Revisiting the Rainbow Coalition
I get it that the advocates of same sex marriage don’t like to admit this, but:
the movement for natural marriage is a genuine rainbow coalition. Our movement cuts across race, religion, and ethnicity. Here is more evidence, from Rhode Island. This Hispanic Pastors Coalition held a prayer rally in favor of natural marriage. look here. for the video.
In Maryland, the AfricanAmerican churches turned out in force against redefining marriage. Are all these people to be dismissed as “bigots?” According to the Baltimore Sun:
African-American churches proved another forceful voice of opposition.
“Black churches have never asked us for anything,” Del. Cheryl Glenn said during Friday’s debate. “They are asking us now, ‘Don’t use the word marriage.'” …
As the gay marriage bill appeared to move toward passage, lawmakers said they began hearing about the issue in church nearly every Sunday.
Del. Talmadge Branch said his pastor at Israel Baptist Church in Baltimore City lobbied him heavily. The Baltimore Democrat said leaders at other churches called him out from the pulpit during services.
The Rev. Franklin Lance, pastor at Mount Lebanon Baptist Church in Baltimore, said members asked questions about gay marriage at Bible study.
“From my perspective just in talking to my congregants, we have simply been saying that we believe that marriage should be defined as man and woman,” Lance said. “This is not to be negative toward or restricted toward or biased toward anyone else. We do believe that is sacred. We believe it’s holy. We believe it’s the first institution ordained by Christ.”
The Baptist Press reported a few more details:
The opposition from black churches, particularly those in Prince George’s County, became so significant that The Washington Post devoted a March 8 story to the issue.
Del. Emmett Burns, a member of the black caucus and an outspoken opponent of the bill, said he was called the “n-word” for his stance. He also said he was offended by comparisons between the civil rights movement and the “gay marriage” movement.
“Show me your Selma, Alabama,” he said during debate. “… [The bill] violates natural law. It always denies a child either a father or a mother. It promotes the homosexual lifestyle. It turns a moral wrong into a civil right. … [If the bill passes] children will be taught that the homosexual lifestyle is on par with the heterosexual lifestyle.”A prominent Southern Baptist pastor, Robert Anderson Jr., pastor of Colonial Baptist Church in Randallstown, Md., told Baptist Press in February that he, too, found comparisons between civil rights and “gay marriage” offensive.
“We didn’t choose to be born black. To be black or African American is not sin,” Anderson told Baptist Press. “The fact that we fought for civil rights, we were just fighting for justice for any man, any woman — regardless of their skin color. … To try to create a system and special laws for a group of citizens that are living in immorality and wanting to force all of us to embrace that as if it is morally equivalent, that is wrong.”
Loading ...
“Our movement cuts across race, religion, and ethnicity.”
Because SSM supporters only come in one flavor?
“Show me your Selma, Alabama” says Rev Burns. And a bunch of trannys waved their boas and yelled “We got yer Stonewall right here!” Then they ran off and … well… you know what they did.
“It turns a moral wrong into a civil right.”
That’s the issue.
History is a wonderful teacher, look back at what was reasonable and traditional:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
—Judge Leon M. Bazile, who found the Lovings guilty and sent them to prison.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1121a6%20Gay%20Marriage.pdf
@Bob Barnes
Hardly the clear teaching of Scripture.
http://www.hrc.org/allright/index1.html
@Bob Barnes Just because someone ignorant of what the Scripture says misuses it, that isn’t the fault of the Scripture. The true biblical position is that there is only one race – the human race. It was racism which kept people of different skin colors from marriage, and in the past 150 years that racism was built on Darwinism.
@Emma And I believe everything polls tell me. NOT! How many people did they ask? What was the population diversity? How many states, cities, and cultures did they poll? Polls typically take a small sample of people and then extrapolate the data from those people as being indicative of a larger population. The fact that every time marriage is put to the popular vote, it always excludes SSM! I’d go with that poll.
@Bob Barnes
The past was not always wonderful, nor was the next stage of history always an improvement. It is a stereotype to assume the past was always bad.
If gays in California, where I live, were being sent off to prison, I would be supporting their cause. I believe that is the case with everyone on this site.
Blacks were once denied the vote, which was terrible. Their voices and votes should be heard and counted now, as they were in Maryland.
