Editors note: Due to a bug in my code, as well as the popularity of this post (or the un-popularity, I’m not sure which), users must use Internet Explorer to view all of the responses found in the comment secion.
Did you know I was a pageant girl? I was, and I’m proud of it, as I loved both experiences. Sadly I don’t have any pictures to show you, since this was before Facebook and digital cameras so all of the photos are at my parents house. Someday I’ll scan them in and show them to you. Here’s a picture of my sister competing instead.
We both participated in Junior Miss, and I loved the experience so much that I entered into Miss Moses Lake (a part of the Miss America program) pageant as well. I tell you this so you know that I am sympathetic to these girls that stand up and answer a random question for which they’ve been attempting to prepare for months.
That Husband came home from work today and asked if I had heard about what happened with Miss California in the Miss America pageant last night.
How her heart must have leaped up into her throat when she realized that a very vocal, very popular, homosexual blogger was asking her that question.When I watched the video, I felt so proud. When you are on the opposite side of what the media views to be right, you are always in a tough spot.
Miss California is, in a way, a hero for me. Not because she answered the question exceedingly well (the term “opposite marriage” was quite the flub) but because she stood up in front of millions of people and demonstrated something we don’t see very often. Integrity. We spend hours and hours complaining to each other around election time that our public figures don’t follow up with their promises, and this is because they walk around only saying what they think we want to hear. Miss California states what she really believes (demonstrating that she would follow through with integrity and honor if selected to be Miss America), but because it is the opposite of what people want to hear she is attacked and penalized for it.
I believe the same way as Miss California. I too have attempted to stand up and voice my opinions in a public forum, and I have been personally attacked for doing so. In conversations with That Husband, a certain question has come up between us which I’ve never found the opportunity to voice, but I think now might be a good time to do so.
If you support gay marriage, do you also support polygamous marriage?
For if the issue is denying people the right to choose who they marry, should not the choice be available for all to follow their heart and be with the one they love? Even if they share that love with more than one person?
I am very proud of her too. Good for her to stand up for what she believes in.
If I had a little more free time I would read this all and comment, but I think I arrived here too late anyway.
Thanks for posting this! I am actually very embarrassed that the country in which I live allows same-sex marriage.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
One last thing- I would hope that those saying being gay is a choice, or you aren’t born that way, aren’t LDS.
Because the last time I read anything on homosexuality and the LDS church, it said “being gay isn’t a sin, but acting on it is”. It also said things about all of us having our own trials and burdens to carry, and for gay people, that’s theirs. There are therapies, offered by the LDS church, that can make you straight, which would have to mean that you’re not straight, you’re gay, and need to be fixed- that there needs to be a process to take you from gay to straight. In other words, that maybe it’s a part of you (an admittedly undesireable part per the LDS Church) that’s always been there…
To me, this language implies that someone is born gay, or, at the very least, that it is a very real problem of desire inherent to them that they must deny or seek to change. In other words, the LDS stance is the closest out of any Christian church to imply that being gay is inherent, thus I think the arguments of some on here are a little flawed if they are LDS and saying that being gay isn’t, at the very least, an inherent part of you that you struggle with. Even the BYU honor code addressess the fact that homosexuals can go to school there, as long as they are celibate (as is required of straight students as well). Homosexuals can be members of the Church as long as they are celibate as well. So, if the LDS Church didn’t believe that people were born gay, or that it was an inherent character trait or trial, to me they wouldn’t frame their “rules” this way. They might not have come out and said “people are born gay” but everything they’ve said all around the issue seems too point to something akin to it. Otherwise they would be like most other conservative Christian churches, who maintain that being gay in and of itself is a perversion and a sin, and is inherently wrong. The LDS church distinguishes between *being* and *acting* in a homosexual way, which begs the question of what the Church thinks about where those desires came from in the first place- especially since a lot of Mormon gay youth were raised in good Mormon households stretching back for generations. Where did those desires come from? How did they grow in an environment that taught against them from a very young age? How did they have feelings that made them want to act in ways they had never seen- many kids didn’t even know of one gay person, yet they remember being ardently in love with someone of the same sex as early as two or three. In fact, my roommate, who is a lesbian and an ex-Mormon, was actually told by her Bishop that she was born that way, but that she could choose to NOT BE GAY- he didn’t say she chose to be gay, he said she was born that way and it was her trial to CHOOSE TO BE STRAIGHT.
