Comments

  1. Terry says

    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.

  2. just_a_guy says

    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?!

  3. jexer says

    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.

  4. pdxblueyes says

    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.

  5. jexer says

    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.”

  6. just_a_guy says

    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.

  7. mary says

    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?

  8. TampaZeke says

    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!

  9. mary says

    “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.

  10. TampaZeke says

    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”.

  11. PJ says

    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!!!?

  12. says

    @ 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.

  13. mary says

    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.

  14. Tanoka says

    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!

  15. NullNaught says

    @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?

  16. PJ says

    @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.

  17. NullNaught says

    @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?

  18. Michaelandfred says

    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?

  19. mary says

    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.

  20. andrew says

    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.

  21. PJ says

    @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.

  22. andrew says

    In an earlier generation the anti-gay bigots had the attractive Anita Bryant as their spokesbigot. This generation is left with the unattrractive Maggie Gallagher. Its been a downhill spiral.

  23. mary says

    PJ, you’re playing a game here. I never said that heterosexuality would become extinct if gay marriage were legalized. If there were even a remote chance of that happening, then gay marriage would never have been legalized anywhere. Something doesn’t have to cause total ruin to be a bad idea. And I never denied that there were gay families that were wonderful – loving couples who raise children in an ideal environment – one that most straight couples would only wish to emulate.

    Michael and Fred, I’m glad your relationship is strong and wish you both nothing but the best.

    Nullnaught, I like you and have defended you on Towleroad several times. But I don’t know why you keep mentioning the Bible when I specifically said that I’ve never believed the Bible is why we should deny gays the right to marry.

  24. PJ says

    Mary: you were the one that said if there was evidence liberals wouldn’t let it see the light of day. I’m saying if there were credible evidence through studies that you bet your butt that the right wingers and their media arms would be all over it. That is my point.

    All your other blather is just clouding my point as you state:

    “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.”

    I don’t even know what you first point is at all. Your second point is patronizing as you are saying I can have some degree of equality, but you get to chose just how much and at what point my equality gets cut off!

  25. NullNaught says

    @Mary
    Let us suppose your position is correct and that it is a choice and people are choosing this way because it is acceptable now and we can see a huge trend… Do you actually believe that everyone would choose same sex activities over baby making? Do you even see enough people doing that to get the population down to sustainable levels let alone dangerous levels? I don’t understand. don’t you like being straight? Why would society’s tolerance of homosexuality make you feel diferent about who you wanted to have sex with? Do you imagine if all your freinds and everyone you knew were gay that you would choose that way to make things easier? I am not attacking you, I am trying to see how your mind is working on this.

  26. PJ says

    Mary at 11:02

    You are arguing a point I never made. I NEVER made that argument with you. Don’t put words in my mouth. You are the one playing games now!

  27. Tanoka says

    @ PJ:
    Funny thing is, there was actually a priest who wanted his congregation to “live in sin” rather than getting married now that it’s no longer straights only. He was laughed at and then ignored.

    @ Mary:
    How much time is long enough?
    Is it your impression that being gay is such a hoot that everyone would choose that if there was marriage equality? Are you saying, in a very round-about way, that you’re in the closet?
    I find your posts to be very interesting, in a mind-boggling way.

  28. just_a_guy says

    Y’all, Mary explained her crazy fear of bisexuals and closeted gay people being who they really are in an earlier link:

    (http://www.towleroad.com/2012/05/dan_savage_brian_brown_debate.html#ixzz1uFAESoDR)

    “I am afraid that in time significant numbers of (presumably straight) individuals will be attracted to same-sex relationships. This percentage will not be a majority of the population, by any means, but it will be enough to have serious consequences for the rest of us. Men will be attracted to the idea of easier access to sex (since man tend to value sex more than women do) and to sex free of the fear of impregnating one’s partner. Also, since men can’t make babies with men, marrying a man may come to have more appeal to men who are ambivalent about fatherhood. And, the more men take up same-sex relationships, the fewer men are left for heterosexual women. These straight women will increasingly turn to each other for relationships, marriage, and child-rearing.

