1. says

    “Just do what I did – i let my only son know just how much he’d disappoint me if he admits to being gay. I remind him that I raised him as a single mother, and that without me he’d have nothing. i remind him about how i still support his choice to be in musical theatre, and i don’t blame him for that choice since he didnt’ have a father figure around. and then i remind him that i hate gay people so much that i’ve dedicated my entire life to ensuring that they’re denied equality, and i demonize them publicly for my own financial gain. and then i say pass the yams, because i LOVE yams. and then i say, “Son, you know momma could have aborted you but chose not to, right? You know that because I had you I had to give up some of my own dreams. You know that if you were gay you’d be ruining everything momma worked so far for, right son?” And then he feels real guilty, and I know I’ve bought myself at least 5 more years of his silence. and that’s what being a real Christian is about. by the way, my real last name is Srivastev, but I don’t use it because it sounds too ‘foreign’ and i want people to think im’ just a good old american girl. and i don’t believe gluttony is a sin. and i like ham better thank turkey ,if you’re offering”

    thanks, maggie.

  2. Kevin says

    So, Maggie has adopted the asymmetrical haircut Rosie O’Donnell had when she first came out as a lesbian. Welcome to 2002.

  3. Gigi says

    Who would listen to this woman? These talking points are ridiculous and contrary what she’d like us to believe, she’s a hater and bigot. You can say it all you want Mags, refute away. You are what you are and you chose to be that. Your CHOSEN LIFESTYLE is that of a hateful bigot. Happy Turkey Day and get stuffed!

  4. Michael says

    So maggie whats your anti gay views and thanks for coming to our thanksgiving :)

    Maggies response: ME WANT FOOD NOM NOM NOM!

  5. ChrisQ says

    You’d never get close to MY table, but if you did, and your offered you oh-so-civil talking points, here would be my response:

  6. Christopher says

    Ok, so Maggie wants us to be tolerant as she sits on the ‘moral high ground.’ We are to tolerate her as she sits up there and denigrates us? Hyprocrite. (and kudos to her–I assume–gay hairdresser!!)

  7. Michael W. says

    So we should tolerate intolerance? The get to be intolerant, but we should be tolerant of them? She is so full of stupid it’s hard to look at her.

  8. Fritz says

    Little Kiwi – You are sorely missed here in NYC. Come back soon and we can have a Sound of Music party.

  9. Matt says

    Nothing says pro-family than a right-winger bringing up same-sex marriage at the dinner table just to make sure their views are known. How pathetic.

  10. jaime jones says

    If Maggie comes to your Thanksgiving Dinner just pass her the truffles to shut her up until the pie gets served. She’ll be so busy oinking and snorting she won’t have time to lecture!

  11. rayrayj says

    As much as I hate watching her and hate that anyone gives her a platform, I am glad the obvious circular logic that proves her arguments have no validity, is so obviously stated.

  12. Beth says

    To quote someone else – If you are intolerant and hateful, or feel yourself in some way superior to others you should just learn to leave those feelings alone inside your head where there is clearly a lot of unused space where they can roam free. Please don’t spread your nescient opinions and vitriolic babble around. It is inconsiderate of you to display your idiocy. I mean, the fact is that we just think you’re an idiot when you say ignorant, racist, hateful, superior, or ridiculous things.

  13. deryk says

    “It’s ok to treat different things differently..” isn’t that what they did to the blacks.. and women before that? How’d that work out?

  14. Paul B. says

    I wish I had time to elaborate…but I’m busy making stuffing and pie for my husband and two great kids & five grandkids today…with my husband of 27 years. I don’t think the “issue”
    of marriage equality will be a part of Thanksgiving conversation…we’re too busy being thankful for each other!!!
    We love being together on Thanksgiving…it’s so “familiar”.

  15. stevenelliot says

    I researched this womans income once. She makes over 200k at NOM alone. Then there are the speaking engagement fees. Im sure all of her traveling expenses are paid and not to mention a LARGE discretionary spending account for dinners with clients.
    She also gets stipends from several other “non-think tanks”.
    Yeah shes a pig alright. Shes been feeding at the thanksgiving troff of bigotry for a long time. Shes a catholic and divorced. Shes a glutton which is a sin. Shes a liar and a cheat which are also sins. and most of all shes a self righteous pig.

