: You chose to have your child even though you knew that there were all these things that would count against her. How can you say that at that point you have the child's best interests and not your own in the forefront of your mind?
JENNY BROCKIE: Let's hear from the child. We've been talking a lot about children here.
JOHN HEARD: Can we hear from the parents first and then the child? The child didn't make the decision.
JENNY BROCKIE: But the child wears the consequences.
JOHN HEARD: I'm sure she's a wonderful mother.
JENNY BROCKIE: The child wears the consequences of the decision.
MAN: No child makes the decision.
JENNY BROCKIE: Can we hear from a child?
JOHN HEARD: I'm talking about bad choices, not bad parents.
On the State's obligation to encourage the best outcome (Note the host's attempt to shift the debate back to emotive personal issues, rather than the wider implications of suspect choices and 'gay marriage'. This frustrating situation was, ultimately, why DREADNOUGHT became unruly. Note also that the homoactivists admit that they have no serious interest in 'marriage' yet they want to define it for everyone else!):
JENNY BROCKIE: Doesn't mean you wouldn't have a dispute. How would you settle a dispute? Who'd adjudicate a dispute between the two of you?
JASON McCHEYNE: The Family Court would do that and we would trust them with that at the end of the day. But we don't plan on splitting up. And I'd like to say something. And I appreciate what you've said tonight, and it's sad that it is a pioneering thing in your mind.
JOHN HEARD: We don't want gay marriage.
JASON McCHEYNE: Irrespective of gay marriage, it's not the point.
JOHN HEARD: You may not. But it's something that nobody wants. I'm sure... Just let me speak for a moment. I'm sure the audience does. Can I just say the obvious thing? The young lady, I don't think there's anybody in Australia who would claim that she's, you know, in any way anything other than articulate and wonderful and yet her parents aren't married. How was that, you know, an argument that we have to have gay marriage?
JASON McCHEYNE: It's about creating pathways.
TRICIA SZIROM: It's not about marriage at this point.
JOHN HEARD: It's not about marriage, well, apparently not.
TRICIA SZIROM: I said right through, when I was speaking, that I wasn't concerned about the issue of marriage, I was... Will you stop for a minute, please, because you've been putting me down.
JENNY BROCKIE: Just let her finish, please. John, let her finish.
TRICIA SZIROM: What I am arguing for is that this child has rights.
JOHN HEARD: Absolutely.
TRICIA SZIROM: And they are not being recognised...
JOHN HEARD: Because of your choices.
JENNY BROCKIE: Could you let her just finish.
TRICIA SZIROM: Heterosexual people make choices that aren't necessarily good....
JOHN HEARD: And we don't legislate to encourage them.
TRICIA SZIROM:..that are no necessarily good...
JOHN HEARD: And we don't legislate to encourage them.
JENNY BROCKIE: I'm going to stop you right there because you're not giving other people a chance to speak.
[UPDATE] Here are two somewhat indicative negative responses.
1/. DREADNOUGHTER writes first and DREADNOUGHT responds in italics:
"Dear John,
You rude, self-hating hypocrite! (Most same sex attracted men disagree with the homoactivists, we can't all be self-hating. Why am I a hypocrite?)
There was a reason the presenter had to tell you to shut up, it is a suggestion you should take into the rest of your life. (This might be a valid bit of advice!)
Why weren’t you up front about your religious beliefs? Dishonest mate, you are dishonest. (I was upfront, I just rejected the bigoted notion that Catholics cannot think for themselves)
And don’t ever pretend to speak for the whole gay community, you aren’t even a member of the gay community. Gay men and women have sex. (There is a sexual/performative test for membership of the 'gay community'? Doesn't this describe a sex-cult? Why should such people be entrusted with the care of children?)
Do they teach dishonesty in “how to be a good catholic” classes these days? Is it taught before or after the class on protecting paedophiles? (This is plain old anti-Catholic bigotry. It is sad in any context, but even more disappointing in those who claim to speak on human rights)
'Les Mallett'
PS I have no intention in trying to debate with you the pros and cons of gay unions of any sort with you. You are clearly too sick to be reasoned with. (My interlocutor has contributed no rational arguments, no new ideas, no evidence, and he's not even very funny)."
The email and many of the comments represent a catalogue of mistaken and rather offensive assumptions. After over a year of arguing this issue, I'm sorry to say that this kind of nonsense too often characterises the feedback from the homoactivists. They don't have ideas, they don't have evidence, they just have a huge amount of hatred and suddenly have their sights set on the ruin of the family. No wonder they remain so vastly unpopular.