    Same-sex marriage, although seemingly a radical new invention, is in many ways a lot closer to a “traditional” life than many other things in America that were once considered odd or immoral, but have now become somewhat mainstream and accepted. I’m thinking specifically of lifelong singleness, unwed motehrhood by choice, and serial(heterosexual) cohabitation. Same-sex marriage at least offers someone the comfort of having a lifelong mate, a second parent for his/her child, and someone to share financial expenses with. Those whose families are shocked and object to a same-sex marriage will be told that historically marriage has been more about practical matters such as child-bearing/rearing, getting one’s children financially secure, than about romance or even sex itself. Some of these people who are attracted to same-sex spouses won’t have changed their sexual orientation as much as simply “settled” for what they can realistically get.”

    When dealing with Mary/Maggie, it’s important to know what crazy fears she’s holding onto…

  29. NullNaught says

    @mary
    I take a long time writing my posts and this is a fast conversation. My questions are getting a bit backward sometimes. O.K., you don’t think we would stop procreating altogether. What bad thing do you think will happen?

  30. mary says

    Just_a_guy, why do you keep calling me Mary/Maggie? Do you honestly believe that Maggie Gallagher has time to post on Towleroad as much as I do? Talk about crazy!

    Nullnaught, what will happen is that family life in America will change substantially, becoming primarily a female affair. This means fewer children will ever know a father,and will have at least one parent that they aren’t related to biologically. The fact that there are some children in this siutation who turn out fine doesn’t mean most do or that we should encourage any more of it.

    My segment of the population is heterosexual women. Why should I give approval to a social change that would only make it harder for them to find husbands? I can’t honestly fault gays for protecting their segment of society. But I also have a right to protect mine.

  31. Tanoka says

    Gee, thanks Mary, for making straight women look bad. I’m also a straight woman, and I can assure you and everyone who wants to know, I am NOT threatened by the existence of gays.

    Restricting equal rights so that you (or your “segment”) can have more partners to choose from must be the ultimate example of entitlement. Shame on you.

  32. TJ says

    Lord have mercy. So many falling into her trap. First, she’ll argue that this is an emotional issue, so don’t use logic and reason with conservatives. Then, when you do appeal with emotion, she’ll ask for studies. And then she’ll reveal her true fear: Men would rather go gay than get anywhere near her.

    MARY – the shell game that keeps on “evolving.”

  33. just_a_guy says

    Maggie Gallagher is a twisted individual, so, yes, Mary, I wouldn’t put much past Maggie Gallagher or the Mormon/Catholic minions who pay $$$$ and obey her.

    Mary, your views are simply too wierdly like Maggie’s. And you seem to have put a lot of energy $$$ into developing them??? and testing them here? Hence, using “Mary/Maggie” still makes sense to me in addressing your TR comments.

  34. BABH says

    @Mary: Your fear is totally off base. I know lots of open-minded sex-positive people – gay, straight, and bisexual – and I can tell you that sexual responses in both men and women are pretty deeply hard wired. Straight men who make out with men report the same thing as gay men who make out with women: if they are able to perform at all, the experience feels weird and unnatural to them. For many (most?), the idea of making out with someone of the “wrong” gender is mildly to wildly disgusting. No-one is going to change their orientation in order to take advantage of the availability of same-sex marriage.

    Will bisexuals become more comfortable with same-sex relationships? Maybe. But there just aren’t enough bisexuals (or enough gays, for that matter) for your fears to be in any way justified.

  35. mary says

    Tanoka, I never said that the existence of gays was a threat, just gay marriage. And I’m sorry, but I have every right to worry about how heterosexual women of the future will be living. You think this is selfish? Might I not say that your desire to look noble by granting gays marriage rights (which as a straight woman we know that you personally would not need) is also selfish because whatever change this will result in will affect not you but the women who come after you?

    TJ, why do you bother responding to me or about me? Why don’t you go throw more purple roses at your “boyfriend” (your word for him) Kiwi. And by the way, why is it that there has been no one openly calling for me to be banned from Towleroad, but numerous people have openly called for Kiwi to be banned or reigned in? I’d think that if you really cared about Kiwi you’d be trying to get his family in Canada to get him some help for whatever his emotional/mental problem is.

