Do Gay Marriage Advocates Understand the Insitution They’re Promoting?
Reading my letter to the editor (full text included below) of the San Francisco Chronicle correcting an misrepresentation of my research on monogamy and gay groups which appeared in an Op-ed that paper published last Thursday reminded me yet again how few gay advocates of gay marriage understand the institution they’re advocating.
They not only repeatedly misrepresent the meaning of marriage, but they also fail to represent the expectations of nearly all lesbians pursuing marriage — and those of a great majority of gay men. They really don’t get the social meaning of the institution. They just see marriage as just another in the panoply of “rights” they believe the government should provide.
To be sure, this has been a theme of many of my posts on marriage, particularly this one. Yes, I understand their goal is getting state recognition. But, if they really want that recognition, shouldn’t they make clear what it is they want recognized?
Indeed, their reluctance to discuss the meaning of marriage makes it more difficult for them to convince skeptical citizens of the social benefits of extending the government protections of this ancient institution to same-sex couples.
At the same time, they offer treacly definitions of marriage and refuse to promote monogamy (as a defining aspect of marriage as it has been for at least the last twenty-five centuries), many gay people, who seek the benefits of state-recognized marriage, do recognize its obligations. When he studied a group of gay and lesbian couples for his book, Together Forever: Gay and Lesbian Marriage, Eric Marcus found the overwhelming majority elected monogamy.
As I wrote, in reviewing his book:
He was struck at the “seemingly one-sided numbers,” that most of the couples had chosen monogamous relationships. All twenty female couples were in monogamous relationships and only three (out of twenty) of the male couples were nonmonogamous. (Three of the other male couples had, at one point, been nonmonogamous.)
In an e-mail exchange following about my monogamy post, a reader (in a monogamous same-sex relationship himself) wrote of an “advanced search” he and his partner did on meetgaycouples.com. He found that 55% of nearly 1,600 couples identified as monogamous. (The number may actually be higher as over 10% declined to state.) And as this site may attract gay couples looking to play, the real world percentage of monogamous gay couples could be higher still.
And we haven’t even discussed lesbians who account for over 60% of same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses in one California county.
Why is it, I wonder, when it appears a majority of same-sex couples choose monogamy that our gay leaders are so unwilling to even discuss the issue? Is it that they don’t seem the benefits of sexual exclusivity? Or that they want to rip marriage away from all of its religious moorings?
The leading advocates of gay marriage may seek to do that, but it does seem that a great majority of gay people only want to change the gender-difference aspect of marriage, but otherwise want keep the institution as it is–and has long been defined. They understand the meaning of marriage.
While gay people understand its meaning, those who claim to represent us in public seem more afraid of offending the sexual liberationists who once dominated the gay movement than in convincing mainstream Americans who will, in the end, decide this issue.
My Letter appears below the jump:
Misrepresented
Editor – David Benkof’s “Monogamous same-sex adultery” (June 26), included a misrepresentation of my research on gay groups and monogamy.
The pre-publication version I had seen accurately summarized my research where David had observed that I had “searched ‘marriage equality’ Web sites and found very few positive mentions of monogamy.”
As I stated on my blog in describing the nature of my project, I did word searches at the Web sites of several groups (the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Freedom to Marry, Equality California (EQ CA) and the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center) and one individual (Andrew Sullivan), all of whom support “marriage equality.”
My project consisted of plugging the following two-word combinations (without quotation marks), “marriage monogamy,” “marriage monogamous,” “marriage fidelity” and “marriage adultery,” into each site’s search engine and reviewing the pages that came up. I did not do a global search for “marriage equality” as Benkof’s editorial, as published, suggests.
B. DANIEL BLATT
Los Angeles
69 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
from the Sacramento Bee.
So allowing Gays to marry wouldn’t change anything would it?? Having domestic partner laws just isn’t enough – we need to be able to call each other husband or wife. As if you couldn’t do that before. Now apparently no one can use those terms – we’re all just party A and party B.
Words and language matter, very very much. I thought that was what the fight was about in CA, the use of the word Marriage.
It never was about that was it, it is yet another lefty egalitarian way to strip our society of any of the pillars that have served us well for centuries.
Comment by Leah — July 2, 2008 @ 8:04 pm - July 2, 2008
The leading advocates of gay marriage may seek to do that, but it does seem that a great majority of gay people only want to change the gender-difference aspect of marriage, but otherwise want keep the institution as it is–and has long been defined. They understand the meaning of marriage.
This is what I believe, and this is why it is a shame that too many others don’t see it that way. They ruin it for the rest of us.
Comment by Attmay — July 2, 2008 @ 8:31 pm - July 2, 2008
I don’t like to concede this but I’m afraid this is true in many cases. Instead of revering marriage for what it is (used to be?), it’s a bauble to be collected; a door prize; a means of giving the finger to the “Christianists”.
Off-topic: Peter H. – sorry about your coffee spill… but it’s not my fault. I’d hit Dan and Bruce up for compensation. They’re negligent in that there’s no caution posted.
Comment by Robert — July 2, 2008 @ 11:27 pm - July 2, 2008
I’ve not seen a whole hell of a lot in the gay marriage issue about monogamy and not much about love either. From what I’ve seen, and I haven’t investigated it like Dan has, it seems to be more about the benefits and that’s about it. Ya know, sorta like marrying an American just so you can get free citizenship.
I think that’s what most people call a “sham marriage”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 2, 2008 @ 11:29 pm - July 2, 2008
Not sure if everyone saw this yet, but Obama has reversed himself once again–this time on the gay marriage issue. Obama previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision. Now he has stated on the record that he opposes the California initiative to ban same-sex marriage because it is a “divisive and discriminatory effort” to amend the California Constitution. So, apparently his position is that the voters of each state should make their own decision concerning same-sex marriage, provided it’s the RIGHT DECISION according to liberals. Of course, the only people liberals believe are capable of making the RIGHT DECISION on these important issues are liberal, activist judges.
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html
Dan was way ahead of the curve and addressed this issue in his post dated June 27 (“Where does Obama stand on Gay Marriage?”). This certainly answers the question posed by Dan’s post–Obama’s stand on any issue can be determined with the following simple formula:
Take Obama’s unequivocal past statements concerning his position on issue X
+
24-48 hours
+
180 degree reversal
=
Obama’s position on issue X.
Comment by Sean A — July 2, 2008 @ 11:39 pm - July 2, 2008
Let’s shoot for true marriage equality in this arena as well:
All gays should at the very least pay lip service to monogamous marriages.
Because (almost) all straights also at the very least pay lip service to monogamous marriages.
Now, whether all of these gay and straight people actually ARE monogamous is a different question altogether. Huge numbers of straight people talk monogamy even if they aren’t. So, gays in open relationships should also claim to be monogamous for appearances’ sake. THAT is true equality.
Comment by jonesey12 — July 3, 2008 @ 2:03 am - July 3, 2008
Sean A, you anticipate what had been my second planned post for the day but other obligations prevented me from writing it, showing how on marriage as on other issues, Obama’s stand is a straddle.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 3, 2008 @ 2:59 am - July 3, 2008
#7: Dan, I forgot to mention something in my comment–Obama’s flip-flops have become so commonplace that they don’t even have the power to shock anymore. In contrast, what will never lose the power to shock and disturb are the crazed, robotic, jaw-dropping reactions of Obama’s sycophantic adherents when he decides to flip-flop (every 12-24 hours or so). Seriously, anyone who clicks on the link to see the story on the Sac Bee’s website MUST take an additional moment to check out the reader comments. They are unbelievable. The liberals whine and bitch about being referred to as “Obamaniacs” and members of the Obamessiah’s “flock,” but the comment I have copied below demonstrates that people using the terms “Obamaniacs” and the “Obamessiah” have been far too kind in describing these zombies.
“Barack Obama will be our nation’s greatest President. He is sensitive to a broad spectrum of economic, social, defense and foreign policy concerns, embracing the disenfranchised with grace, humor, and sincerity, casting aside the hate motivated churnings of small minds and fear, at a time when such attributes have been lost on an abject nincompoop in our current White House. If prayers work, I shall pray for him. If money works, I shall contribute. If good old mind numbing effort works, I’ll walk that walk. He is a man worth honoring for he honors people like me, and so many others who have been marginalized by the corruption and deceit of the past eight years. God protect Barack Obama….” (from a comment titled “A True Leader”).
These people need help. They have reached a point where they are simply beyond reason–even before the election they are pronouncing that he “will be our nation’s greatest President.” He spent the past year waging the fight of his life just to manage proving that he is the Democrats’ “greatest 2008 nominee.” He hasn’t even been given the job yet, but already his legacy is “the greatest President in the history of history.” What further evidence do we need to confirm that the support for Obama is based on nothing more than cultish fanaticism?
