Home ›

OP/ED: Defending gay marriage and potato salad diversity

by Kyra Hoggan on 02 Aug 2012
in
OP/ED: Defending gay marriage and potato salad diversity

I have to admit, as the hot, humid summer days stretch out before us, I can’t seem to get myself worked into a lather over anything much more controversial than whether or not to put hard-boiled eggs in the potato salad for camping (I asked my Facebook friends and, 51 comments later, the consensus seems to be that I need to include the eggs).

Like this whole Chick-fil-A furor in the U.S. When I read about billionaire Dan Cathy’s comments regarding gay marriage, my first thought was, Why is anyone getting in a flap over someone who came up with such a moronic name for his company? Chick-fil-A is the culinary equivalent of Illiterates-Is-We. Cue banjo riff. Shouldn’t we be tossing this fellow pitying glances and subtly trying to encourage his silence, in a well-meaning effort to help him avoid embarrassing himself?

My second thought was that, ironically, the mention of chicken breasts invariably calls to my mind the Friends episode that dealt with … wait for it … catering a lesbian wedding (I think it was Pheobe who said serving chicken breasts would be ‘too cute’. That was beyond funny).

Of course, it didn’t escape my attention that, as head of a $4-billion empire, Cathy could spend all day on the toilet with the stomach flu and still be more financially successful, on that day, than I’ve been on every day of my life combined – and good on him, for sure. But since when did obscene riches earned in the U.S translate into moral leadership and integrity – in fact, hasn’t the very opposite often proven to be true?

So the dude’s got some golden eggs  – I still don’t get why Americans across the country are allowing his comments to ruffle their feathers, especially given how blatantly sophomoric and naïve those comments were.

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” he said. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

I can’t help it, my every reaction to those words is sarcastic, because it’s all just so idiotic – Yeah, sure, THAT’S what’s going to invite God’s judgment of the U.S., Cathy, I think. 

I mean, that’s just funny, right?

American mayors and governors are really going to let their platforms be dictated by a fellow who is apparently completely ignorant of history, global geopolitics, in-country crime rates including staggering drug and human trafficking markets, or the creation of nuclear warfare? Seriously? I think God may have some other, more compelling stuff for which to judge your nation, Cathy, and if He’s as you describe Him, I’m guessing He won’t wait for an engraved invitation to do so, so you can rest easy on that count.

I especially love how he says, “the audacity to redefine” in reference to the definition from a book that may or may not be the word of God, but was most certainly published by man – while utterly ignoring the fact that God created those very people whom Cathy says are courting God’s judgment.

Why is anyone, anywhere, taking this yahoo seriously?

He’s aligning himself with moral giants like Rush Limbaugh, who has been married four times, was alleged to have ended at least one of those marriages with an affair, and is now accusing Obama of declaring “war on traditional marriage”, while claiming to be afraid that same-sex marriage will somehow diminish the institution of marriage – which is understandable, given how much he obviously respects said institution himself. He certainly avails himself of it often enough.

I get why, in a democracy, these guys are allowed a microphone … I just don’t understand why on earth anyone would give a damn (pun intended) about what they have to say, unless we’re looking for a good belly laugh on a rough day.

Their only value on the public stage is a comedic one – the moral Gestapo version of Wile E. Coyote, if you will, and if we allow them to do anything other than haplessly amuse us, then I guess that makes us those foolhardy fellows at Acme, who keep sending him dynamite and rocket launchers, then wondering why stuff keeps blowing up.

So, no, I’m not going to get all riled up over what the Poultry Baron tells me is right and wrong – in fact, I think I’ll try out two potato salad recipes, one with eggs and one without, and see which one gets eaten faster, and walk away feeling like I’ve dealt with the important controversies of the day.

And I’ll probably write more columns – but not until or unless a real news story comes along to inspire one.

Comments

Who really cares ??

by zazzoo on 07 Aug 2012 at about 17:33.

Do I really care if my nieghbors are hetero or homosexuals? No.

Do I really care if they have or want to have  children ? No

Why ? Because it is really none of my personal business.

That is the problem with too many people in todays society. Everyone is too involved in other people's business instead of their own.

