TAMILIA, Judge:
This is an appeal from the denial of a mother’s petition for expanded shared custody of her two children, Andrea and Darren; the mother is living in a fully acknowledged lesbian relationship. The lower court had before it a petition for involuntary termination of parental rights by the father and stepmother, which it denied. It is not an issue here. There was also a claim for visitation, by the maternal grandparents, determined in their favor; that portion of the judgment has not been appealed. The appeal before the court is solely on the issue of whether the lower court [53]*53abused its discretion in entering the partial custody order and refusing to expand the order as suggested by appellant. Among other things, the lower court considered the mother’s homosexuality in reaching its decision. Contrary to the view of the appellant, which maintains that the homosexual relationship cannot be considered, we would hold that it is a relevant consideration in any custody determination. If appellant’s view was to be adopted, and the issue of homosexuality excluded, the only substantive issue remaining would be that of the best interest of the children, as it related to the mother’s parenting capacity.
In reaching the issue as to whether or not the mother’s petition for expanded partial custody, in effect, shared custody, was properly denied, the trial judge of necessity must have considered whether or not there had been a substantial change of circumstance requiring or permitting a change in the prior Order of Court entered in 1980. The only apparent change of circumstance appearing on the record was the mother’s belief that she had now resolved her homosexual identity problems and that since she had now had a stable eight-year relationship with Cathy S., it was now timely to bring it into the open and share it with her children. Appellant would have us find this was a sufficient basis for the court to enter the expanded custody order. We disagree. In a recent holding by this Court, Agati v. Agati, 342 Pa.Super. 132, 492 A.2d 427 (1985), we determined that any change in a partial custody order required a showing of changed circumstances and could not proceed initially as an inquiry as to the best interest of the child. As will be developed hereafter, appellant fails by either standard.
Our scope of review in matters relating to change of custody has recently been clarified by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Robinson, 505 Pa. 226, 478 A.2d 800 (1984), which states that we are bound by the findings of the trial judge which are reasonably supported by the evidence and all inferences taken therefrom. We do, however, have a broad scope of review, Commonwealth ex rel. Spriggs v. Carson, 470 Pa. 290, 368 A.2d 635 [54]*54(1977), and Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363, 416 A.2d 512 (1980). Within these limitations, the appellate court may-set aside the decree or judgment of the trial court only if it finds there has been an abuse of discretion. The appellant would overrule the trial court by setting aside the requirement of proof of changed circumstances and deal with the merits as related to the third and fourth findings of his decree in which the court states:
3. Notwithstanding the efforts of the so called “Gay Rights” movement, we conclude that the natural mother’s lesbian relationship shows her moral deficiency; however, there is no proof that the mother’s homosexuality constitutes a grave threat to the children.
Therefore,
4. Under such circumstances, we will consider the factor of the natural mother’s lesbian relationship only to limit visitation[1] and not to completely deny it.
While the trial court made a gratuitous finding concerning the moral nature of the mother’s relationship, his decision upon the facts was warranted by the evidence and fully supported by his findings, independent of the one concerning the mother’s moral deficiency. The appellant took the moral pronouncement and ran to unwarranted conclusions concerning the court’s findings and would have us reverse or alter an otherwise appropriate partial custody order.
