What is marriage?

Image by Sabtastic
Image by Sabtastic

I’ve blogged about the whole ‘equal / same-sex marriage’ thing before (here, for example). I don’t really have anything else to say about the way ‘bigots’ who disagree are being steamrollered out of the way; instead I want to talk about something which seems to have been somewhat missed in this whole debate: what is marriage?

A few weeks ago I read an excellent paper on marriage: it’s not from a Christian perspective – it’s written by two people who, as far as I know, have no particular religious affiliation (in fact, the church’s position on same-sex marriage comes in for criticism). However, they do talk about this most important question of the very definition of marriage. I’d like to pick up on the points they make, because I think it’s worth spreading these ideas as widely as possible: it seems to me that most people simply have no idea about what same-sex marriage would entail, as far as the definition of marriage goes. I think this just goes to show how far values of ‘equality’ and ‘tolerance’ have permeated our society – in many ways these are good and right concepts, but can be pushed too far. Allow me to explain.

At the outset, I will say that you shouldn’t read this and think that you don’t need to read the actual document. I am going to be quoting from it, but please read the whole thing yourself! I just want to outline some of the points they make which particularly struck me.

Their basic premise is that there are two competing ideas of marriage at stake – same-sex marriage indicates one idea of marriage, whereas ‘traditional’ marriage is another. It should also be noted that they are arguing for ‘traditional’ marriage, and not against same-sex marriage (per se).

From the introduction:

…there are two competing ideas of marriage at play in the current debate. The first is traditional and conjugal and extends beyond the individuals who marry to the children they hope to create and the society they wish to shape. The second is more privative and is to do with a relationship abstracted from the wider concern that marriage originally was designed to speak to. Some call this pure partnership or mere cohabitation. The latter is what marriage is becoming: a dissolvable contract between two individuals who partner purely for the sake of the partnership itself [my emphasis]. It has little or nothing to do with children, general education or social stability. This is not to say that it is to be wholly resisted – of course not – but it should be incorporated and built up to a conjugal summit, because the loss to society of the conjugal model imposes such high costs on society and the state that neither can be indifferent about its erosion [my emphasis]. The partnership model is one shared by many heterosexuals and wider society, and it is this that has done much harm to the institution of marriage. By the same token, many homosexuals actually fulfil a more conjugal model and it is to be hoped that the civil unions we propose speaks to this and offer same sex couples their own proper version of ‘conjugal marriage’. (p. 5)

Their basic premise is that a stable society is not built around partnerships only. A stable society is built around a society which also looks to the future – a society where children are actively looked after and catered for. Marriage as an institution has been the way that children have been cared for and raised in the past, the place where children learn to become fully functioning members of society. However, what marriage is becoming – and will be cemented with the same-sex marriage legislation – is “a dissolvable contract between two individuals”. This is not marriage, and this will not be good for society.

They continue, “Conjugal marriage is fundamentally child-centred and female advancing. Lone motherhood which is bad for both the woman and the child is the evident manifestation of the contemporary separation of marriage and parenthood.” Marriage has formerly been about children as much as it is about relationships: the changing definition of marriage to a contractual basis is what has caused so much ‘lone motherhood’. This is not how it is supposed to be: as they say, “[marriage] provides the sole institution that can successfully cope with the generative power of opposite-sex unions.”

They then move on to talk about marriage as an ‘ontological change’, if you will – a change “from one mode of being to another”.

This change of status has the benefit of social recognition. But it comes at a price. And the price has been, in traditional Christian societies, a heavy one: sexual fidelity ‘till death do us part’, and a responsibility for the socialising and educating of the children. As people become more and more reluctant to pay that price, so do weddings become more and more provisional, and the distinction between the socially endorsed union and the merely private arrangement becomes less and less absolute and less and less secure. As sociologists are beginning to observe, however, this gain in freedom for one generation implies a loss for the next. Children born within a marriage are far more likely to be socialised, outgoing and able to form permanent relationships of their own, than children born out of wedlock [my emphasis]. For their parents have made a commitment in which the children are included, and of which society approves … Children of married parents find a place in society already prepared for them, furnished by a regime of parental sacrifice, and protected by social norms. Take away marriage and you expose children to the risk of coming into the world as strangers, untutored by fathers or abandoned by mothers, a condition of effective abandonment in which they may remain for the rest of their lives. (p. 6-7)

