tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33855769.post4996365255137976902..comments2024-03-28T08:03:32.297-07:00Comments on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: Maggie Gallagher's paper trail refutes her liesBlackTsunamihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02349560427762283170noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33855769.post-27989887289370070612011-11-27T14:48:39.733-08:002011-11-27T14:48:39.733-08:00Meanwhile, their blog moderator allows comments li...Meanwhile, their blog moderator allows comments like this from their supporters, while blocking polite commentary from those who disagree with them:<br /><br />"No one needs to feel awkward at Thanksgiving dinner table. The arguments against same-sex civil marriage are definitive, while the arguments allowing people of homosexual persuasion (perversion) their private civil rights are also definitive. But, in general, it is not polite to discuss subjects that can imply anything to do with -f e c e s- at the dinner table. It just makes you want to throw up. Nevertheless, some people are crude and actually enjoy discussing these things at their dinner table. That's their right. It's their turkey. Hope for good digestion." (from http://www.nomblog.com/16035/#comments)<br /><br />I always have to wonder, why are they so fixated on a particular sexual practice that not all gay men (and probably virtually no lesbians) like or even engage in? I can talk to my parents and siblings about their marriages, without being so perverse and impolite as to fantasize about what they do (or don't do) in bed. I would hope they would return the favor. The fact is that the opponents of same-sex marriage have no idea what we do behind closed doors, unless they're spying through our windows. Heck, we could be perfectly chaste, for all they know.John B.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33855769.post-68337107178512139282011-11-24T17:00:40.372-08:002011-11-24T17:00:40.372-08:00I, too, have long since been suspicious that Maggi...I, too, have long since been suspicious that Maggie could have been on the Board of NOM and *not* been cognizant of what it was doing, saying, or how it was demonizing us! And, I also found it telling how Maggie kept insisting on making the so-called "debate" one about "morals" which is a strictly religious purview.<br /><br />Unfortunately, however, brad, Maggie would insist on refuting your first point, albeit speciously, by insisting that even though they are sterile or may not want children, "they still send the proper message...that marriage is principally about bringing together the two great halves of humanity and transmitting a 'marriage culture'."Wade MacMorrighanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17444754331865119613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33855769.post-49474160080747845102011-11-24T12:33:27.783-08:002011-11-24T12:33:27.783-08:00Here's my response to Maggie's "Moral...Here's my response to Maggie's "Moral High Ground" and anyone who took her view at the T-day table:<br /><br />1. So only people who are fertile and actively making babies should be married by your definition. By your argument sterile people and people beyond child bearing age should not be married? Really?<br /><br />2. But ya are a bigot Maggie, ya are. It's not a nice word but we call them as we see them.<br /><br />3. Tolerance only goes one way? I have to give up the rights and responsibilities of marriage because you can't live with any other point of view? That's not tolerance. You can continue your quasi-religious beliefs and disapprove of my relationship. You cannot interfere with my relationship anymore than I can interfere with yours. Can I vote on your marriage?<br /><br />If you were a guest in my home: I don't particularly like your self-righteous attitude and you can leave our home now. Here's your coat. Please don't come back.<br /><br />If I were a guest in your home: I've heard enough, time to go. Where's my coat. I won't be back and please don't ask me again.Bradnoreply@blogger.com