<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Maggie Gallagher&#8217;s gays</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 11:45:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Withers: NOM has gay support but refuses to talk about it &#124; Gay News Blog &#124; Blog Post on 365gay.com</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63958</link>
		<dc:creator>Withers: NOM has gay support but refuses to talk about it &#124; Gay News Blog &#124; Blog Post on 365gay.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63958</guid>
		<description>[...] the deep ties NOM has with LGBT peoples, but no need to take it there. Last week the folk over at Box Turtle pointed to at least one gay guy who agrees with the group.  His name is David Benkof, a/k/a David [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the deep ties NOM has with LGBT peoples, but no need to take it there. Last week the folk over at Box Turtle pointed to at least one gay guy who agrees with the group.  His name is David Benkof, a/k/a David [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Withers: NOM has gay support but refuses to talk about it &#124; Gay News Blog &#124; Blog Post on 365gay.com</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63959</link>
		<dc:creator>Withers: NOM has gay support but refuses to talk about it &#124; Gay News Blog &#124; Blog Post on 365gay.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63959</guid>
		<description>[...] the deep ties NOM has with LGBT peoples, but no need to take it there. Last week the folk over at Box Turtle pointed to at least one gay guy who agrees with the group.  His name is David Benkof, a/k/a David [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the deep ties NOM has with LGBT peoples, but no need to take it there. Last week the folk over at Box Turtle pointed to at least one gay guy who agrees with the group.  His name is David Benkof, a/k/a David [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63705</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63705</guid>
		<description>Jason-- as i once phrased it:

purchasing redemption with the easy coin of other people&#039;s lives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jason&#8211; as i once phrased it:</p>
<p>purchasing redemption with the easy coin of other people&#8217;s lives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason D</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63695</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63695</guid>
		<description>Everett said: &lt;i&gt;Freud would have a field day with this Maggie Gallagher. She apparently had a couple of kids out of wedlock (according to Wikipedia) and now promotes traditional marriage and rails against gay men raising children without a mother present in the household. How come it is always the hetersexuals who have led the most imperfect lives that have the most to say about how others (including how glbt folks) should live their lives? I’m sorry if you couldn’t live up to your own ideal, Ms. Gallagher, but get off your high horse already.&lt;/i&gt;

There&#039;s no zealot like a convert.

None so obsessed with the morality of others than those who have learned nothing from their own shortcomings.

If Maggie can &quot;save&quot; us, then maybe it means she didn&#039;t screw up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everett said: <i>Freud would have a field day with this Maggie Gallagher. She apparently had a couple of kids out of wedlock (according to Wikipedia) and now promotes traditional marriage and rails against gay men raising children without a mother present in the household. How come it is always the hetersexuals who have led the most imperfect lives that have the most to say about how others (including how glbt folks) should live their lives? I’m sorry if you couldn’t live up to your own ideal, Ms. Gallagher, but get off your high horse already.</i></p>
<p>There&#8217;s no zealot like a convert.</p>
<p>None so obsessed with the morality of others than those who have learned nothing from their own shortcomings.</p>
<p>If Maggie can &#8220;save&#8221; us, then maybe it means she didn&#8217;t screw up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63686</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Kraemer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:18:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63686</guid>
		<description>I am sure you can find a few gay people today who are still against marriage because back in the 1970s most gay people thought marriage was contrary to the goals of sexual and gay liberation. &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://gaytoday.com/people/062104pe.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;(The 1970s gay marriage activists Jack Baker and Rev. Troy Perry were called lunatics, even by many gay people.)&lt;/A&gt;

However, so what? I also know a few straight single men who do not believe in marriage either. Just because a few people are against marriage is not grounds for denying the right to all of the people who want to get married.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am sure you can find a few gay people today who are still against marriage because back in the 1970s most gay people thought marriage was contrary to the goals of sexual and gay liberation. <a href="http://gaytoday.com/people/062104pe.asp" rel="nofollow">(The 1970s gay marriage activists Jack Baker and Rev. Troy Perry were called lunatics, even by many gay people.)</a></p>
<p>However, so what? I also know a few straight single men who do not believe in marriage either. Just because a few people are against marriage is not grounds for denying the right to all of the people who want to get married.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tommy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63652</link>
		<dc:creator>Tommy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63652</guid>
		<description>Everett, this is a product of the personal crisis industry the religious right runs on.

When someone has a personal crisis most people deal with it in two ways: one is to work through is, calmly and patiently dealing with the emotions and repercussions. This is the was psychology works. The other is to repress the crisis. Specifically with the religious right they tell people to pray really hard and God will swoop down and take care of everything for them. This is quick and offers a fuzzy feeling of happiness, rather than the pain and misery of having to work through an issue.