In other words, there are benefits of marriage to the children of such a union, which has a wider impact on society. Degrading marriage to a merely contractual arrangement devalues marriage, potentially impacts on children and so negatively impacts society at large. And, so they argue, this move towards same-sex marriage will further the idea of marriage being a merely contractual arrangement:

Since then, however, we have experienced a steady de-sacralisation of the marriage tie. It is not merely that marriage is governed now by a secular law – that has been the case since Antiquity. It is that this law is constantly amended, not in order to perpetuate the idea of an existential commitment, but on the contrary to make it possible for commitments to be evaded, and agreements rescinded, by rewriting them as the terms of a contract [my emphasis]. What was once a socially endorsed change of status has become a private and reversible deal. The social constraints that tied man and wife to each other through all troubles and disharmonies have been one by one removed, to the point where marriage is in many communities hardly distinct from a short-term agreement for cohabitation. This has been made more or less explicit in the American case by the pre-nuptial agreement, which specifies a division of property in the event of divorce. Partners now enter the marriage with an escape route already mapped out. (p. 7)

In other words, marriage has been devalued in society to the point that it is seen as a contractual agreement – it’s so easy to get out of, that ’till death us do part’ has become something of a joke. Although there are many benefits to society of such a union, nonetheless the state has seen fit to make it easy for people to end one. And, in so doing, marriage is devalued and actually discourages people from entering into it: “Just as people are less disposed to assume the burdens of high office when society withholds the dignities and privileges that those offices have previously signified, so too are they less disposed to enter real marriages, when society acknowledges no distinction between marriages that deserve the name, and relationships that merely borrow the title.”

But “what about equality?”, we may say? How can we live in a society which promotes ‘equality’ while at the same time allowing an institution to exist which is based primarily around the difference of men and women? They say:

Marriage has grown around the idea of sexual difference and all that sexual difference means. To make this feature accidental rather than essential is to change marriage beyond recognition [my emphasis]. Gay people want marriage because they want quite rightly a variant of the social endorsement that it signifies; but by admitting gay marriage we deprive marriage of its social meaning. It ceases to be what it has been hitherto, namely a union of the sexes, and a blessing conferred by the living on the unborn. The pressure for gay marriage is therefore in a certain measure self-defeating. It resembles Henry VIII’s move to gain ecclesiastical endorsement for his divorce, by making himself head of the Church. The Church that endorsed his divorce thereby ceased to be the Church whose endorsement he was seeking.

In other words, by making the natural difference between men and women something which is only incidental to marriage, it actual undermines that institution. Marriage is something which exists for the benefit of the unborn – future generations. Its very definition involves the union of a man and woman which no homosexual union can have: redefining it to remove that union essentially redefines marriage out of existence.

In addition, same-sex marriage would not promote the kind of ‘equality’ which is desired:

We have profound reservations about same sex marriage not just because of the harm it does to a vital heterosexual institution but also because we reject the implication that in order to be equal and respected homosexuals should conform to heterosexual norms and be in effect the same as heterosexuals. In this sense we believe same sex marriage to be homophobic – it demands recognition for gay relationships but at the price of submitting those relationships to heterosexual definition [my emphasis]. This serves neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals. The former are absorbed into a structure that does not give due credit or recognition to their distinction and difference; whereas, heterosexuals are stripped of any institution that belongs to them qua their heterosexuality. Men and women who marry are denied proper recognition or celebration of their own distinctive union across the sexes and even more importantly any recognition of their role and unique responsibility in creating and nurturing children whose origin still lies exclusively in heterosexual union. (p. 9)

In other words, ‘equality’ is not something which should obliterate all differences between people! There is a fundamental difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships which should be celebrated, not brushed under the carpet. By forcing same-sex marriage into the traditional definition of marriage, what the government are doing is creating some kind of colourless, bland institution which does not celebrate difference but instead tries to force everyone to conform. As they say, “The pressure for gay marriage is therefore in a certain measure self-defeating for in seeking equality with something unlike yourself the thing that you join to is no longer what you joined.”

I’m not going to quote to your their two recommendations – you can read the article yourself for those.