To me, the existence of a Church sponsored treatement facility to turn your gay kid straight logically means that your kid is inherently gay and must be physically and mentally and emotionally reconditioned into a straight kid. And be in therapy for years after most of the time. And maybe just end up celibate anyway, never able to marry (even in states where it’s legal) in order to remain in good standing in the Church (there are many, many blogs out there written by gay celibate Mormons for more insight into this).
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 10:37 am
As per my understanding, programs such as the one you describe are no longer in effect (and although I don’t believe all of these people are lying, I’m not sure how much of what went on was actually sanctioned by the Prophet of the Church).
All of your other points are very valid though.
Reply
Well ladies and gentlemen, this has been an intense discussion. I don’t enjoy the emotional back-and-forth so much, but I really appreciate the reasoned and logical responses, whichever side of the issue they’re on.
I wish I had the time to answer all the issues, but I will just focus on one: is there any rational reason why someone would be against gay marriage. Most arguments here were religious and sadly not very rational. Let me offer some that seem logical to me:
1. Potential detriment to society – brought up above
2. Federal subsidies for marriage – actually brought up on a past post, but missed here
3. Burden of proof – I will elaborate below
First the “marriage” we are talking about is the government’s recognition of a union. Many unions (both homo and heterosexual) live happily without that recognition. Another recognition of a union is a domestic partnership, which gives a union almost all the benefits but one: federal subsidies.
Somewhere throughout time our society has determined that marriage is beneficial enough to warrant federal subsidies in form of tax breaks (for married filing jointly). Thus, almost all given the recognition of “marriage” are getting a break. Since economics unequivocally teaches there is no such thing as a free lunch, this is coming out of everyone else’s pockets.
Now, if we find homosexual unions or polygamy/…gyny/etc as beneficial to society as “traditional marriages”, perhaps they should be given the same subsidies. This is up to the society to decide, and the burden of proof should fall on those who seek the subsidies; i.e., they should show how their unions are beneficial enough to warrant the rest of society bearing the burden of their tax breaks. The problem with our current situation is that (1) the courts have taken it upon themselves to decide instead of relying on the democratic process and (2) the media have put the burden of proof on those who oppose new forms of marriage. This puts the society at large at a disadvantage and establishes a dangerous precedent.
As for the point #1, there are multiple arguments that homosexual/polygamous marriage is detrimental to society, some of them valid and some not. They have been debated to death here and elsewhere, so I’ll leave them alone. I think most people who use religious reasons for opposing gay marriage (like Miss Cali) fundamentally believe it would be detrimental and just cannot articulate it.
Now, aside from all these issues, since marriage is society’s recognition of a union, society should decide what is recognized through the democratic process, and every member of society should be able to hold a view without being persecuted. If I oppose open immigration it doesn’t mean I hate foreign nationals; if I’m against unionization it doesn’t mean I hate workers or the middle class; if I oppose gay marriage it doesn’t mean I hate gays. I’ve brought up this point before, and I will repeat it:
take any social issue (taxes, immigration, armed conflict, abortion, etc.), pick any stand on it, and you will put someone at a disadvantage. This does not make you an intolerant bigot, because if it did, we are all intolerant bigots, and we should accept our new titles and go on with life.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 am
Hear, hear. I especially liked your last paragraph. Well said.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Your last paragraph argument works for those that think being gay is a choice TH. But for those that think being gay is inherent, then denying an entire class of people rights based on the way they were born is discrimination.
It’s not a matter of you being against gay marriage and me being for it- our beliefs stem from our ideas of what being *gay* means. You think it’s a sin to act on being gay, and presumably that one can choose to be straight and deny those desires. I don’t think that way at all, therefore denying gay marriage to gays is the same (in my opinion) as denying women the vote, denying interracial marriage, etc. It’s a natural result of our differing views on what being gay is. The gay marriage issue is a side isssue to that. If I thought being gay was a choice, your logic would be very powerful and true. But because I fundamentally disagree with you about what being gay is, I think denying gay marriage is discrimination.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Sophia, I do not intend to come off as rude or hurtful, but I will be direct: you’re putting words in my mouth that I haven’t said, and you credit me with opinions I have never expressed. I understand this is an emotional issue, but I think you’re being unfair by shifting focus from what I acutally said to what I presumably believe, and then build an argument around that. This just sets up a much less constructive conversation.
Now, before comment on your point let me give the opinions I actually hold. From all the research I’ve done through the years, I think homosexuality among men is largely hard-wired. There are exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions. I’ve met enough men who wanted to be heterosexual but couldn’t, and I don’t think I could ever be homosexual no matter how much I’d want to be. Homosexuality among women can be hard-wired and it can be a preference. I haven’t seen any studies on what the ratios are, but my understanding is that the deeper emotional connection that women can develop can lead a woman to prefer homosexual unions over heterosexual unions. This helps explain the much larger bi-sexual percentage of women vs. men. But not to digress too much, I think most homosexuals have as much a choice about their sexuality as I have about mine – i.e., not much.
Now that that’s established, whether I believe that homosexuality is a sin or not is actually a moot point and, whether you believe it or not, it has no bearing on my views. I believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but I never thought any less of my many friends who choose to have pre-marital sex than I otherwise would have. I vehemently agree that we should not make laws based on what we deem as sinful, because these views are subjective and discriminatory. Fundamentally, religious beliefs and emotion is not what this discussion is about for me.
Now to speak to your actual point, homosexuality being a choice has no bearing on my arguments (to me they are not stronger or weaker either way). To walk through them:
1. Potential detriment to society – doesn’t matter. The issue here is whether gay marriage benefits society at large.
2. Federal subsidies – doesnt matter. The issue here is whether gay marriage is beneficial enough to society to warrant tax breaks at the expense of everyone else.
3. Burden of proof – doesnt matter. The issue here is whether the burden of proof is on those seeking to change the status quo or those seeking to maintain it. It could be argued that for point #1 the burden of proof is on society, but for point #2 the burden of proof is clearly on same-sex couples.
If you speak about the last paragraph – how having a rational and well-developed opinion on an issue doesn’t make one a bigot – I also think choice doesn’t make a difference. I’m going to beat it to death, but nobody chooses where they’re born, and yet we don’t give everyone a chance to live in the great US of A. Bigots or not, we don’t do it because we think it wouldn’t be fair to the rest of society, and we don’t see it as a fundamental right. Which brings me to my last point…
I think the comparisons of gay marriage to women’s right to vote and slavery are extreme and inaccurate. As I’ve said before, marriage is society’s recognition of a union. Unions can exist without marriage, and forming those unions is what I would call a right. As for society’s recognition, society has to decide.
If society decides against, are rights actually lost from same-sex couples if they are not able to marry?
In my understanding, there are only two, and neither of them are actual rights. (1) The right to be called a marriage and (2) the right to federal subsidies in form of income and estate taxes. I could be wrong, but to my knowledge everything else is given through civil unions, like adoption, power of attorney over the disabled, etc. Now, are those actual rights? In my understanding, nobody has a “right” to be called anything by others (like not being called a bigot isn’t my actual legal right), and nobody has a “right” to tax breaks unless society so decides (if there is such a right, I would certainly love to get some more tax breaks myself). If I missed an actual right (which is quite possible), a good way to address it would be to grant it through civil unions, as indiscriminately broadening marriage actually robs society of its right to decision in a democratic process.
I hope that’s not too long of an answer. I also hope my tone didn’t come off as negative, because that’s not how I mean it. Being honest, I have not been frustrated at any argument that proves me wrong in this debate – in fact, there have been several comments on this post that helped me refine my views. If you think my logic is flawed please do comment back, because I appreciate the conversation.
Reply
Katy Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I loved reading this. It’s so good to hear from a male, less-emotional, more technical/logical (if that makes sense) point of view. You summed up many of my thoughts perfectly.
Reply
Shan Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I am wondering, TH, are you for civil unions? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but I’m wondering if this is correct. If so, is anyone else here for civil unions but against gay marriage? I have always assumed most people who oppose gay marriage are also against civil unions. As for other differences, it was my understanding that civil unions are not recognized by some states so if individuals leave the state they may lose the benefits a civil union offers. Additionally, because it is not federally recognized (on a state by state basis) individuals cannont sponser their spouse for immigration. I’m not an expert so if anyone knows otherwise please let me know. I am for marriage equality I have no problem sharing the word with homosexual couples and I’m not sure why tax breaks are given but I don’t think my husband and I have any more right to them then a homosexual couple.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Yes, I’m for civil unions. In fact, most Mormons probably are in favor of them as that’s the stand of the LDS church.
The state law differences (civil unions not being recognized) is a good point. In my understanding there is a federal law that would cause the same problem for same-sex marriage (it may not be universally recognized across states, depending on state laws). Thus, we will probably face this problem wherever the debate ends up (unless all states recognize civil unions or same-sex marriage).
The immigration point is a very interesting one. What’s your point of view on it? I haven’t ever thought about this one, so I’ll elaborate tomorrow…
Reply
Shan Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Without the recognition of marriage at the federal level wouldn’t that also make federal subsidies a non issue as well? Unless all states are on board and the federal govt. signs off on it it sounds to me like the only “right” left to debate is the word itself “marriage”. Granted it is a loaded word but it still seems silly to me.
I would also like to address one more thing. You bring up other social issues like immigration and unionization. To me, those issues, like you said, put someone at a disadvantage on either side. However, I don’t see the connection to gay marriage because where is the disadvantage to allowing it? By removing religion from the equation I don’t see how anyone can be hurt by this. I know not everyone can make it a non-religious issue but I agree that religion should not dictate law. The only burden that could occur is the number of marriages skyrocketed and the single people left were stuck with the burden of providing tax breaks. As far as a good argument for why gay marriage deserves a tax break. How about the huge number of children that can be adopted and taken care of by loving parents? Instead of plugging all of that money into shelters we will be distributing it to these new families. And, as someone who has had a lot of experience with the shelter system and unwanted children I think that would be a huge benefit to society.
As far as immigration, I used to think it was easy to marry a US citizen and become a US citizen. After reading about what Christiana has gone through I have changed my view. If homosexual couples have to jump through the same hoops to prove that they are not trying to cheat the system and that they are financially sound etc. then I think it makes sense to give homosexual couples that right. To me, that is extending equal rights to all US citizens.
Reply
Shan Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
One other thought in reference to marriage and tax breaks. Please correct me if I am wrong but I have come to find that some of the differences between the mormon church and some other Christian churches include the focus on the importance of marriage, and on recruiting members by such means as missions. I think I’ve read that LDS is one of the fastest growing religions. Would it be fair to assume that the LDS church is increasing the amount of marriages by spreading the its beliefs? And, as a result, increasing the tax burden on the non-marrieds? If we want to protect the spread of marriage because we want to protect our wallets then maybe this is another point of view.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 26th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Shan, you bring up multiple points and I’m sorry if I miss any.
I’m confused about your first point where not recognizing marriage at a federal level would make subsidies a non-issue. The only thing that would do is make moving from state to state a non-issue (whether you’re married or in a civil union, you’d keep your status). Not sure how that would change anything about the subsidies, but please elaborate if I’m missing your point.
On your second point (if you remove religion from legislation how would anyone be hurt by gay marriage), I think the points brought up here are the exact same as with polygamy – that it’s detrimental to society. However, a lot of the specific points in that argument don’t really address gay marriage but rather things already granted by civil unions. So to me personally, the tax burden is really the major way others would get hurt, although I’m not very well versed in this debate so it’s quite possible there are other potential points.
The point about removing kids from the shelter system is a good one, and I think the issue here is that we should give tax breaks to people who actually adopt those kids. My opinion, and it’s just an opinion, is that kids put with stable same-sex couples and single individuals are probably better off than the kids the shelter. Therefore, I absolutely think they should get tax breaks for the savings they just gave to the shelter system. But this shouldn’t depend on whether they are gay couples that are married, gay couples in civil unions, or single people.