Comment by Sean A — July 3, 2008 @ 4:18 am - July 3, 2008
I haven’t seen much evidence of heterosexual monogamy in marriage.
Comment by Pinky Bear — July 3, 2008 @ 9:00 am - July 3, 2008
So, my personal ad should now read, “Party B looking for his/her Party A.”
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — July 3, 2008 @ 9:23 am - July 3, 2008
GPW:
Your question “Or that they want to rip marriage away from all of its religious moorings?” seems to sidestep the reality that in America marriage has two iterations: a civil one and a religious one. These iterations are not identical. My husband and I have been able to marry in our religious denomination for years. The freedom to marry civilly came later.
Marriage became unloosed form its religious moorings a long time ago. For instance, two people married in a Catholic service are still considered married in Catholic terms even though they may have obtained a civil divorce. Civil marriage has one set of standards while religious marriage has another (and among various religions, conceptions of marriage vary as well).
Like you, I would bet that most same-sex couples want and choose monogamy, but with the introduction and acceptance of no-fault divorce civil marriage extricated itself from the monogamy question which is now in the domain of religious marriage.
Unlike Saudi Arabia or Iran, America is not a theocracy: we wisely separated church from state to maximize freedom and liberty. One of the hurdles in the same-sex marriage debate seems to be that some people confuse civil marriage with religious marriage, believing them (and the attributes that define them) as being one and the same thing.
The argument can be made that the two should be identical, but at present time they are not. Nor does allowing civil same-sex marriage demand that all religions must then allow same-sex marriage. Civil marriages are about rights; religious marriages are about the bonding of souls.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 3, 2008 @ 10:18 am - July 3, 2008
Brian–good point, but the question you cite was hardly a sidestep. Note my use of the world “all” which you quote. Perhaps I should have chosen a different word than “religious.”
The point of this post something I want to build on in subsequent writings is that gay marriage advocates don’t “get” marriage. Yes, they are looking for state recognition, but shouldn’t they also at least acnknowledge that that state recognition has long been condition on meeting certain responsibilties?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 3, 2008 @ 11:38 am - July 3, 2008
When appealing for government recognition of gay marriages, the conversation tends to focus on the legal aspects (e.g., “rights”) because that’s what it means to have government recognition. What puzzles me is this meme that “it’s all about the benefits”. Some people talk as if being married gets you half-off on gas and car registration fees, and exclusive low-rate home loans, or something. In reality, the “rights” you get for being married — like being recognized to speak for each other in the emergency room — are closely tied to the responsibilities of marriage. Nobody’s going to get into a “sham marriage” just to get the benefits. Like anyone would blithely get married for the “right” of being jointly responsible for their spouse’s credit card debt? What nonsense.
Comment by Tom Chatt — July 3, 2008 @ 1:34 pm - July 3, 2008
GPW:
I think same-sex marriage advocates get civil marriage and do not get religious marriage (or they do get it, but want to deal only with the civil tradition which is where they are advocating for change). I think that they misjudge the number of people who confuse civil and religious marriage in their minds, and believe that a change in one automatically represents a change in the other.
The tradition of marriage has witnessed a slow, steady decoupling of the civil rite from the religious institution and/or sacrament. This decoupling was accompanied by an increased emphasis in society on the freedoms that individuals possess.
No-fault divorce was a change where a clear distinction was drawn between marriage-as-joined-by-God and marriage-as-joined-by-the-state. In the area of no-fault divorce, the traditions went out of sync. But the good news is that each survived.
Same-sex marriage is another step in the decoupling. Some religious denominations will stay in sync and endorse same-sex marriage. Others will not. Again, each will survive.
When I used the word “sidestep,” it was because of your term “religious.” Marriage will always have religious moorings so long as religions exist that marry their adherents. The issue is that in a free and pluralistic society, the civil marriage tradition will never conform exactly to the contours of the religious marriage tradition (or better yet, traditions). Such unity would prosper only in theocracies.
I think people need to pay attention to the fact that most marriage ceremonies are double weddings — civil and religious — occurring at the same time. For me, the marriage tradition is more accurately understood as the marriage traditions.
I agree that it might be helpful if advocates pointed out that for some people the civil rite of marriage is merely a state “carbon copy” of the religious institution and carries the same obligations as religious marriage. But the reality is that civil marriage is comprised of far fewer do’s and don’ts than religious marriage, and the majority of people have done nothing to prevent these two traditions from developing along separate paths.
I think the issue of same-sex marriage has highlighted for some people just how divergent these two traditions have become. Denying gays and lesbians the freedom to marry is their attempt to stop the widening of this chasm. The interesting thing is that after passing bans on same-sex marriage, no further attempts have been made to reduce the size of the breach and bring civil marriage back into close accord with religious marriage. Hence, the understandable conclusion that opposition to same-sex marriage has a homophobic element.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 3, 2008 @ 1:40 pm - July 3, 2008
#13: “Nobody’s going to get into a “sham marriage†just to get the benefits. Like anyone would blithely get married for the “right†of being jointly responsible for their spouse’s credit card debt? What nonsense.”
Tom, your comment implicates the issue that we will be debating in a couple of years. Once the “gay marriage” issue plays out, gays across the nation will have either gay marriage OR domestic partnership rights (with all of the fuss about the upcoming California ballot initiative, everyone seems to have forgotten that even if gay marriage is defeated in California, gays will still have the significant domestic partnership rights that they have had for years). When that is the case, the gay left will realize that they have so many rights that are identical to “spousal” rights, nobody will be paying any attention to their insufferable bitching about how oppressed they are.
However, that will certainly not be the last we hear from the gay left. Their collective identity is so dependent on painting themselves as persecuted victims, their very sanity hinges upon coming up with viable, fresh grievances that can gain some traction with the main stream media. Thus, in a couple of years we will see the significance of the gay left’s exclusive focus on their alleged “rights” in the current debate–the word we never seem to hear is “responsibilities,” and the reason is because the gay left has NEVER had any intention of assuming the responsibilities of marriage along with the acceptance of the “rights.” Equality will never be enough for these people. They will not stop until they have taken every “benefit” that isn’t nailed down while simultaneously demanding exemption from even nominal burdens. First, it will be indignant outrage that both partners’ incomes are considered to determine whether one of them is entitled to free or discounted HIV drugs. They will demand an exemption from Congress as a remedy for the “past discrimination” they have suffered. And it will barrel forward from there until gays will be demanding reparations from Christians for having the temerity to consider their lifestyle a sin.
And once they have exhausted all of those arguments and beaten every last concession out of our society for those “crimes against gay humanity,” that is when the real fun will start. Suddenly, the men who proudly live in “thriple” and “quad” relationships will start claiming that their “committed” “monogamous” (and crowded) relationships are just as wonderful and positive for society as the marriages of those gay squares in those old-fashioned, two-person relationships. Ergo, they should not be deprived of their marital “rights” either. Naturally, all of the warnings from conservatives that gay marriage would lead to these disgusting proposals (and the gay left’s shock and outrage that they would be accused of EVER supporting state-recognition of thriples and quads in the future) will be completely erased from the past. The fact that the gay left dismissed these warnings as the crazy rantings of Republican homophobes at the time will NEVER be brought up by the press. The gays will just hop on the bandwagon like clockwork and start screaming about the vicious and mean-spirited homophobia of those who would refuse to acknowledge the heart-warming beauty and courage of these poor, oppressed men who are hated just because they need a bed the size of a hockey rink to accommodate all of their spouses.
This is where we are headed. 50 years ago it was an unforgivable scandal to have a child out of wedlock–necessitating daughters being shuffled out of town in the middle of the night to save the family name from permanent ruin. When a society just cavalierly tosses aside its traditions (and even condemns the traditions as oppressive and harmful) then ANYTHING GOES–it’s just a matter of time. Compromises just lead to more compromises because there will always be some group whose mission is to convince society that what we current believe is objectively wrong, is actually not that big of a deal. These groups then get the assistance of liberal moral relativists to go on the record as not agreeing with the group’s philosophy, but that society should not be so “judgey” because it’s hurtful and mean. NAMBLA has been proudly telling us for years that sex with kids is misunderstood and is really a positive thing. They’re just waiting their turn in line. And if we keep throwing out our traditions and doing away with objective standards of right and wrong, they’ll eventually get to the front. And they WILL find some influential liberal group to take up their cause and tell us all that we are the real villians for being so judgmental, and on and on…This is nothing new. This is exactly how every society in history has collapsed and American values are certainly strong enough to keep up the fight for a long time–but not forever.
