NOM’s Maggie Gallagher: “A man who committed sodomy may have lost his soul, be he did not lose his gender”

September 9, 2010 at 10:58 am 157 comments

(Cross-posted at Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

Not sure when or where or why she said it. But according to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler Jr., writing in the 2008 book The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence, National Organization For Marriage chair Maggie Gallagher did in fact say this about gay people:

(*NOTE: quote starts in highlighted right column, continues in left)

Maggie-Gallagher-buggery-quote

*SOURCE: The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence [Google Books]

Okay, first off: Ridiculous! “Homosexuality did not exist”? There is homosexuality in the historical record dating back as far as it goes. Some of these reports are more likely and valid than others, admittedly. But to act as if two men and two women were nothing more than “sodomy” or “buggery” partners prior to the nineteenth century is as silly as saying that dinosaurs never existed. Oh wait a minute…

But beyond just denial, there’s also the element of perspective. There are many, many things that were considered taboo or forbidden or, conversely, acceptable, that we now look back on with humor, embarrassment, or shame. Because that’s what society does: Learns and grows from its mistakes, ideally remedying all past oppressions within a more enlightened people’s powers.

Of course there aren’t glowing reports of weekly gay unions from the year 1100 — gays, witches, liberated women, and those with the crazy theory that the world was round (among many, many others) were all too busy watching their backs to write any of it down. Many were shamed into silence or repression or worse. Much, much worse.

So we’d seriously caution Maggie about showing unqualified nostalgia for past human treatments, even if she’s only feigning these feelings for her own political purposes.

Entry filed under: NOM Exposed. Tags: .

BREAKING: California Supreme Court rejects PJI appeal; Schwarzenegger and Brown will not be forced to defend Prop 8 “Moral rights”: A discussion of Peter, Paul & Mary’s cease-and-desist letter to NOM

157 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Mouse  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Maggie is completely insane.

    Reply
    • 2. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:03 am

      Yet raking in the money. How can I get that gig?

      Reply
      • 3. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:49 am

        I’m with you, Ann.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

        Reply
      • 4. Felyx  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:53 am

        You get that ‘gig’ by deliberately harming others and detracting from the greater good of society…. are you sure you really want a tainted paycheck?

        Felyx

        Reply
      • 5. James Sweet  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:56 am

        In this economy? Don’t tempt me :p

        Reply
      • 6. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:57 am

        Felyx, good point. Never mind, then. If only I could find some other gig that let me act insane and rake in money.

        Reply
      • 7. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:59 pm

        Wasn’t thinking about Maggie’s gig, just about being insane and raking in the money.

        Actually, I don’t think Maggie is insane, I think she knows exactly what she is doing and I think her motivation is money in her pocket.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

        Reply
      • 8. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 9, 2010 at 4:59 pm

        You can also take bribes–oh, excuse me, “incentive payments”–from the Bush Administration to write supposedly journalistic articles promoting “marriage initiatives”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gallagher#Controversies

        Reply
      • 9. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:04 pm

        It’s not the souls of others she should be worried about.

        Reply
    • 10. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:15 am

      Funny, I just ran across this quote from Gail Collins in the NY Times, and I thought of Maggie, and her NOMbies:

      When this sort of thing happens, it is important to remember that about 5 percent of our population is and always will be totally crazy. I don’t mean mentally ill. According to the National Institute for Mental Health, 26 percent of American adults suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year. So, basically, that’s just normal life. I mean crazy in the sense of “Thinks it is a good plan to joke with the flight attendant about seeing a bomb in the restroom.”

      Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/opinion/09collins.html?hp

      Reply
      • 11. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:19 am

        But why are these crazy people so damn CHATTY???

        Maggie needs a handler.

        Reply
  • 12. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Poor Maggie! I truly hope that she is able to learn the truth so that the truth can make her free! What a sad life to feel so poorly about yourself that you have to oppress and tread upon other people in order to find any semblance of happiness.

    Reply
    • 13. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:22 am

      My new theory is she doesn’t believe a word of it.

      I have nothing to base this on (knowing only than she had an illegitimate baby then married some guy so he could get his greencard), it’s just that as the rants pile higher and higher, I don’t think even SHE she can actually believe the bullsh!t (??)

      It’s a job for her. How many of us really really like our job?

      Reply
      • 14. Summerwine  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:18 pm

        Oh, she loves her job.

        Her self-esteem is so low that pretending GBLT people are beneath her allows her to redirect her self-hatred.

        She has an illegitimate child and an allegedly loveless marriage. But as long as she’s “better” than GBLT, she’s a picture of upstanding morality in her book.

        Reply
      • 15. Breaking the Silence  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:01 pm

        Kvetch. I’ve heard that before. Does it happen to translate, however roughly, to the early-Akroydian “screeching, squealing, rapacious swamp sow”?

        Reply
      • 16. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 7:16 pm

        That is one option for translation. Another option begins with the second letter of the alphabet and ends in the same three last letters.

        Reply
    • 17. eDee  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:28 am

      @Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)

      I wish there was a ‘LIKE’ option here.