Please stop the history revisionism… there was a strong stance against interracial marriage by religions.
How about I quote the book of Mormon?
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be ibid. 10:110 (Brigham Young second President and Prophet)
Yes, pretend this all didn’t happen……….
“Just because someone ignorant of what the Scripture says misuses it, that isn’t the fault of the Scripture.”
Christians do this all the time. Why stop now?
“The fact that every time marriage is put to the popular vote, it always excludes SSM!”
Voting is not a poll. Many people are too young or not eligible to vote, but have an opinion about a topic. And same-sex marriage is a “wedge” issue, drawing some voters to the polls simply to vote on that issue. In fact, young non-voters have little comprehension of why old people are against same-sex marriage: they were raised in more tolerant times, and with less indoctrination from religious beliefs. As these voters start to vote, they’ll favor marriage equality.
Since this is legal issue, not a “popular opinion” issue, the law will eventually prevail. It just takes a little time when you have a country still heavily influenced by hate-based groups.
To equate the vote with the will of the people is misleading in any event.
@Sean
“the law will eventually prevail”
The law always does. The question is whether government governs with or without the consent of the people.
“To equate the vote with the will of the people is misleading in any event.”
Stalin would have agreed, so would any dictator.
Democracy. Good for Libya. Good for America.
@Bob Barnes
“Yes, pretend this all didn’t happen……….”
Do you think the Black Churches of Maryland pretend this didn’t happen? I suspect they have more personal experience with racism than you have. And they didn’t buy your arguments equating the definition of marriage with racism.
We can pretend that no homosexuals ever held slaves or held racist views.
We can pretend that Northern churches and religious leaders weren’t in the forefront of the anti-slavery movement.
We can pretend that religious leaders and churches, including the Catholic Church and the historically Black Churches weren’t in the forefront of the struggle for integration.
Bob has to pretend he knows and feels black history better than blacks do. I assume Bob and Sean are not black. Am I right?
“The question is whether government governs with or without the consent of the people.”
The question is whether our nation’s legal documents mean more to us than popular opinion. If the US Constitution says that all citizens are to be treated equally, as do the constitutions of most states, where is the exception listed for gay people?
The rights of minorities are not left to the will of the majority. Ever. Voting referenda can’t target a minority population, as anti-gay marriage laws have. There is no particular reason to outlaw same-sex marriage and much damage is being done to gay and lesbian Americans, and their children, while such marriage is prohibited.
Leo, we won’t overlook the Southern Baptist convention’s approval and promotion for slavery, and they were not a small entity.
And we won’t pretend that gays and lesbians were rounded up with the Jews in Nazi Europe and sent to the gas chambers.
And we won’t pretend that in religious-oppressive countries gays are arrested and put to death.
And we won’t pretend that in 29 states you can be fired or refused housing because you are gay. Can you be fired for being Black?
Leo, I think I have more in common with African Americans… and unlike you are subject to bigotry all the time. Bigotry like you trying to pit me against another minority.
@Bob Barnes I thought we were talking about Christians? Mormons are not Christian. They have a different god (a man who lives on another planet), a different Christ (a spiritual brother of Satan, conceived through sexual intercourse between that man-god and Mary), a different gospel (of works), and really nothing in common with the Christian faith except terminology. In a way they are just like the homosexual agenda – they redefine words to suit their own purpose. And before you chastise me for saying this, I am an ex-mormon and have studied their religion in-depth for over 35 years.
Now, where is the revisionist history? The Bible says there is one race – period. The Bible does not preach racism, but there have been so-called Christians throughout history who twisted Scripture to support their own racist views, and this increased exponentially after 1859 when Darwin was published, giving racism legitimacy.
@Sean Sean, how about instead of just making an assertion that you give evidence. Are there some Christians who twist Scripture to suit their agenda’s? Yes there are. But the majority of Christians do not do so.
@Sean To equate polls with the will of the people is misleading and abusive.
@Glenn E. Chatfield “And I believe everything polls tell me. NOT! How many people did they ask? What was the population diversity? How many states, cities, and cultures did they poll? Polls typically take a small sample of people and then extrapolate the data from those people as being indicative of a larger population. ”
All I have to say is – If that’s the case then why are polling numbers so important to this group as well – especially outdated polls?? http://nomblog.com/6397/
“To equate polls with the will of the people is misleading and abusive.”