    And as for what my own sexual preference is I’m a straight women. At 51 (my age) I’d think a person’s sexuality has already been determined and is very unlikely to change. Anyone can tell that I’m not talking about myself in terms of women having a harder time finding husbands. I’m talking about what might happen once this new change is absorbed throughout society. Men in my age bracket wouldn’t be affected by this.

  36. TJ says

    Sexual “revolution” – advent of birth control. Free love. No threat of babies or commitment. Men and women doing it like rabbits. Finally! Because before then, when it HAD to be about commitment and children, men were ALL on the down low, doing it with other men instead of getting married. Really! That’s what must have happened! Because given the choice between marriage and children and doing it with guys, gay sex wins! Brothels have always been staffed with men. The World’s Oldest Profession has been about men having sex with boy toys, because that’s what gets most men hot when what they want is to just get their rocks off. Straight porn is so hard to find, because sex with guys is the preferred stimulus when you don’t want children.

    Puhleez.

  37. mary says

    TJ, you’re twisting everything I said. Yes, most men who visit brothels want women and not men. Will look at straight porn instead of gay porn. But that’s because there was a taboo on gay sexuality, a taboo you want removed. Remove the taboo and we don’t know if they’ll want the same thing. This all I’m saying.

  38. TooBoot says

    It is so clear that Maggie and NOM, et.al. are attempting a 1950’s revisionism of marriage. Society has moved on in way more ways than same-sex normalization. Maggie and her ilk are so desperate to try and keep things they way they aren’t anymore and they are scapegoating the last disenfranchised, marginalized segment of society to do it. This is why they will lose, and cost society a great deal of time and money. In the end, laws will change to meet the needs of the already evolved body politic.

  39. Tanoka says

    Mea culpa, Mary. I meant to imply that you’re threatened by gays’ visibility and equal rights, not gays’ existence.

    I take heart at the fact that you see that granting equal rights would be the noble thing to do.
    And no, I don’t think I’m being selfish. Being selfish is to force gay people into the closet so that other people can pretend to live in their “ideal world”.

  40. TJ says

    And if you don’t want a commitment, you make a legal commitment with another man, because that’s Commitment-Lite(TM) – all the fun, no responsibility! It’s the easy out! It’s the way to get legal benefits without having to bother with icky women. Because without laws banning it, men would pick other men EVERY TIME, because men only go with women when forced, and sexual orientation is so fluid for men.

    MARY – RICK without the pr*ck.

  41. PJ says

    @Tanoka

    Mary doesn’t want to grant us equal rights. Only “some” rights and only up to a point that she deems is ok and won’t hurt her sensibilites.

  42. sara says

    I have to say that’s about the weirdest argument I’ve ever heard, although the one about banning same sex marriage to defend the caucasian race comes pretty close. If gay marriage passes straight men will quickly discover their inner gayness and women will be left by themselves? ???

    Take heart Mary, if it’s that easy, then you and these other hypothetical women can always become a lesbian, that way they won’t be so alone. And there’s always surrogacy and test tube babies to keep the species going. See, problem solved.

  43. Tanoka says

    @ PJ:

    Yes, you may use the bus, but sit in the back, OK? Us straight people knows what’s best for you and everyone and all the people ever and ever.
    /sarcasm

    *sigh*

    Why is it that the fight for equality always have to jump through the same hoops?

  44. mary says

    How about trying something original like this:

    “I’m hoping that in the years to come, when gay marriage becomes legal and we see that it doesn’t cause society any harm, that those who once opposed it will admit their error. Many of these people are not anti-gay, just mistaken in their views. Some will actually be happy to be proved wrong.”

    TJ, you’re just against me because I don’t fit yout image of a hate-filled bigot. My views ARE evolving. That’s why I’m on Towleroad. And several days ago I made a donation to the Ali Forney Center for homeless gay youth. Anyone could see that I’m trying to be as pro-gay as possible without doing what I consider harmful to society. Why don’t you try being nice?

  45. TJ says

    TANOKA – Sit in the back and BE NICE because I don’t like it when you call me on my utter lack of empathy and only being able to see things through my fear-colored glasses, because my fears, and not the injustices gay people suffer, are paramount. It’s all about me and my fear that without laws, no man would want me.

