Thursday, February 16, 2012

MSNBC Video: 5 Gay Marriage People Vs. Maggie Gallagher - But Gallagher Wins

On the other front where the Church will likely soon be persecuted from, MSNBC, the White House's propaganda arm, recently had on a Catholic, Ms. Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, on one of their shows to debate with, get this, FIVE people who are all in support of redefining marriage. It is pretty clear that Ms. Gallagher won going away despite the hostile environment that MSNBC naturally was seeking to create. The video is worth a watch.


  1. Maggie performed beautifully.

  2. Does anyone know? Did they bring up the topic the next day? I assume they didn't ask her back, she made them look foolish! She speaks with such confidence and not afraid to defend herself and her beliefs, how encouraging!

  3. Father Hollowell,

    How do you figure that Maggie Gallagher won this debate? What particular questions did she answer that were honest and truthful and were and were to the point to where the panel who asked the questions could only respond back with jibberish?

  4. I say that by watching the entire encounter

  5. Ummm...Perhaps you may want to watch that again...then maybe a third and fourth time. I can't believe you actually like this woman. I don't agree with gay marriage by any means, but Maggie Gallagher and her minions are nothing but hateful nasty people who want to make homosexual people out to be 2nd class citizens....and profit off of it from donors(with whom she loves to shield their identities even though she has been told she can't do that). Maybe she could use some of that donation money to do herself a gastric bypass to thin her 400lb frame....

    1. Ummm...Perhaps you need to realize that you speak of relegating people to 2nd class citizenry but then drop a slur against a person struggling with weight issues - irony

    2. Also, everything you said in your above comment has nothing to do with whether or not Ms. Gallagher won the debate - it was 5 on 1 (what if Fox did that to a liberal...we'd have libs on hunger strikes across the country in protest) but MSNBC does it and its no big deal.

    3. Maggie struggling with weight issues my aching butt. All she needs to do is put a huge padlock on her refrigerator door. And, I didn't drop a slur when I said she weighs a lot....she does! She's FAT! That's the stone cold truth! The truth sometimes stings a little bit! Also...nobody forced Maggie to go on MSNBC to make a fool out of herself. Wonder what she thought was gonna happen when she accepted the invite to be humiliated?!?!?

    4. By what standard was she humiliated. It was the panel that was stuttering and had no real rebuttal. The one woman could only manage to talk about her own story and never even asked a question. The host was shot down right out of the gate on trying to use language to redefine the issue and Gallagher called him out on it. I don't know how you watch that debate and not walk away impressed with the coherence of Ms. Gallagher and the arguments she put forward on the part of those who believe marriage is what it has always been - between one man and one woman.

  6. For starters, it wasn't the panel that was being questioned. It was her. She didn't ask the panel any questions that left them stuttering.

    Chris Hayes asked Maggie right off the bat if she feels, as somebody opposing marriage equality, if she is either winning or losing this culture war and she states that she doesn't oppose marriage equality but opposes same sex marriage. Last I knew, and everywhere I turn for a definition on "marriage equality" I find that to be same sex marriages.... Kind of a dumb answer on her part, and in no way was Hayes trying to use language to re-define marriage.

    Hayes asked her if there should be a social movement(I'm guessing like hers) to roll back no fault divorce. She really didn't answer the question posed and said that the biggest problem with no fault divorce is the ratio of out of wedlock births and how she could get those numbers reduced if she wasn't involved in her she never did answer the question of whether there should be a social movement to roll back no fault divorce.

    John McWhorter asked her what the problem is with same sex marriages in regards to child rearing, if they aren't as good as ones with a man and a woman by way of review and Maggie totally avoids the question by going right back to the no fault divorce issue which I can't see where she answered that question at all. In fact, McWhorter even tells her she is side stepping the question.