Comment by Sean A — July 4, 2008 @ 3:21 pm - July 4, 2008
Well there’s as good an excuse as any, right? Can’t trump that.
I mean, why bother trying to be better than anybody else when you can be a dirty slut instead. So much easier to be a disease ridden whore than a positve example.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 5, 2008 @ 5:00 am - July 5, 2008
#16: The only reason Pinky Bear hasn’t seen much evidence of heterosexual monogamy in marriage is because respectable, heterosexual, monogamous married couples won’t be in the same room with him. And that just leaves Days Of Our Lives as the only examples of heterosexual marriage he has observed.
Comment by Sean A — July 6, 2008 @ 9:36 pm - July 6, 2008
15: Great, thanks for associating gays with NAMBLA. Seems the gay right is more than happy to vilify the “gay left” at every turn so they can still lurk in the shadows of the republican party (ie secret meetings between mccain and log cabin). Don’t forget it’s been mostly “gay lefties” who’ve worked for equal rights for gays in this country. In the age of the internet, it’s made it very easy to sit in your armchairs and do nothing but attack. if you’re all such a bunch of patriots, then sign up for military duty and head out to Iraq. (but then again, we’ll hear the smae old republican excuses for being a bunch of hawks, but not putting your money where your mouth is – or keyboards in this case.
Comment by Kevin — July 6, 2008 @ 11:11 pm - July 6, 2008
#18: Kevin, I did not associate gays with NAMBLA. The point of my comment was that it is dangerous to keep chipping away at traditions in the name of “freedom” and “equality.” When societies do that, things that a society once considered unthinkably evil, slowly become acceptable. There are many people that have equated terrorists who murder Americans to “freedom fighters” because they are perfectly willing to apply different standards of morality to each individual. Of course, that kind of moral relativism leads to no one being able to judge anyone, and that leads to no moral standards whatsoever. If gay marriage is good for our society then the voting public should express it through the initiative process or vote for representatives who will pass legislation authorizing it. What the California Supreme Court has done is essentially say that society has “no right to judge” whether government sanction of gay marriage is good for society or not. In their view, gays simply have the right to marry and whatever happens happens. When decisions about what is acceptable to “the people” are decided like this, it DOES open the door groups like NAMBLA (or even Al-Qaeda), to find some judge, somewhere, someday to decided that society has no say in the morality of their stated philosophies and actions (again, society has “no right to judge”). The point is that Liberal groups are ALWAYS instrumental in handling the public relations aspect of these groups and their journey to the courts. There are a million examples we can look to, particularly those groups who have dedicated their lives to demonizing the U.S. and casting the terrorists as victims. The number of mainstream liberal groups whitewashing the missions of Hamas and Hezbollah are too numerous to count. My point is, show me a group with an objectively evil, morally repugnant mission, and I’ll show you a loud group of screeching liberals defending the first group’s actions or claiming they have been unjustly railroaded by America or society at large. And yes, as you pointed out, there ARE often “gay lefties” right there with them working for “equal rights.” Their problem is that their view of “equal rights” is typically informed by moral relativism and they end up supporting, defending and ultimately legitimizing evil.
How does that idea “associate” gays with NAMBLA? I didn’t address the demographic profile of their members or the composition of their membership. All I stated was that just because we “all” find their philosophy and actions repugnant NOW doesn’t guarantee that in the future our society will continue to hold that belief if we keep throwing out all the rules and traditions. And when our society has no moral standards whatsoever, the inevitable result is that NAMBLA will see that it’s their turn and some lefty PR group will start the campaign to “decriminalize” pedophilia and they will capitalize on all of the court decisions that came before in which it was found that society “has no right to judge” the actions of others. My point is that this is how it works–this is how a society collapses.
It doesn’t surprise me that you didn’t get my point. Liberals NEVER see the bigger picture. All you saw was “NAMBLA” and immediately started screeching. My point was that if we were typing these comments 20, 30, 40 years or so from now, as a liberal, your comment would more likely be a statement defending the actions of the members of NAMBLA and telling me I have no right to judge them. To me, that’s a bigger problem facing our society that the possibility that society thinks of the members of NAMBLA as “gays.”
Comment by Sean A — July 7, 2008 @ 12:24 am - July 7, 2008
Actually, Sean, no need to apologize; we have prime examples of what gay leftists like Kevin are already doing.
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.
The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass — no political party has opposed it — but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
Or this:
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……..
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
And finally, among the many forms of relationship that gay liberals claim should be given automatic marriage rights:
Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
In short, Kevin, we have referenced and documented proof gay leftists like you arguing for taking children to S&M fairs, dressed as slaves, for “educational experiences”, arguing that the age of consent should be low because having sex with children half your age is “common” among gay people, and finally arguing for households with “multiple conjugal partners” — i.e., polygamous and polyandrous households — to have marriage rights in the name of “equality”.
We’ve seen what happens when gay liberals like yourself are given the power to demand political correctness.
A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday…….
In a scathing report published yesterday, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was condemned for treating the men as “trophy carers”.
The children’s charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.
The report, following an independent review of the case, said: “One manager described the couple as ‘trophy carers’ which led to ’slack arrangements’ over placement.
“Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a ‘badge’ which made things less questionable.
“The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not ‘thinking the unthinkable’.
“It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.
“The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive.”
That’s what gay liberals like you call “equality”, Kevin.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2008 @ 12:45 am - July 7, 2008
OK, I’ll ask it:
Is there a line between “enlightened” and “perverse” anymore? Has the gay left reached the level of power where anything that is called “perverse” is evidence of “hate speech?”
The Folsom Street Fair events make me wonder. Are there heterosexual street fairs where such things occur? I’m not a California person, so perhaps there are and I just don’t know about them. I ask, because I would think that heterosexuals look the other way when gays take their fetishes public, but they would land on heterosexuals who do the same.
Comment by heliotrope — July 7, 2008 @ 9:15 am - July 7, 2008
Heliotrope:
Heterosexual sex fairs are usually held in hotels. Black Rose and Beat Me in St. Louis (among others) are well-established yearly events. Also, Folsom Street East (a NYC version of Folsom Street) has a good size heterosexual contingent (I do not know about the West Coast version).
As for what is perverse, that will depend on the individual and his or her relationship to all things sexual. For me, I tend not to be interested in what other people are doing in their sex lives so long as the participants give their informed consent and accept the consequences of their actions. A greater area of concern for me is with regard to the ethical circumstances of the sex act and not a laundry list of do’s and don’ts which I feel is a superficial approach to the questions at hand.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 7, 2008 @ 10:42 am - July 7, 2008
Thanks, Brian, but I am still curious about similar heterosexual events. Here’s why: I believe that if a heterosexual couple were to dress up their children and lead them about fetish style, that they would be swept into child abuse Hell and the cable news people would go full Greta on them.
When the Jon Benet Ramsey murder was all over the news, I (and many of my associates) felt like the little girl had been close to abused by tarting her up. I recall one friend who asked if there were “Little Mr. Pimp” contests.
I have seen Utube clips of people in Berkeley biking naked on the streets. I wonder if they were to connect this with hetero “free love” if they would get a pass from the law? I am not aware of public orgies or parks where heteros meet to have sex in a public facility, while the law looks on. I am still curious. Anyone know?
Comment by heliotrope — July 7, 2008 @ 11:30 am - July 7, 2008
Heliotrope:
Neither the heterosexual or homosexual events and clubs I know of are getting a pass from the law. In New York City, most gay sex clubs have been closed, but interestingly the major hetero club (also, the largest sex club of any stripe) has not been touched. Many gay events across the country have folded themselves into hetero events in order to survive (hetero events are usually more well-established and have a history in the communities where they are held).
I have to wonder if the law would do anything about a heterosexual couple who dresses up their child in fetish gear when they do nothing about the children’s beauty pageants that proliferate across the country.
In my own life, I have never experienced a lessening of societal scrutiny because I was gay; in fact, the reality has been just the opposite.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 7, 2008 @ 12:15 pm - July 7, 2008
As for what is perverse, that will depend on the individual and his or her relationship to all things sexual.
Translation: if you find something to be perverse, the problem is with you and not with the participants.
For me, I tend not to be interested in what other people are doing in their sex lives so long as the participants give their informed consent and accept the consequences of their actions.
Except when it comes to his demanding “rights” and billions of dollars in AIDS funding based on what participants like him do in their bedrooms.
A greater area of concern for me is with regard to the ethical circumstances of the sex act and not a laundry list of do’s and don’ts which I feel is a superficial approach to the questions at hand.
Translation: Sex with children is permissible when the “ethical circumstances” justify it.
