What do people think of Gap years?

Do you think that in years to come people will look back on the immoral injustice of the majority dictating?

• the civil rights of the minority based solely on their own hetero-normative prejudices? Do you think "we don't like it it's icky" will be seen as a good argument against marriage equality in fifty years' time? Society grants social and economic benefits to those who are married (including the rights to visit a spouse dying in hospital (gay people an be refused access), joint custody of children, lower tax, family life insurance, inheritance of belongings after death... the list goes on). Many of these benefits (over 100) are not granted to those in civil partnerships. In many parts of the WESTERN world same-sex partners can't even get a civil partnership. Is "we don't like it it's icky" and "straight people are better than gay people" a good solid argument for denying people the opportunity to commit to and marry the person they love? I don't think so. Do you think that in years to come people will look back in bewilderment at the injustice based on nothing more than hetero-normative prejudice, a.k.a the belief that "straight is better than gay"?

• Answer:

  I was watching a tv program yesterday evening about Medieval Britain and the views of the church at that time, specifically towards sex. It was considered a sin for married couples to have sex more than once a week in any position other than the missionary one. The church held courts to judge people accused of sinning sexually and those found guilty could be beaten publicly, among other punishments. Pregnant women weren't even spared that fate. My point is that almost a thousand years ago excessive heterosexual married sex was considered a sin, nowadays it is not. In time I would expect the same ignorance towards homosexuality to change too. I hope anyway. :o) Also in Medieval Britain it was easier for couples to marry, the man could ask his woman if she wanted to be his wife and if she agreed they would be considered wed. But the church didn't like that and poked it's interfering nose in. My point here is that marriage is not "owned" by the church, so really it has no right to impose any objections to gay marriage.