    Then at the end, Richard Kim tells Maggie that she has advocated for gay reparative therapy, as has the National Organization for Marriage, and have called homosexuality a "dysfunction" and not normal…Gallagher is really quite angry at this accusation and says she has not. She accused them of making up lies and the panel asks her to clarify her denial of that and she says she has never advocated for gay reparative therapy, and the National Organization for Marriage does not. She says they focus on fighting for laws that define marriage as the union between a man and a woman and basically says the panel is picking on her. The proof that National Organization for Marriage is a fan of gay reparative therapy still lives on the The Ruth Institute blog, described as a "A Project of the National Organization for Marriage." It features an interview with a "therapist" Phillip Sutton, PhD who is affiliated with the notorious National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).

  7. Also....Maggie has been quoted as calling homosexuality an "unfortunate thing," "at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility," and "a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species." She has also suggested that gays "can always control their behavior," and even called on a sitting President to give more funding to scientifically-shunned "ex-gay" research. Yet she denied in the video that she's had any pro ex-gay views. Also, NOM president Brian Brown recently touted a (flawed) "ex-gay" study, saying "Even those who disagree with us about gay marriage (or Christian sexual ethics) should feel good about this this scientific verification of the possibility of free will triumphing over desire. We are all more than our instincts, sexual or otherwise" (Source--Human Rights Campaign website)NOM’s Culture Director, Thomas Peters, has advocated for Courage, a Catholic "change" organization. Peters has also said that the MSM intentionally denies that "change happens."

    You can tell at the end of the video that her eyes looking everywhere but into the camera and she is squirming and stuttering when she is called upon about the things she has said and supported, yet denied. That's what happens when you lie. When you lie, it's natural that you don't look somebody directly in the face and tell them. In her case, it's the camera. If Maggie didn't feel humiliated after that interview, well, she ought to. Maggie is her own worst enema and enemy! ;)

  8. so "opposing marriage equality" is NOT a moronic beginning question? That is a complete attempt through language (the only weapon that postmoderns have) to change the argument. It is ridiculous and malicious and unfair.

    It is just the same as "pro-choice" and other phrases that the media continues to use.

    Ever heard the news media refer to "pro-life" people as such? NO. It's always "Tonight, in Washington, anti-choice marchers..."

    The phrasing by this guy starts everything off on such a ridiculously biased note (although one should sense a biased onslaught simply upon seeing the MSNBC logo in the corner anyways). Gallagher does a perfect job, though, of not letting the guy get away with it and redefines the terms as they truly are.

  9. no fault divorce - she agrees with him that its a problem and notes that it isn't what her organization deals with. She grants agreement with the guy on an issue with which he surely wasn't thinking she would agree with him on.

    With raising children is that question really going to be answered in this format and in 3-4 minutes? It is a ridiculous question and shows how out of whack the guy is to think that it could be done in that time frame. If she had tried to answer in 30 seconds to a minute, her answer would no doubt have offended the young man greatly.

    They try to bull her over with the whole - "your website has..." on it, they save it for the end hoping to end on a note of her stuttering but she blasts back that none of the stuff that they saved for the closing seconds was actually factual.

  10. I guess I don't see where Chris Hayes was being malicious at the beginning. So he used the term "Marriage Equality" instead of "Same Sex Marriage." Maggie could have told Hayes that Marriage Equality IS Same Sex Marriage and that's the proper term for it. But she didn't.

    So why isn't her organization stepping in to help roll back no-fault divorce? Why on earth can't they? She never answers that question. C'mon! They SHOULD be doing that as well! The title in their organization says it all -- National Organization for MARRIAGE(TRUE MARRIAGE that is). However, they zero in on one thing and one thing only; and that is to stop gays from marrying. They don't care about divorce or trying to put an end to that. They don't try to stop heterosexuals who are sterile or impotent, etc... from marrying, I could go on and on.

    As for the child raising question; I'm not even gonna go there. Bottom line is she avoided the question entirely. That's all I'm gonna say about that.

    Your last paragraph I find to be interesting. Oh yes, Maggie blasts back alright! She blasts back lies saying none of what they were saying was true. But in fact, it IS true! Do you endorse lying?