      Reply
    • 18. Breaking the Silence  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:07 pm

      Indeed! She very much strikes me as one of those unbearably bossy, opinionated, snooping, controlling, judgmental, loudmouthed, self-esteem crushing,must-have-my-fingers-in-everything individuals commonly found inducing suicide ideation in their beleagured captive audience of coworkers in offices all over the world. Is there a term for those? There should be.

      BTW, Richard; I read up on Saul of Tarsus and found it very interesting! :)

      Reply
  • 20. Ronnie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Right….”200 years ago homosexuality didn’t exist”…….someone failed word history….Maggie “Shoe Flinger” Gallagher is such an EPIC FAILURE at all aspects of humanity & life…..<3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 21. James Sweet  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:09 am

    This silly quote is true in the trivial sense that in some cultures (including Western European culture a few centuries ago) there is no notion of sexual preference. This may be because heteronormative assumptions were taken as an absolute (17th century Western European culture), or because having sex with someone of the same gender was just fairly normal (ancient Greece).

    Of course, there are many other cultures, some stretching quite far back in the past, which did have a notion of sexual preference. So even if you ignore the obvious problem that the lack of societal acknowledgement does not imply non-existence, Gallagher’s comment is historically naive.

    In fairness, our modern classification of sexual preference is an artificial convention — it’s a continuum, not a set of discrete buckets. Of course, since something like 99% of people fall on one of the poles of the continuum, our artificial convention works fairly well most of the time. But Gallagher is right to point out that if a man engages in sex with another man, he does not magically “become” gay. It is true that sexual preference and sexual behavior are not the same thing. She just goes off the rails in thinking there’s anything wrong with same-sex sex or same-sex sexual preference.

    Reply
    • 22. Lori  |  September 11, 2010 at 1:18 am

      Seconded. Really weird to see this article because we were just talking about this topic in my writing seminar class.

      While the moralizing is a red flag and shows her obvious bias (as if we didn’t know she was homophobic already!), she does make a point about how the conception of identity based on sexual orientation varies between time periods and cultures.

      Reply
    • 23. Sagesse  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:33 am

      Very well put. In many respects, our factual understanding of sexual orientation is still being developed, but particularly the demographics.

      It will be years, if not decades, only after the bulwark of discriminatory federal and state legislation has been dismantled, before there are reliable estimates of the number of people who are LGBT, of the number of committed couples, be they married, DP’d or unofficial, the number of children being raised by LGBT couples, and the number of adult children who were raised by LGBT parents.

      There is a time lag between the changes that have occurred to make LGBT citizens more visible, the recognition of those changes in our collective social consciousness, and the documenting of those changes in demographic and social science research. I personally believe that the estimates of the number and % of LGBT in the population will continue to creep up, not because the numbers are increasing, but because the closets are disappearing.

      For example, SLDN estimates that, of the total armed forces and reserves of 3 million, 66,000 are LGBT. If you consider the anecdotal stories of people who know or recall serving with gay service members, even allowing for turnover, that number is unrealistically low.

      Maggie and crew cling to narrow, selective and outdated stereotypes and research. The day is coming when the history and the facts will simply run them over. Looking forward to it.

      Reply
      • 24. Kathleen  |  September 11, 2010 at 6:44 am

        Absolutely agree.

        Reply
  • 25. Dave in CA  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:10 am

    More proof in support of Judge Walker’s findings of fact and his ruling.

    Reply
  • 26. Ed  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:13 am

    We have not always had free black folks. Two hundred years ago, for example black freedom did not exist. There was of course the occasional runaway slave, and a few fortunate ones who purchased so called freedom. But none of these forbidden acts fundamentally altered the American landscape. A black man who escaped the confines of his masters plantation may have been hiding, but he did not lose his race or become free as a white man…. That was the invention of the nineteenth century imagination.=

    Reply
    • 27. Mouse  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:21 am

      Two hundred years ago, for example, Maggie Gallagher did not exist. There was bigotry, of course, and homophobia, and sexism and a number of other forms of discrimination, but none of those anti-social mentalities fundamentally raised so much money for… oh, wait, people have been exploiting others with nonsense beliefs for a long time. Maggie’s just the latest incarnation of evil, but she’s not even anything new.

      Reply
      • 28. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:24 am

        I want her to go all out, have a dramatic “Born Again” experience, and start preaching in tent revivals.

        I know I’d go!!

        Reply
      • 29. Mouse  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:39 am

        I’d be fine if she and her ilk would just go.

        Reply
      • 30. Anonygrl  |  September 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm

        Ilk.

        Good word.

        Reply
      • 31. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:02 pm

        Thanks for the belly-laugh I’ve been really needing after a frustrating day! :)

        Reply
      • 32. anonygrl  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:06 pm

        Well, sometimes the word seems to me to be a mashup between Ill and Elk.

        And since I am all for calling Maggie out for being a constipated moose, it works for me!

        Reply
  • 33. Skemono  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Two hundred years ago, for example, homosexuality did not exist.