Hence you have someone like Star Parker who had four abortions and lived on welfare her whole life find Christ and become an anti-abortion, anti-welfare activist. Or Maggie Gallagher who can&#039;t see her own shambles of family life and ethics, focusing only on the dreaded gays.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everett, this is a product of the personal crisis industry the religious right runs on.</p>
<p>When someone has a personal crisis most people deal with it in two ways: one is to work through is, calmly and patiently dealing with the emotions and repercussions. This is the was psychology works. The other is to repress the crisis. Specifically with the religious right they tell people to pray really hard and God will swoop down and take care of everything for them. This is quick and offers a fuzzy feeling of happiness, rather than the pain and misery of having to work through an issue.</p>
<p>Hence you have someone like Star Parker who had four abortions and lived on welfare her whole life find Christ and become an anti-abortion, anti-welfare activist. Or Maggie Gallagher who can&#8217;t see her own shambles of family life and ethics, focusing only on the dreaded gays.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Everett</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63608</link>
		<dc:creator>Everett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:42:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63608</guid>
		<description>Freud would have a field day with this Maggie Gallagher. She apparently had a couple of kids out of wedlock (according to Wikipedia) and now promotes traditional marriage and rails against gay men raising children without a mother present in the household. How come it is always the hetersexuals who have led the most imperfect lives that have the most to say about how others (including how glbt folks) should live their lives? I&#039;m sorry if you couldn&#039;t live up to your own ideal, Ms. Gallagher, but get off your high horse already.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Freud would have a field day with this Maggie Gallagher. She apparently had a couple of kids out of wedlock (according to Wikipedia) and now promotes traditional marriage and rails against gay men raising children without a mother present in the household. How come it is always the hetersexuals who have led the most imperfect lives that have the most to say about how others (including how glbt folks) should live their lives? I&#8217;m sorry if you couldn&#8217;t live up to your own ideal, Ms. Gallagher, but get off your high horse already.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Regan DuCasse</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63605</link>
		<dc:creator>Regan DuCasse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:42:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63605</guid>
		<description>So, Maggie won&#039;t name her anti marriage equality gay friends?
Well, let&#039;s see, David Benkoff isn&#039;t exactly a PRIVATE person who has never availed himself of the media and very public criticisms of gay people and gay marriage. Why should HE care, or the others if she names them?

   In fact, we can believe that for Mag to open that door in the first place, then shut it when asked for elaboration, begs questioning her credibility. She&#039;s so proud of herself, and feels very confident in what she&#039;s doing and who she knows, this isn&#039;t the time to suddenly be concerned with the privacy of people who have been quite public about what they do.
She&#039;s mentioning it for the effect, but not the substance of her case.

 Indeed, perhaps people like David Benkoff have simply renounced being gay altogether and don&#039;t consider themselves gay, and can&#039;t be qualified AS gay, let alone speak for ALL gay people on the issue.
But she uses the beliefs of those few to qualify what ALL gay people SHOULD be about?


 But for someone like Mags, who likes to throw it in front of us just how OVERWHELMING the majority was of people who don&#039;t support marriage equality, she&#039;s flipping the script as if to say the tiny minority of gay people who don&#039;t support marriage equality qualifies as validating HER side of things.

  I know we could find a large percentage of heterosexuals who don&#039;t believe in marriage for themselves either. There are certainly enough straight couples who don&#039;t bother to marry, even if they have children.
And we also know of married straights who divorce and don&#039;t want to experience marriage ever again.

   But she doesn&#039;t consider THIS the reason to ban marriage for heteros, whether it&#039;s for the first time or next.

   One can always find a member of the discriminated group who will agree with it, but in ways spun in direct opposition to their opinion.
Even during Jim Crow, there was a black man (newspaper editor Jackson Greene) who didn&#039;t agree with integration.
 However, it wasn&#039;t because he thought white people were in fact superior or society would degrade from it, but because he didn&#039;t believe in the sincerity of desegregation, nor saw any benefit to blacks if integration was brought about SO grudgingly and by force of government.

  Of course, the segregationists wouldn&#039;t report THAT part.

 And Mags and many other anti gay individuals are committing a similar omission. There are gay people who see the patterns of laws and decisions on their lives, and don&#039;t want to be churned up in it. They don&#039;t trust that whatever gains will stick and there certainly is no reason TO trust that they will. Prop. 8 and the outcome of that certainly validates this feeling.
  And for some gay people, they are the sort of people who don&#039;t like to offend, challenge or confront the issue and would rather stay private and silent on it.
But just as there are heteros who don&#039;t support marriage either, they aren&#039;t confronted or criticized by the likes of Maggie because of it.

      Yes, we see this a lot, anti gay people who claim gay friends.

   Racist segregationists made such claims too, and with a straight face would say how well they &#039;got along with nigras&#039; and were good to them.

   I&#039;m sure Maggie thinks she could get along with gay people too, as long as they know their place and don&#039;t interfere with marriage between men and women. Eunuchs like David Benkoff, for example.

   And I think of her and her patronizing ways the same way I do about racists doing it.