  16. Mike says

    I’m sorry, I couldn’t get past the 1986 Lesbian hairdo. Wait, I had some male friends with that hair too!

  17. David says

    It’s hilarious that “elite voices” is now the way to categorize rational equal rights conversations.

  18. says

    @Little Kiwi:

    It shames me so much that this bigot purports to have an Irish name “Gallagher”….
    She has nothing in common with us; we despise her vile self righteous bigotry.
    She can call herself “Shrivastev” or whatever…….but oh the shame of thinking her as one of us !
    Never, never, never.

  19. Brandon says

    I’m as anti-NOM as one can be. But once again, quite a few of you prove you’re no better than her by mocking her weight. Stay classy, folks.

  20. Puddy Katz says

    Different things differently? Like the argument once made that God put different races on different continents to ensure that they did not intermarry.

    Also, I bet pie is the only thing that would shut her up.

  21. Stephen Tropiano says

    Everytime I hear this woman speak I am more and more convinced she is mentally ill and is in need of psychiatric treatment.

  22. Shelly says

    As a queer woman who’s finally been victorious in a four and a half decade battle with body-image issues and obesity, mocking her weight is the last thing I would do. However, when a woman easily weighs three hundred pounds and opts for Paul Weller’s haircut circa 1983 in addition to crusading against glbtq equality 24/7/365, I can’t help but suspect she doth protest way the hell too much.

    Seriously, Maggie, get help. You’ll be glad you did (and I suspect we’ll be even gladder…)

  23. says

    When she spoke in Tucson she had problems because of her diabetes. Really, if she continues using food as therapy for her unhappy life, she will dramatically decrease her lifespan.

  24. Shelly says

    It was diabetes that kicked me in the ass towards finally seeking treatment for my underlying affective/anxiety disorders. If she’s not even heeding that red-flag, I don’t suspect she’s likely to turn around anytime soon. But, then, this perverse crusade of hers backs her ever more into a corner. Difficult for anybody to snap out of decades of delusion enough to see they need help, but when you’ve devoted your whole life to very publicly denouncing and fighting the very thing you can’t deal with inside yourself, it’s gotta make it exponentially harder to summon the courage and drop your armor since it’s become such a huge component in your self-image.

  25. gayalltheway says

    That thing on her head should not be allowed anywhere near the dining table during Thanksgiving. It looks like it would go straight for the turkey.

  26. Scott says

    She actually said here’s some “ammo” for establishing what she wants to be peaceable conversation?

  27. AERES says

    Nothing says tolerance better than giving people “ammo” to defend themselves with over Thanksgiving dinner.

    Pass the “gravies”…

  28. Matt26 says

    She must a joy to have over a dinner.
    A common sence? Tolerant??
    Is she serious or is it just a bad comedy act?

  29. Jim says

    “Tolerance”? “It’s not discrimination”? I think her brain was being rattled every time she shook her hairdo! Or, was she sitting on an ice cube? My stomach would be very distressed if this gas-bag phony was at my Thanksgiving family table.

  30. Chuck Mielke says

    I thought I’d do the charitable, intellectual thing and actually listen to her swill. Then I saw her smug, piggy face drooping vapidly from the opening video still and simply couldn’t stomach the thought of listening to a regurgitation of self-hating claims about victimhood, and how “normal” people are abused by those of us with a different set of inclinations. Couldn’t NOM find someone attractive to pitch their poison? (Well, maybe it’s a good thing that such an unattractive creature is the face of that organization.)

  31. eric says

    according to the above, repeating that you are not a bigot is the only way to defend an anti same-sex marriage position.
    Wouldn’t some rational debating points be more helpful? That’s right, there aren’t any.
    Once you concede that children are born and raised without the benefit of marriage, and legally married persons are sometimes terrible parents, and marriages occur without being accessorized by children, the only position left is to be illogical.
    Now i understand: it’s not bigotry, it’s idiocy.

  32. RobH says

    To me she comes off as someone resigned to the notion that her time has passed, that we’ve evolved and that NOM is doomed.

