Gay Marriage | Maggie Gallagher | News

Maggie Gallagher Explains Why She Goes After Gay Marriage and Not Adulterers and Divorcees: VIDEO

M_gallagher

Why do those defending the sanctity of marriage target a small segment of the threat and ignore adulterers and divorcee?

Watch Maggie Gallagher offer her explanation, AFTER THE JUMP...

(via andrew sullivan)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Either this photo's been airbrushed or the Magster has been dieting. For the sake of her health, I hope it's the second.

    Posted by: mary | May 7, 2012 8:51:09 PM


  2. Remember the old adage, 'There's no such thing as bad publicity'? So why are we giving this woman so much face time?

    Posted by: Liam | May 7, 2012 8:54:51 PM


  3. She also conveniently ignores the question. So I repeat Mags, why DO you go after gay marriage and ignore divorce/adultery? Permitting divorce and adultery undermines respect for marriage far more than allowing gays to join the institution. But you don't .. answer... the question, you just repeat those same old talking points.

    Posted by: Terry | May 7, 2012 8:56:03 PM


  4. Alright Maggie and her ilk:

    For starters, show one credible study supporting your claim that male+female households are better at raising children than male+male or female+female households.

    Obvi, you have ALSO shown zero evidence that gay marriage harms a single heterosexual marriage.

    But ur not listening, Maggie; you are too busy spinning your bigotry. It's kind of sad, you seem to truly believe that crap you are saying. Your persistent BELIEF in your SUPERIORITY as a parent based on you being a female saying you are attracted to men (instead of women) IN NO WAY MAKES IT TRUE.

    What's more, what about all the HARM you are committing on loving male+male and female+female couples? What about all the harm you are committing on the CHILDREN of same-sex couples?!

    Posted by: just_a_guy | May 7, 2012 8:56:32 PM


  5. Utterly absurd babblespeak.

    The "Ideal" for a child is to be raised by a family that is committed to each other and to the well-being of the child. Something that a quick marriage and accidental insemination do *NOT* and can *NOT* guarantee.

    If a biological mother or father wishes to abdicate their involvement in the raising of a child to the other biological parent's committed partner, no one should care if that partner has a penis or a vagina - they certainly shouldn't be USING their genitals to raise the child.

    Maggie- I'm all for you Catholics living by whatever stricter rules you feel are appropriate. Keep your god damned rules to yourselves though.

    Posted by: jexer | May 7, 2012 9:00:38 PM


  6. Those who speak so harshly on these issues need to examine their own closets...Maggie and Brian. If it looks Gay and it sounds Gay and it hates Gay and it works against Gay, then chances are it's really Gay too - and just hates itself.

    Posted by: pdxblueyes | May 7, 2012 9:06:36 PM


  7. If she were truthful the answer would have been: "Because it's more profitable to go after the gays. Too NOM's deep-pocket sponsors don't want their right to divorce challenged."

    Posted by: jexer | May 7, 2012 9:10:05 PM


  8. Bah, why can't I proofread better? "Too MANY of NOM's deep-pocket. blah blah"

    Posted by: jexer | May 7, 2012 9:11:45 PM


  9. Jexer is dead-on: Maggie is in it for the $$$$$.

    What's more, the question is rigged and messed-up because there isn't ANY evidence that same sex marriage threatens heterosexual marriage.

    Posted by: just_a_guy | May 7, 2012 9:15:07 PM


  10. Just_a_guy, I respect your right to hold pro-SSM views, but do you really think that any "evidence" of same-sex marriage threatening heterosexual marriage would be allowed to get any significant attention in the current political climate? The American intellectual classes are liberal and would never allow any such statistic to be reported or discussd seriously. They generally ignore any evidence they don't like from survey research and shout down as evil and stupid all who disagree. Why would they behave any differently on this topic than on any other?

    Posted by: mary | May 7, 2012 9:31:49 PM


  11. So Mary, it's LIBERALS who go around calling things "evil"?

    REALLY?