A major issue posed is the privacy issue; it requires that we make an inquiry as to whether the law, as it has developed, applies equally to homosexual couples as compared to heterosexuals.2
The marital right to privacy is guaranteed by the constitution. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. [55]*551678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152, 93 S.Ct. 705, 726, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). The personal intimacies of marriage, the home, procreation, motherhood, childbearing, and the family have been held “fundamental” by the Supreme Court and, hence, have been encompassed within the protected rights of privacy. Marital intimacies in the privacy of their bedroom are within the protected right of privacy, guaranteed by the right to privacy. Lovisi v. Slayton, 539 F.2d 349 (4th Cir., En Banc, 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 977, 97 S.Ct. 485, 50 L.Ed.2d 585 (1976). This is not a protected right when others are admitted to observe or participate in their intimacies. Thus, although an activity (sodomy) is a crime, (Va.Code Anno. § 18.1-212, Crimes against nature (anal/oral intercourse between two persons or an animal)), it is protected by virtue of the privacy requirements of marriage. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972) is inapposite because the same privacy right does not apply to unmarried couples engaged in criminal activity. Doe v. Commonwealth’s Attorney for City of Richmond, 403 F.Supp. 1199 (E.D.Va.1975), aff'd, 425 U.S. 901, 96 S.Ct. 1489, 47 L.Ed.2d 751 (1976) (upholding statute as applied to homosexual acts between two consenting adults in private places) (hereinafter, Doe v. Richmond ).3
Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that sexual intercourse between consenting adults of the same [56]*56sex is not punishable (even when done in public), Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 490 Pa. 91, 415 A.2d 47 (1980), that ruling turned on the provision in the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124, prohibiting consensual deviate sexual intercourse. Section 3101, Definitions, defines “deviate sexual intercourse” as “Sexual intercourse per os or per anus between human beings who are not husband and wife, and any form of sexual intercourse with an animal.” (emphasis added) For purposes of the Crimes Code chapter on sexual offenses, § 3103, Spouse relationships, extends the interpretation of spouse to include persons living as man and wife, regardless of the legal status of their relationship. The Supreme Court, in a plurality decision with three justices dissenting, and three justices concurring with, but not joining Justice Flaherty, held that the equal protection clause would not permit a statute to impose a penalty on single or nonspousal partners, when it excepts spousal partners from the penalty for identical activity. The extended discussion on morality and freedom by the majority received no concurrence by the other members of the court.
The United States Supreme Court, in Doe v. Richmond, supra, found no problem in prohibiting homosexual activity between consenting adults. Indeed, the case which gave the impetus to increased rights in and out of marriage, Griswold, supra, in the Concurring Opinion of Justice Goldberg joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Brennan, stated:
Finally, it should be said of the Court’s holding today, that it in no way interferes with a State’s proper regulation of sexual promiscuity or misconduct. As my Brother Harlan so well stated in his dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 553, 81 S.Ct. at 1782.
‘Adultery, homosexuality and the like are sexual intimacies which the state forbids ... but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but [57]*57which always and in every age it has fostered and protected.’
This discussion impinges on two aspects of the appellant’s argument: first, that the trial court was in error in its consideration of the conduct of appellant and her live-in companion as morally deviant behavior; secondly, it affects the freedom which the appellant has requested, that is, to have unrestricted access to the children in her home and to travel to any state or Canada.
As to the first, without agreeing with the trial judge in his finding on morality, we would acknowledge there is considerable opinion, belief and law in this country, which cannot be ignored, and which supports such a conclusion. Indeed, in most of the cases cited by the appellant and referred to below, regarding heterosexual meretricious relations, the court stated that the state does not condone such behavior. Homosexual relations cannot be considered to have a higher standing. Even if not criminalized, the only basis for not condoning the behavior is the moral basis. Secondly, permitting the appellant the freedom to travel could clearly place the children in a situation with the mother and Cathy S., where the adults could be subject to arrest and prosecution for deviant sexual behavior. Doe v. Richmond, supra. Thus, if the courts will not provide homosexual behavior the same protection under the privacy considerations of the constitution pursuant to the incorporation doctrine of the fourteenth amendment equal protection provision, and such relationships, even when regularized, are not accorded the attributes of a marriage, infra, it can correctly be described as morally deviant or immoral.
While, unquestionably, the courts of this nation are viewing the emergent issue of homosexuality with much closer scrutiny, understanding and consideration, the national bias, which cannot be ignored is to favor the non-homosexual parent in a custody case. We would prefer to have the trial judge express his belief as to the morality of this issue, than to conceal it and to have it be an unverbalized consideration.