As far as immigration goes, I thought a lot about it, and my opinion is similar if not the same as yours. I agree that people should be able to apply for immigration for their partners if they want to spend the rest of their life with them and are willing to support them financially if needs be. I think this also applies to polygamous marriages from places where those are still practiced (if you are from a largely Moslem nation and want to immigrate, you shouldn’t have to decide which spouse and kids you’re going to leave behind). Historically, marriage has always been the best proxy for this and federal law relied on it because all states recognized marriage as the same thing. Universally allowing gay and polygamous marriage would be an easy way to solve this problem, but it has a multiple other consequences. The problem could also be solved by a change in federal law that defines a domestic partnership at the federal level and grants it immigration rights equal to marriages.
On your final point of tax breaks for marriages and Mormons encouraging marriage: the big question here is whether marriages actually deserve their tax breaks (i.e. do the benefits to society outweigh the increased costs to the non-marrieds). If so, then Mormons are doing society a favor by promoting marriage and families. If not, then the increased burden on others is not justified and the tax breaks should be decreased. I think most people operate under the assumption that it’s deserved, because Washington is usually pretty good at squeezing as much as possible out of us : )
Taking all these points together, I think there are good arguments both for and against redefining marriage. My bias is that we should do our due diligence before we make a large change like this, which is why I appreciate this discussion.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
TH, I was assuming that your opinion of homosexuality was the opinion of the LDS Church- that being gay is not a sin, but acting on it is. I’m sorry that my assumption offended you, however I don’t think it’s that big of a leap on my part to assume that a devout, temple going Mormon would have beliefs in line with the Church they are a part of. But I don’t like it when people make assumptions about me, and I’m sorry I made one about you- it doesn’t contribute to open conversation to go into it with pre-determined ideas, and I did in making that assumption.
Also, your clarification that you agree with civil unions clears a lot of things up for me as to your stance. I’m not one of those people who insists it be called marriage- if civil unions give gay couples all the same rights and protections under the law as married heterosexual couples get, I’m happy.
Honestly, my comment was more of a kind of realization thing happening in my mind, of thinking “you know, maybe it’s not that people disagree on gay marriage, it’s that they disagree about what being gay is or isn’t”. My only point in even addressing the issue of what being gay is was to try and wrap my mind around that sticky point where people on one side feel the other side is being discriminatory. It wasn’t in a mean tone, more of a “hey, maybe this is where the issue is, other than over here”, me trying to better understand.
Reply
TH Reply:
April 26th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Sophia, you didn’t offend me, and I know my directness can come off as being angry, but that was not my intent.
I think the key miscommunication between our comments is around three ideas:
1. Whether same-sex attraction is a choice
2. Whether acting on that attraction sexually is a sin
3. Whether we should legalize same-sex marriage
Now, these three ideas are disjoint – you can hold any view on any of them without affecting the others. Since I am a devout Mormon, I think your assumption about #2 (sin) was warranted and correct. I was frustrated about your assumption about #1 (choice), because it wasn’t my opinion (and to my knowledge is not the stand of the LDS church), and it was the foundation of your comment. I was also frustrated about your assumption that #2 (sin) dictates #3 (law), which to me it doesn’t. I believe many things are sins and I don’t do them, but I don’t promote legislation to ban them (e.g. pre-marital sex), which is what the LDS church does as well. In all instances I have seen, the church has good arguments for taking a legislative stand, not merely a belief that something is sinful.
So, I also appreciate the conversation, and if you disagree with me on anything, I do welcome discussion – I really have learned quite a bit through the comments on this post.
Reply
Jenna, I’ve never commented, although I’ve followed your blog ever since hopping over from WeddingBee. This post made me come out of my lurker-status to say bravo.
You took a chance, speaking openly about your beliefs in this matter–sometimes it seems that our general society belives that freedom of speech only applies to liberals. There are plenty of topics in which I would disagree with you, but I applaud your willingness to voice your opinion on them all.
Reply
This is a fascinating topic, and I’m really impressed with the level of thoughtful discussion that’s going on here.
I thought I’d throw in my own point of view.
I believe that God created each of us perfectly. We don’t choose our height, or our eye color, and I believe that we don’t choose who we love or are attracted to. I do see love and attraction as being two different things. But, I do not think that sexual preference is a decision.