  33. Rich says

    Maggie pretends to be polite and not a bigot, as she stomps all over your relationship. So you’re supposed to be polite in return? Don’t pretend that it is a simple disagreement, you are telling people that you want them to be second class citizens.
    Don’t forget the National Organization for Marriage (Maggie’s real group) created a pledge that most of the Republican candidates signed. That pledge not only advocates a constitutional amendment but also prosecution of anyone who objects to NOM’s bigotry.
    Just like at the Thanksgiving table, Maggie doesn’t want to share a piece of pie with anyone else. LGBT Americans deserve a piece of the American Pie.

  34. Dale says

    Who did this woman’s hair? I hope it was a gay hair dresser and was getting a little revenge.

    1. Man created marriage. It’s a cival law that can be changed when the old law found to be outdated. Marriage did not come from any deity.

  35. colin says

    Step 1) make bigoted claim
    Step 2) lie that you aren’t a bigot
    Step 3) wait for a distraction to hide your bigoted statement
    Step 4) …
    Step 5) Profit

  36. Mary says

    Not surpised at all the Maggie weight jokes here. But what IS surprising is what’s going on at the comments section regarding Pat Robertson’s mac and cheese statement. Not one person posted something like the following – “Now if Robertson really wants to learn about mac and cheese all he has to do is ask Maggie Gallagher, I mean…….” I won’t finish the sentence since it pretty much finishes itself.

    I am on Maggie’s side politically, but glad that at least some people here are concerned about her health. It’s concerned me also, but I can’t do anything about it since I don’t know her personally. I’m sure the jabs she gets about it must hurt. But what must have hurt even more was the the humble “pie” she was forced to eat when marriage equality pased in New York State this year. I believe everyone at NOM was stunned. Reports were that Brian sobbed like a baby.

    A question: Do the posters here really think Maggie is a closet lesbian or are you just saying this to be provocative?

  37. GregV says

    @Mary: I don’t know whether Maggie is gay, bi or heterosexual and I wouldn’t claim to know.
    But I do know that in every single case of anyone I’ve ever known who was overly focused on attacking gay people (sometimes verbally, sometimes physically and sometimes legislatively), the individual always seemed to have personal sexual desires and/or to be involved in sexual activities that were contradictory to their own supposed moral code, hypocritical and guilt-inducing. (And in several cases, the anti-gay individual even eventually made sexual passes at me.)
    Anti-gay tirades seem to be a projection of guilt about one’s own sexual moral failures. Otherwise, why in the world would they care so much about a relationship that makes two other adults happy in life?
    I don’t know if Maggie is gay or whether she is trying to project her own self-loathing onto others in a false attempt to redeem herself for an unplanned pregnancy from casual sex (an indication that her real sex life is likely not consistent with all the noise she makes about how others should live).
    But I do know that people who are secure and comfortable in their own relationships (and whose morals are consistent with their own sex lives) have no logical and pschologically-healthy reason to be focused on trying to convince society that some other couple should be treated as second-class citizens.

  38. Mary says

    Greg, thank you for answering my question courteously. I can see your point. I’m sure there are some closeted people and/or confused people in what I’ll call the “anti-gay” camp. But there also are a lot of others who genuinely believe that total equality for LGBT people is not in society’s best interests – even though this forces them to seem mean-spirited to gay friends and family. And it may be that their own personal lives have been messed up and because of this they are sensitive to anything that would seem to throw a monkey wrench into social stability. Even if what caused their heartache/pain had nothing to do with questions of sexual orientation, they are afraid of more social change. In Maggie’s case I can see why she’d oppose anything that let men have sexual pleasure and socially-approved relationships outside of commitment to women.

    The situation is more complex than simply letting everyone live his own life because you’re content with your own life.

  39. Michael says

    I can’t think of anything more destructive to mixed gender marriage than the thought of being stuck with Maggie Gallagher for eternity.

  40. George M says

    Mary, explain the last part
    The situation is more complex than simply letting everyone live his own life because you’re content with your own life

  41. the milkman says

    If her opposition to marriage equality wasn’t based on bigotry, they wouldn’t be spending so much money and effort trying to fight it.