I agree. In the US, the will of the people is to follow the laws, not popular opinion or popular voting. Our nation’s constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally, lacking a rational public purpose to do otherwise. Since there is no reason to distinguish between gay couples and straight couples for the purpose of handing out marriage licenses, it is illegal to deny gay couples access to marriage.
@Sean
“Since there is no reason to distinguish between gay couples and straight couples for the purpose of handing out marriage licenses…”
A man and a woman are at the heart of marriage.
You may assert otherwise, with every means available at every moment of every day for the rest of your life, and you will not change that fact.
@Sean Your broken record is getting very worn. There is no inherent right to marriage for someone who is not qualified for same. It is not a matter of equality – you cannot demand people accept your redefinition of a word jus to promote your agenda. It is not illegal to deny someone the claim for something that does not exist.
Question for you: what if the homophile couple is two adult males and brothers to each other? Should they be allowed to “marry”? Wouldn’t that be incest?
@Glenn E. Chatfield
MY broken record is getting worn??? What about the religionists and other homophobic groups? “Ah, ye, that the Lord madeth one man and one woman to be cleaved unto each other…” blah, blah, blah. Who are you to impose your religious beliefs on me, a normal person? Do you believe in Santa Claus, too?
You’re lucky to live in a country that permits people who indulge in fantasies and mystical, magical beliefs. And how do you repay that acceptance? By forcing your fantasies, most of which you don’t even believe and practice yourself, on others.
Talk about a worn out record: smearing same-sex marriage with polygamy and incest, both of which happened during OPPOSITE-SEX marriage, not same-sex marriage!
And evidently Sean is justified in making comments like this because he’s only ridiculing Christians and Jews, not anyone who qualifies as a “normal person” like him.
@Sean There you go with the name-calling: “homophobic groups.” This is making a claim that people in groups who want to protect the institution of marriage are afraid of homophiles. There is no fear of homophiles by anyone, but that is a great attack word to dismiss their argument as invalid, which is typical of SSM movement.
You keep bringing in the religious aspect only, neglecting that cultures throughout the world and throughout history who had nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God also had one definition of marriage and it never included same-sex unions! Two roosters can’t lay an egg, two bulls can’t produce a calf, two bitches can’t produce a puppy, etc.
No, I don’t believe in Santa Claus. But your lack of belief in God shows your foolishness – you would have to believe that life came from non-life, which has been proven by science as something that cannot happen. You call religious belief fantasies, etc, yet you have your own fantasies that there is no higher power to whom you are accountable. Contrary to your screed, no one is forcing any religious belief onto you, but you are trying to force you secular beliefs on us. Marriage isn’t relegated to just the religious sphere, but your SSM belief is ONLY in the secular sphere. And you want it forced on us.
So, it is “smearing” SSM by comparing it with incest or polygamy? How dare you judge these arrangements to be inferior to yours! By what standard of measure do you make such judgments? Are you an incestophobe? Or a polygamyphobe?
Opposite-sex marriage is a tautology – that is the only normal marriage. And abuse of it by one group of people does not make it okay to be abused by another group of people. At least with polygamy and incest the biology is correct and the bodies are used for what they were designed!
@Paul H And he wouldn’t dare ridicule a Muslim!
@Bob
I think the problem is that playing the “white guilt card,” so effective against whites, doesn’t work so well with blacks. I allow blacks to make up their own minds and speak out. It is bigoted to try and make up their mind for them and tell them or to refuse to hear their voices.
@Sean
The Maryland legislature does follow the law. They write the laws. They just didn’t follow your opinion.
“Two roosters can’t lay an egg, two bulls can’t produce a calf, two bitches can’t produce a puppy, etc.”
The barnyard banter is charming but marriage has nothing to with procreation. However, in your zeal to find something, anything, that could be used to keep same-sex couples away from marriage, you have managed to insult:
1. Married Childless couples
2. Married Elderly couples, incapable of having children
3. Married couples who don’t want children
That’s a lot, possibly even a majority, of married couples. I’m sure they don’t think their marriages are second-class marriages just because they don’t have or want kids.
@Sean
“marriage has nothing to with procreation.”
