RECENT  POSTS:  » What to even say about Josh Duggar? » GOP prez candidates lining up for NOM-sponsored event in Iowa » Video: Ted Cruz tells viciously anti-gay Family Research Council he's got their back on anti-gay discrimination » Scouts prez seeks long overdue end to offensive stigma » FRC prays against Dan Savage 'spewing upon our nation'; I'll let Dan make that joke himself » Sen. (and prez candidate) Cruz to join extreme anti-LGBT activists at Family Research Council event (#WOTW15) » 'Out' magazine's editor-in-chief makes case against gay 'bullies'; it's shortsighted and here's why » Voodoo, snake oil, 'changing' gays: CA congressman to introduce national ban on dangerous anti-science » Because the internet exists, listen to former 'Love Connection' host Chuck Woolery rant about marriage equality » Today in least-you-can-do-ness: Billy Graham's son tweeting anti-equality prayers to SCOTUS justices  

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

05/20/2011

'Pick a girl, love her, make a family': Maggie's telling take on 'the boxes we've constructed'

by Jeremy Hooper

Maggie Gallagher, circa 2003. In a back and forth with gay writer Jonathan Rauch, the now-National Organization For Marriage gave this flippant advice to those "self-identifying as homosexual":

201105191607
[SOURCE]

To which Rauch ably responded:

Screen Shot 2011-05-19 At 4.04.30 Pm
[SOURCE]

But then, of course, Maggie did what we've seen her do so many times: She backed off/couched/"explained" words and intent that had seemed pretty darn clear:

Screen Shot 2011-05-19 At 4.05.17 Pm
[SOURCE]

Merely observing? Nothing more than a digression? Uhm, Maggie wrote, and I quote:

"You are free to love anyone you want. You can also marry. Pick a girl, love her, make a family. Shocking as it is to the boxes we have constructed, there are gay men who do this, even today, and even after self-identifying as homosexual and they do not necessarily consider themselves ex-gays either."

And note the mention of "the boxes we have constructed," as if it's something far more contrived than science or the human love spectrum that is "shocked" by this concept. It would seem that Maggie made herself pretty darn clear with those first pass thoughts. The ones that instinctively poured from her fingers before Rauch called her out. The ones that mesh perfectly with her other comments from around that time, wherein Maggie claimed that homosexuality is "at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility" and "like infertility...a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species," leading her to tell then-President Bush that "ex-gay" therapy deserves more research dollars. Oh, and also ones that pair right up with her comments from just last year, where Maggie said gays "can always control their behavior" -- "behavior" she admits she considers "unfortunate."

With the body of evidence Maggie has provided, one really has to wonder: Is her not infrequent delving into the worlds of self-denial, "ex-gay"-ness, or unorthodox personal choices really a digression, or is it the underlying goal?

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