  42. WK says

    Funny, this actually happened to me last Thanksgiving, my anti-gay aunt went into a unprovoked rant about me and my “ruining of American life by fags” during dinner. I won’t get into details however because the matter is STILL being worked out in court. All I have to say is: my family no longer serves alcohol and we have to have dinner in public every year now.

  43. Bobby McMillin says

    I disagree with her politically, but I refuse to make satire of her weight or fashion sense. There truly is no need, because her ugliness comes from within and ultimately, that’s all that matters!

  44. Shelly says

    Mary, I too am interested in hearing you further explain your position, because for the life of me I can’t wrap my head around why, other than sheer animus, anyone would oppose full lgbtq equality. And I’m particularly intrigued because you are the first person I’ve heard from the opposition admit that denying us access to equal civil marriage is inequality. How can that possibly be justified rationally, especially when that harm causes such harm to lgbtq families. As a queer woman whose partner of fifteen years has been unemployed for about nine months and who has several very serious “per-existing conditions” we are forced to neglect because we can neither afford private insurance (all of the quotes were cost more than our mortgage treatment) nor ongoing treatment. If we were a straight married couple, I could easily and cheaply add her to my own employer-provided insurance. How can that kind of inequality be rationally justified as “in society’s best interest”? And ours is a relatively trivial situation compared to others faced by lgbtq families, especially those with children who are unjustly prevented the benefits of two legal parents.

    As for the video itself, I find it telling that apparently people would need to turn to someone like Maggie for “talking points” in order to rationally explain what I am always told are their own, deeply held beliefs. If they truly believed these things from the depths of their beings and were not motivated by bigotry and sheer animus, wouldn’t their reasons for believing this way be self-evident to them? I sure don’t need to turn to glbtq leaders for tips on why inequality is unacceptable because it is the stuff of my life! And there’s the problem — marriage equality has nothing to do with the lives of those who oppose it.

  45. says

    Mary, can you intelligently and rationally explain why you think your church’s specific interpretation of Scripture should be forced onto all Americans?

    Do you not realize that that’s in no way different than the Taliban enforcing conservative interpretations of Islam onto everyone?

    If you, Mary, belong to an anti-gay church (which you clearly do) then dont’ worry – nobody who’s LGBT will want to get married in your church. And the children who are gay who are growing up in your church will either break free and leave your congregation or will hang themselves in their closets out of fear of shaming the people like YOU whom they are unfortunately surrounded by.

    So, while you do indeed have the “right” to help drive the young children in your conregation to suicide, Mary, you don’t have any business denying other’s the freedom of THEIR religion nor their freedom from YOUR religion.

    Can you intelligently explain how my boyfriend and I marrying is going to have “negative consequences” for society? Can you be intelligent about it? I bet you can’t.

    Maggie Gallagher has a son ,a confirmed bachelor, and a very nice young liberal man, who is working in the musical theatre field in NYC. dot dot dot. he desperately tries to distance himself from his mother. DOT DOT DOT.

    Why, Mary, do you think you and maggie have any standing? Why do you get to use YOUR religious beliefs to enact laws that force those beliefs onto those who do not share them?

    You, Mary, are like a Muslim or Jewish person banning Christians from eating bacon. You pretend that you’re doing it out of Christian love, but it’s the exact opposite – you’re finding excuses because the truth is that bigotry resides in the place in your heart where LOVE is supposed to be.

    You’ve become the antithesis of everything that Christ lived for, Mary. Shame on you.

  46. Shelly says

    Oh, and Mary, re: my previous insinuation that she is out of touch with her sexuality, that was perfectly sincere and based on my personal experience with morbid obesity stemming in large part from internalized misogyny/homophobia as well an underlying anxiety disorder as a result of homophobia-motivated abuse. That degree of obesity has the effect of essentially erasing gender and sexuality, taking them out of the equation of day-to-day life because men typically do not treat you as a sexual object. I’d suspected previously, as I do with many morbidly obese women with intense interest in or involvement with gender and sexuality based politics (on any sides of the issue) that there’s a good chance a similar dynamic is at play to my own situation. However, it wasn’t until I saw her new haircut that I became convinced. I think you are likely not aware how HUGELY popular variants of that particular haircut were among lesbians in the 80s and 90s. I personally struggled against nature itself (in the form of my naturally kinky hair) to achieve same minus the bangs (which to my aesthetic sense ruin it), and at the time I still identified as straight! Because, at its heart, that’s a classically male haircut from roughly the 20s-30s, and in my case, I was very consciously copying it from Paul Weller of The Jam/Style Council. But combined with morbid obesity, it speaks volumes to me of a woman deeply uncomfortable with her body and her place in this culture as a woman.

