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.

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.

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 relationship”. 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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.