    Now I have some questions for you Father Hollowell. Are you defending Maggie Gallagher because she is a Roman Catholic and says that in this video? Or, are you defending Maggie because of her views on SSM(and her organization that tries to make homosexuals out to be 2nd class citizens)? Or, is it because of both her views on SSM AND she is a Roman Catholic? Would you have put this video up here IF she was, lets say, a Jehova's Witness who HATED the Catholic Church and was an outspoken opponent of it? Would your views still be the same as to the outcome of this video; that Maggie won?

  11. I can't believe you don't see the insanity and stupidity (and frankly deceptive postmodern word manipulation) behind the guy saying

    "opposing marriage equality"

    I heard from that all that I needed and I knew exactly where it was going from there.

    We have as rule number one in our politically correct culture to call people what they go by - unless their agenda is different, then we change their title to what we want it to be. The intent behind such a changing of wording can ONLY be malicious.

    1. So one twisted word at the beginning of this video by Chris Hayes and Maggie Gallagher is an instant shining star? I look at the entire debate. From beginning to end. Maggie COULD have and SHOULD have corrected Hayes by saying something like this: "It's not marriage equality; it's same sex marriage. There is no equality in same sex marriage." But she didn't. Then the rest of the debate goes on where she side steps questions.

      As for Maggie Gallagher and NOM...I can't believe you don't think they are and can be malicious themselves. I mean, is it OK to actually make a HUGE profit off of the Church's belief system of marriage being between one man and one woman, in doing the things that NOM does to try and put an end to SSM?

      Is it OK for Maggie to lie at the end of this video where she denies that she and NOM have never had anything whatsoever to do with gay reparative therapy, and also denied ever saying that she has called homosexuality a dysfunction? Is lying OK?

      I find it interesting that Louis Marinelli, who once worked for NOM, and supported them 100%, defected from their group. He stated that the NOM group he worked for was nothing but a bunch of hateful people and apparently couldn't take their hate anymore. Brian Brown, then executive director when Marinelli was with the organization, instructed Marinelli to take "crazy pictures" of gay people so they could use them as propaganda against them. What's wrong with these people? You can't tell me Maggie didn't know a thing about that. And, to top it all off, the Southern Poverty Law Center was seriously considering placing NOM on their list of hate groups. They did not and Marinelli was saddened they didn't....but I'm guessing one of these days, they just might.

    2. Have you ever argued with 5 people by yourself?

    3. Not that I can remember. Not saying I have not though; I just don't recall....and I sure as heck wouldn't put myself in that position on national television! Maggie should have thought that one over long and hard before putting her self in the "hot seat."

      I seriously can't believe you think Maggie Gallagher and NOM are forces to be reckoned with. They would be good group if the weren't filled with hate and malice. That's why I don't like her or her organization. AND, I DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE!

      You know, there is an old saying; "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Here is what I would like to ask you now Father Hollowell: Because of that saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", what are YOU doing in your capacity as a Roman Catholic Priest to minister to homosexual persons, or to care for them in ways that prevents them from 1) Getting "married"
      2) Committing homosexual acts
      3) Committing suicide because of the dirty rotten actions of homophobic persons?
      What, if anything, does your particular parish have to offer? Do you pray for them? Make sacrifices on their behalf? Minister to them? Say anything good about them? Or do you do nothing....and allow them to suffer in silence? We all know that NOM offers absolutely nothing to help what do you have to offer?

    4. I can't believe you have asked that. You should Google my name and the 4-10th entries are from the gay blogosphere attacking the fact that I taught my kids at school about homosexuality. I post about it on the blog and I am about to do another post because I have gotten to know a guy who is Catholic and struggling with same-sex attraction and has lots of resources online that have been approved by his bishop that I hope to link people to. Also, we will be doing some more education this year to my kids at Ritter on the topic. I've counseled young people confidentially and in the confessional on the topic (mostly helping to calm their fears and understand better what the Church says about their struggles). I'll listen to a lot from you, but I won't listen to you telling me I don't help anybody with these issues. I'm done with this conversation. I will be deleting any further posts from you on this topic.