[58]*58The appellant would have this Court make a bold policy statement that a parents’ homosexuality is not a relevant consideration in awarding custody unless it can be shown that the parents’ homosexual behavior adversely affects the children in question. In doing so, she would have us find that the trial court erred in considering the lesbian relationship with Cathy S. in deciding to limit partial custody. This argument makes an erroneous logical conclusion that homosexuality equals homosexual behavior which equals a lesbian relationship, ergo, if homosexuality is not relevant, lesbian relationship is not relevant. We strongly disagree.4
To make such a finding, the law of Pennsylvania would go far beyond most, if not all, other states in declaring that a lesbian relationship is presumed to be regular, or to state it another way, the presumption of regularity that applies to a heterosexual family (spousal or nonspousal) relationship applies equally to a homosexual relationship. The effect of this is apparent in this case — the burden of proof shifts to the parent alleging the traditional relationship to prove any adverse effect that might arise from the homosexual union. The appellant and the dissent would then rely on this “nexus theory” to either grant or deny visitation or custody according to the proof tendered. We submit the law is and should be that, where there is a custody dispute between members of a traditional family environment and one of homosexual composition, the presumption of regularity applies to the traditional relationship and the burden of proving no adverse effect of the homosexual relationship falls on the person advocating it.5
[59]*59In addition to the reasons flowing from the discussion on criminal law above, there are other considerations. Homosexual marriages are not permitted and the relationship is not to be equated with heterosexual relations, notwithstanding the Equal Rights Amendment (Pa.1972); Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187 (1974).6 The Washington Court of Appeals stated,
In the instant case, it is apparent that the state’s refusal to grant a license allowing the appellants to marry one another is not based upon appellants’ status as males, but rather it is based upon the state’s recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable form for procreation and the rearing of children ....
Singer, id. at 259, 552 P.2d 1187. The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race. Similarly, in DeSanto v. Barnsley, 328 Pa.Super. 181, 476 A.2d 952 (1984) (Spaeth, P.J.), this Court held, first, that common law marriages and formalized marriages are equivalent forms in Pennsylvania; 2) com[60]*60mon law marriages could not be expanded beyond the ambit of ceremonial marriages without statutory (legislative) enactment, and 3) it is impossible under either form for persons of the same sex to marry. The above case, Singer, and the authority cited in those Opinions, deal extensively with the rule of social acceptance, common law, and traditional values, in establishing the definition of marriage. Inherent in that definition is the union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children. From this is derived the concept of family and the baseline of support and custodial obligations. Our laws that deal with children recognize this precept. (The Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 et seq., the Child Protective Services Law, 11 P.S. § 2201 et seq., the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2100 et seq.). When there is intervention and the need to establish rights and limitations, the rights of each parent are protected; Control and Custody of Children, 48 P.S. §§ 91, 92; Custody and Grandparents Visitation Act, 23 P.S. § 1001 et seq. Nowhere is there any hint that the relationship sanctified by tradition and law, the traditional family, is to be considered on an equal basis with a relationship which has received minimal social acceptance and no legal recognition. In Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.1982) (Court of Appeals affirmed federal district court’s holding that marriage between persons of same sex did not qualify one of the parties, who was an alien as citizen’s spouse pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act), the court stated:
In effect, Congress has determined that preferential status is not warranted for the spouses of homosexual marriages. Perhaps this is because homosexual marriages never produce offspring, because they are not recognized in most, if any states, or because they violate traditional and often prevailing societal morals.