Marriage is procreation rights. It always approves and allows the couple to procreate. It is never given to couples that are not allowed to procreate together. Unmarried couples are often punished for procreating or having sex, and many people consider unmarried sex sinful and unlawful and wrong, and wait until marriage to have sex. It’s true that people have sex without marrying all the time and have done that throughout history, and get away with it without any punishment, but that’s either an abuse of power, or a lax or forgiving or injust or informal system. But whatever, it’s not relevant to a discussion about what marriage means: Marriage has always without exception officially publicly approved and allowed to the couple to have sex and procreate together. It is ridiculous to say it has nothing to do with procreation. It ALWAYS means the couple is allowed to procreate. It would be absolutely terrible to strip procreation rights from marriage. They don’t have to procreate, but they are allowed to procreate. Same-sex couples should not be allowed to procreate offspring together, it is not a right to do that and it would violate the rights of the people being created.
Childless couples, elderly couples, and couples that don’t want children are not second class marriages because they are allowed and approved to procreate offspring. Same-sex couples are second class because it would be unethical genetic engineering requiring labs and animal experiments and lots of money and energy and destroying the basis of equality and dignity for a same-sex couple to create offspring. Heck, third class, behind siblings and pets and trees, because at least incestuous and bestiality couples would be natural and wouldn’t require expensive and wasteful experiments and government regulation and funding etc. I’d recommend allowing siblings to marry and people to marry their dogs before allowing people to marry someone of their same sex. Well no, sorry, I wouldn’t recommend either of those, that was just to make a point, that a marriage of a man and a woman really is first class, a special and unique and valued thing, and should have the full rights of marriage to procreate offspring and the celebration and approval and affirmation of creating offspring, it should never be wrong for a married couple to have sex and create offspring.
@Sean
Even after all that “insulting, the traditional definition seems to win referenda and legislative votes such as in Maryland, especially among the elderly, whom Sean would have you think are the most “insulted.”
Since it is possible to be married and not have sex, since it is possible to have sex and not be married, since many elderly couple stop having sex and a are still considered married, since even couples having sex are still considered married on days they aren’t having sex, since some couples who are not elderly decide to stop having sex (with their partner or totally) and are still considered married, since some married couples become physically incapable of sex and are still considered married, then would Sean agree that marriage has nothing to do with sex?
“Marriage is procreation rights.”
Why is there no legal difference between couples who are married and procreate, have children, and couples who are NOT married and procreate? How can something grant a right, if you have the right whether you have that something or not? This makes no sense.
“Marriage has always without exception officially publicly approved and allowed to the couple to have sex and procreate together. It is ridiculous to say it has nothing to do with procreation. It ALWAYS means the couple is allowed to procreate.”
And what couple is NOT allowed to procreate? There are couples who are prohibited from having sex, but that’s not the same thing as saying they’re prohibited from procreating.
I think you have wasted an enormous amount of time pursuing a non-nonsensical and factually incorrect notion: that marriage is permission to procreate. There is not a human being on the planet that needs or desires permission from anyone to procreate, except, maybe, Mother Nature.
“Even after all that “insulting, the traditional definition seems to win referenda and legislative votes such as in Maryland, especially among the elderly”
Same-sex marriage is already legal in Maryland. It just has to be granted someplace else, like nearby DC. I don’t see why the anti-gay crowd keeps braying that Maryland was a win for “traditional marriage.” Gay marriage is already legal in Maryland. The state’s legislators stopped a vote in order to make sure they had enough votes to win passage of legal same-sex marriage contracts drawn up within the state, not just those recognized from out of state.
You guys must be getting desperate for a win or something. Do you sense the tide of public opinion, your most important stronghold, turning against you??
“Childless couples, elderly couples, and couples that don’t want children are not second class marriages because they are allowed and approved to procreate offspring.”
Now John, I want you to think here. What elderly couple, with no desire or ability to procreate, would get married, for the express right to procreate? Why would a young, but infertile couple, knowing in advance they can’t have kids, get married, for the express right to do something they can’t do? I mean, at some point, you really do have to reconnect with reality on this.
I’m just saying that they are in fact allowed to procreate, to have sex and maybe procreate. I’m not saying that wanting the express right to procreate is why they got married, surely they got married for other reasons: They might want to have the security and protections or marriage, and feel the religious assurance of having official approval to have sex, or maybe they want to go through the rite of passage and have a wedding and stop living in sin or as if they weren’t a permanent couple, to announce to their family and friends that they are serious, this is the one to have children with, if you were going to have children. But, they can’t do it if they aren’t allowed and approved to create offspring, like, if they are siblings or one’s married to someone else, or under age.