    What color is the sky in your world and why do you spend time on gay sites? Perhaps you should read the scientific (or as you would call it evil liberal gobbledigoop) evidence that those who obsess over homosexuality and spend time on gay websites are closet cases.

    Come out Mary! You'll be amazed at just how quickly the bitterness melts away!

    Posted by: TampaZeke | May 7, 2012 9:41:05 PM


  12. "Those who speak so harshly on these issues need to examine their own closets.."

    I do belive that there are some in the anti-gay rights side who are closeted gays themselves. But it really is silly to say that most people who take this position on gay marriage are closeted gays. This is the old adolescent claim "They're just jealous. They want what I have." There are two sides to the gay marriage issue. Anyone familiar with how social conservatives think would understand they it is perfectly natural for them to oppose the legalization of gay marriage. And this is true even if it turns out that they are wrong about it having any harmful effects. Trying to embarrass people into silence by accusing them of being closeted gays may cause some of them to shut up, but I can promise you this will anger the general public and cause resentment against the gay community. If your position is really on "the right side of history" then you should be able to prevail without doing this.

    Posted by: mary | May 7, 2012 9:42:17 PM


  13. I'm pretty sure that that video clip came from a Dark Shadows trailer.

    Or perhaps it's from the upcoming sequel, "Bride of Barnabas".

    Posted by: TampaZeke | May 7, 2012 9:43:09 PM


  14. Mary: if there was evidence, you don't think FOX News and the religious right wing radio hosts would be all over that? I mean credible evidence of course. Or are they all part of the cover up too!!!?

    Posted by: PJ | May 7, 2012 10:07:17 PM


  15. @ AMRY: what is "natural" is homosexuality. What is "natural" is adults taking care of children, sometimes those they themselves produced, and sometimes those that others did, but can't take of themselves.

    Posted by: David R. | May 7, 2012 10:27:45 PM


  16. That's "@MARY"

    Posted by: David R. | May 7, 2012 10:27:56 PM


  17. No, PJ, not a cover-up. Political conservatives are terrified of the American people and won't make the only case against gay marriage that makes sense, which is that civilization requires limits on human freedom. The American people quiver like jello whenever anyone accuses them of treating two groups of people unequally. The harm caused by such inequality (and I won't put the term inequality in quotation marks because it is genuine inequality that I'm talking about) always has to be shown to be direct and immediate. Otherwise any inequality in treatment is seen as a violation of some's rights. Because the potential harm caused by gay marriage would take a while to become visible the general public would likely come down on the side of equal rights. We have an unspoken rule in American life that you can worry about the distant future only when you're concerned with the survival of Firsr Amendment rights, but nothing else.

    If you wonder why the Christian Right keeps acting as if we can base American law on what's in the Bible (when they must know perfectly well why we can't) it's this: They are using the only acceptable argument against gay marriage that is left. It's the "I would love to be liberal, but Jesus won't let me" argument. The American obsession with equality is so extreme that only God almighty is allowed to overrule it.

    Posted by: mary | May 7, 2012 10:29:06 PM


  18. Mary, you said: "The American intellectual classes are liberal and would never allow any such statistic to be reported or discussd seriously. They generally ignore any evidence they don't like from survey research and shout down as evil and stupid all who disagree."

    1. Proof, please?
    2. So all liberals want to destroy straight marriage, is that it? Because no liberals are straight married? Liberals want to destroy society, families and the coming generations?
    3. You'd think with the power that the RCC have worldwide, they'd be able to back up a few SERIOUS scientists giving empirical proof of their (RCC) claims. I've yet to see such a thing.
    4. I live in Norway, where we have marriage equality. Surprisingly, not only is my country surviving having gays married, it's doing quite well!