But I do hope this at least provides some food for thought. I think it’s quite interesting to note how difficult it’s become to disagree with the same-sex marriage juggernaut in this country, but I hope that respectful dialogue will provide insight on both sides. In particular, I’m hoping that this paper will cause some to at least understand that arguing against the same-sex marriage legislation is not bigotry.

There is also another paper which goes into the same-sex marriage arguments from another perspective, which I will leave for the time being as this post is too long already. But maybe some other time.

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “What is marriage?

  1. “I’m hoping that this paper will cause some to at least understand that arguing against the same-sex marriage legislation is not bigotry.”

    It’s not necessarily bigotry, at any rate.

    • Fair point, although I do think there isn’t as much “bigotry” around than people seem to think there is by a long way.

  2. Hi Phill,

    You say that this is an argument for straight marrige and not against gay marrige, but your wrong. Straight marrige needs no argument for it – gay couples on the other hand need all the help they can get.

    I think the reason you are so against gay marrige is that your perception on what a gay person is like is wrong. Do you know any gay people, (and I dont mean one guy that you once met in college who is now gay) I mean, do you actually know any gay people. As surprise, they are just the same as me or you.

    Think of it this way. Say you love a woman – you want her to be your wife, but society won’t let you. Well it is exactly the same for gay couples – Really it is – I know amazing.

    Last point: (and I’m being lazy today as there are loads of points I havent even slightly touched on, as most of the points are so blind its not even funny). How do two men or two women getting married affect your life, or the life of others. Think about it. Really… How?

    Does it weaken your religion? And if so was your religion that strong in the first place. Will no more children be born? Will children be abused more so than they already are in this society?Will children grow up into horrible, well dressed gay mutants? Possibly. Really how do you think it will affect you. As the article you quote is wrong. oh so wrong.

    I think you need to go out meet some gay people and actually learn that they are just normal everyday people who just want to get on.

    On a seperate note – hope your ok and thanks for the blog (even though I disagree) 🙂

    • “Do you know any gay people, (and I dont mean one guy that you once met in college who is now gay) I mean, do you actually know any gay people. As surprise, they are just the same as me or you.”

      Yes, I do know gay people. In particular one good friend of mine, who I’ve known since uni (over 10 years now). She’s a Christian and has struggled with this issue for years. So don’t think I’m coming from a ‘holier-than-thou’ perspective with no knowledge of what it’s like.

      “How do two men or two women getting married affect your life, or the life of others. Think about it. Really… How?”

      Did you actually read what I quoted above, and in particular did you read the document I linked to all the way through? Their argument is that same-sex marriage would affect the whole of society.

      I’m not trying to be patronising, but your response suggests you just skim read what I wrote only after deciding that it was all a load of rubbish.

      Look, I know that this is a difficult issue and gay couples have experienced a lot of prejudice. But I don’t think same-sex marriage is the solution to that. Please, read the paper and do come back with specific arguments you think they are making which are wrong.

      • “Their argument is that same-sex marriage would affect the whole of society.”

        It’s their claim. They don’t really have any evidence to support it.

        “But I don’t think same-sex marriage is the solution to that. ”

        It isn’t a solution to anything except the problem that same-sex couples aren’t allowed to legally get married now.

        • “It’s their claim. They don’t really have any evidence to support it.”

          What kind of evidence do you want them to provide? Particularly given that there is little evidence to draw on from history. There is little if any historical precedent for same-sex marriage.

          They do, however, provide some evidence that children do better in a ‘traditional’ family structure.

          “It isn’t a solution to anything except the problem that same-sex couples aren’t allowed to legally get married now.”

          Which is why I think the debate needs to be had about what marriage actually is. What they were arguing is that same-sex marriage is essentially an oxymoron.

          I think their recommendations would be a more acceptable solution to all parties than the current government proposals at any rate.

          • “They do, however, provide some evidence that children do better in a ‘traditional’ family structure.”

            What they don’t do is show what they mean by ‘better’. Children raised in a ‘traditional family structure’ are more likely to form a traditional family structure…but is that, by default, better?

            Studies have shown that children seem to do better with committed lesbian parents, and no worse with gay parents.

            “I think their recommendations would be a more acceptable solution to all parties than the current government proposals at any rate.”

            I disagree.

            Gay couples should be allowed to get married. Opponents can continue to be opposed to it.

            Everybody’s happy.

        • Stupid WordPress won’t let me reply to your actual comment, so here we go.