@Sean
Since being married and not having sex is legal in all 50 states, since it is possible to have sex and not be married, since many elderly couples stop having sex and are still considered married, since even couples having sex are still considered married on days they aren’t having sex, since some couples who are not elderly decide to stop having sex (with their partner or totally) and are still considered married, since some married couples become physically incapable of sex and are still considered married, then would Sean agree that marriage has nothing to do with sex?
I mean, at some point, you really do have to reconnect with reality on this.
@Sean “I think you have wasted an enormous amount of time pursuing a non-nonsensical and factually incorrect notion: that marriage” should include SSM.
You keep bringing up that fact that SSM is legal in some states as justifying its existence. So slavery was legal in many states – did that justify it?
Since we do we use public opinion to determine right and wrong? In Germany public opinion said to exterminate the Jews!
@Sean
“And what couple is NOT allowed to procreate? There are couples who are prohibited from having sex, but that’s not the same thing as saying they’re prohibited from procreating.”
Couples that are prohibited from having sex are prohibited from procreating, by any fair reading of the law. The law was written when sex was the only way to procreate, and prohibiting sex was the only way to prohibit procreating. I don’t think the incest law needs to be brought up to date to include IVF and other methods of procreating, because it is so obviously included in the spirit of the law. But if there are actually people who think that IVF with your sister is not incest, then I guess we should update the law. But that’s not necessary to make the logic of the Compromise work, as it would both affirm that all marriages must be allowed to create offspring with their own genes and prohibit the kinds of unethical procreation that is likely to be attempted, such as using children’s gametes or artificial gametes. I don’t think labs are going to try to get around incest laws by joining siblings gametes for them, but if they do then OK update the law.
“I think you have wasted an enormous amount of time pursuing a non-nonsensical and factually incorrect notion: that marriage is permission to procreate. There is not a human being on the planet that needs or desires permission from anyone to procreate, except, maybe, Mother Nature.”
Marriage is indeed permission to procreate. There are billions of human beings who need and desire marriage – official social approval to procreate – before they procreate. It’s only a small percentage of human beings who feel it doesn’t matter if they are married before they procreate, or who think they can procreate with someone other than their spouse. Most feel it is a grave sin and crime. Regardless, even in our culture, the point is that marriage had better remain permission to procreate, you had better not strip it from marriage so that a marriage can be prohibited form procreating with its own genes, forced to use donor or modified genes or sterilized or contracepted.
The reason is, because it would violate the rights of the child to be punished for the crimes of the parents. Legitimacy laws hurt the child, keeping it from inheritance and support that would be legally required if their father had been married to their mother. But revoking those laws and giving equal protections to children of unmarried couples did not alter the fact that married couples had a right to procreate, that their children were in fact legitimate. It’s like, granting voting rights to women did not take them away from men. Or, it’s like giving people free memberships to a health club doesn’t mean that the people who paid for actual memberships no longer are members. Sure, they might feel silly for having done it legitimately, they might feel cheated even, but they do still have something that the freeloaders don’t: they have legitimacy and no sense of guilt at getting away with stealing, and no worries that it will be taken away from them if the club stops the promotion. And if their religious belief says that using a free membership keeps you from getting into heaven, then they have that going for them too.
“You keep bringing up that fact that SSM is legal in some states as justifying its existence. So slavery was legal in many states – did that justify it?
Since we do we use public opinion to determine right and wrong? In Germany public opinion said to exterminate the Jews!”
Glenn, my six-year-old has a more complex understanding of morality than you do. Stuff that harms people is bad. Simple concept: slavery was bad because it harmed black Americans; the holocaust was bad because it harmed Jews. Illegal same-sex marriage is bad because it harms gay and lesbian Americans and the children they are raising.
Stuff that targets people based on their morally neutral identities is bad.
@Sean Really? And by what moral standard can you say slavery was bad? It was very good for the plantation owners.
Your 6-year-old has only the skewed understanding you have taught him. Your continual demonstrations of poor logic would confuse any kid.
Children suffer harm IN same-sex unions! The whole of society is harmed by sanctioning SSM. So if you want to use “harm” as your criteria for morality, more harm will result to more people if SSM is sanctioned.