If a gay couple want to raise children does it really matter ? No

As long as a couple are giving the child what it needs, love, a home, food, etc, who cares if that child has two Mom's or two Dad's or a Mom and a Dad ? I mean really, there are so many other problems in this world that need addressing and are far more pressing than this issue.

What ever happened to the old saying, " live and let live?"

Further, I AM a Christian and I know exactly what the Bibe says about homosexuality, but it also says to "Love your neighbor as yourself". And that does not mean your immediate neighbor. It means everyone you live on this planet with. It makes no distinction, in this verse, as to whether that neighbor is gay or straight. It just says, "Love your neighbor".

So, that is the stance I am going to take because I have no right to judge anyone. It is not my place to do so and it really bothers me when others believe they do have the right to judge and call damnation on someone else all in the name of God. That is NOT what Christians are supposed to be about. We are commanded to LOVE. Infact, there is NO other greater commandment than (a) to love God and (b) to love your neighbor.

End of story :)

 

Thanks, Zazzoo. A wise and

by Adrian Barnes on 08 Aug 2012 at about 07:01.

Thanks, Zazzoo. A wise and compassionate end to an uncomfortable discussion. I wish all Christians (and other religious people) were as 'Christian' as you.

Mis-characterization

by Sara Golling on 03 Aug 2012 at about 17:50.

David, I do respect your right to your opinion; but I think it is a fundamental error, and extremely unfair to gay people,  to characterize homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice".  Is your heterosexuality a "lifestyle choice"?  Could you switch your sexual orientation by an effort of will?  I suppose there are those who swing both ways, but I suspect (from observation and conversations with a number of friends, both straight and gay) that such people are in the minority.  Once, on the rebound from an unfortunate relationship with an unsuitable man, I confessed to a friend that I wondered if life would be easier if I were attracted to other women instead, as women seemed so much easier to get along with.  We discussed the issue and decided, on the whole, it would probably be just as difficult, only in different ways ... and anyway, that I would be unable to attempt it, as the attraction just was not there.  No "choice" available!  

We should not ask gays to live dishonestly, masquerading as straight, and call it a "choice".  And anyway -- who would arbitrarily choose to live as a gay person unnecessarily, and put up with the disapproval of so many who regard it as a choice, or a sin, or unnatural (etc.)? 

Thank you Sara, I never

by David Livingstone on 04 Aug 2012 at about 05:56.

Thank you Sara,

I never intended this to become a discussion of the reality of homosexuality as an inborn tendency. I would never want to be seen as failing to appreciate the tremendous emotional and psychological burden that certainly accompanies these people's struggle to come to terms with their feelings.

A public forum is not the place for that kind of discussion, as it risks to fray too many fragile sentiments.

I merely wanted to point out that the use of the term "homophobe" is much like the term "anti-Semite". It is exploitive, unfair and sensationalistic. It's been used to insinuate that any who hold dissenting views necessarily "hate homosexuals", or more absurdly still, that they harbour latent doubts which they try to exorcise by expressing hatred towards those who have dared to expose their tendencies.

It's an oppressive means of forcing the debate to the advantage of a chosen party. In effect, it's an ad hominem fallacy, which insults the interlocutor instead of responding with logic. And that's unhealthy.

Incessant controversial debate is a fact of life. The secret is in recognizing the importance of remaining patient, with even the most offensive of views. Resorting to insult is an expression of a loss of patience, and the giving up of hope in the inherent humanity of the other.

This is not to suggest moral relativism as the answer. In debating with those whose views we abhor, even though we may not convert them to our own views, we can often learn something about ourselves.

We are taught to be appalled by the fascination with public executions that were the fashions of former times, and that are still to be witnessed in various parts of the world.

But we have our own version of this barbarity, where we are provided spectacles by the media through which to collectively point the finger and publicly ridicule the modern-day heretics.

It helps us assuage our own moral uncertainties by pointing out the supposed absurdities of others.

Much like Orwell's "two minutes of hate", it is a phantom "enemy", designed to channel our frustrations from those problems we aught to truly be concerned with.

Sorry, David, but I strongly

by Adrian Barnes on 04 Aug 2012 at about 09:08.