    So wouldn’t that mean that all those Bible verses your side likes to quote cannot possibly be referring to homosexuality?

    Reply
    • 34. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:17 am

      touche!

      Reply
    • 35. Ozymandias71  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:18 am

      Ooh, good one!

      Love to all,

      Ozy

      Reply
    • 36. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:52 am

      Excellent point. Now that would be a good one to ask her or Brian about.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      Reply
    • 37. Summerwine  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:25 pm

      Maggie just got served. Can you send her a lovely letter with your logic and her quote, please?

      Reply
    • 38. Dave  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:33 pm

      Just playing Devil’s Advocate (literally and figuratively) but wouldn’t that just PROVE how the Bible can predict future things and how it HAS to be written by God?

      Reply
      • 39. Phil L  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:48 pm

        No. That just proves that over the course of the past two years it’s been “retranslated” to include a hot new buzzword (homosexuality).

        Reply
      • 40. Phil L  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:57 pm

        Oops… I meant “two hundred years.”

        Reply
    • 41. Phil L  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:48 pm

      BOOYAA!

      Reply
    • 42. socalhig  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:07 pm

      That’s too logical for Maggie and her ilk.

      Reply
      • 43. Lora  |  September 10, 2010 at 12:55 am

        socalhig formerly known as Lora…it won’t let me change it back. :(

        Reply
      • 44. Lora  |  September 10, 2010 at 12:56 am

        Nevermind…

        Reply
  • 45. MJFargo  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Let’s make a list of all the things that were invented during and since the 19th Century. Does that mean they were not true just because we discovered them since, I’m guessing, Biblical times?

    Reply
    • 46. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:28 am

      Antipsychotic medications didn’t exist 200 years ago.

      They do now…but Maggie won’t take them.

      Reply
      • 47. Jen-Bunny  |  September 10, 2010 at 1:50 pm

        ahahahahaha ZING!

        Reply
      • 48. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 10, 2010 at 1:53 pm

        And even if she did take them, are there any available that are strong enough, or that when taken together won’t counteract each other and render the whole group useless?

        Reply
  • 49. Zachary  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:22 am

    “A third sex”?

    Reply
    • 50. Mouse  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:37 am

      Just something Maggie et. al. stay up all night thinking about as they toss and turn.

      Reply
    • 51. Skemono  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:58 pm

      Yeah.

      I don’t really think homosexuality applies, so in that sense I’d actually agree with Gallagher.

      Reply
      • 52. Zachary  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:28 pm

        No, unless I’m reading wrong, I believe Maggie’s saying homosexuality is the third sex. Which is absolute nonsense.

        Reply
  • 53. Felyx  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:25 am

    What is Maggie trying to say here… age of consent laws didn’t come about until the 1900’s… does that mean pedophilia was never really an issue?

    For that matter… how does Maggie justify wearing short hair and pants?

    You know, nuclear bombs didn’t exist 200 years ago… imagine what would happen if Christians got together to protest nuclear bombs!

    Felyx

    Reply
    • 54. Anonygrl  |  September 9, 2010 at 2:48 pm

      No, no… they SUPPORT nuclear bombs.

      How else are you going to clear away all those heathens?

      Reply
      • 55. AngelH  |  September 10, 2010 at 12:05 pm

        Actually…. http://www.twofuturesproject.org

        There are SOME of us who actually care about humanity and human rights, lol. :)

        –Bi Liberal Christian

        Reply
      • 56. Anonygrl  |  September 10, 2010 at 12:19 pm

        Oh, yes, I KNOW there are, and we love to have you aboard! Please forgive my blanket statement, it was intended to be amusing, not condemning of Christians as a group.

        My feeling on the subject is that there are people who actually follow the teachings of the guy who said one of the two most important rules of all was to “love your neighbor as yourself”, and there are those who don’t. The ones who don’t are not Christian, in my opinion, no matter what they have been told to think or by whom.

        Reply
      • 57. AngelH  |  September 10, 2010 at 1:19 pm

        Anonygrl,

        It’s all good. :) I didn’t actually take offense. I just thought it was funny that Christian support for disarmament was being discussed, and I just happened to read that comment and know of an organization that fit the bill. I am quite an active supporter of 2FP.

        Oh, and uh, if anyone goes to my FB, feel free to add me as a friend, however know that I’m not “out”. Serious relational and collegiate repercussions would ensue should that information be made public. Sadly.

        <3 :) AngelH

        Reply
    • 58. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 10, 2010 at 12:24 pm

      AngelH, you are one of the TRUE Christians. The others are referred to here as CINO’s (Christians In Name Only). As Anonygrl said, welcome to the family! Pull up a comfortable chair, grab some cookies, challah, coffee, MILK, or whatever else you see on the cybersnack table that suits your fancy.

      Reply
      • 59. Anonygrl  |  September 10, 2010 at 12:31 pm

        Richard, you are the hostess with the mostess!!!

        Love you babe!!