But morality is never determined by whether or not it harms someone. After all, what harm comes from a father having sexual relations with his adult daughter?
Sexual relations are never morally neutral. ANd that is part of your problem.
Sean – in Cedar Rapids, IA a man was charged with incest for having consensual sexual relations with a close relative. Is homosexual incest okay?
@Marty
Woah, trannies is a VERY offensive term, and I REALLY doubt you are using it correctly. also, if an s follows a y, one changes the y to ie.
“And by what moral standard can you say slavery was bad? It was very good for the plantation owners.”
But it was very bad for slaves: they were denied their fundamental freedom. Our society, and legal system, are skewed toward avoiding harm to citizens, not protecting good stuff for people at somebody else’s expense. Except for corporations LOL.
“Children suffer harm IN same-sex unions!”
That is your opinion, unsupported by evidence.
“The whole of society is harmed by sanctioning SSM.”
That is your opinion, unsupported by evidence.
“So if you want to use “harm” as your criteria for morality, more harm will result to more people if SSM is sanctioned.”
That is your opinion, unsupported by evidence.
“But morality is never determined by whether or not it harms someone.”
That’s pretty much the ONLY way morality is determined.
“After all, what harm comes from a father having sexual relations with his adult daughter?”
If their sex is consensual, it’s not immoral.
“Sexual relations are never morally neutral.”
If they are between consenting adults not married to other people, sexual relations are morally neutral.
Moral neutrality is the best that Sean can do when it comes to sexual behavior.
However, he has introduced a crack in his retreat to moral neutrality: “If they are between consenting adults not married to other people, sexual relations are morally neutral.”
How is consent a trump card for immoral behavior? What would marital status have to do with a type of relationship that Sean has conceded would not be a sexual type of relationship in the eyes of the law?
Glenn E. Chatfield, I anticipate that, if pressed, he will retreat from these “ifs” he has just introduced.
@Chairm
Skewed power dynamics of family relations kinda invalidates consent. Sean’s understanding of consent is off.
@Sean With any law, it will be bad for someone. You can’t base morality on whether it is bad for someone – that is illogical. A robber is harmed by not letting him steal what he wants. A slave owner is harmed by forcing him to spend money to hire someone to do the same job. “Harm” is relative to the person.
Again, there is plenty of evidence of the psychological and emotional harm to children who are placed in same-sex unions. Here is a first-hand account:
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/
But as has been pointed out many times on this blog, you don’t force children to suffer the lack of a father or mother either.
You keep saying things are only my opinion unsupported by evidence, yet you have been given much evidence of the harm to society caused by SSM, or even just the unions. You keep denying the evidence; just like a Holocaust denier.
So you have decided that a father/daughter sexual affair is not immoral? Well, that certainly fits with your worldview – at least you are consistent. However, to the rest of society outside of the sexual perversion groups, these things are indeed immoral.
Now, tell me by what objective standard you judge something to be immoral.
@Chairm You made a good point! So if a 12-year-old consents to sex with an adult, that by Sean’s definition is right and moral.
Morality is expected behavior. Driving cars is moral, but harms people: Every day hundreds of people die, and the harm from exhaust and lack of exercise are significant too.
Incest is immoral because it is unexpected behavior, very unexpected. Fathers are expected to never touch their children sexually, even after adulthood. It is also unethical because it might harm them psychologically, and we never allow or approve of them conceiving offspring together, that would be terrible public policy to allow.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“If they are between consenting adults not married to other people, sexual relations are morally neutral.”
ADULTS GLENN. A 12 year old is not an adult and is not capable of giving consent.
By what objective moral standard do you limit it to consenting “adults”?
Check out this chart of age of consent from around the world and you will see many countries where a 12-year-old is legally capable of giving consent:
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
Consent and Marriage, by F. Rottles.
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/consent-and-children.html
“Morality is expected behavior. Driving cars is moral, but harms people: Every day hundreds of people die, and the harm from exhaust and lack of exercise are significant too.”
We expect that some people will kill others. Does that make murder moral? I don’t think so. “Meeting expectations” isn’t the definition of morality.
“Incest is immoral because it is unexpected behavior, very unexpected”
Giving a million dollars to a stranger is unexpected behavior, but is it immoral?