RECENT  POSTS:  » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings » TV's Duggar family continues anti-LGBT activism » Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/11/2010

Maggie Gallagher to gay people: 'You can always control your behavior'; homosexuality is 'an unfortunate thing'

by Jeremy Hooper

She danced around a full blown endorsement of "ex-gay" therapy. But on a recent appearance of Janet Parshall's radio show, National Organization For Marriage chairman and person who'll forever be remembered as the most prominent face of Florida orange juice marriage inequality, Maggie Gallagher, came right out and said that she thinks gays can and should control their "behavior." "Behavior" that she calls "unfortunate":

8/9/10:

TRANSCRIPT: "Well I do think there's a lot of negative reaction around [ex-gay programs]. But to me it's just even more basic. Maybe you can change your desires and maybe you can't, but you can always control your behavior. There's a sleight of hand going on when Ted Olson says just as we can't discriminate on race, this always applies to gay marriage, he isn't acknowledging -- some of it's just a fundamental difference where we may or may not find certain relationships deeply satisfying, and maybe we can't totally control that, but behavior has to be subject to moral critique and reflection, and skin color doesn't because it's not a behavior. 'Whatever theory you have about how people become gay, and I think there's sort of a mystery in our fallen world about how people are saddled with that, what I view as an unfortunate thing, but in any case, you can't expect to be exempted from the idea that your theory about what sex is, what it's for, how we're supposed to behave can't just be reduced to the question of what skin color you have. You've got to live in a society where people are free to reflect, to critique, to disagree with you about that. And that's what Ted Olson and Judge Walker's decision doesn't acknowledge. It's not about live and let live at the private level, it's about importing as quote/unquote fact into our founding documents the idea that religious views about the nature and meaning and purpose of sex are judicially harmful to gay and lesbian people, and that's just wrong, it's a category error. And it's damaging, I think, not only to the rights of Christians and other traditional faith communities -- ultimately it's dehumanizing to gay people for it to be suggested that their desires are not subject to moral reflection and critique."
*AUDIO SOURCE: In The Market with Janet Parshall -- 8/9/10 [Moody Radio]

And you can "control your behavior" too, Maggie. But unfortunately you refuse. And every single man and woman who values American freedom, credible science, gay people's mental health, and arguments based on reason rather than contrived talking points is worse off because of that fact!

Oh, and Ms. G: Do not DARE tell us what is and is not "dehumanizing to gay people." There is not one single person in 21st century America whose work has more thoroughly dehumanized gay people than you! NOT. ONE!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails