NOM President Maggie Gallagher at Aldrich Mansion Marriage Celebration

[PrepeiNaSasPw]

All of this debating might matter if it were honest, but it's not. The truth is that people who dislike gay people are the people who oppose same-sex marriage. Of course, you can come up with post-hoc reasons for being against same-sex marriage, but they are all disingenuous. So, even if we counter each and every "point," we can never solve the problem that way. The problem being dislike of gay people. It's that simple.

[beegbolt]

PrepeiNa: Thankyou! That inlies the whole problem. Folks need to either follow the Bible wholey and verbatim, or not at all. NOM picks on Gays because they do not accept them as part of human existence, biblically. Maggie constantely insults heterosexuals that chose to marry without the intention of procreating, or those who cannot. why else would she dis those who want to marry with the words" in sickness and in health..." and not include alternate loving, commited couples.

[Kevstar19]

Um apparently children DON'T need a father AND a mother because studies show that children that are taken in by a homo sexual couple do equally well, and even some cases BETTER than children of a hetero sexual couple.

[t0nyc0nde]

Why does Maggie Gallagher's husband never, ever appear with her? Hmm. And she has yet to explain this: How does allowing same-sex couples to marry affect traditional heterosexual marriages? Traditional marriage does not die just by allowing the small percentage of couples who are gay to get civil marriage protections.

[sammyseattle]

We're talking about civil marriage. It is a contract. You want something special? Have the contract blessed by a cleric of your choice. It really is that simple.

[all4uanew]

There is NOTHING Christ-like about denying anyone equal rights.

[anchorrising]

Two things must be equivalent for drawing a distinction between them to be invidious discrimination, and opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are different in a very important way.

[all4uanew]

Wrong. I did not accuse anyone of being hateful (a synonym for invidious), I simply pointed out the ignorance of claiming Christianity when clearly one lacks the love and compassion Christ embodied.

[str8talkexpress]

Same argument used for interracial marriage, but the majority now realizes love is love. Unfortunately, old habits (like prejudice) dies hard...

[CassieDS]

soooo...

poligymy is ok..but not gay marriage

interesting....

[anchorrising]

In attempting to reply, I accidentally removed this comment from darkwolfx333:

to respond to you faulty # 2, a majority of studies done compare same sex families that raise children to two person opposite sex families show that children do the same and sometimes better with same sex families. This has nothing to do with backgrounds or incentives.

[anchorrising]

Continued:

Also, Dr. John Gottman of the Gottman Institute and world renowned for his three decades of relationship psychology states very clearly that "homosexual relationships are the vanguard of what heterosexual relationships could be.

[anchorrising]

And now my response:

I'd have to see your citations on #2. My understanding is that most of the research compares the children of gay couples to children in households not consisting of their biological parents.

This is not to say, of course, that homosexuals cannot raise wonderful children. However, being raised within a family headed by the parents who united in the person of the child should remain the ideal.

[PaulLeary]

A very misguided. Aren't there any of her gay family members that can talk some love into her?

[dexterxyz]

Boooring speech. Mags could turn both gay and straight couples off marriage. She also states that heterosexual marriage leads to polygamy.

[anchorrising]

rbken:

It has nothing to do with my ego; it has to do with encouraging couples toward commitment who, by their nature, might prove procreative. The plain fact is that men and women together create human life, sometimes without meaning to do so, and it benefits their children and society to maximize the degree to which that happens within a stable, lifelong relationship.

[Zikiru]

So it's about the ability to have children? What if I'm infertile/sterilized, should I be denied marriage?

[anchorrising]

Zikiru:

Marriage acts as a cultural mechanism, so case-by-case variations (e.g., infertility) don't disrupt the essential meaning. The linkage between marriage and child-birth is sufficiently regulated by the fact that child-birth is the notably unique quality of opposite-sex relationships.

I'd note, too, that couples don't often realize their sterility until they're trying, which we ought to want them to do within marriage.

[Zikiru]

Okay, so first of all, what exactly IS the "essential meaning" of marriage? How would you define it?

Second of all, gay couples have children, too..

[Jacksonholenativ]

Yes Mags, you can just go on and on and on and on like the energizer bunny or a dingaling who just won't shut up. Interesting how the crowd just keeps talking even though she's talking. They obviously are not that interested in her speech.