Id. at 1042. The appellant and dissent would have us take a giant step beyond that taken in Myers v. Myers, 468 Pa. 134, 360 A.2d 587 (1976) and Brooks v. Brooks, 319 Pa.Super. 268, 466 A.2d 152 (1983) (the mere fact that a parent [61]*61has a nonmarital (heterosexual) relationship is insufficient to deny him or her custody of the children), and hold not only that this applies also to homosexual relationships — but more that homosexuality is not a relevant consideration. Even in extramarital heterosexual relationships this Court has held that a parent’s meretricious relationship is a factor. An inquiry into the relationship and its effects on the children is necessary to make a proper custody determination. Rupp v. Rupp, 268 Pa.Super. 467, 408 A.2d 883 (1979); McCann v. McCann, 270 Pa.Super. 171, 411 A.2d 234 (1979). The reason for extending the rule in relatively recent times to accord some meretricious heterosexual relationships the status accorded to marriage, is that in most respects other than the ceremonial, they comply with the traditional requirements of a family, a man and woman who live together in a stable family relationship, who have or may procreate, providing the substance needed to rear children — “one that might be considered a durable de facto relationship”, Stauton v. Austin, 209 Pa.Super. 187, 194, 223 A.2d 892 (1966). The realities of modern society with the dramatic increase in separation and divorce, the enormous increase in unmarried couples and the very substantial number of families affected thereby, required the recognition by legislatures and the courts of the extension of the family concept. Particularly in Pennsylvania, until the Divorce Act of 1980 (23 P.S. § 101 et seq.) because of the difficulty in obtaining divorce, and the termination of support upon divorce, it was not uncommon to find many parties living in long term meretricious, but otherwise suitable family situations. In some respects, it harbors back to an earlier age in the evolution of the family when formal unions were much less prevalent. In virtually all respects, these meet the test of the relationship connoted by marriage. The same cannot be said for the lesbian relationship, whether it be analyzed from the traditional, legal or social point of view. Thus to equate it on the same level as the traditional family, by presuming equality with such a family, is a fallacy. This is in no way a refutation of the doctrine of Spriggs v. Carson, supra, which eliminated any [62]*62presumptions in favor of one parent as to the other and provided that the evidentiary scale is evenly balanced at the outset. Here, the father and mother started equal; once the father established the mother’s lesbian relationship and his own legitimate and stable heterosexual family relationship, a presumption arose favoring the preferability of the traditional relationship. In Re Custody of Hernandez, 249 Pa.Super. 274, 376 A.2d 648 (1977).
Thus in the context of this case, it was incumbent upon appellant to prove that there would be no adverse effect to an enhanced partial custody order, that would have included total exposure to the mother’s life style. In addition, as stated above, since there was already a partial custody order dated May 1, 1980, the appellant was required to show a change of circumstances, permitting the Order to be modified, and that it was in the best interest of the children to do so. The appellant failed to prove this in all respects.
Contrary to the glowing and faultless description of the facts favorable to the appellant presented in her brief and adopted by the dissent,7 we find, after a careful review of the record, the briefs of the parties, including the Amicus Brief of the Civil Liberties Union, and the Opinion of the trial court, that the lower court, in its findings, was basically correct and that his decree must be sustained. Commonwealth v. Robinson, supra.
There are substantial reasons for sustaining the trial court. Three are paramount.
1) In any custody case in which a child is to spend substantial time in the company of an adult in the custodial setting, it is incumbent on the parties and the court to present for appellate review the testimony of that person. Here, one half of the mother’s relationship to which the children were to be exposed did not appear on the record except by reference. Neither the trial court nor we are able to apprise her character, appearance, demeanor or by the major analytical tool at trial, cross-examination, probe her [63]*63feelings, desires, intent, capacity or potential to be a supervising surrogate or custodial influence. We know fully what the character and capacity of the father and stepmother are for parenting, but we know only that half of the relationship with Cathy S., represented by the mother. Under some standards, moral lapse of nonmarital relationships occurring in the past may be forgiven, but conduct which is persistent and flagrant will not be excused by the courts. Commonwealth ex rel. Grillo v. Shuster, 226 Pa.Super. 229, 312 A.2d 58 (1973); In re Snellgrose, 432 Pa. 158, 247 A.2d 596 (1968). In this case, the least the courts should require is the careful appraisal of the person, Cathy S., if it is to determine, in the best interest of the children, whether or not there was a material detriment. Rupp, Myers, supra. The behavior of all persons who will either reside in the proposed home or will exert a substantial influence over the child falls within the purview of the court. Commonwealth ex rel. Bordlemay v. Bordlemay, 201 Pa.Super. 435, 193 A.2d 845 (1963); also see Dile v. Dile, 284 Pa.Super. 459, 426 A.2d 137 (1981). If upon remarriage, testimony by and about the newly acquired spouse is virtually indispensible, J.F.G. v. K.A.G., 278 Pa. Super. 25, 419 A.2d 1337 (1980); Summers v. Summers, 273 Pa.Super. 285, 417 A.2d 651 (1979), how much more critical is the testimony of a partner to a nonmarital lesbian relationship.