          “What they don’t do is show what they mean by ‘better’. Children raised in a ‘traditional family structure’ are more likely to form a traditional family structure…but is that, by default, better?”

          You’d have to check the actual source paper for that, but I got the impression it was to do with function in society. It seems that children who are raised in stable families as part of society are better equipped to go on and be fully functioning members of that same society, because a place has already been prepared for them in it.

          “Studies have shown that children seem to do better with committed lesbian parents, and no worse with gay parents.”

          I think the evidence is somewhat inconclusive at the moment. And I guess it’s the kind of thing which is difficult to quantify, which probably doesn’t help matters. Can children do well with single mothers, for example? Yes, they can. Is that the ideal? No.

          And I think this is what might well happen (and is already happening) in the weakening of the marriage relationship to a purely contractual one for mutual convenience.

          In the paper they also make the point that there is something fundamental about biological union, which same-sex partnerships cannot provide in the same way. I think the marriage definition as it stands at the moment sends out a message about the kind of society we want to create: the biological union of a man and woman will often result in children, and the stable biological marital family is the best context in which to raise them.

          By changing the definition of marriage, we are sending out a message about what kind of society we want to create.

          “Gay couples should be allowed to get married. Opponents can continue to be opposed to it.”

          Why is your solution any better, other than the fact that you agree with it? I don’t agree with it, what then? How do we resolve things in a democratic society? Democratic mandate. The government have a duty to cater for its citizens, not simply ignore the views of a significant number.

          I honestly think, given the press that MPs have received about this (and given the current numbers of the C4M and C4EM petitions – currently 10x as many for C4M) the bill should be rethought and changed, maybe in line with the suggestions of the paper.

  3. 1 friend… really…

    Thanks notascientist.

    I did read the article and found it incredibly ill informed. (and as I said I was being lazy, I read the article but skimmed the response).

    You are right there is little evidence to draw from history, maybe because gays were killed burned, or persicuted. Or as the church would like and seems to encourage, sweep the gay feelings under the carpet.

    What I don’t understand is the crusade to feel that marrige is an institution that should only be for a man and a woman. From my perspective its no different to saying a black person and a white person cant marry. Its homophobic and wrong. Whichever way you spin it. And I’m sure that my children will see it that way.

    By saying that it is more special for a man and a woman then two of the same sex you are degrading the relationship that two men have or two women without actually taking the time to make the effort to know your subject, and rather listening or reading this rubbish.

    ‘They do, however, provide some evidence that children do better in a ‘traditional’ family structure.’

    – Obviously – thats not to say they don’t flurish with gay parents. Also how many traditional familys are there? I was brought up by my mother and father but most of my friends were brought up with 1 parent.

    And I don’t accept the above as an argument, it won’t affect your life. Really the earth is not going to explode and society will not crumble, life will go on happier for most people.

    Just get over it, its happening. 🙂

    • “1 friend… really…”

      How do you think I feel? Everyone who comments on my blog disagrees with me! 😉

      “You are right there is little evidence to draw from history, maybe because gays were killed burned, or persicuted. Or as the church would like and seems to encourage, sweep the gay feelings under the carpet.”

      The reasons are irrelevant. As far as I am aware there is no society ever where same-sex marriage has been normalised in the way the government are proposing.

      “What I don’t understand is the crusade to feel that marrige is an institution that should only be for a man and a woman. From my perspective its no different to saying a black person and a white person cant marry. Its homophobic and wrong. Whichever way you spin it.”

      Let me put this the other way round to you. What can a man and a woman do which a same-sex couple can’t do? It’s nothing like racism, it’s inbuilt difference between the sexes! Like I said, the definition of marriage as it stands includes children. You can’t define same-sex marriage to include children in the same way. That’s not homophobic, that’s nature.

      “By saying that it is more special for a man and a woman then two of the same sex you are degrading the relationship that two men have or two women without actually taking the time to make the effort to know your subject, and rather listening or reading this rubbish.”

      Nowhere in that paper does it talk about a hetero marriage being ‘more special’. They argue for civil unions which would confer the same benefits and social status as marriage on same-sex couples. I don’t see what the problem is.

      “- Obviously – thats not to say they don’t flurish with gay parents. Also how many traditional familys are there? I was brought up by my mother and father but most of my friends were brought up with 1 parent.”