        :)

        Reply
      • 60. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 10, 2010 at 12:46 pm

        I try. After all, when you are the rebbitizen for the unaffiliated Jews and others who need a safe place to go, you never know when you might have guests, and it not only goes against my religion, but also against my human nature, to be inhospitable. And I love you too. You are family, after all. the best kind of family–the family you actually want to spend time with!

        Reply
      • 61. AngelH  |  September 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm

        Why, thank you, Richard! :D

        Glad to be here.

        Reply
  • 62. Bob D.  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:25 am

    This frightens me more than most of her babble.

    When it gets to the point where the oppressed lose their humanity in the eyes of the oppressors (i.e, “has no soul”), the beginning for the call to genocide isn’t far behind.

    Now that’s a tall order in this day, but “out of sight” killings can take many forms. I would argue that the current spate of teen suicides in MN, the DELIBERATE lack of response on the part of the school district, and the DELIBERATE SUPPORT of a non-response by the extreme right wing (e.g., FOTF and candidate for governor Emmer) is indicative of this “unpersonalization” of non-heterosexuals.

    Passive “support” is no longer sufficient. It’s time to actively confront these evil forces.

    Reply
    • 63. Bob  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:58 am

      here, here, but please hear what he said, passive support is no longer sufficient, action is required for those kids in that MN school district, three suicides , one yr, STOP

      Reply
  • 64. Mark  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Maggie needs to engage her brain before putting her mouth in gear.

    Reply
    • 65. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:40 am

      Sometimes I have wondered if Maggie has one to engage, or if she is operating solely on the programming that is fed to her via her nightly hookup to the server via USB cable.

      Reply
      • 66. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:44 am

        So THAT’s the reason we never see her speaking in the rain…they’re afraid she’ll short out and start looking like she’s possessed…head spinning…eyes bulging…hair on end…blathering nonsense…oh, wait, that’s how she is now.

        Reply
      • 67. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:05 pm

        Did I hear something about Stepford in there?

        Reply
    • 68. Susan R Barnes  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:30 pm

      What brain?

      Reply
      • 69. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 9, 2010 at 4:03 pm

        Love that visual, elliom.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

        Reply
    • 70. Phil L  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:56 pm

      I’m sure she tries, but her brain has a programming error that reads something like this:

      start

      #engagebrain
      if engagebrain = 1 then goto “brain”

      #brain
      if brain = 1 then goto “saysmartthing”
      –else goto “ass”

      #saysmarthing
      function = say something intelligent

      #ass
      function = spew smelly waste

      return to “start”

      It’s not a perfectly written code, but that’s about how I see her “brain” functioning.

      Reply
      • 71. BK  |  September 10, 2010 at 7:31 am

        Haha! I’ve taken a few computer programming courses; this just made my day. :) Great code; it’s obviously not perfect–it’s written for Maggie.

        Reply
      • 72. elliom  |  September 10, 2010 at 10:58 am

        From one techie to another: Great algorithm! Uploading now. Rebooting Mags in 3…2…1…*smelly waste*

        Reply
  • 73. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Get yer GRAVATARS here:

    http://en.gravatar.com/

    Really, people. Come out of the annonymous closet and put up your best daisy icon, or whathaveyou.

    Don’t make me hack into this thing and ASSIGN everyone pictures

    : )

    Reply
    • 74. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:34 am

      edee’s rainbow button is cool, too : )

      Reply
      • 75. eDee  |  September 9, 2010 at 2:35 pm

        @Carpool Cookie,
        Thank you, I made it myself! I’m very proud lol
        It started as a joke, I was told I needed a ‘straight ally’ button – this is what I came up with.

        Reply
    • 76. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:44 am

      BTW, I LOVE your gravatar, Cookie! You make me think of all the other strong women in my life who are strong, smart, encouraging, and will fight like a tiger for you when somebody tries to hurt you.

      Reply
      • 77. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:15 pm

        Thanks! I did an image search for “Lipstick Librian”…..which is what I am at heart : )

        Reply
    • 78. Anonygrl  |  September 9, 2010 at 2:49 pm

      I HAVE one… it is me, sitting on a sand dune, in the Sahara Desert.

      Reply
    • 79. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm

      LOL Great idea Cookie :-)

      Reply
  • 80. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:33 am

    I like Bob’s kitty and Ed’s dog, Mouse’s mouse and Felyx’s comic, BTW!

    Reply
    • 81. Mouse  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:56 am

      Why, thank you!

      Reply
      • 82. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm

        I like your mouse, also. And part of the reason is that your mouse is standing there with ears standing up, eyes bright and wide open, and you just know that this one is paying attention in class! This is the smart one that you can reach. This is what people should be like–willing and eager to learn.

        Reply
  • 83. Sagesse  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:33 am

    How do you converse with someone who inhabits a parallel universe. Feeling like Alice in Wonderland here… and tho I know more e-mail won’t help, nevertheless subscribing.

    Reply
    • 84. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:35 am

      I think Maggie herself is a slippery slope. You are wise to parcel out how much you listen to her.