Sorry, David, but I strongly reject your attempts to move your stance onto moral higher ground without first dealing with the rational objections that have been raised in this space. You write of gay people's "struggle to come to terms with their feelings" and miss the point that both I and Ms. Hoggan have already made: the struggle is to be accepted, not to deal with the fact of being gay. Actually, I shouldn't say that you 'miss the point' as it seems more likely that you are actively trying to avoid the point. Can you please address this directly--in the interests of respectful discourse?

You may also think that people who are troubled 'choose' to be gay as a part of their confusion and trauma. Again, if that's the case, simply say so and let readers respond.

Further, if you don't, for example, think gays should be allowed to adopt because you think they are, by nature, too unstable and disturbed to parent, then say so and engage the response you get.

On the other hand, if you have nothing of practical relevance to say on this issue, perhaps leave it alone. Otherwise the sense is of someone who wants to assert an unpopular view just for the sake of doing so. This might explain your emphasis on attempting to portray those who object to homosexuality as victims, despite the obvious reality that, overwhelmingly, gays are the victims in our society and those who don't like them are the victimizers.

Homophobia ad hominem

by David Livingstone on 02 Aug 2012 at about 21:58.

Thank you Kyra, as always, I enjoyed your lively and eloquent piece.

But, I would like to take the opportunity to differ with the consent of homosexual unions implied in the article.

All the hubbub recently about homosexual marriage has tapped my patience. There is such intolerance of dissenting voices in the media that I've been bullied into silence, as likely millions of others who have a rational disagreement with same-sex unions.

There are, as you note, plentiful other forms of malaise plaguing our society, that I hate to suggest that opposing homosexual unions deserves as much attention as I'm now giving it.

But it's not me who has given it this much attention. It's instead the relentless media campaign and the advocacy of a very vocal minority who have given undue attention to the matter, and it throws all other serious matters out of perspective.

I would like to start off by saying that my parents were agnostic and "liberal" and therefore saw nothing inappropriate in choosing their homosexual friend as my godfather. I was raised to accept homosexuality as a perfectly natural alternative.

While I do not harbour any kind of violent disgust for homosexuality, I do nevertheless firmly believe the practice to be unnatural, and there is no proven physiological disposition which would prove it to be inborn.

That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. This is where the problem enters in. Unlike the tolerance I'm expected to show towards homosexuality, that same tolerance is not enforced universally, as dissent against homosexuality is itself not tolerated.

That's the tragic irony of that menagerie of liberal values that have come to characterize and be stigmatized as "political correctness".

I hate the right-wing connotations of that term, but it does speak to the stereotypical holier-than-thou attitude that typically accompanies "progressive" attitudes.

I'm definitely left-of-centre in my politics, and share many values that are otherwise considered progressive.

I certainly agree that there are some rather unsavoury characterizations made of homosexuals, but the customary accusation that all dissent against homosexuality is "homophobia", and therefore necessarily bigoted, is obviously unfair.

I'd like to finish by saying that I loved my godfather dearly, even after my opinion of his sexuality changed. That's because I can distinguish between respecting a person and respecting what they do. I'm not a Christian, but I love the expression used by Christians which says: "love the sinner, hate the sin". Now that's true tolerance.

Rational disagreement? Have

by Adrian Barnes on 03 Aug 2012 at about 07:41.

Rational disagreement? Have to jump in on this one, David. Saying that there's no evidence that people are born gay therefore you can disapprove isn't even slightly rational. There's no evidence that they're born straight, either.

Beyond that you offer no support for your claim of 'rational disagreement' in your comment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I suppose being straight is historically 'natural' in that two sets of complementary genitals allow people to produce babies without any outside intervention. Fair enough. But in the same sense, walking is natural and driving 'unnnatural' when one wants to get to the grocery store. The desire of two men or women who hope to raise a child can be called 'unnatural'--but only if one doesn't own a car! I'm not saying that's a perfect analogy, but I think you get my meaning.

Speaking for myself, I try to reserve my disapproval for classes of people who harm others, like criminals, oil company executives, bullies, reality TV producers, and murderers. There's no rational need for people to have public opinions on private matters (thanks, PET!).