  47. says

    to Shelly’s point – nobody asks the “great big fat person” why they’re single. comfort in food, and security in nobody asking you why you’re not dating anyone.

    now, Maggie Srivastev is indeed married. for security reasons 😉

    she had her son nearly 30 years ago. she became pregnant by a man she was not even in a relationship with, and thus has been “repenting for her sin” for decades by being as anti-gay as possible.

    right. the woman who touts “the traditional family” had a child out of wedlock, raised him as single mother, and now doesn’t use the last name of the man she eventually married.


    hypocrisy and piety.

  48. Mark says

    Hahhahaahahahahahahaha, WOW. Happy Turkey day!

    Looks like we have got them running so scared, that the premiss of the video is AAALLLL her immediate family (and yours) disagrees with her position soooooo much she had to think out…”talking points” to get through dinner????

    Well I’m giving Thanks this year that I don’t have any of these nutjobs at my family table! P.S. That’s all 40+ of us. :)

  49. Andy RN says

    Clearly she discussed these “talking points” with her gay hairdresser…I offer this as a warning to all who consider utilizing this woman’s suggestions.

  50. Brad says

    Here’s my response to Maggie’s “Moral High Ground”

    1. So only people who are fertile and actively making babies should be married by your definition. By your argument sterile people and people beyond child bearing age should not be married? Really?

    2. But ya are a bigot Maggie, ya are. It’s not a nice word but we call them as we see them.

    3. Tolerance only goes one way? I have to give up the rights and responsibilities of marriage because you can’t live with any other point of view? That’s not tolerance. You can continue your quasi-religious beliefs and disapprove of my relationship. You cannot interfere with my relationship anymore than I can interfere with yours. Can I vote on your marriage?

    If you were a guest in my home: I don’t particularly like your self-righteous attitude and you can leave our home now. Here’s your coat. Please don’t come back.

    I I were a guest in your home: I’ve heard enough, time to go. Where’s my coat. I won’t be back and please don’t ask me again.

  51. Tom says

    Why is a fat lesbian with an outdated haircut (her stylist must have thought it was April fool’s day) lecturing talking points against same sex marriage?? Maybe she’s ( damn what’s the new word for retarded???) having an aneurism??

  52. jamal49 says

    Hey, Maggie! Call Pat Robertson. He’s got a nice big, heaping-hot bowl of Mac&Cheese for ya! Um, is it me or is Maggie getting, um, fatter and fatter? Whew! Girlfriend is a real mess.

  53. Mary says

    Why should anyone even be discussing political or social issues at a family gathering on a holiday? Holidays are a time for enjoying each other’s company. Anything that could cause family fights should be avoided on the holidays, IMHO.

    Kiwi,I wonder why you bother to respond to my posts at all. You ask me for “intelligent” reasons for my beliefs, but it’s obvious that you’ve already predetermined that any reason I give will be called stupid or evil. And it really is presumptuous of you to assume that you know my motives for believing what I do. You aren’t clairvoyant. But for the record, I’ve been a social conservative since I was a small child – and this outlook on life long predates any interest I had in gay issues.

    Some people just don’t have an optimistic view of most social change. It’s as simple as that. No “hate” is necessary for my viewpoint, and I would never encourage anyone to be hateful to gays. My advice to anyone with a gay son or daughter is to accept them rather than lose them. Sorry if this doesn’t confirm your view of me as moral monster. But your claim that I am responsible for anyone’s decision to commit suicide is too bizarre to warrant comment.