      Reply
  • 85. eDee  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Two hundred years ago, for example, homosexuality did not exist.
    Seriously, 200 years ago? That’s it. That’s as far back as she wanted to go with that statement.

    Definition of SODOMY: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;
    First Known Use: 13th century (and that’s just the word – I guess before that they didn’t have a name for it.)

    I could take that definition and her quote in some many different directions, but I have a life! lol

    Reply
  • 86. Bobw  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Actually, for once nearly everything Mrs. Srivastev says here is true.

    It’s an idea first presented by Michel Foucault, a prestigious gay philosopher and historian, and one still widely used in academia, especially Queer Theory. As Slaggie says, there were names for particular sex acts between men (buggery, sodomy, and so on), but engaging in those behaviours did not suggests a fundamental change in one’s essence: that is, having sex with another man didn’t make you fundamentally different from other men, and there was no concept of “homosexuality” as an identity or a set of behaviour patterns, although the specific behaviours might have been considered sinful or taboo.

    This changed in Europe in the 19th century, when “homosexuality” was created as a medical category, and engaging in homosexual acts came to be seen as indicative of something within the person himself. This idea then spread to the rest of the world via colonialism. It was thought, for instance, that sex with another man could cause physiological changes, or that “homosexuals” were somehow “inverts,” with the soul of a woman in the body of a man, and all kinds of similar nonsense. And indeed, the belief in an identity based on being sexually and emotionally attracted to people of one’s own sex didn’t come about until much later than this, when “homosexual” people began to organize their lives around the desire for same-sex companionship.

    That is not to say that there haven’t always existed people primarily or exclusively interested in members of their own sex; of course there have. It’s just that most societies didn’t have words to describe them and didn’t think of them as different from other people, and people of all orientations didn’t think of themselves as having identities based on their sexual feelings.

    It has to be remembered, too, that in the distant past there was often a great deal more sexual flexibility (for men at least). Because no sexual categories (heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual) existed, men were actually freer to engage in sex with a variety of people, including their wives (because men have mostly been expected to marry women), male and female concubines and prostitutes, adolescent boys, and in some cases and situations, each other, without the stigma or restrictions of sexual identity categories. But a man who only desired sex with other males wouldn’t have considered himself “homosexual” anymore than a man who only enjoyed sex with women would have considered himself heterosexual or a man who enjoyed sex with women as well as with boys or male prostitutes would have considered himself bisexual, and none of these men would have been considered fundamentally different from each other.

    So Slaggie may be partially right, but she’s certainly not using the theory in the way it was originally introduced, which was to challenge state and religious power over our lives, or how it’s come to be used, which is to highlight the trajectory of sexual identity history. What she’s trying to say is that “homosexuality” is a modern, and therefore illegitimate identity, that homosexuality is pathological, and that therefore gay people should be afforded no special rights.

    Reply
    • 87. Steve  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:53 am

      Even before the term “homosexuality” was officially invented in the late 19th century, there were certainly people who considered it an identity and actually tried to live up to it. Some of them had a very clear idea of who they were and knew that they were only attracted to people of the same gender. They didn’t understand why they were different, but they knew.

      For society as a whole, it’s certainly true that same-sex attraction was all about behavior though. That’s the reason it could be criminalized so easily.

      Reply
      • 88. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:57 am

        Not to mention whole other cultures (as this has been a mostly western perspective) that have differing views of sex and sexuality. For instance, the ritual eunuchs of India, often referred to as “the third gender.”

        (Someone with more detailed kge of Indian culture could probably explain better.)

        Reply
      • 89. Bobw  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:02 pm

        That’s not really the case. There were obviously people who knew that they preferred one sex over the other, and probably even some who tried to live that way, but they didn’t think of themselves as having a “homosexual” or gay identity or as being in any important way different from their peers.

        And they couldn’t have constructed a gay identity because prior to the 1800s it was extremely difficult for most people to live in any way independently. Most people were not self-supporting, they could not live without the support of their families and communities, and they had little choice but to do what was expected. But social realities of class and gender privilege meant that at the same time they had in some ways a greater degree of freedom than people do now. So, many men who we would now think of as gay married women, made children, and had open or clandestine liaisons with other men.

        Reply
      • 90. Steve  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:07 pm

        Oh, and Plato’s “Symposium” has this little line:
        “the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments”

        It’s of course hard to interpret much into it, but it does seem to suggest that he realizes they these women don’t just have sex with other women for fun now and then, but truly aren’t attracted to men.

        Interestingly, in the next lines, he says that men who sleep with men do so because they are brave and manly. The total opposite of the gay stereotype today. That’s evident throughout ancient Greek writing.

        Reply
      • 91. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm

        Plato was most likely referring to the Lesbian and Amazon tribes.

        Reply
      • 92. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:12 pm

        @ Steve: Let us not forget that Alexander the Great said that an army of lovers is invincible. That sort of ruins the modern stereotype of gay men and women also, doesn’t it?