I think Brian just answered heliotrope’s question.
Is there a line between “enlightened†and “perverse†anymore? Has the gay left reached the level of power where anything that is called “perverse†is evidence of “hate speech?â€
Obviously, “no”, and “yes”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2008 @ 12:20 pm - July 7, 2008
I have to wonder if the law would do anything about a heterosexual couple who dresses up their child in fetish gear when they do nothing about the children’s beauty pageants that proliferate across the country.
Let’s see here; you are comparing putting a little girl in a nice dress and letting her go out on stage with other little girls in front of an audience of doting parents…..with dressing a little girl as a sex slave and taking her to a sex fair, where people are openly masturbating, walking around naked, and having sex in public, to “show off”.
Every time I think gay liberals can’t get any more divorced from reality, they manage to surprise me.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2008 @ 12:25 pm - July 7, 2008
ND40:
I wrote that I am concerned with partners giving informed consent to sexual acts. Since a child can never give informed consent, sex with a child is never allowable.
As for sexualizing and eroticizing young girls (Heliotrope correctly identifies it as “tarting up”) and then parading them on stage: if you think that is okay, then we will just have to disagree.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 7, 2008 @ 12:47 pm - July 7, 2008
Since a child can never give informed consent, sex with a child is never allowable.
Sure they can. Children are allowed to get condoms, have sex training in schools, have contraceptives and abortion pills given to them, and to even have abortions, all without their parents being notified or being required to consent.
As for sexualizing and eroticizing young girls (Heliotrope correctly identifies it as “tarting upâ€) and then parading them on stage: if you think that is okay, then we will just have to disagree.
LOL….I think both heliotrope and I would agree that a child beauty pageant is far less worse than taking children dressed as sexual slaves to an adult sex fair.
Your feigned “outrage” over the former is hilarious and hypocritical given your support of the latter.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2008 @ 1:16 pm - July 7, 2008
By the way, simply because I’m used to leftist gays trying to twist things, it should be noted that I oppose children getting condoms, having sex training in schools, having contraceptives and abortion pills given to them, and having abortions without their parents being notified or being required to consent.
Hence it is quite obvious that I don’t think children are capable of “informed consent”. What I am pointing out is the hypocrisy of gay liberals who claim to be against child sex, but who, as I demonstrated, support facilitating and promoting of it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2008 @ 1:20 pm - July 7, 2008
One more thing: as heliotrope noticed, there was outrage among heterosexuals over JonBenet Ramsey and how she was treated.
Show me where gay leftist organizations like HRC and NGLTF condemn parents who take children to gay sex fairs and to Pride parades that feature public nudity, masturbation, and sex acts.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2008 @ 1:22 pm - July 7, 2008
ND40:
There may have been outrage among some heterosexuals over the JonBenet case, but there was no campaign to outlaw the peddling of young children’s flesh on stage under the fradulent guise of a “beauty pageant.”
As far as HRC and NGLTF inaction, once again they failed to show the leadership they should, but I am used to that. They seem to care more about not upsetting funders than taking a moral stand.
I also agree that parents should be able to opt their children out of sex education classes if they so desire and be informed about their children’s sex lives until their children reach the age of consent. My complaint is that the age of consent if too low in many places.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 7, 2008 @ 2:23 pm - July 7, 2008
There may have been outrage among some heterosexuals over the JonBenet case, but there was no campaign to outlaw the peddling of young children’s flesh on stage under the fradulent guise of a “beauty pageant.â€
Again, Brian, you are trying to draw moral equivalency between a beauty pageant for little girls and dressing up children as sex slaves and taking them to events in which naked and barely-clothed adults masturbate and perform sex scenes in public.
The problem here is that you refuse to confront the behavior of the latter or admit that gay parents who take their children to such events are idiots — which means you have to rationalize it by claiming heterosexual parents and little kids’ beauty pageants are just as bad as Folsom and Pride.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2008 @ 4:03 pm - July 7, 2008
ND40:
I think that those parents are more than idiots: they are dangerous to their children. Dressing children up in leather outfits or eroticizing them in “beauty pageants” is dangerous, and parents who engage in such practices should have a child welfare case opened on their family. Putting a child in sexualized leather or in make-up and outfits to make her appear old enough for sex is disgusting, creepy, and abusive in my opinion.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 7, 2008 @ 4:23 pm - July 7, 2008
And again, Brian, you are trying to draw moral equivalency between a beauty pageant for little girls and dressing up children as sex slaves and taking them to events in which naked and barely-clothed adults masturbate and perform sex scenes in public.
The problem here is that you cannot say that what gay people did is wrong. Hence your ludicrous equivocation that a child beauty pageant is equivalent to street fairs in which naked and semi-clothed adults masturbate and have sex in front of children; you are attempting to spin and minimize what gay parents did by smearing and blaming heterosexuals.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2008 @ 8:40 pm - July 7, 2008
ND40:
I wrote:
“I think that those parents are more than idiots: they are dangerous to their children. Dressing children up in leather outfits or eroticizing them in “beauty pageants†is dangerous, and parents who engage in such practices should have a child welfare case opened on their family.”
From what I wrote, it is clear that I think what those gay parents did was wrong. I also think parents who dress up their daughters in hooker chic and have them strut across a stage to be “judged” are doing wrong.
In both cases, parents are sexualizing their children in ways that their children cannot agree to since they do not understand the meaning and symbolism of their outfits. In each case, children have been dressed up to satisfy the desires of the parents with no regard for the damage done to their children.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 7, 2008 @ 9:04 pm - July 7, 2008
And again, Brian, you are arguing, “what those gay parents did was wrong, but heterosexuals are awful and evil people so it makes it OK”.
You are rationalizing with claims that child beauty pageants are equivalent to gay Pride and the Folsom Street Fair, as if child beauty pageants were filled with drunk and drugged adults in various states of undress simulating and having sex with each other. You are spinning, just like the child who tries to avoid punishment by “admitting” they did something wrong, but who then tries to insist that so-and-so did it, so he shouldn’t be punished.
Rest assured that when heterosexuals start hauling children, dressed as sexual slaves, to events in which naked and semi-clothed adults masturbate and have sex in front of children, they will get the same response. Indeed, the fact that this sort of thing is virtually unheard of among heterosexual parents is strong evidence that society is already making it clear that it’s unacceptable.
But until then, gay parents ARE hauling children, dressed as sexual slaves, to events in which naked and semi-clothed adults masturbate and have sex in front of children — and you refuse to do anything about it other than whine about straight people.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2008 @ 12:30 am - July 8, 2008
Take it easy there, NDT. It looks like to me that Brian condemned the Folsom St. “adults” for their actions. You’re upset that he’s not condemning gay people worse than straight people. Is that your problem?
As for what’s worse, I would have said the Folsom St. fair. However, as bad as that is, we see that this beauty contest lead to the death of a little girl. All in all, it seems that that is worse.
As for the moral equivalency bit, again, take it easy. In both cases, children are being sexualized. If you want to make a big distinction between making little girls wearing tart dresses and makeup to other fetish wear, it’s a free country.
By the way, simply because I’m used to leftist gays trying to twist things,
That’s rich.
Comment by Pat — July 8, 2008 @ 8:06 am - July 8, 2008
ND40:
Nowhere did I state that it was okay to bring children to Folsom. As for the sexualizing of little girls in “beauty pageants,” I was just picking up on something Heliotrope posted to the thread. My only difference with Heliotrope is that I think that such behavior is abuse and not just “close to” abuse.
The damaging and inappropriate sexualization of children is wrong whether it is done by gay parents or straight parents, at Folsom or at Little Miss pageants.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 8, 2008 @ 9:08 am - July 8, 2008
The chains and leather crowd, whether gay or straight, having a convention that is not in the public square is not my issue. To me, that is like any “adult bookshop” which has been squeezed into the first amendment.
I am curious about the stuff that is in the public view. The actions that propel the “public decency” debates. I mentioned Jon Benet Ramsey, because those contests are well established. I asked about the line between “enlightenment” and “perversity.” I am not certain on which side of the line those contests fall.
There is a Vermont town that got in the news for saggy, baggy geriatrics walking around in the nude. That is the type of behavior I am questioning.
If some of the stuff that goes on in these sex festivals were to be tried in a tourist area or on Main Street, I expect there would be complaints from the public.
So, I am still not understanding where gays on left draw the line between “enlightenment” and “perversity.” (It is very clear to me in my personal life.)
As an aside, I do not think we can blame Jon Benet Ramsey’s murder on the contests.
NDT made some suppositions about my meaning and my thinking in his posts. They were all correct.