  54. Mary says

    Shelly, I tried to post a reply to you, but I guess it didn’t go through. I’ll try again. But let me say that I’m sorry your partner is ill and that you’re having financial troubles. I hope things get better for the both of you.

  55. Mary says

    In the spirit of fair play, and to show that I understand this issue can be viewed more than one way, let me offer what I think are the best arguments FOR gay marriage – and specifically from a social conservative’s viewpoint.

    One, marriage tends to have a stabilitizing effect on people. Maggie herself wrote a book on the positive effects of marriage. Society should wish this benefits for all its members. Secondly, gay couples are often rearing children. We can all agree that children benefit when those who are rearing them are in a committed relationship. Marriage makes this more likely. And third, is it fair for society to condemn gay men for promiscuity when it denies them marriage, something that could have the effect of making them monogamous? Skeptics will say that it is not marraige that makes men monogamous, its women. But how do we know unless gay marriage becomes legal and we give it a chance?

    IMHO, the “gay marriage doesn’t affect me so why should I care” argument is NOT a good one. Nor is the “the world won’t blow up in our faces if gays marry so whats the big deal” argument worthy of much attention. But worst of all is the “listen, every time two people are treated unequally we have a moral crisis on our hands” argument.

    Unfortunately, these last 3 seem to be what is motivating most Americans to approve of gay marriage.

  56. George Lord says

    The new haircut is perfect. It forces her to shake her head ‘NO’ while spewing her hatred.

  57. David says

    Children, children. Maggie’s haircut is older than any of you is saying. Actually it goes all the way back to the mid 60s. It was called a Sasoon Geometric cut. I should know. I spent most of the 60s and 70s in drag. I’m an old guy. Just sayin’

  58. DeeperStill says

    There’s nothing “christian” about this vile being. At all. Wolf in sheep clothing… (Well, a couple of sheep’s clothing, actually.) She is very un-Godly. Satanic, even.

    And so is “sweet” lil’ Mary…

  59. says

    Mary, you don’t seem to realize that a great many LGBT people don’t get to enjoy “family holiday time” due to the anti-LGBT bigotry of their families. They can’t “enjoy holiday time” because they’re not allowed home simply because they’re LGBT.

    Want to know something neat? only people who are against LGBT marriage equality are bigoted toward LGBT people. You won’t get pro-Equality folks driving young people to suicide. Just people like you.

    Prove me wrong – intelligently explain your position. You’ve yet to do so. Ever. Prove me wrong.

    Do you know why Americans who approve of Marriage Equality approve of it? Because they’re not bigots. It’s that simple. To oppose marriage equality for LGBT people is to show that one still harbours bigotry and prejudice against LGBT people in their hearts.

    Can you intelligently explain, Mary, how me marrying my boyfriend is going to negatively affect you? Can you? Why should we not be allowed to marry? Why does your dislike of us marrying have any bearing? Why do you get to decide what my boyfriend and I do with our lives?

    Are you comfortable with the knowledge that your anti-gay stances are driving young people to suicide? Are you OK with having their blood on your hands?

    You promote prejudice against LGBT people. You think we will harm society by marrying. You have yet to ever intelligently explain why or how, but you still ramble on about it.

    But hey, prove me wrong. State with intelligence why LGBT couples should not be allowed to marry. Explain why. Intelligently. I’m all ears.

  60. Mary says

    Kiwi, I think its significant that my arguments FOR marriage equality get me no credit from you. Even when I acknowledge that the other side has some persuasive arguments it seems to make no difference. And of course you’ll define “intelligent” as any argument that supports SSM and “unintelligent” as any argument that doesn’t.

    But I’m wondering, can you show that you realize there are good arguments on the anti-SSM side? Even if these are arguments you’d consider valid for a conservative to believe and not a liberal? Why not show some appreciation for nuances – the way you always claim conservatives fail to do with their supposedly simplistic view of life?

  61. says

    Mary – here’s the reality: the anti-gay marriage side has NO arguments. NONE. None whatsoever. There are only persuasive arguments on the Equality side. If there are good arguments on the anti-Equality side then they have yet to be made. Can you make one? I’ve never heard one. Neither have the courts, as the anti-Equality side is now figuring out.