        Reply
      • 93. Steve  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:18 pm

        @Bobw
        I’m not saying that it was common, but it did exist. Have you ever heard of Anne Lister?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lister

        She was a somewhat well-off English landowner, though by no means rich. That social status and independence allowed her to live the life she wished. She was very intelligent and well-read and consulted the literature of the time about the topic.

        She knew very well that she was gay – even if she didn’t have the words for it. Finding a life partner was one of the driving parts of her life. She pursued and seduced plenty of women and had several longterm relationships. She could be very cruel and narcissistic though and was very conscious about class.

        Her last partner was a rich heiress and landowner as well. Together, they owned so much land that they were practically invincible towards the accusations coming from society. People speculated about them, but they couldn’t do much about it. They married in a ceremony of their own and had will in each other’s favor for example.

        We know that today, because over her lifetime she wrote a four million word diary. One sixth of it was encoded with a simple substitution cipher. That coded section describes her love-life and sexual exploits in sometimes graphic detail.

        This quote really tells you all about her clear self-awareness:
        “I love and only love the fairer sex and thus beloved by them in turn, my heart revolts from any love but theirs.”

        Reply
      • 94. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:27 pm

        “Interestingly, in the next lines, [Plato] says that men who sleep with men do so because they are brave and manly. “

        Must have been a popular pickup line at the Roman baths.

        Reply
    • 95. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:54 am

      Of course, Mrs. Srivistav is conveniently ignoring the fact that what we are asking for is not special rights, but equal rights.

      Reply
      • 96. rf  |  September 9, 2010 at 2:11 pm

        I seriously think we should all just call her Mrs. Srivastav at all times. I mean a respectable married woman should never be referred to by her first name, as property of her husband we must respect his ownership. And the non-Christian name? well that’s just funny esp since most of the people that actually listen to her probably have no idea.

        Reply
      • 97. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:10 pm

        Or we could go all Terry Pratchett on her and rename her ‘Magrat’.

        Reply
    • 98. Peter  |  September 10, 2010 at 2:33 pm

      Thank you for a well reasoned, historically correct explanation, BobW.

      Reply
    • 99. Alec  |  September 10, 2010 at 10:24 pm

      Does it matter that she’s “not using the theory in the way it was originally introduced”? Do the social constructionists enjoy some monopoly over how this “theory” is used outside of the class room?

      It does reinforce my view that they (the New Left offshoots) typically represent a faction of the Left that is decidedly illiberal and authoritarian. Because while they would never countenance a white conservative using this argument, they might listen to an apologist for the salafists who advanced the same argument.

      Reply
  • 100. John B.  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:45 am

    What I’m trying to figure out is, who on earth is arguing that gay people are a “third sex”? That just makes no sense (especially when you consider that gay people can be either male or female, so shouldn’t there be a fourth sex in there somewhere?).
    Unfortunately the gay community has fed into this to some extent with the idea that we are somehow apart from heterosexuals, that people are either gay or straight, without considering the very large continuum in both behavior and self-identity in between. I’ve known far too many people with far too interesting relationship histories to pigeonhole people so easily.

    Reply
    • 101. Steve  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:47 am

      It’s her misunderstanding of the terms “sex” and “gender”. Biological sex and gender roles aren’t necessarily linked.

      Reply
  • 102. Steve  |  September 9, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Ha. If you read some some stuff like Ann Lister’s diaries, there was apparently quite a lesbian underground scene in Paris at the beginning of the 19th century.

    Going forward a century, it’s somewhat surprising how many well-known painters, poets and authors in the late 19th and early 20th century were gay or bisexual. They had entire communities where they could socialize freely. Same with early Hollywood actors and actresses. It was just kept out of the public for the most part, but widely known behind the scenes.

    It has always been there. Just far more hidden than it is today.

    Reply
  • 103. Bennett  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Ecclesiastes 1:9-11
    9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

    10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

    11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

    Good enough for Shakespere. Shoud be good enough for Midge.

    And in the same chapter:

    4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

    So much for Margies Chicken Little act.

    Reply
  • 104. Bobw  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    elliom | September 9, 2010 at 11:57 am wrote:

    Not to mention whole other cultures (as this has been a mostly western perspective) that have differing views of sex and sexuality. For instance, the ritual eunuchs of India, often referred to as “the third gender.”

    What I wrote does largely encompass other cultures, but we weren’t talking about additional genders, of which several cultures have had many. The Hijra you speak of are sometimes thought of as a distinct (non-male, non-female) gender, and they aren’t simply cross-dressed men who have sex with men.

    Reply
    • 105. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:13 pm

      Sorry, wasn’t a comment about you, in particular, just my take on Mag’s statement, and the conversation overall.

      Thx for the info on the Hajra. Shat little I know is from some philosophy and religious studies classes 20 yrs ago.

      Reply
      • 106. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm

        Shat = What

        Puppy “assisted” with the typing.

        Reply
      • 107. Sheryl Carver  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:11 pm

        Completely understand the “puppy assistance”. My cats often assist me with my typing. Some days, I think they actually do a better job than I do.