Considering the raids on religious “cults” which involved children, I believe that people who use children in their lifestyle games should think this through. We have a nudist camp in the area and it is constantly having to explain itself. They certainly are not allowed any parade permits.
Furthermore, I would offer this bit of homophobia: If gays on the left can justify raising children in an open lifestyle that is on or over the “edge,” they are pushing an issue that sets all gays back in their drive for heterosexual public respect.
Comment by heliotrope — July 8, 2008 @ 9:14 am - July 8, 2008
Heliotrope:
I am not sure that “gays on the left” all draw the line in the same place or that the “Gay Left” (that non-existent, but frequently invoked monolith) has done so either.
For me, the sexualization and subsequent parading of little girls in “beauty pageants” is peverse since the child is being used like a human doll for the parents’ amusement. Bringing a child to Folsom is also peverse since it brings a child into contact with sexual behaviors before he can understand and process what he is seeing.
I do not know about the town in Vermont, but what about nude beaches? The ones in New York City and Sandy Hook, New Jersey are tourist areas and visited by both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
For me, I would opt for clothing in public since I would argue that it facilitates social cohesion. But a nude beach that people have the option of avoiding if they so choose might be acceptable since the only way to come in contact with naked people would require a person to seek them out. To avoid a naked person on Main Street would most often require the alteration or abandonment of an individual’s purpose for being there.
As for heterosexual respect, I can be judged only for the actions I take. All gays and lesbians do not act alike just as all heterosexuals do not. Should I judge all heterosexuals by those who sexualize and exploit their little girls by entering them in “beauty pageants”? Of course not. Homophobia only comes into play when a person argues that the actions of one gay or lesbain is representative of how all gays and lesbians think and act.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 8, 2008 @ 10:27 am - July 8, 2008
You’re upset that he’s not condemning gay people worse than straight people. Is that your problem?
Interesting, since you then stated this.
As for what’s worse, I would have said the Folsom St. fair.
Hence the reason — especially when said gays are stating that anyone who opposes having children at sex fairs is “close-minded”.
However, as bad as that is, we see that this beauty contest lead to the death of a little girl.
Really? You have proof that JonBenet’s participation in beauty pageants led to her murder? Please call the Boulder Police Department, because that would be more evidence than they’ve ever been able to ascribe to the case.
The problem here, Pat, is that you are rationalizing with claims that child beauty pageants are equivalent to gay Pride and the Folsom Street Fair, as if child beauty pageants were filled with drunk and drugged adults in various states of undress simulating and having sex with each other in front of children.
My only difference with Heliotrope is that I think that such behavior is abuse and not just “close to†abuse.
Of course you think it’s abuse; you’re desperately trying to hype it up to make it look equivalent to what you and your fellow liberal gays are doing, which is taking children dressed as sexual slaves to events filled with drunk and drugged adults in various states of undress simulating and having sex with each other.
Your logic here appears to be arguing that, since heterosexual parents “sexually abuse” their children, gay parents should be able to REALLY sexually abuse them as well.
As for heterosexual respect, I can be judged only for the actions I take.
Indeed you can — and your actions are to equivocate and rationalize for gay bad behavior by making ludicrous comparisons to heterosexuals, like that child beauty pageants are identical and equal to taking children dressed as sexual slaves to events filled with drunk and drugged adults in various states of undress simulating and having sex with each other.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2008 @ 1:14 pm - July 8, 2008
And really, GPW nailed what the problem is in the original post.
While gay people understand its meaning, those who claim to represent us in public seem more afraid of offending the sexual liberationists who once dominated the gay movement than in convincing mainstream Americans who will, in the end, decide this issue.
Simply put, the gay community and its leaders care more about appeasing gay perverts and people who use being gay as an excuse for sexual irresponsibility than they do anything else.
Hence, when confronted with examples of bad gay behavior, note how carefully they AVOID trying to condemn said behavior — or, as we’ve seen here, try to equivocate for it by claiming that heterosexuals do it, and that therefore, it’s OK.
It amuses me to no end to watch liberal gays and lesbians claim that heterosexual parents putting their children in beauty pageants constitutes criminal child abuse and should be punished….but then, when confronted with clear examples of gay parents taking children dressed as sexual slaves to events filled with drunk and drugged adults in various states of undress simulating and having sex with each other, spinning themselves into a tizzy to explain why they aren’t demanding that criminal charges be filed against their fellow gays and lesbians for child abuse.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2008 @ 1:44 pm - July 8, 2008
ND40:
I do not think it takes any hype at all on my part to reveal the abusive and damaging nature of tarting up little girls to look like young women and then ask them to parade and perform in front of judges. We will have to disagree about the hideousness of this practice.
Also, I am condemning the abuse of children in each instance we are discussing. The logic you see is a product of your own thinking.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 8, 2008 @ 2:00 pm - July 8, 2008
I put it this way, Brian; given that you’re not going on about the “hideousness” or “abusive and damaging nature” of gays and lesbians who dress up little girls as sexual slaves, then parade them to “show off” in front of drunk and drugged adults in various states of undress who are masturbating and having sex with each other while watching these girls, the fact that you’re doing so about child beauty pageants is nothing more than rank hypocrisy.
When the judges and audiences in child beauty pageants are drunk and drugged adults in various states of undress who are masturbating and having sex with each other while watching these girls, then you may have a point. But since they aren’t, your attempts to draw moral equivalence are nothing more than your usual attempt to smear heterosexuals to cover up for the gay and lesbian behavior you enable and desperately attempt to rationalize.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2008 @ 2:59 pm - July 8, 2008
ND40:
I condemn both practices equally, and think they need to be stopped immediately. If a person over the age of 18 wants to go to Folsom or be sexual in front of a panel of judges, that is fine. Eighteen-year olds and above can make that decision for themselves.
I am not trying to smear heterosexuals. Those heterosexual parents who tart up their little girls and enter them into “beauty pageants” smear themselves.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 8, 2008 @ 3:22 pm - July 8, 2008
I condemn both practices equally, and think they need to be stopped immediately.
No, you don’t.
You are attempting to equivocate by comparing child beauty pageants to gays and lesbians who dress up little girls as sexual slaves, then parade them to “show off†in front of drunk and drugged adults in various states of undress who are masturbating and having sex with each other while watching these girls. In short, you cannot condemn gay peoples’ behavior without simultaneously condemning heterosexuals, even though what heterosexuals are doing is not even remotely close to what gay people are doing.
You have no sense whatsoever of proportion. All you have is a desperate need to smear heterosexuals to cover up for the behavior that liberal gays and lesbians like yourself enable and support. You make gays and lesbians look like hypocritical fools because you smear and attack heterosexuals for alleged crimes while ignoring gay and lesbian criminal child abuse that is far, far worse.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2008 @ 3:59 pm - July 8, 2008
#46: Good job, NDT. Don’t back down. Liberals are physically incapable of expressing unequivocal condemnation of the conduct of gays. They just can’t do it. The ONLY way they can manage it is by feigning some kind of broad concern for “[BLANK] in all of its destructive forms,” and then lumping other, less troubling or dangerous things into the mix that they actually despise.
Brian’s equivocations on child beauty pageants and children at the Folsom Street Scare remind me of another typical liberal dog and pony show–those idiots who claim to condemn islamic terrorists because they oppose “religious extremism in all of its forms,” and then express grave concerns about the preaching of “hate” and “intolerance” in the Christian faith. Yeah. Islamic Jihad = Modern Christianity. Totally the same. One is bursting with excitement because he can’t wait to tell you the good news about the Lord Jesus! The other one can’t wait to pop your eyeballs out with a rusty spoon, saw your head off with butter knife to stop the screaming, and then set you body on fire at the side of the road for all infidels to see what happens to the enemies of Islam. See? Totally indistinguishable.
Comment by Sean A — July 8, 2008 @ 10:16 pm - July 8, 2008
NDT, I too had (have?) the opinion that child beauty pageants are a form of child abuse. But, at the time of the Jon Benet murder, I met the argument that there was little difference between Jon Benet and Shirley Temple. I have always felt that Shirley Temple was an amazing talent and her movies were great entertainment. I never felt she was “tarted” up. Nonetheless, I somewhat moderated my views about child beauty pageants. Suffice it to say, I would be heartsick if one of my grandchildren were to be tossed into that arena.
Comment by heliotrope — July 9, 2008 @ 10:43 am - July 9, 2008
ND40:
As I said before, I am not trying to smear heterosexuals. I do not think that heterosexuals (or any group for that matter) are a monad. I am talking about actions. Eroticizing a child and taking her to Folsom is abusive. Eroticizing a child and shoving her on stage to perform is abusive. You may not think the latter behavior is abusive — okay we disagree.