2/. Another more challenging email followed:
"Hi John, I've no doubt you're smarter than me and could out-argue me. However, your rudeness and smugness tonight gives me hope that grandstanding wankers like you will do your position more harm than good. Hope you find something useful to do with your life one day soon!It is pretty obvious that I was vigorous in my defense of the family. However, I am a passionate young man, and I am sure of my position. Of course, I've never claimed to be immune from coming across as a smug wanker (is any man?), but none of the other guests effectively countered my arguments (How could 'gay marriage' benefit/improve the young lady who spoke of being raised by unmarried lesbians? Where is the evidence of support for 'gay marriage' in the 'gay' and wider communities?) and no one else actually cited a verifiable study of the issue.
Cheers,
DREADNOUGHTER"
I'd ask DREADNOUGHTERS to take these facts into account. Ignore my obvious personal failings, I'm not and don't want to be a packaged politician or a marketing product, and engage with the ideas. What is marriage? What makes same sex relationships worthy/unworthy? Why do some people want recognition from the Government? Why is the idea ridiculous or offensive to others? Why does talk about marriage usually end up in a discussion of childrearing? What part can religion play in the wider debate?
[UPDATE] The survey I mentioned, the Private Lives Report from LaTrobe University, is available here (pdf file). It contains the findings on what same sex attracted men and women think about 'gay marriage' (i.e., most men are not in a relationship with another man and a majority of those who are in a relationship said they don't plan to ever formalise their relationship). So I ask again, if 'gay men' don't want 'gay marriage', then why alter the definition to please a tiny minority of the tiny minority?
[UPDATE] The comments are open and DREADNOUGHT will respond to any questions on things I said during the show or on why I oppose 'gay marriage' generally. Watch the podcast here.
:: Touch Down ::
DREADNOUGHT just flew in from Sydney. Filming went well. However, if the Safran interview displayed a calm, collected DREADNOUGHT; this Insight program might show a feisty, certainly louder, perhaps more forceful young man. Prepare for fireworks.
:: Contradictions ::
The audience was, probably understandably, stacked. We were four anti-'gay marriage' guests versus basically the rest of the room. This meant that the host could go from one 'gay marriage' activist to the next, allowing them to support each other and build momentum before one of us had a chance to interject. And I had to interject, frequently.
:: Echo Chambers ::
Such a consensus, however incoherent the individual arguments, does not reflect the opinions of the wider community, rather demonstrates that homoactivists are more likely to give up their Friday nights to argue about something that remains deeply unattractive/uninteresting to ordinary voters. Indeed, all the major parties in Australia, the US and most other Western nations are content to ignore or explicitly reject 'gay marriage'.
:: Promises Loosened ::
Even the - surely former - poster-boy of the 'gay marriage' set, Jon Stanhope (Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory) refuses to lend his support to the thing by name. His relationships legislation is a 'civil union' scheme, that - in its decidedly limited practical impact if not its motivation - might even satisfy DREADNOUGHT. This is very bad news for the homoactivists.
:: Tsu-nothing ::
The legislative tide is actually turning against the idea: there is no inexorable wave change on its way. For example California and Massachusetts have either rejected or are about to reject 'gay marriage' laws. These were foisted on an unwilling people by activist judges or legislatures intent on social engineering. Now even Canada is debating a reversal. Anti-'gay marriage' amendments have been passed in a majority of US states and far from looking like pioneers, the Spanish, Belgians and Dutch look set to remain marriage pariahs. If you don't believe me, ask a homoactivist why he doesn't advocate for a referendum or any other kind of vote on the issue. They cannot win the thing anywhere.
:: Traps ::
A final point, the show was supposed to be on 'marriage', but it ended up being mostly about 'gay' adoption. There was a heavy focus on specific, emotive cases rather than a calm examination of the facts of the matter and the wider moral implications. While such a thing made it hard to argue the negative without coming across as a bastard, I can't imagine it will play well in the wider community.
:: What is Marriage? ::
No one is claiming that some 'gays' can't sometimes be good parents. No one is claiming that heterosexuals are always good parents. However, we know that the ideal is one man plus one woman for the sake of the family in the service of the common good. The rest of society seems to have worked this out ages ago. Indeed, thousands of years ago. I wonder why the homoactivists continue to ignore common sense.
:: The Upshot ::
The fact that most of the other guests were either opposed to marriage per se, divorced or admittedly not much interested in the thing anyway, only serves to demonstrate why homoactivists, who are usually either ignorant of or opposed to marriage, are the very people who should have nothing to do with defining what a marriage is. It certainly explains why the rest of the community continues to ignore their advocacy. We're made for so much more.
by DREADNOUGHT at 1:42:00 AM
<< Home