    Hugs and kisses,
    MARY

  46. Tanoka says

    @ Mary:

    This has turned into an ‘everyone against Mary’ thread, but let me put it this way:

    Do you accept to be told by others that you can’t marry the one you love?
    Do you accept not having the same rights in terms of health care, insurance, tax, etc as everyone else?
    Do you accept that people of another religion than yours get to impose their religious laws onto your life?
    Do you accept being an outcast because people think you sexuality is icky?

    This is what you’re asking of the gay community, Mary. You may be evolving, but perhaps you could ease up on the brakes?

  47. PJ says

    @Mary

    Same sex marriage has been legal in the province of Ontario since 2001, the rest of Canada since 2005. The Netherlands since 2001, Spain 2005, Belgium since 2003 and many others since. How many years should we study it? Until YOU feel comfortable with it, until ALL religious folk are comfortable with it? Come on!

  48. Acronym Jim says

    Mary,

    I would add two questions to Tanoka’s list:

    1 – (I can’t believe no one has asked this yet) When did YOU decide to be heterosexual?

    2 – What do you think the affect lesbian marriages have on the pool of available men?

    It seems you’re focused merely on sex, when it’s about love and commitment.

  49. TJ says

    And MARY, the reason I don’t like you (and TANOKA, just so you know, there is a history here, and “against MARY” wasn’t always the case) is that you are the WORST kind of bigot – one who really doesn’t see how evil she is.

  50. andrew says

    I think Mary must be moist for the first time in a long time, by all the attention she is getting. You gooooooooooo girl. Turn down your vibrator Mary.

  51. NullNaught says

    @Mary
    It seems to me your argument flows logically with the help of some premises I find questionable. But I don’t see how to convince you they are questionable. I have to think on this some. As it is, I haven’t known you for long so I don’t know if you have been evolving up to this point, but with this set of premises I don’t see how you can evolve any further.
    I will think about it and offer what I can if it is appropriate on some other thread. good luck on that.

  52. Jeffery says

    First let me say that the comments here are far more interesting than anything Ms Gallagher had to say. And, Mary I also have to say that I can appreciate your attempt to engage in a conversation that is likely to be hostile to your views and attempt to do it with reason and civility. There’s a problem with your premise though, and that is that once marriage is legalized for all, that there will be a groundswell of people choosing to lead a gay lifestyle and forsaking heterosexuality due to the lack of traditional social restraint. This is an argument that can only be postulated by someone who doesn’t understand what it is to be gay. How one behaves as a homosexual is just as much of a choice as how one behaves as a heterosexual, but there is something that is deeper and more fundamental about being gay that goes beyond a “lifestyle” or mere behavior. Its the same for straight people. Curiosity isn’t gay, same-sex behavior in a prison isn’t gay, because neither have anything to do with being.

    For years I avoided the “community”, the “lifestyle”, and any physical connection that I perceived as making me gay. I was appointed to the leadership of an ex-gay group because they felt that because I was under such self-control that I didn’t even fit their definition of gay. But I knew, that regardless of how virtuous my behavior in their eyes, I was in fact gay, and that there was something in my core that made it so, regardless of whether I acted on any of it or not.

    So you’re right in thinking that there are traitors in your midst. There are men and women living the lie that they are straight. Some are married, some are parents, some will come out if marriage is legalized and some will not. They are betraying themselves more than anyone, because like me, regardless of their behavior, they know who they are.

    The day I embraced and gave voice to the truth of who I was, I learned the fullness of the scripture: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”. On this day I realized that it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks about me, my behavior, or my relationship to God, because I have been honest about who I am with every fiber of my being. Whether marriage is legalized or not won’t change that for me or anyone else with the courage to truly know themselves. What will change if marriage is legally enlarged to include gays and lesbians is nothing but that the laws regarding, wills, medical decisions, taxation, etc. will be including the people, who in the context of the relationship to one another that many of them already have, should be included. Sadly society moves slowly enough that even though something is legalized the social constraint against it will still exist. Just ask a straight mixed-race couple living in the South.

