Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Michaelangelo Signorile vs. Maggie Gallagher or, Logic vs. Yelling Really Loud

You have to give Michael Signorile credit for not losing his cool as Universal Press Syndicate writer and President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy Maggie Gallagher spews a bunch of lies about why gay people shouldn’t marry. Signorile, whose never been one to keep his mouth shut about anything, plays it smart and gives Gallagher all the rope she needs to hang herself with.

If the argument Gallagher presents (Marriage is for breeding! Gays are gonna get us!) is the best our opponents can come up with (and there’s no reason they wouldn’t put their best foot forward on CNN), our goal is simple– point out, calmly and simply that the case against marriage equality is based on lies and stupidity. Poor Michael, he’s like a kindergarten teacher enduring a student’s tirade in this piece.

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Nov 17, 2008
Tagged: , , ,

    • Inertia_90

      I think that’s an insult to kindergarteners.

      Nov 17, 2008 at 9:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ggreen

      For all you HRC Fans Via Andrew Sullivan


      Nov 17, 2008 at 10:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw

      I watched a lot of these debates, news reports etc. by now – and Yes, Michelangelo did a great job.

      But it seems to me when the anti-Gay representative starts talking about Churches being defaced or people getting fired, the Gay person should say that those are anecdotal issues. One side will say yes people are getting fired, the other side will say not they’re not (or in Michangelo’s case – he says Gays, Trans are being fired for being against 8) It really doesn’t get us anywhere.

      The main discussion should be that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage, we are in no danger of underpopulation in any case, and whether or not treating we should be treating people equally is the only thing that should be on the table.

      Nov 17, 2008 at 10:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • horus

      get used to it. we are just getting warmed up!

      Nov 17, 2008 at 11:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      p.s. Queerty: The sentence should read, “Signorile, WHO’S (or preferably, WHO HAS) never been one to keep his mouth shut…”

      Nov 17, 2008 at 11:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • REBELComx

      Gay is OKAY – As early as 12,000 BCE, there is record of ancient man creating artifacts and artwork suggesting an appreciation of homo eroticism. Before and outside of ancient Judea, homosexuality was not uncommon. Most of the ancient world was fine with, even sometimes saw as holy, homosexual activity. Homosexuality and gender-swapping stories exist in every ancient cultures’ myths and legends. Many biblical scholars and historians often state that the law against homosexuality in Leviticus (dating back to around 550 BCE) was created as a secular law (not a spiritual one) in order to further set the Hebrews apart from their Caananite neighbors and to enforce the idea of a tight knit family and reproduction for the small, often invaded community. So, besides the post-Exodus Jews, no religion or nation in the ancient world had express laws against homosexuality. The first officially documented same sex marriages occur around 27 BCE.
      Gay Demonization starts in the West – 342 CE after the Christian Emperors of Rome (Constantine’s sons Constantius II and Constans) pass the first law against homosexual marriage. 48 years later, Emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius declare homosexual sex to be illegal and those guilty to be burned alive in public. The empire continues to collect taxes on male prostitutes, however, for another 108 years. In 529, Emperor Justininian I says homosexuals are the cause of famines, earthquakes, and pestilences.
      Time from No Problem to Mass Demonization by the Christianized Roman Empire – 12,342+ years.

      It has been 1,667 years since the first laws against gay marriage were passed by an increasingly conservative religion controlled government. And now, coming up on 2009, we aren’t even treated as equals, let alone In Charge (which we don’t even want to be).

      Nov 17, 2008 at 11:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark


      WHY is this HAG who was found GUILTY of being a PAID PROPOGANDIST given a second of airtime?
      She F*CKED her OWN career, find some other homobigot to carry their banner.

      Nov 17, 2008 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark

      Maggie what have you done to your figure…honey?

      There’s SO MUCH MORE of you to HATE!

      Nov 17, 2008 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane
      M Shane

      Jaroslaw : if that isn’t an understatement ! The world is grotesquely overpopulated currently. It is shortsightedness and a refusal to recognize greatly outlived beliefs, that keeps people breeding like coachroaches.
      If it wasn’t for all of the stupid wars and acts of genocide, we would be eating one another. i don’t recommend that we keep doing that but swithch over to an arguement about limiting population as they do in China.

      Christ, there isn’t room for other species anymore.

      That whole Catholic and heterosexual myth about reproduction needs to be faced head on. The popularity of inhumanity is just a subconscious signal that people just are breeding too fast. I’ve had a prety fulfuling life not helping overpopulate the globe.

