Gay-marriage reporting: biased in its exclusive focus on lifestyle issues.
The New York Times has another lifestyle piece on gay-marriage. (*) The advent of judicially instaurated gay-marriage will lead to a gay-wedding rush in a town in Massachusetts. The caterers will be busy and so on.
It’s a lifestyle piece. Like most of what the Times prints on gay-marriage, it does not address the debate that is ongoing. It ignores what is really important. The Times write-up is all too typical of mainstream press coverage of the critical social problem of gay-marriage. The press is blind to the actual issues created by this historical, wrenching, premeditated societal alteration. The media just do soft stories and lifestyle pieces. They take the easy road. It’s gutless reporting. This gutlessness greatly aids gay-marriage advocates, because it lets them do what they prefer: continue to avoid the issue of gay-marriage. All they want to talk about is love. No one is against love. Gay-marriage concerns more than love, however. It concerns the architecture of society, and particularly how we raise children.
No revolutionary social change, not even gay-marriage, should get a free pass. We ought to have a debate. So long as the media ignores the debate, they do a disservice to the country.
Where is the hard-hitting journalism that will actually address the many controversial issues raised by gay-marriage? What courageous journalist will file that report?
Update: 12 June 2005. The then-ombudsman of the New York Times later agreed with me that his paper’s coverage of gay marriage as a lifestyle was a biased practice. (†)
October 28th, 2004 at 11:24
Society should not and can not deny gay marriage. It may not be specified, but it is a constitutional right. …life liberty, and the THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS… Just because some people think it is wrong or gross does not mean they have the right to take away their happiness. Besides, if you do not want to see two gay people together, do not look. It is not like you will see everything they do or you will not run into twenty of them in a day. Quit the s*** and let EVERYONE have their happiness wether they be gay, bisexual, whatever. It is all the same.
October 28th, 2004 at 18:41
“Pursuit of happiness” is not in the Constitution.
An unrestricted right to “pursue happiness” would allow homicidal maniacs to pursue their happiness, which is killing people indiscriminately.
As for the “don’t look” issue, I don’t disapprove of the existence of gay people. I disapprove of the existence of gay marriage. Marriage is a public institution, and is far more important than bedroom activity.
November 10th, 2004 at 17:26
“Pursuit of Happiness” may not be, but I believe there is something along the lines of an equal protection clause, that thing you know we put in there a while back to prevent further discrimination of citizens. You are also correct that marriage is a public institution and it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, especially to deprive those individuals of the benefits of marriage just because of sexual orientation.
November 10th, 2004 at 19:42
Equality is justified when we treat like cases alike. For example, marriage of a man and a woman of one race is like that of a man and a woman of different races, because both involve the marriage of a man and a woman. Thus, interracial marriage is justifed.
Classical marriage is not like gay marriage. Classical marriage involves the marriage of sexual opposites, male and female. Gay marriage would involve the “marriage” of two individuals who are already of the same mold. Classical marriage is thus not like gay marriage and two should not be treated equally.
Indeed, the dictionary definition of “marriage” is the bringing together of two different things into harmony. One might speak of “the marriage of milk and chocolate chip cookies,” or “the marriage of power and grace.” One could not speak rationally, however, of “the marriage of milk and milk,” or “the marriage of power and power.” It wouldn’t make sense.
October 6th, 2005 at 20:51
basketball shoes
basketball shoes We stand at the nearer residunt of the bensi, the Tipstaff Orientals at the other. She spent the new-smel