[22149SF]

Anchorrising, why shouldn't gay people have the legal right to get civilly married to the person that they love or would love?  Aren't gay relationships committed and intimate too?

[anchorrising]

Intimate relationships between men and women are unique in a very significant way, justifying (I'd say "necessitating") a unique descriptor. I believe that there are a variety of incentives and areas of assistance that could encourage commitment among homosexuals, but it's a distinct social project.

[anchorrising]

rbken:

It is possible, you know, to believe that homosexuals can exist at the same time that it remains to society's benefit to promote committed, intimate relationships between men and women as something unique.

[rbken]

Your ego is involved and your need to feel special. Commitment is commitment, regardless of gender. The silly argument that society is better due to heterosexual unions is dated. It is not based in real time. That idea was last dated to perhaps the 1940s or early 50s. We all moved on and so should you. Grow up. We're in a new century and you should join us.

[rbken]

Your ego is involved in your response. There is nothing special and no benefit to society for only heterosexual unions to be recognized. I'm not sure why you feel so special. Let's move on, ok? Get beyond the dinos. Primitive much?

[anchorrising]

BetterABleedingHeart:

You celebrate it for what it is, not what it isn't.

[anchorrising]

ashlez79:

Funny, I'd say the same thing about your side.

[anchorrising]

Easvo:

You write too clearly not to already know the response to your argument.

[anchorrising]

u2bboob (again):

1) It's not a matter of denying the children of same-sex households protection. Various of the protections of marriage ought to be extended. It's a matter of fostering an institution that supports those couples that can, by their nature, create children. Families that seek to adopt and employ surrogates have distinct backgrounds and incentives..

2. All of the research I've seen compares children of same-sex couples to single-parents, eg, and discount differences.

[rbken]

Sorry, folks. She's an idiot. Welcome to the 21st Century.  Get used to it. The gays ain't going away.

[anchorrising]

u2bboob: It's not that it's restricted, but that it has a meaning, a definition, that speaks to its purpose culturally and as a civic institution, in neither of which cases is it compatible with same-sex relationships.

[BetterABleedingHeart]

How do you "celebrate" marriage by working to deny it to others?

[Coffeeaddict3]

Even after all the anti-marriage equality folks' arguing and "points" they try to make, at the end of the day they are not harmed or hurt in any way by two gays getting tax breaks & hospital visitation. Thats really all it is; I could easily go to a Unitarian church and get married to another guy if I wanted. So whats the big deal? Marriage was already "redifined" when the tabboo was slowly stripped away from being gay since the late 70's.

[ashlez79]

I really wish she'd stop using that 'great halves of humanity' line and actually make an attempt to refute her opponent's claims. She's like a broken record.

[kd1s]

Yet Chris Plante says this isn't religiously motivated. I'm sorry but all those involved with NOM are liars, plain and simple.

And Mags, I've been with my SO for 17 years. So screw you and your marriage.

[Easvo]

Her arguments are weak because they ignore gays' existence. To take her implication of how straight people are born, to say a gay was born with the purpose to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex and fulfill the procreative purpose denies a reality.

[billionbucks]

These anti-marriage equality people are truly disturbing.

[johnozed]

Yes let her disparage our lives and families, but please don't hurt her feelings, because that would just be wrong.

[u2bboob]

She then repeatedly ignores the fact that Many same sex couples have children either through adoption, other relationships, surrogacy, etc. Those kids deserve every legal protection as any others!

Why does she feel that these kids must be denied? It is beyond lunacy.

She then launches into the tired, FALSE argument that kids do better with two opposite sex parents. Where's the proof Maggie? It is true that kids thrive with two LOVING PARENTS.

Where's the outrage over older people marrying?

[u2bboob]

The entire poblem with her point of view isn't her view of marriage it's her view that it should be restricted.

She even calls Marriage a Universal Institution!

[joebrummer]

To call this women names or chop her down only confirms her belief that gays are some horrible folks. Please show her we are not by showing her respect. Attack her arguments not her.

There is enough rubbish her arguments to deal with without doing to her what she does to gays and lesbians.