      Nov 17, 2008 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini


      Hi Rebel, it’s me again!

      While your argument on homosexuality is compelling, there is one minute detail that you have to consider rather seriously before you post this anywhere else. What you are speaking of is not ‘homosexuality’ as we know it today but rather same-sex or man-on-man sexual activity. And yes, there *IS* a difference!

      “Homosexuality,” as a concept, did not appear until the 1860s – thousands of years after the first signs of ancient man. Indeed, homosexuality as we know it now – as a marker of identity and as a constitution of the self – was completely unfathomable before then, contradicting your entire argument! (Although I realize you were, in most likelihood, finding cases of ‘homosexuality’ in the past to legitimize and naturalize homosexuality NOW).

      Historically-speaking, much of what you speak of was limited to sexual activity or institutionalized practices ALONE – say, for example, sodomy or pederasty – referring specifically to an individual behaviour rather than an individual’s personhood. That is: one’s sexuality before the 1860s DID NOT define one’s identity. Instead, one’s identity was defined by one’s ethics/morality, which in turn manifested itself through one’s proper or improper sexual activity (and, hence, one’s ability to know the difference between proper/moral activity and improper/immoral ones). Needless to say, this conception of morality/sexual activity has stuck around (as well all every well know) in religious doctrines that call for the hating of the ‘sin’ (the activity) and not the ‘sinner’ (the person).

      Not until the modern era (approximately 1850 onward), was there was a fusion of one’s sexual activity with one’s being, coincidently at the peak of a philosophical movement to discredit arguments of religion/morality in favour of scientific truth. And so, as a legitimate subspecies, the ‘homosexual’ was believed to be a person defined, to a large extent, by his sexual activity. His sexuality, in other words, defined his mannerisms, his capacities for reasoning, what his social and legal limits, etc etc — much like race did for the black man, and gender for the white woman… blah blah blah.

      I guess what I’m saying is that you have to be wary of the SPECIFIC history of ‘homosexuality’ and be able to realize that a) its has appeared recently in the history of the world, and b) how it is oftentimes (strategically and incorrectly) used to refer to practices in the past that RESEMBLE homosexuality but are NOT AT ALL ‘homosexuality.’

      For more info on this, I recommend you read David Halperin’s -How To Do The History of Homosexuality-. And, if you’re ambitious enough, I also recommend Michel Foucault’s -The History of Sexuality Volume 1-. Hope this helps!

      Nov 17, 2008 at 7:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw

      Byrne Fone also wrote a very long tome about the history of Homosexuality from ancient times to the present – the title escapes me just now. (Very good book).

      Nov 17, 2008 at 9:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      Yes, Jaroslaw, it is a good book. It’s entitled -Homophobia: A History- Unfortunately, Fone also falls into the same historical fallacy as Rebel does. But it serves its purpose quite well!

      Nov 17, 2008 at 9:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chanceforaman

      O M G! Some of those posts are so long I forgot to breath and lost some brain cells!!!!
      She’s a bitch who hates Jewish people and he’s just a big fag. God love him. But hate the sin. Oh yes, I forgot, the Bible/Scrolls/Muhammed says hate, hate, kill kill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Nov 18, 2008 at 12:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      Silly, Chance!

      Don’t you remember what they always used to teach us in elementary school when were were first taught how to read? “A period is where you pause to take a breath.”

      Now, if you follow that basic rule, there would be no reason for you lose your breath. Besides, if you read them correctly, the posts will actually help you REGAIN those lost brain cells!!! THAT’S RIGHT! How about that, eh?!

      So, go on: Don’t be a legiphobe and start yer readin’!

      Nov 18, 2008 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • michael

      I think that the news media needs to handle these conversations better. While we do see what a loud mouthed idiot she is we do not get to hear the points to be made as they should. Why can’t they just turn off the microphone of the person who is not being addressed until it is their turn. I know of course people will say we might “miss” something but they could play it back afterwards with all the yelling and screaming. Its hard to speak when you have a woman going through carb withdrawal because she left her box of
      cream filled honey glazed in the car.

      Nov 18, 2008 at 1:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw

      Smokey – thanks for the title – but when you say “fallacy” Fone & Rebel do you mean the part about homosexuality as a concept of personhood? If so, I didn’t think Fone misrepresented that – give examples please! :)

      Nov 18, 2008 at 8:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sarah R.
      Sarah R.