        Reply
      • 108. Anonygrl  |  September 10, 2010 at 8:03 am

        I’ve always maintaind that LOLspeak should not be “just teh mizpellz an lik dat” but should look more like what an actual cat types (and mine are champions of this), “aaaaasdklrjialllllllllehn;aFSSSSSSSSSSSAEDSL”

        Friends in chat know that this is kitty for “Hello, I am bored and so I am going to walk across the keys now. You can avoid this by feeding me. NOW.”

        Reply
      • 109. elliom  |  September 10, 2010 at 11:02 am

        LOL…totally understand. Have 15 yr old cat (DSH), 11 mo old pit/Jack Russel mix, and fish. Had a rat a few years ago. I love animals, but they do make a pest of themselves, don’t they? :>

        Reply
  • 110. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Dante’s Inferno has what are thought to be “sodomites” in one of his circles of the Inferno. Dante lived in the 1200s and 1300s.

    Reply
  • 111. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    What do you mean the earth is round! Simple nonsense.

    The problem with her (their/NOM) way of thinking is that gender and sex go hand in hand.

    It’s not a secret that they (NOM and ilk) are the perverted thinkers. All they do is sit around thinking and talking about sex.

    They don’t see or think beyond the act of sex to see humans, like their fingerprints, are unique. Which is truly a shame.

    Reply
    • 112. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:20 pm

      Not just sex….GAY SEX!

      Think about it. All Bri and Mags (and Louis….HI LOUIS) do all day is sit around and think about GAY SEX! And what do they talk about when they get together? GAY SEX! And when they get a “crowd” gathered, what do preach about? GAY SEX!

      Ya know….they must really love it to obsess about it that much.

      Reply
      • 113. PamC  |  September 9, 2010 at 2:17 pm

        lol, this reminds me of the anti-phelps protest outside this year’s comic-con…..one of the chants was:

        “What do we want? Gay sex! When do we want it? NOW!”

        Gotta love my fellow geeks & freaks.

        Reply
    • 114. Bennett  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:35 pm

      pi r not square, pi are round!

      Reply
      • 115. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:38 pm

        cobbler r square

        Reply
      • 116. Don in Texas  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:49 pm

        Cornbread r square.

        Reply
      • 117. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm

        Okay, who found Granny Clampett and Jethro?

        Reply
      • 118. elliom  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:54 pm

        Us’ens from MO is PROWED to be hill-billies…YEE HAW! :>

        Reply
      • 119. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:57 pm

        They call us hillbillies in West-by God-Virginia, too, don’t ya know? And to be honest, I like my cornbread in them little cast irons things that shape it up like ears. Now, somebody pass the pintos please.

        Reply
      • 120. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:12 pm

        Pizza pi are round or square.

        Reply
      • 121. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:59 pm

        Especially at Little Caesar’s. Of course I can remember when Little Caesar’s only had the square ones. That was also when you could call in and pick them up at the counter, and get two of theirs for what everyone else was charging for one.

        Reply
      • 122. Ronnie  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:27 pm

        PIZZA!!!…PIZZA!!!!….. ; ) ….Ronnie

        Reply
  • 123. Bill  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Try homosexuality. It’s new!

    Reply
    • 124. John  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm

      My absolute favorite comment of all time (so far).

      Reply
    • 125. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:37 pm

      Yeah.

      “Try it! Be a TRENDSETTER!”

      Reply
  • 126. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    It’s interesting that Maggie’s quote has to do with men only….as most of the criticism about homosexuality seems to do.

    Is she saying Sapho wasn’t a homosexual? Does she think gay people just suddenly evolved out of heterosexuality some time in the 1800’s? Stoner needs to put down the crack pipe.

    Reply
    • 127. Bill  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:28 pm

      It’s mostly the gay men that most heterosexuals hate.

      Anytime you see anti-gay heterosexuals on TV or in the press, it is always the gay men that they target.

      The are very angry with us for being gay men and not wanting sex with a woman. Very angry!

      It’s all so ridiculous.

      Reply
      • 128. AndrewPDX  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:21 pm

        Well, not always…. remember Cindy the prophet profit last week at Lou Engle’s Call TheWhine… She expressly screamed at the lesbians to renounce the plague of girl-on-girl kissing.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 129. Anonygrl  |  September 10, 2010 at 8:26 am

        I wonder…

        Are conservative, old, white people so hateful of homosexuals because that makes TWO sexes that won’t sleep with them?

        Reply
    • 130. Steve  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:39 pm

      And apparently the female rugby team at the Air Force Academy is a “breeding ground of lesbianism”:

      http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_16027541?source=commented-

      Reply
      • 131. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 2:43 pm

        Gosh….isn’t that a movie plot, somewhere???

        Reply
      • 132. Catherine  |  September 13, 2010 at 11:02 am

        @AndrewPDX – “girl on girl kissing”

        That’s hawt!!!!

        Reply
  • 133. Ronnie  |  September 9, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Don’t forget that its National Suicide Prevention Week….here is the new PSA from We Give A Damn (.org)… I Give a Damn…..do you?…… <3…Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 134. Kate  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:16 pm

      Very well done! Too bad the Maggies of the world don’t also “give a damn.” My guess is that they’re quite happy that gay teenagers continue to kill themselves in such large numbers. “Choice,” indeed.