Personally, I have never understood how Folsom is allowed to be held in public and let under-18 year olds in. I also cannot imagine why a child welfare case was not opened on the parents who brought their girls to Folsom, especially when their names were known (though I know someone who brought the incident to child welfare’s attention).
Sean:
The consequences of the intolerance will be different, but the act of being intolerant is the same. An Islamist who is intolerant of gays and lesbians may be physically as well as socially violent towards gays and lesbians. A Christian who possesses a similar intolerance most often is not physically violent, but will try to make society intolerant of gays and rally other people to his beliefs.
I am grateful that Christians refrain from physical violence, but less appreciative of their efforts to turn their intolerance into law. Also, I do not believe that the good news of Jesus Christ contains intolerance of gays and lesbians (at least that is how the Gospels are understood by me and at my church). The intolerance that some Christians feel toward gays and lesbians comes from inside themselves and not from Holy Scripture (and yes, I know the passages that are quoted and misinterpreted).
People should preach the Gospel as they understand it, but not be surprised when the intolerance they are speaking is pointed out.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 9, 2008 @ 10:50 am - July 9, 2008
Heliotrope:
Shirley Temple was allowed to act her age, and not “tarted up” to look older. Also, she was acting a role that had been scripted for her.
In beauty pageants, little girls are made up to look like young women, dressed accordingly, and then required to perform on stage as if they were twenty-somethings.
For Shirley Temple, the question was whether or not she gave a good performance. If not, there were retakes. For a little girl in a pageant, she is being judged on whether or not she conforms to a particular standard of adult beauty. The judgement is on her as a person and not as a performer.
The only anecdotal evidence I have is that friends who were child actors have told me that there was a clear distinction between their acting and being a child. They also never felt as if they were acting to please their parents or win their approval.
The two girls I know who were part of pageants said that they felt great pressure to win to please their parents. Their stories are very similar to my friends who were forced to be an athlete (most often by their fathers) even though they had no interest in being one.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 9, 2008 @ 12:06 pm - July 9, 2008
Personally, I have never understood how Folsom is allowed to be held in public and let under-18 year olds in. I also cannot imagine why a child welfare case was not opened on the parents who brought their girls to Folsom, especially when their names were known (though I know someone who brought the incident to child welfare’s attention).
That’s easy to explain.
As for what is perverse, that will depend on the individual and his or her relationship to all things sexual. For me, I tend not to be interested in what other people are doing in their sex lives so long as the participants give their informed consent and accept the consequences of their actions. A greater area of concern for me is with regard to the ethical circumstances of the sex act and not a laundry list of do’s and don’ts which I feel is a superficial approach to the questions at hand.
In short, this is your fault, Brian; you and your fellow liberal gays decided sexual gratification was the sole determinant of right and wrong, and now, people act solely for sexual gratification without any concern whatsoever for morality, intelligence, or responsibility. You threw out the “do’s and don’ts” in favor of moral relativism; this is what you get.
And again, it is amusing that you can rant and rave when it comes to smearing heterosexuals, but just make excuses or mutter that “someone else ought to do something” when it comes to gays. The fact that you don’t attack the Folsom Street Fair with the same viciousness with which you attack child beauty pageants makes blatantly clear that you are nothing more than a hypocrite.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2008 @ 12:44 pm - July 9, 2008
Also, I do not believe that the good news of Jesus Christ contains intolerance of gays and lesbians (at least that is how the Gospels are understood by me and at my church).
Given that your church believes that “the good news of Jesus Christ” endorses and supports promiscuity in marriage, claims that monogamy is “authoritarian”, believes that all sex with anyone is OK based on the “ethical circumstances”, and that “do’s and don’ts” are superficial, it should already be obvious that ignoring the Bible is an established theological concept for it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2008 @ 12:53 pm - July 9, 2008
Suffice it to say, I would be heartsick if one of my grandchildren were to be tossed into that arena.
Tossed, yes, but what if they wanted to do it? Innumerable little girls compete in these things annually and enjoy them. You’ve seen your granddaughter play house and dress up, or want to do “grownup” things; that’s what these are really, at their core, about.
Child beauty pageants are a lot like Little League. The overwhelming majority of children are there because they want to be; however, there is a small minority of kids who are there because their parents are trying to live out their unfulfilled dreams through their children. The latter is dysfunctional at best and abusive at worst, and you should want to stay away from that.
The problem here is, as Sean aptly put it:
Liberals are physically incapable of expressing unequivocal condemnation of the conduct of gays. They just can’t do it. The ONLY way they can manage it is by feigning some kind of broad concern for “[BLANK] in all of its destructive forms,†and then lumping other, less troubling or dangerous things into the mix that they actually despise.
What liberal gays and lesbians are trying to do is to use your distaste for child beauty pageants as a means of mitigating your response to their taking children to sex fairs. Despite your distaste, you are probably not going to demand a ban on child beauty pageants; as a result, being a consistent fellow, you probably wouldn’t ban other things of the same level. Thus, Brian is attempting to spin that taking children to Folsom and Pride is no different than taking them to a child beauty pageant in the hopes that that will blunt your willingness to act against the former.
Again, my emphasis has been this: no matter what your distaste for little girls dressing up and parading in front of a panel of judges and an audience of doting parents, there is no realistic way that can be compared to gay and lesbian parents dressing up their children as sexual slaves, then parading them to “show off†in front of drunk and drugged adults in various states of undress who are masturbating and having sex with each other while watching these children. The former may be distasteful, but the latter is downright perverse.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2008 @ 1:13 pm - July 9, 2008
Great points, NDT. Thanks for the input. I am sure you know that I have no confusion about public perversity. The more one tries to justify it, the deeper I dig in.
I read yesterday about folks objecting to the beach scene in Provincetown. I wrote that place off a long time ago, but, in reality, there is no reason to cede it to a sex freak show.
Mention was made of nude beaches. If they are clearly marked and out of the general public areas, I would see them as an “accommodation.” But when people start humping in plain view on a public beach, I think the fire department should hose them down with a high pressure turret.
Comment by heliotrope — July 9, 2008 @ 1:39 pm - July 9, 2008
ND40:
As I wrote and you quoted, my concern is for the “ethical circumstances,” i.e., morality, of sexual behaviors.
What determines the morality of a sexual act for you? For me, a sex act is ethical when it occurs between two committed and loving individuals. They can be two men, two women, or a man and a woman. The act also must not be either coerced or incestuous. I also wrote that the particpants must accept the consequences of their sexual behavior. Those are my do’s and don’ts. Because they do not agree with those of other people or conform in terms of presentation, does not mean that they do not exist. My do’s and don’ts are just different.
Other people may have other do’s and don’ts, may arrive at them in a different fashion, and may express them differently. For example, they may say that sex between men is unethical because Allah or God or Yahweh said so.
As for my church, you mischaracterize its beliefs, but since you do not know my denomination, you can only guess at them. My church believes strongly in do’s and don’ts. The Bible is Holy Scripture. But as we see with Episcopalians, people can come to two different conclusions — one of love and the other of hate — from the same Holy Scripture.
As for my actions regarding Folsom, I wrote this year to agencies and the Mayor’s office in San Francisco asking that a “No one under 18″ rule be enforced at the event. I also asked my friends living there to do the same. I hope others who are against child abuse write as well. I think that there is a good chance this year that age-restrictions will be adopted in order to avoid repeating last year’s horror. I have also helped my friends in the past with their efforts to put an end to pageants that erotcize little girls, but I am less sanguine about our chances there.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 9, 2008 @ 3:58 pm - July 9, 2008
Brian, in the name of all reason, why should blood brothers not engage in sex? Incest is not in and of itself “icky” any more than eating sheep’s eyes raw. Blood brothers can poke and probe each other’s orifices until doomsday and no gene pools are going to be weakened.
Comment by heliotrope — July 9, 2008 @ 4:07 pm - July 9, 2008
Heliotrope:
I believe that incest causes both psychological and genetic damage. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to learn about it. But if the only danger posed by incest is damage to the gene pool, then I suppose infertile opposite-sex siblings could engage in sex by the logic of your argument.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — July 9, 2008 @ 4:44 pm - July 9, 2008
Those are my do’s and don’ts.
But, unfortunately, Brian, you’ve already stated that you don’t believe in “do’s and don’ts”.
A greater area of concern for me is with regard to the ethical circumstances of the sex act and not a laundry list of do’s and don’ts which I feel is a superficial approach to the questions at hand.
Second, notice how your definitions changed.
For me, I tend not to be interested in what other people are doing in their sex lives so long as the participants give their informed consent and accept the consequences of their actions.