      I was lucky enough to have two biological parents as well. Some of my friends did, some of them had one parent. But that’s not the ideal, is it? I think studies have shown children from one-parent backgrounds don’t usually do so well. It’s a matter of what, as a society, we want to say we want to be the normative case to build our society on.

      And I think the jury is still out on gay parents, as far as I’ve heard anyway.

      “And I don’t accept the above as an argument, it won’t affect your life. Really the earth is not going to explode and society will not crumble, life will go on happier for most people.”

      I’m more worried about what will happen if marriage becomes devalued to the point that we end up with far more one-parent families. That won’t be good for anyone. It’s happening now with the current legislation though, and has been for a long time, so yes I can see your point.

      But, for the reasons which they argue in the paper, I still believe that marriage as it is currently defined is better for society in the long-term, and as such I believe it’s worth fighting to keep it.

      “Just get over it, its happening. ”

      So I’m not allowed to have opinions now? Or fight for what I believe is right?

      Come on, what happened to “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

      • “What can a man and a woman do which a same-sex couple can’t do?”

        Have a child by accident, when they haven’t discussed it and aren’t ready or prepared for such responsibility.

        Makes homosexual couples more likely to be responsible parents than otherwise.

        • You’ve responded to a point I wasn’t making. But actually, seeing as you mention it, I think a traditional married couple are in a better position to cope with unexpected children than an unmarried couple. It happened to a couple of married friends I know, and I know the child will grow up in a secure home because they are committed to each other and (now) to the child, despite it being unexpected.

          I take your point about same-sex couples but I still think marriage is about what we want to be normative for society.

          Anyway I’ve had a long day and I am shattered. Apologies for any incoherence in my latest replies. I’m off for the evening.

  4. Sorry if you feel offended, you have sparked something exciting! Its good to discuss these things and a bit of advertisement is good. Surely that’s what a blog is all about. I didn’t mean to hurt you, I genuinely want to discuss this.

    I’ll reply properly later.

  5. And I haven’t accused you of being bigoted, I simply was asking the question, do you think that it is? Also not your blog but this blog post. And I know you were trying to add to the debate, just like I was.

    • I appreciate that you didn’t mean anything bad, but the word ‘bigoted’ is loaded. You could have asked in a more neutral way about whether anyone had any opinions about it. (And you did say yourself ‘I think it is’). You could also have linked directly to the ResPublica article itself, without even linking to my blog post – I didn’t add anything new.

      I’m sorry if I over-reacted (as I replied in another comment, I had a long day yesterday). But it really annoys me how much the word ‘bigotry’ is bandied around these days with absolutely no thought to what it actually means, I think it’s profoundly unhelpful and does nothing to foster a climate of open discussion – particularly on a subject like this where it’s difficult to disagree with the culture’s opinion without people jumping on you.

  6. Your right, I should have asked it in a more neutral way, I stupily rushed the question. You didn’t over react, its just how you felt, and I’m sorry for causing you hurt, that honestly wasn’t my intention, I know I can be forceful with my language sometimes, and its because over this subject we are both so passionate about the opposite causes and as a result it can get heated. I have taken the question down now. I know your going through a rough patch and I wouldnt want to cause you any more unneccessary upset.

    Thats not to say I agree with your article and that I wouldn’t ‘argue to the death’ my point but I respect that your entitled to your opinions.

    And I still like reading your blog! 🙂

  7. ” I think a traditional married couple are in a better position to cope with unexpected children than an unmarried couple.”

    And a gay married couple can cope even better. Because there’s exactly ZERO chance of them having an unexpected child.

    “I take your point about same-sex couples but I still think marriage is about what we want to be normative for society.”

    Sorry, but no. If that were true my wife and I wouldn’t have been allowed to be married, as we’re both atheists (not normative) and I, the male, plan to be the stay-at-home parent when we have children.

    • “And a gay married couple can cope even better. Because there’s exactly ZERO chance of them having an unexpected child.”

      At this point I think we’re getting into speculation and I think whether or not children are expected or not is irrelevant to the point I want to make.

      “Sorry, but no. If that were true my wife and I wouldn’t have been allowed to be married, as we’re both atheists (not normative) and I, the male, plan to be the stay-at-home parent when we have children.”