    I define “intelligent” as to what makes factual, logical sense. Empirical evidence. Logic and reason.

    If you believe that there are “good arguments” against letting LGBT Couples marry then please plainly and clearly state them right here so that we can address them and their possible merits.

    Try me. List the Good Arguments.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, everyone is not entitled to their own FACTS.

    So, Mary, please now list the specific “intelligent and Good arguments” against marriage Equality that you believe in.

    I’m all ears.

  62. says

    here’s what the bigoted side says:
    “children need a mother and a father”
    -that has nothing to do with marriage. not all married couples will have children. heterosexual couples do not need to be married to have children, nor have children to be considered married. fertility tests are not done on heterosexual couples before marriage licenses are granted. post-menopausal women and geriatric couples are allowed to marry despite being physically unable to procreate. LGBT couples can have children, many DO have children, biologically or via adoption. to deny the parents the choice to marry is to put the CHILDREN at a disadvantage.

    banning gay couples from marrying does not help children. it puts the children of LGBT couples at a disadvantage. it does not stop heterosexual couples from divorcing. stopping gay couples from marrying in no way strengthens the marriages, nor the parenting skills, of heterosexual couples.

    “it’s religious”
    no. it’s not. atheists can marry, legally. mixed-faith marriages are legal. and a great many religious institutions wholly support marriage Equality, yet are now allowed to marry LGBT couples because OTHER religious groups ‘don’t like the idea of it’.

    it would be like the Jewish community banning gentiles from eating pork by citing their religious texts.

    infertile heterosexuals can marry. atheists can marry. people can marry, divorce and remarry as many times as they like.

    heterosexuality does not guarantee a good marriage nor a good set of parents. heterosexuality does not guarantee that the couple will never split up. divorce is still legal. accidents still happen.

    when a man’s wife dies, how long does he have before you believe he is “obligated” to remarry and give his children a “second parent figure”? is there an appropriate period of time, Mary?

    again, please list the very specific argument against Marriage Equality that you think are “good” or “intelligent”

  63. Mary says

    OK, Kiwi, here we go. I’ll be as specific as possible. What I’m afraid of is that the increasing acceptance of and legitimizing of gay/lesbian sex and/or relationships (of which gay marriage is the ultimate example) would lead to a larger number of “straight” people experimenting and ultimately choosing gay lifestyles. This would happen over a lengthy period of time,so no social “explostion” would take place, but eventually the change would start to be felt in the whole society – with all the resulting disruption this owuld bring.

    My concern is that this will begin more with increasing numbers of men opting for male lovers rather than female lovers. There would be several advantages to this from a male perspective – men generally are more interested in sex than women, men generally are less interested in commitment than women, if a man has a relationship with a man there is less likely to be pressure from his family to commit. And finally – a man can’t get a man pregnant. Gay life may be appealing to more men as time goes on just because of these factors. At the risk of stereotyping, it is well-known that men are often shy about commitment (to women) and somewhat ambivalent about fatherhood. But sexual desire and the desire to not be alone leads most of them to accept marriage and childrearing as a natural part of life that they should aspire to. But if men can marry men that incentive is gone.

    This would reduce the number of eligible men for straight women, who would increasingly turn to each other for sex and commited relationships. Women already complain about not being able to find eligible men willing to commit. They may value commitment more than sex and be willing to “settle” for lesbian marriages, which would at least give them a second parent for their children. And children would be more likely to have a connection to only one biological parent.

    And Kiwi, please don’t accuse me of believing that once SSM is legal everyone will go out and experiment with homosexuality as if its a new flavor of ice cream. It’s only because the changes I’m talking about will occur very slowly that this subject is even being debated.

    So as for how gay marraige will affect ME personally, the answer is – not at all. But I care about the people who come after me. Many of us who were products of multiple broken homes in the 1970’s and1 1980’s realize that the hell we went through might have been avoided if previous generations had cared about our well-being and not been so damn obsessed with freedom and immediate gratification. I’d like to treat the next generation better than I was treated.

  64. says

    Mary, you’re afraid that straight people…meaning heterosexuals who are not gay, are going to “experiment” and “choose” a gay lifestyle?