But now:
For me, a sex act is ethical when it occurs between two committed and loving individuals. They can be two men, two women, or a man and a woman. The act also must not be either coerced or incestuous.
Suddenly we add “two”, “committed and loving”, and disallow “incestuous”.
This is nothing more than Obamafication — that is, pretending that you never said what you previously said in an attempt to spin your leftist views for a different audience, and completely contradicting yourself in the process.
For instance, your sudden addition of “two”. Before you had said that it was perfectly ethical for gay and lesbian married couples to have promiscuous sex with multiple people and that there was nothing wrong with it. Now you insist that sex with multiple people is unethical. Which is it?
As for my actions regarding Folsom, I wrote this year to agencies and the Mayor’s office in San Francisco asking that a “No one under 18″ rule be enforced at the event.
Typical gay liberal response. They know the leftist Mayor doesn’t enforce the laws. They know the leftist Pelosi endorses and supports Folsom. All they’re doing is window-dressing, with a wink back to their fellow leftist gays to let them know that it’s OK, they just have to do this for PR purposes.
Better idea — file a lawsuit, using the evidence that San Francisco is not enforcing its own existing laws against public nudity and indecent behaviors in front of children. Funny how gay liberals will file lawsuits against everyone else except for gay and lesbian people who abuse children and allow said abuse.
But as we see with Episcopalians, people can come to two different conclusions — one of love and the other of hate — from the same Holy Scripture.
LOL……if one equates “love” with tolerating promiscuity and adultery, and “hate” with being against both, sure.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2008 @ 5:01 pm - July 9, 2008
I believe that incest causes both psychological and genetic damage.
LOL….and again, Brian Obamafies.
Remember how previously Brian argued that biological family relationships were unimportant?
If biological and familial bonds are so unimportant and can be ignored at will, how on earth could incest cause psychological damage?
Furthermore, Brian has argued that procreation is unimportant and that no one should ever be denied marriage based on any concern about procreation.
Again, he Obamafies, blabbing about “genetic damage”, which is a procreation concern, as a reason for denying incestuous relationships — particularly amusing, since he wants to ban incestuous relationships in same-sex couples which cannot procreate.
The answer to why we ban incest is simple; biological and familial bonds carry tremendous importance, and the possibility for genetic damage is great. This is not behavior society wants to encourage; therefore a ban is perfectly legitimate.
But given that gays and lesbians like Brian threw out biological and familial bonds and procreation concerns, replacing them with sexual gratification as the primary purpose of marriage, there is no reason to ban incest. Brian and his fellow gay and lesbian liberals have argued that you should be able to marry anyone you “love”, and that denying people the right to marry anyone they choose is taking away their “respect and dignity”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2008 @ 5:15 pm - July 9, 2008
Brian and his fellow gay and lesbian liberals have argued that you should be able to marry anyone you “loveâ€, and that denying people the right to marry anyone they choose is taking away their “respect and dignityâ€.
Once again, NDT, your posts are fraught with what you perceive the arguments are of those who disagree with you. And for some reason, you attempt to make your opponent look worse with your wrong perceptions of what the argument is instead of reading the arguments. Brian NEVER stated what you “concluded” for his reasons for same sex marriage. If that’s what you read between the lines, well, apparently you’re wrong once again.
My reasons for same sex marriage almost mirror ILC, who, to my understanding, is not liberal at all.
By the way, what’s your reason for outlawing incest, even between same sex partners? Forget about what gay liberals think, or more accurately, what you think that gay liberals think. What are YOUR reasons?
Comment by Pat — July 10, 2008 @ 7:56 am - July 10, 2008
#60 Pat asks #59 NDT:
I read Pat as questioning whether the incest taboo should extend to gays.
I wonder, Pat, shouldn’t the taboo against multiple partners also be set aside if it involves a group of committed and loving individuals?
Since so much about traditional marriage hinges on procreation, why should any of the traditional marriage taboos apply to gay marriage?
I prefer not to be nibbled to death. If we are to open marriage to gays, I advocate that gays openly bring the entire program to the table.
Comment by heliotrope — July 10, 2008 @ 11:16 am - July 10, 2008
I read Pat as questioning whether the incest taboo should extend to gays.
Heliotrope, I’m not so sure about that. I already believe, and assume NDT believes that incest is wrong no matter what the genders involved are. I was curious as to his reasons, regardless of whether this relates to the same sex marriage issue or not.
I wonder, Pat, shouldn’t the taboo against multiple partners also be set aside if it involves a group of committed and loving individuals?
I don’t believe so. I’ve made the argument previously that, other than the genders of the two adults involved, I’m not advocating any other changes, except one.* Since I believe monogamous gay couples are healthy, it should be encouraged. That is not the case with incest, pedophelia, sex with non-human life, and multiple partners. Thus, I don’t advocate encouraging these behaviors with marriage.
But since you have asked, let’s take this back to heterosexuals. Suppose that three or more heterosexuals want to have a “committed” relationship. Do you believe that this the ONLY thing taboo about this relationship is that their is the potential of procreation?
* The only other change I would advocate is to raise the minimum age to 18 everywhere. I believe it’s a terrible idea for persons under 18 to have sex. So this should not be encouraged by allowing minors to marry (with or without parents’ permission).
Since so much about traditional marriage hinges on procreation, why should any of the traditional marriage taboos apply to gay marriage?
I’m not sure if we agree on “so much.” Regardless, I don’t believe the taboo on incest hinges on just procreation.
I prefer not to be nibbled to death. If we are to open marriage to gays, I advocate that gays openly bring the entire program to the table.
I can’t speak for all other gays, I can only speak for myself. I’ve mentioned what I’ve advocated, which is just one nibble. Okay, there was the second nibble regarding minimum age. But this is completely separate from the same sex issue
Comment by Pat — July 10, 2008 @ 12:14 pm - July 10, 2008
By the way, what’s your reason for outlawing incest, even between same sex partners?
As I said above:
The answer to why we ban incest is simple; biological and familial bonds carry tremendous importance, and the possibility for genetic damage is great. This is not behavior society wants to encourage; therefore a ban is perfectly legitimate.
Meanwhile, to heliotrope’s point, liberal gays have already brought the entire program to the table.
Case in point:
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.
On that list:
Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
Gay and lesbian liberals have already made it clear that polygamy is, in their worldview, a “worthy form of family or relationship”. They believe that every sexual combination should have marriage, including siblings.
Also, notice what gay liberals are claiming is wrong and evil.
But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values†agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom.
In short, liberal gays oppose teaching children to abstain from sex and divorce laws that punish adultery and promiscuity while supporting out-of-wedlock births, welfare dependence, and unlimited abortion.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 10, 2008 @ 12:25 pm - July 10, 2008
As I said above:
The answer to why we ban incest is simple; biological and familial bonds carry tremendous importance, and the possibility for genetic damage is great. This is not behavior society wants to encourage; therefore a ban is perfectly legitimate.
Thanks, NDT. I somehow missed that. I was confused because you questioned Brian’s answer saying that he didn’t believe that biological and familial bonds are important, and you provided a link. I read the link and couldn’t find where Brian said or implied such a thing. Perhaps Brian can clear that up.
Meanwhile, to heliotrope’s point, liberal gays have already brought the entire program to the table.
You do mean “some” liberal gays, right?
On that list:
Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
That’s beyondmarriage.org’s opinion, not mine, and from what I read on this website, none of those here who support same sex marriage.
Gay and lesbian liberals have already made it clear that polygamy is, in their worldview, a “worthy form of family or relationshipâ€. They believe that every sexual combination should have marriage, including siblings.
I think it’s been made clear only to you NDT. I recall how you thought it was “clear” that some of us advocated promiscuity and non-monogamous marriages when we stated several times that was not the case. If you say that it’s clear beyondmarriage.org advocates that, we agree on that point. What’s not clear is that beyondmarriage.org advocates marriage in those relationships, but rather an “expansion of legal statuses, social services, and benefits to support the needs of all out households.” I’m not saying I agree with them, because for most (not all, such as the grandchildren one) of the relationships they cited, I don’t believe there should be such expansion.
Also, notice what gay liberals are claiming is wrong and evil.
But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values†agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare,
Actually, I don’t oppose any of those things. Note: I purposely cut off the bit about reproductive freedom since I refuse to comment on my personal views of abortion. Thus, I will not say whether I agree or disagree on that issue. Sorry. What I have commented on is that I believe gay rights issues and abortion are separate issues, and should be treated as such.
My only problem with the above, and we discussed this before NDT, is that I am vehemently opposed to abstinence education IF teens are taught to not have sex until they are married (to a person of the opposite sex). Are we in agreement here, NDT? Or would you at least agree to the statement if “vehemently” was removed?