    One can be calm, reasoned, and on the face even loving, and still postulate a view that is heinous and vile. My grandfather used to do it when he spouted his views on eugenics, and would conclude that because Hitler had taken it “too far” that the world would remain skeptical. My fervent hope is that someday Christians in the wealthiest nation on the earth will spend as much time and money ministering to the poor (which is a larger topic Biblically than homosexuality) as they are wasting their resources on working against gay marriage. I can only imagine what the millions of dollars spent to pass Prop 8 in California could have accomplished if those dollars had gone directly to the children that foes of same-sex marriage claim so loudly to be trying to protect. Its a question of priorities.

    I apologize if this feels like too much of a diatribe, but after hearing arguments for years spouted by people who if they’re not gay – don’t really know what they’re talking about. Especially when they come from people like Ms Gallagher who in her own life doesn’t follow the example she so vociferously claims to support. It just makes me sad.

    Gay marriage will not destroy the family, or a heterosexual couple’s marriage, or kill God. And, its time for people of faith to let fear go and believe that.

  53. TJ says

    JEFFERY: That was beautiful. But be forewarned; it is at this point MARY will ask for studies and proof. Because the appeal to emotion and humanity is a one-way street with MARY. Understand and validate her feelings. Yours are ultimately irrelevant.

  54. behline says

    @mary
    So even if your argument were true, that given the legalisation of gay-marriage, more people would suddenly turn gay and forget how babies are being made (and I’m not saying it is) answer me this: THERE ARE 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH ALREADY. How would making a few less babies be a bad thing?

  55. says

    I have to give credit to Mary. I thought I’ve heard all the loony arguments against marriage equality, but the “STRAIGHT WOMEN WILL RUN OUT OF HUSBANDS!” panic is definitely new. Not based on any empirical fact, not even theoretically plausible, and just plain idiotic, but definitely new.

  56. peterparker says

    People! ‘Mary’ is a troll. The quicker everyone learns to ignore it, the quicker it will leave towleroad and go harass people at some other site.

  57. rin says

    @TJ

    how come Mary gets the pearl necklace and kitchen duty? I kinda like that whole idea. I know white kitchens are blase now, but if I can have one like Sandra Lee’s I’d like to exercise that option.

    You can come visit me I’ll make you some cocktails.

  58. It's simple says

    Maggie doesn’t go after adulterers because she IS one, biblically-speaking.

    The Bible is very clear — a woman is to marry the man who fathers her children.

    Maggie, as a promiscuous young woman, spread her legs for a man who wasn’t her husband, got knocked up, and didn’t marry the father.

    She instead got “married” to some guy whose last name is “Srivistav.”

    Of course, this is a non-biblical, phoney marriage. Even Maggie doesn’t take it seriously — she doesn’t wear a wedding ring, and uses her maiden name and not her married name.

    Every time she shows up to talk about marriage, her own sordid, promiscuous and decidedly non-traditional so-called “marriage” should be placed front-and-center. She and her proponents like to claim that it’s a “private matter,” but by making the marriages of others something to be publicly debated and voted upon, she’s opened herself up to the same scrutiny.

    It’s really very, very simple. If Maggie condemns promiscuous adulterers in sham marriages, she condemns herself. Not gonna happen, since her condemnation of gay people is out of the deep hatred and contempt she feels for them (as well as resentment over the fact they’ve found real love and commitment and she never has).

  59. LiamLiam says

    Have you noticed that whenever “Mary” comes onto our site she dominates and distorts the discussion. If we would stop rising to the bait of her trollish provocations maybe she would go away. At least she would not be able to dominate and distort the discussion. That is her agenda anyway. Why else would someone who so clearly opposes us and wishes us harm spend SO much time here?

  60. It's simple says

    Most homophobes like the negative attention they get — until you start applying the standards they wish to impose upon others upon them.

    “Mary” is no different. I’m sure that if you had a look at her life, she’s ignoring or violating half the tenets she’s demanding others be held to.

  61. Swiminbuff says

    I will never understand why my same sex marriage (legal here in Canada) can have any impact on my neighbours opposite sex marriages. We were actually married in the same mainline Protestant church one month apart as one of our neighbours. Now the neighbour on the other side of us got divorced last year after 7 years of marriage. Are we supposed to have been responsible for the breakdown of that opposite sex marriage? It wasn’t either of us the husband was having an affair with. If we indeed did cause the breakdown of that marriage are we responsible for the success of our other neighbours marriage or is 5 years of exposure to a same sex married couple not enough time to undermine an opposite sex marriage? We are also godparents to there 2 year old son so God only knows what damage we can inflict on him.