2) In all of the leading cases expanding the rights of heterosexual relationships cited above, the children were involved in the family and knew of the relationship. In one case, Commonwealth ex rel. Drum v. Drum, 263 Pa.Super. 248, 397 A.2d 1192 (1979), the Court (as here) limited visitation outside the scope of the relationship because the mother believed the moral values of the children would be affected. Here, the children do not know of the lesbian relationship of their mother, and it is inconceivable that they would go into that environment, be exposed to the relationship, and not suffer some emotional disturbance, perhaps severe. The mother recognized this by suggesting [64]*64counselling, likely to be done by a homosexually-oriented counselling service. This presents a situation totally unlike any of the cases referred to above or cited by the appellant or dissent as authority for treating this case as equivalent to Myers and Austin, supra. At ten and thirteen, Darren and Andrea are probably more vulnerable to what may be perceived as radical alterations in their view of a parent and parental relationships, and to being compelled to adjust to a lifestyle to which they had no prior exposure, than at any other period of their lives. Rightfully or wrongly, the father and mother have sheltered the children from this knowledge, and by doing so, insinuated that the mother’s behavior is unacceptable. To reverse this will require the children to accept their mother’s role, and to some extent, to proselytize the children by indicating that because of the role model now found acceptable, it is a suitable life style for the children, particularly Andrea.8 Whether or not earlier exposure would have been less harmful is a rhetorical consideration as there are different problems at different stages of the developmental process. If the mother took several years to deal with her own sexual orientation, requiring separation and distancing from family and psychiatric counselling, how can we expect the children to grasp the complexities of the mother’s relationship forthwith, as would result from the appellant’s suggested expanded order. This is not an issue of lifestyles; it is one of the effect of the relationship on the children. See Drum, Rupp, Snellgrose, supra.
3) The third important factor, considered by the court below and evident from the record, based on testimony and en camera interviews with the children, is that the children do not wish to spend additional time with their mother.9 While there is testimony indicating the mother [65]*65showed limited maternal interest, concern and capacity, and some showing otherwise, the children clearly expressed their belief that time spent with the mother was wasted, boring and- not qualitatively on a par with that of their custodial family. Their desire to limit further contact was clearly related to being in a more vital and satisfying environment, which they did not want interrupted. The evidence clearly supported the conclusion that the father and stepmother provided far superior parental involvement and interaction than the mother and thus support the intelligent and logical reasons given by the children for their choice. The Courts have held that the preference of the children, although not controlling, is a factor to be carefully considered, so long as it is based on good reasons. McCourt v. Myers, 258 Pa.Super. 152, 407 A.2d 875 (1979); Shoup v. Shoup, 257 Pa.Super. 263, 390 A.2d 814 (1978). Nothing on the record indicated an improvement in maternal parenting from the time of the previous order, or for that matter, since the time the mother left eight years earlier.
Finally, while it is improper to deny partial custody consideration because of a moral lapse that occurred sometime in the past and to refuse to acknowledge rehabilitation by the parent, Commonwealth ex rel. Holschuh v. Holland-Moritz, 448 Pa. 437, 292 A.2d 380 (1972), it cannot be ignored as the past is prologue to the future and the present is the dividing point between the two. Unquestionably, the mother abandoned her family to assume a lifestyle which she was aware had little or no legal, social or moral acceptance. The issue is not whether she had a right to do this or whether it was moral or immoral; it must be weighed purely as it affected the children. The paramount consideration is the welfare of the children and all considerations, including the rights of parents, are subordinate to the children’s physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual and emotional well being. Commonwealth ex rel. Stauton v. [66]*66Austin, 209 Pa.Super 187, 223 A.2d 892 (1966) allocatur denied. The Austin court acknowledged that such a relationship (illicit heterosexual) is not to be condoned in our society. Unquestionably, the same can be said for a lesbian relationship. To permit the stability of the children and the hard won growth as a family experienced by them and their custodial parents, to be sacrificed to the desires of a mother who wishes a closer relationship with them, which they reject, after being virtually abandoned by her — when that relationship is loaded with unconventional and traumatic aspects, is unconscionable.