      You misunderstand what I mean by ‘normative’. Obviously I don’t mean something like religion or how the parents make their money. Clearly then only the people who would be allowed to get married would be the people who fell into the majority bracket for any aspect of life, which is ludicrous, as you rightly say.

      What I meant was, normative in the sense of the transcultural principle of the right of a child to be brought up by its biological mother and father in a committed, lifelong relationship. I think that is the fundamental unit or building block of a stable society in the, it should be normative, and hence I think marriage as an institution should reflect that.

      • “the right of a child to be brought up by its biological mother and father”

        A child has no such right. Never did.

        I think it is beneficial for a child to have a committed, lifelong relationship with the people who raise her. But there’s nothing particularly special or magic about the biological parents.

        • “I think it is beneficial for a child to have a committed, lifelong relationship with the people who raise her. But there’s nothing particularly special or magic about the biological parents.”

          I beg to differ. I know someone who was adopted as a child, and she sees her adopted parents as her parents. Still not the same as a biological link though, such that she still found it necessary to find out who her ‘real parents’ were. Also, why is it such a big thing to tell adopted children that they are, in fact, adopted? Surely if the biological link meant as little as you say it does, being adopted would just be no problem?

          And this is where the evidence backs me up.

          From that original paper: “So strong is the original bond from which the children originate that remarriage does not correct the dysfunction that comes from its loss – such that ‘studies on the effects of remarriage generally fail to show a beneficial effect” – and they cite a peer-reviewed paper examining this.

          I think the biological link is a lot more fundamental than you give it credit for.

          • “Still not the same as a biological link though.”

            In what way, and where is your evidence that it’s inferior?

            “So strong is the original bond from which the children originate ”

            Sorry, but I don’t buy their conclusion or implications.

            The parents they’ve always had growing up split up and remarry, and the child doesn’t like it. Of course. But nothing about that says anything about the original parents being the biological parents or not.

            What is special about a biological parent?

            If a child is adopted at only a few weeks old, is never told they were adopted and never comes into contact with their biological parents, are they suffering? Are they deficient? In what way?

        • “Sorry, but I don’t buy their conclusion or implications.”

          Well, given that neither of us have read the actual paper, I’m not going to speculate about their methodology. A quick Google brings up some diverse opinions, including this one. I don’t think we’re in a position to say that biological ties are meaningless though, and as such I think we should do everything in a society to foster and encourage them.

          “If a child is adopted at only a few weeks old, is never told they were adopted and never comes into contact with their biological parents, are they suffering? Are they deficient? In what way?”

          Let me ask you a question. Would you consider it a moral or an immoral action for parents who adopt never to tell their child they are adopted?

          • “Would you consider it a moral or an immoral action for parents who adopt never to tell their child they are adopted?”

            I would consider it amoral. That is, neither, with the possibility of it going either way depending on specific circumstances.

            I would repeat my earlier question though. Has that child been harmed or are they deficient in any way?

        • “I would consider it amoral. That is, neither, with the possibility of it going either way depending on specific circumstances.

          I would repeat my earlier question though. Has that child been harmed or are they deficient in any way?”

          I guess the question is a moot point with same-sex relationships, because by definition you cannot be the biological offspring of the people who are raising you.

          One of the interesting points that link I found raised was the issue of identity. Does the child have a true identity, if its identity is based on what is essentially a lie? How will it affect them? Who knows, but I’d argue that lying to one’s adopted children about something so fundamental would place a serious question mark over the integrity over the parent.

          Anyway, I think our discussion is getting into the realm of the intangibles, and it would require someone who’s read up on this more than I have to continue the discussion.

          So I think I am going to have to respectfully duck out. Thanks for your comments, as always, and keeping your tone civil – I do appreciate it.

    • No problem. I do appreciate comments here, although I am a bit mystified as to why you keep reading if my comments make your blood boil so much.

    • I watched half of the video. I think it’s interesting that most people see same-sex marriage as an equality thing. I’ve read another paper on that which I will try to blog about at some point soon, but be warned it will probably also make your blood boil so you might want to invest in some relaxation classes or something.

  8. Oooh sounds like the video made your blood boil? I’m getting meditation classes now, need some spritual guidence from somewhere…. haha. Joking. Well it is an equality thing. Watch the whole video I really would like to hear your opinion.

    And of course it is an equality thing!

Comments are closed.