  Maybe she can fool a lot of people with this act she&#039;s got going, but not the smartest, the bravest and the most intellectually honest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, Maggie won&#8217;t name her anti marriage equality gay friends?<br />
Well, let&#8217;s see, David Benkoff isn&#8217;t exactly a PRIVATE person who has never availed himself of the media and very public criticisms of gay people and gay marriage. Why should HE care, or the others if she names them?</p>
<p>   In fact, we can believe that for Mag to open that door in the first place, then shut it when asked for elaboration, begs questioning her credibility. She&#8217;s so proud of herself, and feels very confident in what she&#8217;s doing and who she knows, this isn&#8217;t the time to suddenly be concerned with the privacy of people who have been quite public about what they do.<br />
She&#8217;s mentioning it for the effect, but not the substance of her case.</p>
<p> Indeed, perhaps people like David Benkoff have simply renounced being gay altogether and don&#8217;t consider themselves gay, and can&#8217;t be qualified AS gay, let alone speak for ALL gay people on the issue.<br />
But she uses the beliefs of those few to qualify what ALL gay people SHOULD be about?</p>
<p> But for someone like Mags, who likes to throw it in front of us just how OVERWHELMING the majority was of people who don&#8217;t support marriage equality, she&#8217;s flipping the script as if to say the tiny minority of gay people who don&#8217;t support marriage equality qualifies as validating HER side of things.</p>
<p>  I know we could find a large percentage of heterosexuals who don&#8217;t believe in marriage for themselves either. There are certainly enough straight couples who don&#8217;t bother to marry, even if they have children.<br />
And we also know of married straights who divorce and don&#8217;t want to experience marriage ever again.</p>
<p>   But she doesn&#8217;t consider THIS the reason to ban marriage for heteros, whether it&#8217;s for the first time or next.</p>
<p>   One can always find a member of the discriminated group who will agree with it, but in ways spun in direct opposition to their opinion.<br />
Even during Jim Crow, there was a black man (newspaper editor Jackson Greene) who didn&#8217;t agree with integration.<br />
 However, it wasn&#8217;t because he thought white people were in fact superior or society would degrade from it, but because he didn&#8217;t believe in the sincerity of desegregation, nor saw any benefit to blacks if integration was brought about SO grudgingly and by force of government.</p>
<p>  Of course, the segregationists wouldn&#8217;t report THAT part.</p>
<p> And Mags and many other anti gay individuals are committing a similar omission. There are gay people who see the patterns of laws and decisions on their lives, and don&#8217;t want to be churned up in it. They don&#8217;t trust that whatever gains will stick and there certainly is no reason TO trust that they will. Prop. 8 and the outcome of that certainly validates this feeling.<br />
  And for some gay people, they are the sort of people who don&#8217;t like to offend, challenge or confront the issue and would rather stay private and silent on it.<br />
But just as there are heteros who don&#8217;t support marriage either, they aren&#8217;t confronted or criticized by the likes of Maggie because of it.</p>
<p>      Yes, we see this a lot, anti gay people who claim gay friends.</p>
<p>   Racist segregationists made such claims too, and with a straight face would say how well they &#8216;got along with nigras&#8217; and were good to them.</p>
<p>   I&#8217;m sure Maggie thinks she could get along with gay people too, as long as they know their place and don&#8217;t interfere with marriage between men and women. Eunuchs like David Benkoff, for example.</p>
<p>   And I think of her and her patronizing ways the same way I do about racists doing it.</p>
<p>  Maybe she can fool a lot of people with this act she&#8217;s got going, but not the smartest, the bravest and the most intellectually honest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63602</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63602</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m curious why Maggie&#039;s alleged handful of gay friends who agree that she is not a spiteful and malicious monster supercede the millions of GLBTQ people who have been convinced by her behavior that she IS a spiteful and malicious monster.  The GLBTQ people, her victims, have spoken and the majority opinion, that elusive god of maggie&#039;s, is that her actions are evil.

Maggie, on the near 100% possibility that you are reading another ego-massaging blog post about you, you, you

your actions on same-sex marriage are evil, and make you an enemy of humanity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m curious why Maggie&#8217;s alleged handful of gay friends who agree that she is not a spiteful and malicious monster supercede the millions of GLBTQ people who have been convinced by her behavior that she IS a spiteful and malicious monster.  The GLBTQ people, her victims, have spoken and the majority opinion, that elusive god of maggie&#8217;s, is that her actions are evil.</p>
<p>Maggie, on the near 100% possibility that you are reading another ego-massaging blog post about you, you, you</p>
<p>your actions on same-sex marriage are evil, and make you an enemy of humanity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/04/20830/comment-page-1#comment-63597</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20830#comment-63597</guid>
		<description>Maggie Gallagher and I had an email exchange many years ago.  I did not know her to be the anti-gay person that she turned out to be.  She had a website called marriagedebate.com or something like that and she actually invited participation by gay men. Apparently that way simply a way to try to get into our minds so she&#039;ll be able to have a better attack plan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maggie Gallagher and I had an email exchange many years ago.  I did not know her to be the anti-gay person that she turned out to be.  She had a website called marriagedebate.com or something like that and she actually invited participation by gay men. Apparently that way simply a way to try to get into our minds so she&#8217;ll be able to have a better attack plan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