While we would hold that as in Bezio v. Patenaude, 381 Mass. 563, 410 N.E.2d 1207 (1980), homosexuality per se is not a basis for denying visitation or partial custody to a parent, we do not consider it irrelevant. In this regard the lower court held, correctly, that such a relationship was not so severely disabling to the physical or moral health of the children to terminate parental rights or deny visitation. Commonwealth ex rel. Sorace v. Sorace, 236 Pa.Super. 42, 344 A.2d 553 (1975); Lewis v. Lewis, 271 Pa.Super. 519, 414 A.2d 375 (1979). However, as we discussed above, there are sufficient distinctions between legal relationships and meretricious relationships to find that it is a relevant consideration in every custody case to scrutinize the illicit relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
We also find, as discussed above, that there are sufficient social, moral and legal distinctions between the traditional heterosexual family relationship and illicit homosexual relationship to raise the presumption of regularity in •favor of the licit, when established, shifting to the illicit, the burden of disproving detriment to the children. In doing so, we recognize the need to examine carefully each case, to determine the detriment or possible detriment to the children of a homosexual parent, but would not adopt the policy espoused by the appellant, cited by Patenaude, supra; D.H. v. S.H., — Ind.App. —, 418 N.E.2d 286 (1981) where no consideration is to be given to the sexual preference unless concrete harm to the child is proven. A review of [67]*67the cases throughout the country indicates no uniformity in this respect, and there is a multiplicity of holdings in every direction. Since each of those cases are distinguishable on their facts and according to local statutory interpretation, they offer little in the way of guidance. While the appellant cites cases favorable to ignoring the lesbian relationship, other equally authoritative citations are available.
In Irish v. Irish, 7 F.L.R. 2256, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the court could condition Orders of visitation so that the mother could not have contact overnight with her lesbian partners while the children visited. In Woodruff v. Woodruff, 6 F.L.R. 2250, the North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed father visitation, but specified his child could not be in the presence of the father’s male lovers nor was he to have any friends visit him at home while the child was there; In re J.S. & C., 129 N.J.Super. 486, 324 A.2d 90 (1974) permitted visitation but denied unrestricted visits or any overnight stays with the homosexual partners or exposure to any homosexual activity; S. v. S., Ky.App.Cf., 7 F.L.R. 2133 (1980) held that while it would refuse to conclude as a matter of law that lesbianism is sufficient to justify a change of custody, the court went on to hold that the lesbianism of the mother was a sufficient change of circumstance to review the effect on the child as “potential for endangering” the child’s welfare. It quoted the Journal of the National Association of Social Workers, Vol. 25, Number 3, May, 1980, pp. 198 et seq., “The lesbianism of the mother, because of the failure of the community to accept and support such conditions, forces on the child a need for secrecy and the isolation imposed by such a secret, thus separating the child from his or her peers.”
We believe and find here that there was no change of circumstance sufficient to warrant a revocation of the order of May 1, 1980, and that upon all of the evidence, appellant failed to prove on the record, that the children would not suffer detriment, and to the contrary, from the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, it is clearly established they would suffer severe detriment by the
[68]*68order suggested by the appellant. The controlled partial custody and visitation order proposed by the trial court will assure a minimum of harm to the children, while permitting the mother and children to have reasonable contact with each other. (See In re J.S. & C., supra.)
Judgment affirmed.
BECK, J., dissents.