RECENT  POSTS:  » AP report: FDA to recommend end on gay blood ban! (*UPDATED with big restriction) » Video: Another ad reflects changing (already changed?) 'Tide' » Anti-gay NOM compares its discriminatory cause to baby Jesus's early infant care » SCOTUS to begin new year by pondering outdated inequality » Video: TLC to air show about humans' ability to suppress truth in name of religion » AFA, LaBarbera think being publicly pro-gay is still a liability; how quaint » Video: Blended family with lesbian moms heads Tylenol holiday ad » NOM's new conspiracy theory: Census Bureau making changes to hide marriage equality's ill effects » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more  

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

01/04/2011

Hetero missteps = homo wedding rings, and other theories conducive to Maggie's ambitions

by Jeremy Hooper

Yes, in the following nugget, Maggie Gallagher is quite undeniably suggesting that same-sex marriages could only take root in a world where human beings experience a "growing disconnect between sex, love, babies, mothers, fathers and marriage":

"Of course marriage is under deep challenge today from many sources, most of them heterosexual. Gay marriage would not be plausible except for the growing disconnect between sex, love, babies, mothers, fathers and marriage. In America, 40% of births are outside wedlock and perhaps 40% of first marriages end in divorce. For me, far from being a reason for us to accept gay unions as marriages, this emergency is the reason the foundational questions about the meaning and purpose of marriage raised by same-sex marriage are so important." -Maggie Gallagher

For this and many other reasons why she is losing the debate by a very wide margin, go see the ongoing Maggie Gallagher vs. Evan Wolfson debate taking place on The Economist's website:

Economist Debates: Single-sex marriage

And don't forget to vote!

***

*Frankly, we wouldn't mind hearing the moderator ask Maggie about some of her less forthcoming views:

-8/9/10 on Janet Parshall's radio program: Said that she sees homosexuality as "unfortunate", and said that gays can "always control [their] behavior"

-6/30/2008 on "Catholic Answers Live": Said that according to the Catholic faith, both gays and their supporters are committing "several kinds of sins."

-5/14/2001, Maggie uses Dr. Robert Spitzer's study in a way that goes against his own wishes and findings, calls homosexuality a "sexual dysfunction": "I believe there is rather powerful evidence that human beings are a two-sex species, designed for sexual rather than asexual reproduction. If this is true, then the absence of desire for the opposite sex represents, at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility. Human beings seeking help in overcoming sexual dysfunctions deserve our respect and support (and may I mention, President Bush, more research dollars?)." [Source]

-3/20/2000, Maggie defends Dr. Laura: "In a simple biological framework abstracted from all religion and morality, homosexuality is like infertility. It is a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species." [Source]

-2/2/2010: Said she initially found gay marriage to be one of a set of issues "so dumb you don't have to talk about them." [speech at Franciscan Univ]

-She can often be heard using language that discredits gay love, like the way she dismissively talks about "two dudes" wanting to get hitched or the way she laughs when gays are compared to domesticated birds.

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