  62. TampaZeke says

    Strange that conservatives are so “afraid” to speak “truth” about gay people because of all the power the gays have but they’re more than willing to say the most batshit crazy lies that are so easily proven at any given turn. They’re also completely unafraid to attack women boldly, proudly and publicly. Are you really claiming that gays have more political, social and cultural power than women?

    You’re claims about gays having so much power and control sounds a lot like the same argument made against Jews, gays and others hated minorities in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s. Curious that.

  63. Swiminbuff says

    FYI, your fear of same sex marriage causing a decrease in available males for straight women to marry has not proven itself to be true in Canada. There has been no noticeable rise in the number of straight men rushing to the gay bars up here. Oddly enough I do notice an increase in the number of straight women coming to gay bars to avoid the straight men hitting on them in straight bars which can be very annoying to us gay boys. We would be much happier trying to convert their straight boyfriends, at least for the night, LMAO.
    I do find your arguments opposing same sex marriage to be HILARIOUS though, so thanks for the morning laugh.

  64. TJ says

    RIN – I would adore having an adult beverage in your white kitchen. Can’t promise the pearl necklace, though. I’d have to clear that with my partner. ;>)

  65. Francis says

    She didn’t answer the question! Instead she is saying that she THINKS the idea that gay and lesbians couples are equal to straight couples is devastating to marriage. There is no proof, in fact the studies done on child in same sex relationships and straight relationships shows no difference in quality with some researchers saying same sex couples fare better because they are fully behind having a child whereas many straight couples come by their children accidently. Here meme is steeped in heterosexism and reminds me of the same thinking so many white people believed the white race was superior to the black race, and that men are superior to women and that Christians are superior to all other religions. The belief that straight people are superior to gay people will go the same way as these other fallicies but we must keep challenging the lie! With all of our creativity, intelligence and passion, we must keep challenging that lie for ourselves and for all the gay children who believe the hateful lies about who we are!!!

  66. Mic says

    “… 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?…”

    SO WHY TAKE CHANCES???

    That is your arguement? You support worldwide discrimination against millionsof people because YOU don’t want to take chances?

    You are WORSE than a Moron.

    You are an intellectual SINKHOLE.

    May your ”god” forgive you.

  67. antbnyc says

    why are you guys bothering to respond to a NOM troll like Mary? she’s just here to stir the pot. don’t give her the satisfaction of a reasonable response to her misdirections.

  68. Den says

    There can never be a study that reaches conclusions on the positive or negative affects on society/child rearing of same sex marraiges, simply because there are and will be as many different sorts of gay couples as straight couples, some stable, some abusive, some very loving, others very brittle. There can only be studies in good parents and healthy relationships and bad parents and uhealthy relationships – homo or hetero sexuality is just a technical detail.

  69. Sam Armstrong says

    @Mary

    We’re all people, lady. Try this on: “The point I’m trying to make is that it is very hard to know how many people will be black or Chinese or Mexican if we change social norms. So why take chances? Racial minorities can be tolerated and respected and given some degree of rights without their personhood being legalized. I’m all for efforts to reduce racism. But I don’t want to see society turned upside-down.”

    I’m tired of rising above arguments like yours that seem to indicate that gay people are almost like real people. In essence, you really suck.

  70. Scott says

    Dear Mary-

    It doesn’t matter how politely you attempt to frame your “argument”, at the end of the day you are still acting like an arrogant internet troll who feels she is superior to a minority group simply for being born straight. What gets me though, is you have the nerve to come to a website run by, and for, the same minority group you are hoping to oppress and you attempt to play a victim card?!? How dare you!

    Why are you here? You are not going to change anyone’s mind on a gay website on issues regarding our rights! Are you hoping to have your own mind changed by coming here and trolling comments? Are you hoping for validation by those you are attempting to oppress? By your responses to questions people have posed- I would say you are just looking to engage and enrage, perhaps get someone so mad that they threaten you so you can take the comment and run to the hate groups in a further attempt to self-victimize?

    You and “your side” are not the victim(s), no matter how hard you pretend you are. You will never have to deal with your spouse being deported and tearing your family apart. You will never have to deal with loosing your home, or joint savings, if your spouse unexpectedly dies because you are not considered next of kin. You will never have to worry about being able to visit your spouse if they are in the hospital. You will never have to worry about traveling to certain states for fear that if something does happen to you, your spouse has no legal recourse for helping you. You will never have to worry about you or your children being able to use your spouse’s insurance. You are not forced to pay more taxes than the majority each year, because the current federal laws do not recognize your union- even if your state does.

    Our lives are not some game for your entertainment. We are not subservient pawns begging straight people to grant us special rights and protections as you seem to think. We are equal citizens and we are demanding our equal rights- not special rights- but equal. We are equal to straight people, and your argument against our right to marry demonstrates that you truly believe we are subservient to you. And since equality is part of the American foundation, you are telling us that you are staunchly anti-American.

    Also- someone claiming you might be gay is not an insult. The person(s) who said that did not frame it as one, rather he reiterated a scientific fact that many people who are anti sexual minorities are often part of that minority themselves, and they are externalizing their internal struggles with their heinous anti-gay actions. And no matter how hard the fringe, far right has tried to make science into a liberal invention over the last decade- the fact of the matter is science has existed as long as homosapiens have had cognitive ability. Science is by nature apolitical. It is merely a statement of fact based on truth of observations and conclusive evidence. It is not an abstract idea like religion. Saying the sky is blue is a scientific fact; however the far right is trying to say that “the sky is not blue. Blue sky is a liberal invention and it is biased against our superstitions and prejudices, therefore it is invalid because I said so”. However, that you took that comment as an insult, and feel the American people would be insulted, reinforces your belief that you and other straight people are superior to sexual minorities. That is really what is at the heart of what you call an “opposing viewpoint”.

    Though you may claim to “respect” persons with “opposing viewpoints” you obviously do not, and to say you do is either ignorance or stupidity. If you did respect us you wouldn’t be making such claims of superiority. I do not respect you and never will respect you or anyone else who is attempting to oppress me, and cheat me out of my CIVIL rights. Would you respect someone who says they are superior to you? (*FYI- Another fact: marriage was deemed a civil right in our country in 1967, in the case of Loving vs. Virginia.)

    If affording equal rights to all American citizens is turning society “upside down”, then history is about to flip you over— a couple of your hate leaders, including Maggie Gallagher even make that acknowledgement. She is pretty clear that she thinks equal rights are on the horizon in this video! Change is the only constant in life. So that is yet again another mute talking point.

    Instead of all your false, regurgitated talking points—you should be honest (if not publicly then at least be honest to yourself). What you should be saying is “I believe, as a heterosexual, that I am superior to all sexual minorities. I am against basic foundations of American culture. I fear change and will fight it however I can”. Now go back to your own bigoted support group and stop attempting to harass and oppress us.

  71. mary says

    Scott, I never said that being gay was an insult or that I feel insulted when people question my sexuality. And there is no “scientific study” that claims that every straight person who takes an interest in LGBT issues is really a closeted gay or lesbian. I object to this characterization because it makes the gay community look childish to keep insisting that everyone opposed to their agenda ia a closet case. And I have never said that gay people are inferior to me. That isn’t my belief.

    TJ, I swear I’ve never seen anyone so obsessed with feelings and emotions as you are. And as for your claim that people here weren’t always against me, that was garbage. Most people here are not fans of my presense on TR. You personally were a bit nicer to me a while back, but the more pro-gay I became the more angry you were that I didn’t evolve all the way and support marriage equality. You’re also probably annoyed that I didn’t gloat about North Carolina (sorry to disappoint you.)

    Again I ask the question, why can’t conservatives simply be wrong on this issue rather than “hateful?” Why do you presume to know what is in everyone else’s heart?

    As for the “gay marriage has been legal in Tuscaloosa since 2001 and the sky hasn’t fallen yet…..” argument, anyone who studies anthropology or sociology can tell you that social norms take time to change. We would need two full generations to see the final effect of marriage equality. What kind of person is naive enough to think that all social change occurs in 15-20 years or not at all?

    And why have I not been banned from Towleroad by Andy? Probably because he knows that I’m not an enemy of the gay community.

Leave A Reply