    Posted by: Tanoka | May 7, 2012 10:32:10 PM


  19. @Mary
    Adoption is only one issue touching on marriage. There are many reasons gay people want to get married that has nothing to do with children and I believe you know that. This is non-sequitur.
    Most people who are against SSM are probably not gay. Most people are probably bisexual. The more deeply homophobic a male is, the more he responds physically to same sex pronography. I am sure you can imagine how this is measured. If you don't want to accept the scientific studies we can cite such as this, and you have no counter studies to offer... on what basis can one reason with you?

    Posted by: NullNaught | May 7, 2012 10:34:16 PM


  20. @Mary This what you said: "do you really think that any "evidence" of same-sex marriage threatening heterosexual marriage would be allowed to get any significant attention in the current political climate? The American intellectual classes are liberal and would never allow any such statistic to be reported or discussd seriously".

    Sounds like you said liberals are covering up evidence. To which I said the right wing media woulbd be all over it. What you responded to me with was a bunch of gobbledy goop.

    Posted by: PJ | May 7, 2012 10:35:41 PM


  21. @Mary
    I didn't see your last post when I was writting mine. Doesn't civilization depend just as much on freedoms as it does restrictions? The question really is why should this freedom be restricted other than religious discrimination? Because if that is all it is, you know then it can't be allowed.
    What is your argument?

    Posted by: NullNaught | May 7, 2012 10:42:22 PM


  22. The intellectual classes have always been liberal Mary because conservatives look backwards, not forwards. Flat earth, anti science, philosophy, democracy, technological advances, all through liberal ideas and forward thinkers, not those desperately clinging to hold on to the past or their special privileges. As for ignoring facts, that's absurd. Ignoring "beliefs" or fabricated pseudo science or concepts based on biblical "belief" or studies fabricated by individuals on the internet is not ignoring facts.

    By the standards of the conservatives there is not an ounce of evidence that same sex marriages harm heterosexual marriages. Your "experts" have stated this over and over. Only your "belief" and desire to perpetuate a modern biblical fallacy that has only been around for the last century or so. Since the dawn of time there have been homosexuals, for centuries Christianity performed same sex weddings and heterosexuals have still managed to create over 7 billion people.

    If you can't keep your marriage together, blame yourself. My husband and I are stronger today then when we met 25 years ago. Our grass is greener. That's probably your fear. That we'll do it better. Then where will you be?

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | May 7, 2012 10:46:48 PM


  23. PJ, there can be no "evidence" partly because change takes time to happen and gay marriage hasn't been legal anywhere in the world long enough to see its (more or less) final effects on a society. And of course if larger number of people start to take up same-sex relationships you won't admit that they went in this direction partly because it is now accepted by society. In other words, that they are choosing same-sex relationships because there is no longer any stigma on them. You'll just say that these people were gay all along and that the increasing societal acceptance of same-sex relationships allowed them to come to terms with who they always were. And how can anyone prove you wrong?

    The point I'm trying to make is that it is very hard to know how many people will be straight or gay or bisexual if we change social norms. So why take chances? Gay people can be tolerated and respected and given some degree of rights without gay marriage being legalized. I'm all for efforts to reduce homophobia. But I don't want to see society turned upside-down.

    Posted by: mary | May 7, 2012 10:49:24 PM


  24. Even as a gay man,I use to think that the ideal family was a heterosexual man and woman raising a few children. But I have seen in my own family and in others homosexual couples raising well adjusted and healthy children. I still think that it is important for a two mom or two dad couple to have some loving aunts and uncles that act as opposite sex role models for the children. Having said that: it is just all beautiful.

    Posted by: andrew | May 7, 2012 10:50:05 PM


  25. @Tanoka: You mean straight people in Norway haven't stopped getting married because gay people can? The straight divorce rate hasn't gone up? The streets aren't filled with abandoned children whose straight parents just can't continue raising them because the gays can marry? OMG!!

    Seriously, society hasn't collapsed here in Canada either where marriage equality is legal.

    I'm tired of their old arguments.

    Posted by: PJ | May 7, 2012 10:51:08 PM


  26. 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Scissor Sisters Have a Kiki: LISTEN« «