      Reply
      • 135. AndrewPDX  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:31 pm

        Maggie et al are too busy damning us to give a damn about us.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 136. Carpool Cookie  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:43 pm

        “My guess is that they’re quite happy that gay teenagers continue to kill themselves in such large numbers. “Choice,” indeed.”

        But Maggie and her ilk have said they love ALL of us!

        Reply
      • 137. Catherine  |  September 13, 2010 at 11:04 am

        I think they just use this as another example that being gay is wrong/bad – people are not happy being gay so they kill themselves. Why they can’t see the logic that if it made you feel so bad, you wouldn’t choose it is beyond me.

        Reply
  • 138. Suzanne (not for much longer) O.  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    There are no illegitimate children. Only illegitimate parents. Mags, you are NOT legit!

    Reply
    • 139. AndrewPDX  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:07 pm

      Touché!

      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 140. ben  |  September 9, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    I have to say, she’s sort of playing with semantics here. The word homosexual did not appear in english until the late 19th century (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=homosexual&searchmode=none) but that doesn’t mean that the behavior, feelings, or self-identity doesn’t predate the use of the word.

    To say that homosexuality didn’t exist until there was a word for it is a tautology.

    Reply
  • 141. laura  |  September 9, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Any chance you guys can put the date and time at the top of the posts? I never now how breaking the breaking news is…

    Thanks!

    Reply
    • 142. BK  |  September 10, 2010 at 7:46 am

      Just look at the time of the first post in response to this article. That should give you a pretty good idea on when the article was posted. :)

      Reply
      • 143. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 10, 2010 at 7:59 am

        Or look at the date and time stamp of the email you got that notified you of the newest post. That is what I do, because of the time difference between myself and wordpress.

        Reply
  • 144. Kevin  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Don’t forget that she also believes that man roamed the earth with dinosaurs and the the earth is only 6000 years old…..

    Reply
  • 145. Kathleen  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Scribin’

    Reply
  • 146. Ed  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Sorry for the horrible picture I’m gonna paint, but I truly believe that if science is ever able to detect homosexuality in the womb, all Pro Lifers would add an exclusion! And of course it won’t be for the health/life of the mother.

    Reply
  • 147. Paul  |  September 9, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    So a really interesting take on this whole subject is Tom Stoppard’s play, “Invention of Love” which is about (among other things) the birth of the notion of homosexuality as an orientation in 19th century England. I highly recommend it.

    Reply
  • 148. Michelle Evans  |  September 9, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    Pardon me if this has been brought to the P8TT community attention previously, but thought I would pass along a link to a new NOM ad playing in Minnesota. This is literally what those corporate dollars from Target and Best Buy have purchased.

    Reply
    • 149. Ann S.  |  September 9, 2010 at 4:07 pm

      Target contributed to MNForward. This ad was made by the Minnesota Family Council and NOM.

      Is there a link between MNForward and either of the latter? I haven’t found one yet, other than that I think they are both endorsing Emmer.

      Reply
    • 150. Apricot  |  September 9, 2010 at 10:58 pm

      Considering NOM’s position on federal constitution amendments to christen marriage inequality into the constitution, it’s pretty clear that NOM cares not for states rights or whether voters should vote on SSM if it doesn’t suit them.

      Which is a tricky card for them to play, because at some point even the voters aren’t going to be an asset for NOM and others like them. Putting too much reliance on them could backfire easily. Having created so many ‘Pro-voter’ ads, I can see this eventually being a PR disaster for NOM. It’s obviously the best chance they think they have – they’re apparently seem to know they cannot win in the courts.

      Reply
  • 151. Linda  |  September 9, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    Two things just *jumped* out at me…

    1. Losing one’s gender is apparently worse than losing one’s soul.

    2. It’s possible to lose one’s gender!?

    Reply
  • 152. Bolt  |  September 9, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    In response to this post, Maggie G. is a blathering idiot, and doesn’t have a clue about anything she claims to be an expert in.

    Fuck you Maggie. I could tell you this with a straight face.

    Reply
  • 153. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 9, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    OT: Very sad. The child in the end of the video is very sad. The parents should be charged with abuse.

    http://www.movieweb.com/movie/tying-the-knot/homos-gotta-go

    Reply
    • 154. BK  |  September 10, 2010 at 8:01 am

      Oh gosh. I am so sorry for her.

      Reply
  • 155. Kathleen  |  September 9, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Just saw a news report. federal judge declares DADT unconstitutional in suit brought by Log Cabin Republicans

    Reply
  • 156. AndrewPDX  |  September 10, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Realized I never subscribed.

    Reply
  • 157. fern  |  September 10, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    I found it hard to believe that someone who supposedly went to school would write something like this, if this is gay propaganda i think it’s wasted, if it’s aimed at the banjo player & co. in deliverance myabe she stands a chance and even then I ain’t sure.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,771 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...