As for media being 'bullied' into silence on this issue, I also strongly disagree. There comes a tipping point in the resolution of any once-thorny issue where society simply figures something out and moves on. At one point giving women or black people the right to vote in the US were very controversial 'issues' and they were heatedly debated by 'rational' people on both sides. Then democratic decisions were made, the issues resolved and, eventually, only a fervent minority continued to make their 'rational' claims about the white male's moral and intellectual superiority (hello cranial bumps!). And, of course, eventually no one really wanted to hear their opinions any more. Was that 'bullying'? Technically, I guess. Should our newspapers run articles calling for the repeal of the vote for these groups for all sorts of 'rational' reasons? Should we run articles calling for the repeal of marriage for redheads because of their famously firey dispositions? Of course not. Why? Because it would be silly to do so. In the absence of rational arguments.

With all due respect.

Eurocentric thinking

by David Livingstone on 03 Aug 2012 at about 11:20.

This is a Eurocentric attitude: the moral development of the West is necessarily the value-system that the entire world must accept.

Let's now go forth and "civilize" all those who disagree with us.

I'm not saying deny homosexuals their inherent human rights. I'm saying it's unfair to suggest that disagreement with the lifestyle choice is bigotry.

What I'm saying is there's a better, healthier way to accomodate debate than the black/white pseudo-controversy enflamed by the corporate media.

Enforcing a certain attitude as a new rigid orthodoxy only impedes proper discussion, and ultimately further entrenches discrimination.

Within the philosophy of science, any theory should be "falsifiable". By defenition: "Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method."

Scientists and sociologists therefore continue to grapple with many serious concerns.

Take for example the conclusion of a most recent scientific study as reported in Slate. As the article explains, the study reverses recent trends that suggested same-sex parent unions could even be preferable to heterosexual ones, and that the evidence suggests instead that the traditionally perceived norm is the more positive alternative:

...This is one conclusion of the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), an overview article about which appears in the July issue of the journal Social Science Research. Instead of relying on small samples, or the challenges of discerning sexual orientation of household residents using census data, my colleagues and I randomly screened over 15,000 Americans aged 18-39 and asked them if their biological mother or father ever had a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex.

...The basic results call into question simplistic notions of “no differences,” at least with the generation that is out of the house. On 25 of 40 different outcomes evaluated, the children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships fare quite differently than those in stable, biologically-intact mom-and-pop families, displaying numbers more comparable to those from heterosexual stepfamilies and single parents. Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.

In conclusion:

...This study arrives in the middle of a season that’s already exhibited plenty of high drama over same-sex marriage, whether it’s DOMA, the president’s evolving perspective, Prop 8 pinball, or finished and future state ballot initiatives. The political take-home message of the NFSS study is unclear, however. On the one hand, the instability detected in the NFSS could translate into a call for extending the relative security afforded by marriage to gay and lesbian couples. On the other hand, it may suggest that the household instability that the NFSS reveals is just too common among same-sex couples to take the social gamble of spending significant political and economic capital to esteem and support this new (but tiny) family form while Americans continue to flee the stable, two-parent biological married model, the far more common and accomplished workhorse of the American household, and still—according to the data, at least—the safest place for a kid.

Constructive, respectul dialogue is all I'm asking for.

Okay David, let's talk

by Zizania on 08 Aug 2012 at about 15:02.

Okay David, let's talk constructively about the research you just cited.

-The research was partially funded by the Witherspoon Institute, a pro-religious and right-wing thinktank that openly opposes gay marriage (along with cohabitation, divorce, and "the fertility industry.") I realize that won't necessarily sway the results, but personally, that was my first big red flag- a little like when oil companies sponsor studies that mysteriously consistantly come out in favour of continued fossil fuel use. 

-The head researcher and the first person to write an academic article on the research (which formed the basis of the Slate article) studies "sexual behaviour, family, and religious behaviour." His first degree is from Trinity Christian College. He's written books about pre-marital and teenage sex. Once again, this doesn't have to have an effect on the study, but it seems somewhat odd that they couldn't find a guy who hadn't already made it quite clear that he thinks sex outside of marriage is a sin to conduct the research.

-The study surveyed a random swath of the population, which does make sense, and criticized previous studies that sought out gay populations to do the study (ie in gay magazines or at events). Unfortunately doing the study this way meant that they had just over 219 respondents who they classified as having "gay parents," about 1.7% of those surveyed.

