Tweet
Remember what Maggie Gallagher (supposedly formerly of the National Organization for Marriage) said last year when confronted by the fact that her organization’s blog links to junk science (i.e. the discredited work of Paul Cameron) and information which portrays gays as harmful to children:
I would like to say personally that nothing in any argument I’ve ever made on gay marriage, rests on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form. (If there is data that shows this, I’ve never seen it.)
Of course those of us who have followed NOM knew that Gallagher was playing damage control and nothing more. And today, Equality Matters proves it:
In a March 3rd blog post, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) promoted a column headlined: “Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children.” The column – originally published in 2007 –was written by Dr. Trayce Hansen, whom NOM described as “a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice.”
Hansen’s five reasons are, unsurprisingly, riddled with anti-gay talking points that have been widely discredited by mainstream medical organizations, including the harmful myths that children of same-sex parents face developmental problems and are more likely to identify as gay:A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.[...]
Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society. [emphasis added]
What’s even more annoying is that Hansen provides no citations to prove this theory, which is not surprising.
Equality Matters calls out Hansen as somewhat of a fraud:
She’s a member of the American College of Pediatricians, a right-wing, anti-gay organization notorious for misrepresenting and misusing research to demonize LGBT people. In 2009, she testified in defense of an “ex-lesbian” who was trying to deny her former partner access to their children, but her testimony was roundly dismissed for being unqualified:
Dr. Hansen never had been qualified as an expert witness by any court. Dr. Hansen never had been retained by any party as an expert witness. Dr. Hansen’s psychology practice involved geriatric patients. Dr. Hansen conceded that she currently did not work with children and had fewer than four years of professional experience after earning her Ph.D. She had worked as a research assistant and had published one article in the journal Personality Assessment in a forensic-type situation. [emphasis added]
But here is the thing which really annoys me. If Gallagher claims that she does not believe same-sex couples harm their children at a higher rate than “any other family form,” then why does her organization push the work of people who do make that claim?
My guess is that she will probably say something along the lines of the following:
Some in the gay blogosphere are trying to assert that NOM–or me–endorses the view of every blogger/article NOM links to, by the act of linking to it.
This would lead to the absurd conclusion that NOM endorses the editorial positions of the New York Times, because NOM links to them–or The Advocate for that matter, as we often link to stories in the gay press.
If you want to know what NOM’s message is, there are abundant videos and press stories (including our own press releases) with me, or Brian Brown, or other NOM personnel actually speaking. Fair enough to criticize us for what we actually believe and say.
The standard “a link constitutes an endorsement” would cut off the free flow of ideas at the knees.
That’s all well and good, but NOM doesn’t simply link to Hansen’s post. NOM publishes an abridged version of Hansen’s piece on its blog.
So what does that mean?
It means that Gallagher and NOM are speaking out of both sides of their mouths and are expecting the rest of us to let them do it.
7 Comments
Of course Ms. Gallagher and NOM are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, and Ms. Gallagher is the ultimate proof of that. Ms. Gallagher, in her career promoting penile/vaginal marriage, has not only routinely denigrated same-sex couples as being inferior to heterosexual couples, she has denigrated single parents are inferior to married hetero couples, so she is in total agreement with Hansen. Yet Ms. Gallagher herself deliberately raised her first child in a fatherless home for years before she hooked up with Mr. Srivinstav and got her second baby daddy to make an honest woman of her.
But neither NOM nor any other “pro-family” organization has anything negative to say about Ms. Gallagher’s choices. Even though she has proven herself incapable of respecting the “moral” bounds of sexuality – within a heterosexual marriage only – that she preaches, no one has argued that Ms. Gallagher should have been stripped of her child, or prevented from marrrying baby-daddy #2. In fact, the ONLY family structure NOM and the rest of the “pro-family” movement want to prevent – among all those families that fail to meet the “married mom and dad” ideal – are same-sex led families.
Beyond hypocrisy, of course, Ms. Gallagher also provides the counter-argument for her own organization. Ms. Gallagher’s first child – the one raised in a home without a father – is not incarcerated or dead of a drug overdose. He is, or at least has been reported as, an actor and lyricist trying to make it on Broadway. All obvious jokes about his possible sexuality aside, I don’t think anyone could argue his was a “bad outcome,” so somehow he was not harmed by his “deliberately fatherless” home.
The truth that Ms. Gallagher represents – but which she is loathe to admit – is that even families that fail to meet her arbitrary ideal can still produce decent, productive, healthy children. And as that is the case, there cannot be any argument made for excluding any specific type of family – and certainly no argument for excluding only one non-ideal family – from the government’s legal protections and related responsibilities.
There is a lot of projection going on with her. She knows that she hasn’t always lived up to her idealized standards and blames her failings on everyone but herself
Did Trayce Hansen ever address the fate of Maggie’s own born out of wedlock child?
I got as far as the first talking point and had to comment.
When I was working on my psych degree I took a course in sex roles and human behavior. One thing that the professor pointed out which tickled my irony bone is that in “traditional” American society, boys are taught to be men by their mothers, because if their fathers are being “real men,” they’re not around.
OK — back to the rest of the BS.
Some in the gay blogosphere are trying to assert that NOM–or me–endorses the view of every blogger/article NOM links to, by the act of linking to it.
Sorry, Maggie, but unless you link to a source and include a specific comment or disclaimer to the effect that you disagree with them, you’re endorsing their point of view. That’s just the way it works.
I often link to statements or articles with which I disagree. I do that so that my readers can see for themselves the full article and any quotes I might use in their original context. That’s called being a responsible commentator. And if I don’t agree with or endorse their position, I say so.
The general term for statements such as Gallagher’s is “sophistry.”
“So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously.”
Ok. I didn’t even know what gay was until I was 13. I was always taught that anything that wasn’t the traditional family was bad. I was the definition of sheltered when I was younger. I didn’t even go to public school. If I left the house, it was only to go to church.
I told a friend that I liked guys when I was 7-8. I had no outside influence from anybody. Explain that one.
Solstyce @6:
As long as the anti-gay right maintains the fiction that being gay is a “choice,” they will use the argument that kids are going to be recruited if homosexuality is seen as normal and acceptable. And as long as they want to use “Save the children!” (which has been a very successful tactic for them), they have to pretend that being gay is a choice.
I grew up pre-Stonewall, and always knew I liked boys. The only words for what I was at that point were insults — “gay” as a cultural identification didn’t exist.
As for the bit you quoted, my own reaction would be “And your point is?” My point being that the assumption that their way is the only way needs to be shot down.