    THAT is your reason for being against marriage equality? You’re saying that if we grow as a culture to a place where LGBT people are no longer discriminated against then it will make people who are NOT gay…..what? Become Gay? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, Mary. None at all.

    What on earth are you even talking about? We live in an overwhelmingly straight world – it doesn’t make gay people straight. You’re either straight or you’re not – gay people being allowed to marry won’t make heterosexuals gay! that MAKES NO SENSE.

    You’re just showing that you don’t actually know anything about the human experience, about sexual orientations, about the most basic sociological realities, or anything about human diversity.

    Here’s some news for you – straight man don’t have sex with woman because “gay marriage is illegal” – they have sex with women because they’re ATTRACTED to women.

    You literally are saying that without a culture of anti-gay prejudice straight men will suddenly “choose” to not be straight anymore.

    That makes no sense. Were you home-schooled?

    Seriously, Mary. You came on here and your big answer is that you think that legalizing marriage for LGBT Couples will mean that straight couples won’t be straight anymore. That’s so stupid it’s almost hilarious were it not so depressing. How old are you? Are you actually an adult?

    Gay couples marrying won’t turn straight people gay. You believe that it will. That makes you a complete idiot.

    “I’d like to treat the next generation better than I was treated.”

    Really? Then stop being a heel-dragging bigot. You can do two things to help the next generation:
    1. Sterlization. Although I’m pretty sure you’re never going to have children. Thank God. You’d be a lousy mother.
    2. Wake up and realize that your fears are not only baseless, but can only be held if one doesn’t understand sociological realities and what sexual orientations are.

    seriously. your big answer is that if gays can marry it will make people who arent’ gay CHOOSE TO BE GAY?

    Are you against gay marriage because you’re from broken homes and it upsets you to know that gay couples care about each other more than your parents cared about each other? Or is it that there are gay couples out there who care about their children more than your parents cared about you?

    I’m glad you posted what you did. It proves everyone right. Your big answer, your big “this is a good argument against gay marriage” moment, your big chance to show how smart you are…… and you say “Gay couples marrying will eventually make straight people choose to be gay.

    You are so cripplingly unintelligent that it’s depressing. Thank GOD you will never have children of your own.

  65. says

    btw, your bogus and asinine fears are never going to be a reality.

    straight people are not going to choose to not be straight simply because gay couples can marry.

    you’re LITERALLY saying that we need to keep a pervasively hateful anti-gay culture alive in order to “keep straight people afraid of choosing to be gay.”

    do you have any idea how stupid you sound? gay couples having equality will not mean that straight people will choose to deny their own attractions and choose to engage in relationships with people that they’re not attracted to!

    it’s just impossible. it makes no sense. you clearly have no understanding whatsoever about what sexual orientations are, how society works….yikes. did you not finish school while you were being bounced around from home to home? i get it – you didn’t have a great homelife. it’s not the fault of loving and committed gay couples that your parents didn’t love you enough to make a good home for you.

    but, again, thanks for your post. it proves the rest of us right. the only thing your side has are factually-ignorant, incredibly stupid fear-based “opinions.”

    no facts. no logic. no reason. no intelligence. this is why you and your fellow bigots are on the wrong and losing end of history.

  66. Mary says

    Kiwi, let’s zoom in on specifically what is causing our disagreement. You seem to think that sexual orientation is set in stone and is impervious to any kind of societal change. We obviously disagree on this point. However, I will say this. If your belief is true then the argument for SSM becomes very strong. But doesn’t the existence of bisexuals disprove the theory that everyone prefers one gender over another?

    And of course you did just what I said you’d do – accuse me of believing that large numbers of people will “suddenly” become gay by some sort of conscious decision. I repeatedly stressed “over time” because it was a shorthand way of saying that I realize most of the change will come from today’s very young people and the genreations yet to be born. Most adults of today have far too much vested in being straight to take up a gay lifestyle.

    I guess we can agree to disagree. But you really should stop the personal insults and the snarkiness. They don’t do your cause any good. You usually come across as the stereotypical angry young gay man. With all the progress the LGBT cause is making shouldn’t you be LOSING your anger?