-Even to get this many, the definition of "gay parents" is unbelievably broad, applying to anybody who ever had one parent in a same-sex relationship at any time while under the age of 18, regardless of the duration of the relationship. Only 57% of those described as having "lesbian mothers" lived with their mother's partner for over four months, and only 23% for over three years. Exactly two respondants had actually been brought up with "lesbian parents-" ie, two women from infancy to age eighteen. This is even more extreme with gay men with only 42% of respondants living with their father and his partner at all, and just over one percent living with them for over three years.

-Both the Slate article and the academic article then proceed to compare the data from the children of these "same sex parents" with data from respondants who lived with their biological mother and father from birth until age 18. The data shows that these youth have more in common with others with divorced, single, or adoptive parents than those who have lived with their biological parents for 18 -In most (admittedly not all, but one should remember that the actual sample size of the demographic we're examining is quite small) cases the results from "gay parents" were quite similar to others whose biological parents were divorced or who were being raised by only one parent.

-Finally, the "young adults" surveyed are Americans between the ages of 18 and 39. Just as a reminder, several states continued to have anti-sodomy laws right up until 2003. I suggest that their homes might have been a tad bit more stable if their parents' relationships weren't illegal. This particularly applies to those on the older end of the spectrum, who may have grown up in an environment where, in states such as Idaho and Michigan, offenders could be sentenced to life in prison.

-By this point it should be clear why only a conservative religious thinktank would fund this study. The study takes children who have lived with several different people during their childhoods and then compares them to people whose biological parents are still married and then feigns surprise and horror when they exhibit differences.

I look at research concerning same sex couples with great personal interest but am completely unimpressed by the methods presented here. 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

by Kyra Hoggan on 03 Aug 2012 at about 20:05.

David,

I think your contention about the stability of gay/single parent homes is an extension of "post hoc, ergo proptor hoc", which translates to "after it, therefore because of it".

It's a flawed form of logic that has been employed to promote innaccurate ideas for so long, it was described thusly in Latin.

It could be argued that, because I applied this phrase in this debate,  I must have learned this phrase to further this debate - that, in fact, I learned it BECAUSE of this debate.

Such is not the case. I learned the phrase because I like to watch The West Wing, and I'm a devoted fan of the writings of Aaron Sorkin. "After it" does NOT mean "because of it"... the notion is blatantly ridiculous.

Just because something happens after something else does not mean it happened because of that same thing - and saying mental illness or addiction or low income potential or criminality is the result of single or homosexual parents is exactly the kind of flawed logic for which this age-old phrase was created in the first place.

An unfit parent is an unfit parent. Mental illness is mental illness. Marital status and sexual orientation aren't relevant to either issue. Yes, mental well-being may be impacted after years of abuse and intolerance and subjugation (and yes, denying them full rights and freedoms IS subjugation by any definition), but that's the result of subjugation, not homosexuality. You're confusing status quo and symptom - the disease isn't homosexuality, it's intolerance. As a staunch heterosexual who was subjected to years of abuse, I can unequivocally tell you that the psychological impacts of long-term abuse are not limited to those with a same-sex preference. It's an all-human phenomenon, period.

The idea that single and homosexual parents are worse parents, rather than the idea that they (and thus, their children) face more societally-created challenges, is offensive on so many levels, I'm not sure how to address it. Mom-and-pop is a very convenient fall-back ... for those who actually HAD a mom and pop.

So we can fix what's broken in our society that makes it so much harder for marginalized groups ... or we can justify the marginalization by pointing at them and saying, in effect, that they deserve it.

I can't imagine a lifetime of being called "unnatural", "filthy", "an abomination", "an affront to God", etc, without being adversely impacted ... and I'm not saying YOU said all those things, but no gay person escapes those stereotypes. Luckily, many have been made stronger by their victimization. Saying their homosexuality is what caused their struggle is like whipping a child, then saying they're scarred because they're fundamentally bad ... in short, that it's because of who they are, not what was done to them.

Surely, you can see how wrong that is? 

All of which is beside the point  - no one's suggesting allowing adoption into unfit homes, gay or hetero ... that's your issue, not the real world problem.