      Bitch is UUUUGH-LEE!

      Nov 18, 2008 at 10:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      Well, you’re sort of right, Jaroslaw.

      Fone defines the entire subject of his book – homophobia – as a hatred and dislike for homosexuality. In turn, he defines homosexuality as same-sex attraction or desire. This he makes pretty clear in the introduction which is something not a lot of historians do before setting out on large projects like Fone’s.

      My specific problem is that he looks at the history of homophobia suggesting that homosexuality (as he defines it) has existed since Ancient Greece. While there is no denying that same-sex attraction / desire (as a phenomenon) has existed since forever, ‘homosexuality’ (as a term) has not. There have been OTHER names attributed to same-sex attraction / desire / relationships in the past, which Fone completely overlooks. Thankfully, Halperin’s -How To Do the History of Homosexuality- addresses this problem HEAD-ON!

      So the problem is not ignores the SPECIFIC / HISTORICAL definition of homosexuality/homophobie (and, in turn, the OTHER words that have been used to describe same-sex attraction/desire in the past) to serve his larger project. According to historical scholarship, is a HUGE, HUUUUUUGE faux-pas!


      Nov 18, 2008 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      Correction: So the problem is that he ignores…*

      You want examples, eh? Well, the best I can think of is the Ancient Greek practice of pederasty which IS NOT the equivalent to modern day homosexuality.

      We can all agree that homosexuality is defined, more or less, as an attraction between two consenting individuals (not necessarily adults, mind you) who also have a sexual desire for one another, yes? Well, pederasty is NOTHING like that. It was the term that defined the relationship between a an adult teacher and his pubescent student (who was, in Greek terms, not yet a full legal citizen).

      It was the duty of the teacher to impart onto the student all that the lad needed to know to become a responsible and moral citizen upon reaching adulthood. Part of this, of course, involved having sex with the young lad, which was to function for the lad as a gesture of gratitude for his teacher’s time and dedication.

      Pederasty was in no way deemed to be a ‘same-sex relationship’ (as we know it now) because same-sex attraction was not a precondition for this relationship. Nor was same-sex desire. In fact, the sex was supposed to be pleasurable ONLY for the teacher and not at all for the student who would be chastized if he showed any signs of pleasure. IN NO WAY was a man – be it a full adult or a boy – to enjoy being the bottom during his sexual encounters with other men since it showed an identification with the natural female position and, hence, rendered him LESS of a male. This, in Ancient Greece, was seen as a big no-no.

      And so, while the pederastic relationship DID involve two individuals of the same sex (an adult and a pubescent lad), that’s the ONLY thing it has in common with our current notion of ‘homosexuality.’ Its dynamics are by no means equivalent to the dynamics of homosexuality / same-sex relationships as we know them to be now, so to call a pederastic relationship a ‘homosexual’ relationship is inaccurate in more than one account.

      Nov 18, 2008 at 1:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      On a more contemporaneous note: it’s the same as calling a straight-identified man who has sex with men (an ‘M2M’) a ‘homosexual.’ Sure, he enjoys the sex he has with other men (the “desire”) yet has no desire to be in a relationship with a man (the “attraction”). In this respect he is better off, and more comfortable, being with a lady. To call him a ‘homosexual’ or even a ‘bisexual’ is in every sense, inaccurate. And, if he is open about his sexual encounters with his friend, to call him a ‘closet case’ is inaccurate, too.

      I guess the moral of the story is that the world is more nuanced than most gay scholars (like Fone) would suggest. Not every relationship or sexual encounter involving two individuals of the same sex can be described as being ‘homosexual.’

      Nov 18, 2008 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw

      Smokie M- I appreciate your answers, I really do. But I think you’re splitting hairs. There is a famous painting in Fone’s book of when the Spaniards came to “New World” in the 1600′s and fed the men having sex with men to their dogs.” (Cortez? I can’t remember which explorer it was). Anyway, the very Catholic Spaniards were repulsed by the SS activity and I’m sure they didn’t bother to inquire whether the participants were attracted to men, just horny, bisexual or what. The (some would say irrational – and disproportionate I would add) HATRED is what Byrne Fone’s book was about. The fact that “homosexual” and “homophobia” as words didn’t exist complicates the discussion. I know also for sure that in describing Greeks and Romans Fone takes great care to distinguish what was SS desire, what was acceptable behavior for males of various social strata and ages etc. So, I’m not seeing what you are, apparently, in reading this book.

      Nov 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.





    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.