That said, I also feel that homosexual partners should be granted full and equal legal rights, if they are committed as life time partners, as those of heterosexual married couples. It is not right, in my opinion to deny someone health care, or visitation rights, or parental rights because they are a same sex couple. I would argue that these are inalienable rights, and by denying homosexual couples these rights, it is not much different from saying that racially mixed couples should not be allowed to be married. It is a different time and a different age, but I think we will look back on these events and see them similarly to the civil rights movement.
Lastly, I believe that same sex couples should be allowed to have children, either by adoption or other means. If same sex couples are committed, loving, and have the means to raise a child, I think this is good for the child and for society. I can not see what harm would come to a child by being raised in a loving, caring environment.
Jenna, I applaud you for speaking your mind, and having the integrity to bring up this topic and be true to your belief system in addressing it.
Reply
Just some food for thought to those that mentioned the “separation of church and state”:
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
This is a very informative article. I wish you would read it.
Reply
I don’t support polygamy, but if it became legal to participate in it in all 50 states, I would be pretty outspoken and fiercely against limiting the polygamy to only being one man and x number of women (and all the combinations of limiting it as such based solely on gender alone).
Not all people identify with societies ideas of “normal” with regard to gender. And anyone who speaks out against same-sex marriage is not sympathetic to that one bit.
Further, to me, marriage is a contract. A civil, legal contract between my husband and I with the government. It has NOTHING to do with God. The fact that your marriage has to do with and involves God is great for you, and I don’t desire to take those spiritual elements of your marriage away from you. Why would you want to take away my right to have the civil, legal contract?
Reply
Jenna, I sent you an email, but you probably didn’t see it with all the mail that comes your way.
I’m curious to know: Do you (or do you plan to) photograph same-sex couples?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
April 24th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I did see your email, I just needed some time to ruminate.
Coming from such a conservative background/environment, the thought that I might be faced with such a request had never crossed my mind. I believe that most same-sex couples do their research before choosing a photographer, because same-sex marriage is such a hot button topic I believe they want to choose a photographer who is supportive of that right. Photographers who put up pictures of same-sex couples on their blogs become recognized as someone who would be good to contact in the event that you were looking for such a service.
I think there are two different possible situations.
The first is that someone contacts me to set up an engagement session, never mentioning that they are in a homosexual relationship. I show up to meet them and because I am a professional (I would like to believe I am), I treat them no different than any other couple I work with. I do my best to capture photographs that they will love. The one thing I would do differently, is I would not make their images public. I would make this choice because I think it is important to display images that project the kind of sessions you would like to focus on, and I am not looking to break into the same-sex market. Right now I am not making any money, so I’ll take pictures of pretty much anything you want to pay me for, but in the future I plan on focusing in on a specific target market. Thus, this policy of not putting up certain pictures on the blog would not only apply to same-sex couples, but pets, or babies, or family sessions, whatever type of session might be different from my target market.
The other situation I can imagine is that the person who emails me mentions that they are in a same-sex relationship, and ask the question that you asked above. I would email them back, and let them know I do not have a policy against doing such sessions, but I be honest with them and tell them that I think there are photographers out there who would be a better fit for them. Because I truly believe that it is not only important to find a photographer who is good, but most importantly someone who is good for you specifically.
Overall I think it is highly unlikes that either situation would occur. The majority of my clients know about my personal blog, and I am very open about my conservative Christian belief system. Once you know I am Mormon, it can only be assumed that I am opposed to same-sex marriage, as most Mormons are. Understandably, those who are in homosexual relationships are highly offended by this stance, and usually do not want to have any association with me whatsoever. I do not think it is something I will be facing anytime soon, especially while living in Texas. Thank you for giving me the chance to think about what I would do in such a situation though, it may come in handy in the future.
Reply
You said, “One of TH’s closest friends, also a groomsmen at our wedding, was a member of the Church, left it, and is now living in a committed relationship in California with his partner.”
Just out of curiosity, since he is such a dear friend, does it bother you both at all that he can’t enjoy married life like you?
I can’t say that I agree with your views, but I applaud you for be brave enough to put your opinions out there.
Reply