I've never told you what to believe in, and I've opposed all legislation that would do so. (And there HAS been proposed legislation to quell your beliefs, and mine, both, I know you know this to be true).

I would fight, with my last breath, any legislation that prohibited you entering a mosque or temple, just as I fight any legislation that defines love based on the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah. The Bible and Koran both have been the excuse for denying all women the vote - how is this different?

The short answer is, it's not. You have no right to legislate your beliefs and, by doing so, impose said beliefs on me, or anyone else. You defy the very bedrock of our country - and your personal right to your own beliefs - by arguing otherwise.

You enjoy the benefits of a lessez-faire attitude, as others have fought longer and harder for your rights than either of us are likely to do in our lifetimes.

To enjoy the benefits of those rights - while at the same time supporting the curtailment of those rights for others with whom you disagree - I just don't get it. You, more than most, should be on-side here.

I would also like to point out that your study speaks to mom-and-pop homes without exploring the socio-economic indicators, societal biases and workplace inequities that might contribute to it's "conclusive" findings.

In short, it's a biased piece of work that disses, not only homosexuals, but also single parents and poor people, without regard for the many complex issues that drive the realities of these groups - of which, thank you very much, I am one, as a single mother.

I choose to take the "social gamble" of according all those around me, regardless their beliefs or sexuality, the same rights and privileges I enjoy. Anything less would be an affront to the freedoms suffrage earned for me, and that emancipation earned for you. The really dangerous, insidious, terrifying roll of the dice would be to continue denying our neighbours equal status - if that becomes okay in our society, then you have to know, you and I are next.

End of sermon.

Regards,

Kyra Hoggan

Editor

One could perhaps make a case

by Adrian Barnes on 03 Aug 2012 at about 13:35.

One could perhaps make a case that gay people are sometimes damaged compared to straight people--most likely because of the abuse and ostracism inflicted on them by mainstream society. To say that having personal problems is a RESULT of sexual orientation has not been causally proven or even seriously suggested, to my knowledge. It is, in fact, a logical error on your part--a non sequitur.

All would agree that in cases of adoption (by straights or gays) factors like stability, drug abuse, etc should be taken into count regardless of sexual orientation. So, of course, a messed up gay couple shouldn't be able to adopt--neither should a messed up straight couple. None of this says anything about gayness or straightness per se, however.

As for 'Euro-centric' and 'corporate media', I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't give a toss about any culture's values except to the extent that they make or do not make logical sense and abide by notions of equality and fairness. Cultural relativism is a philosophy that has never held the slightest appeal for me.

David - we'll never agree on this one

by Kyra Hoggan on 02 Aug 2012 at about 22:57.

Taking the stance of silenced victim in this is, to my mind, unreasonable.

Your marriage is honoured and you enjoy the legal rights of a spouse - if your wife ends up in hospital, you'll be allowed to see her. If she dies without a will, you'll be the beneficiary and custody of the children you've raised together will go to you. Her pension will go to you, too, if she has one. No one will question your rights as her partner.

I frankly don't give a damn if you find homosexuality unnatural - that's your problem, not mine. But when you use that stance to deny other people the rights listed above, it becomes very MUCH my problem, as a violation of the rights I believe belong to everyone, whether you like how they spend their time or not.

You're right, you have a right to your opinion - it only becomes an issue when you try to impose that opinion on others, for example by legally denying them the rights you enjoy.

No one's telling you how to live your life, nor penalizing you because they think your choices are "unnatural", and you'd be furious if they tried. There are people who would deny YOU your religion, and your rights, because they find them objectionable. I don't understand how you could support doing that to anyone else, regardless your views on their lifestyles and choices.

This isn't about whether you agree with homosexuality - nothing could matter less. What matters is, your desire to prevent those living lives of which you do not approve, from having the same rights you already enjoy. Does this also extend to religions you find objectionable? Where do you draw the line? 

Surely not in the bedroom?

As long as everyone's staying out of your religion, your bedroom and your marriage, I think you should be respectful enough to stay out of theirs, and not refuse them their legal rights simply because you've chosen to judge them negatively.

Regards,

Kyra Hoggan

Editor