In short, liberal gays oppose teaching children to abstain from sex and divorce laws that punish adultery and promiscuity while supporting out-of-wedlock births, welfare dependence, and unlimited abortion.
Were liberal gays a majority when the current divorce laws were enacted? If not, then you’ll have to harp on those responsible for the current divorce laws. And even if all liberal gays support out-of-wedlock births, welfare dependence, and unlimited abortions, these are things that are problems amongst the heterosexual population. Further, liberal gay support would account for what…at most 3 percent of the population?
Comment by Pat — July 10, 2008 @ 2:00 pm - July 10, 2008
But since you have asked, let’s take this back to heterosexuals. Suppose that three or more heterosexuals want to have a “committed†relationship. Do you believe that this the ONLY thing taboo about this relationship is that their is the potential of procreation?
The problem here, Pat, is that neither heliotrope or I oppose the fact that the most socially-beneficial arrangement is a male-female coupling having and raising their own children. The arrangement you talk about is destructive both from a procreation standpoint and from a social standpoint, especially given the effect it has on the children in question; hence, society rightly disapproves of it and bans it, as they have the power to do.
In short, we can justify our opposition.
However, Pat, you have already argued that public disapproval is invalid as grounds for marriage bans. In addition, you have insisted that procreation concerns are invalid when it comes to marriage bans.
Since you’ve thrown both of those out, why don’t you tell us why you oppose these arrangements?
My only problem with the above, and we discussed this before NDT, is that I am vehemently opposed to abstinence education IF teens are taught to not have sex until they are married (to a person of the opposite sex). Are we in agreement here, NDT? Or would you at least agree to the statement if “vehemently†was removed?
No, we’re not, and no I won’t.
Because why should a 3% minority determine what is better for 97% of the rest of the population?
Were liberal gays a majority when the current divorce laws were enacted?
LOL…..you’re missing the irony, Pat, which is the fact that liberal gays sanctimoniously bash heterosexuals for throwing out commitment — by citing the lack of stringent divorce laws that liberal gays themselves oppose as evil and wrong.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 11, 2008 @ 12:51 am - July 11, 2008
The arrangement you talk about is destructive both from a procreation standpoint and from a social standpoint, especially given the effect it has on the children in question; hence, society rightly disapproves of it and bans it, as they have the power to do.
Okay, again assuming there are no children, why is it destructive, in your opinion, from a social standpoint? In other words, why would such an arrangement be worse than say a heterosexual couple who cannot or will not have children?
However, Pat, you have already argued that public disapproval is invalid as grounds for marriage bans.
Not quite. I’ve expressed my opinion that I believe that same sex marriage should be approved and that it would benefit society. I am fully aware that the public must approve it in order for it to happen. If it doesn’t happen, it won’t change my opinion. Just like you have some opinions that are only shared by a small minority. Does that, by itself, make your opinions invalid. Or suppose same sex marriage is approved, will you change your stance and say, “Oh, yes, now that the public approves, every argument that I posed against same sex marriage is now all wrong, and I approve wholeheartedly.”?
While you and others have argued that procreation concerns are mainly the reason why marriage should be restricted to the opposite sex, it seems to me the reason why we still have the ban is because a large minority of persons still find homosexuality immoral.
In addition, you have insisted that procreation concerns are invalid when it comes to marriage bans.
I’m not sure I said that. I think what I’ve said is that since we approve and allow couples who cannot or will not have children, and I don’t understand the necessity of banning same sex couples. When we see a couple in their 70s get married, what are we most likely to hear? “Oh crap, another couple getting married that’s not going to have children. Don’t they know that marriage is for encouraging procreation? How selfish of them.” OR “Oh, what a cute couple. I wish them the best in their marriage.” So far, I haven’t heard a convincing answer as to why the reactions should be different when it’s a same sex couple.
Since you’ve thrown both of those out, why don’t you tell us why you oppose these arrangements?
I’ve already explained why I advocate same sex marriage and not the others. But here goes, one more time.
I personally believe that homosexuality is not immoral. In fact, I believe it is as valid an expression as heterosexuality. And as we do in the heterosexual world, whether persons choose to have children or not, we encourage people to find a special someone to commit with. Marriage encourages such an arrangement. You advocate such arrangements, but fall short of having marriage, or even civil unions. So that’s where have a difference of opinion.
But what about pedophilia, incest, bestiality, mulitple partners, and promiscuity? I think those behaviors are destructive, and as such, should not be encouraged by having marriages for those situations. So maybe the best way to answer your question is to say for the same reasons why you wouldn’t want to extend social and financial benefits to these relationships (as opposed to beyondmarriage.com for some of these), I wouldn’t want to extend marriage either. Heck, I don’t want to extend any social and financial benefits to these relationships.
Because why should a 3% minority determine what is better for 97% of the rest of the population?
1. I didn’t say we should.
2. Even if it’s only 3% that share an opinion (which I don’t believe), we’re still allowed to hold opinions that are not shared by the other 97%.
3. I would disapprove of abstinence only education if it mandated that teens are taught that they should withhold from sex until they marry someone of the same race, even if my opinion was shared by only a small minority.
4. Thankfully, it’s not just homosexuals who are against this form of abstinence only education. More and more straight persons are recognizing that homosexuality is not immoral, and that we should provide all our teens the tools they need, not just the straight ones.
5. I cannot approve a policy that I have no intentions of applying to myself. In my view, it goes beyond hypocrisy. To explain what I mean here, suppose we look at an adulterer. He might say that he knows the behavior is wrong and he shouldn’t be doing it even though he still will, he doesn’t want to encourage others to do it. He’s a hypocrite, but at least I can understand that position. When it comes to homosexuality, to me, as I said, it’s beyond hypocrisy. I’m not saying I should be celibate, but I’m going to engage in homosexual sex anyway, but don’t want to encourage it to others. Not at all. I believe there is NOTHING WRONG with me engaging in homosexual sex as long as it’s done responsibly, which I believe is the case for me. This is the message that I want sent to all teens, not just the straight ones.
Maybe your view is that, “well, I would prefer abstinence-only that doesn’t exclude gay teens from eventually having sex in a committed (same sex) relationship, but in reality, for now, that’s just not going to happen. So it’s better to have this approach.”? You can let me know if that’s the case or not. Or otherwise, please try to explain your rationale, if my assumption is not correct.
LOL…..you’re missing the irony, Pat, which is the fact that liberal gays sanctimoniously bash heterosexuals for throwing out commitment — by citing the lack of stringent divorce laws that liberal gays themselves oppose as evil and wrong.
You’re correct. I did miss the “irony.” I guess I wasn’t looking for one. But now that you pointed it out, I’m still missing the irony. You have this knack for pidgeonholing those you disagree with into a monolith “liberal gays” with all having the same opinions.
There are some liberal (and nonliberal) gays who want same sex marriage, and believe that marriage should be monogamous. So when they hear people say that gay persons shouldn’t marry, because they want to eliminate monogamy and commitment, they look at who are the ones that made the current divorce laws and shake their heads. No irony there. And yes, there are some liberal (and nonliberal) gays who want same sex marriage, but do not want to be monogamous. I’m guessing they are happy with the perceived relaxing of commitment with marriage now. I don’t like it, but I don’t see the irony there. Perhaps there are some that are really talking out of both sides of their mouth, as if this is something new.
We disagree on same sex marriage. Fine. I’m not sure why I have to be painted with others that go well beyond what I advocate for same sex marriage.
Comment by Pat — July 11, 2008 @ 8:54 am - July 11, 2008
[...] groups which appeared in an Op-ed that paper published last Thursday reminded me yet again how fehttp://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/07/02/do-gay-marriage-advocates-understand-the-insitution-theyre-prom…Give me back my money – Reduce our taxes!I was listening to the Tom sullivan show a few weeks ago [...]
Pingback by ed sullivan — July 11, 2008 @ 9:52 am - July 11, 2008
[...] personal savior. When most gay people who seek to have their relationships recognized as marriage understand the meaning of the institution, the leaders of the movement for gay marriage do [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Slow Blogging/The Sad Debate on Gay Marriage in CA — July 15, 2008 @ 12:01 pm - July 15, 2008
[...] But, lately, his writings on marriage have become increasingly banal and self-absorbed. He no longer writes about how that institution benefits gays, but instead how it benefits himself. He barely mentions the social purposes of marriage and instead repeats the same slogans gay rights’ activists use to defend a institution few of them seem to understand. [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Sullivan Loses Sight of Conservative Case for Gay Marriage — August 20, 2008 @ 2:30 am - August 20, 2008