Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Gay marriage media bias?

April 5, 2013

To the editor: Has The Journal now joined the left wing media bias in support of gay marriage? Over a week has passed since the upper front page article on a couple’s lawsuit against CA’s Propositio......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(238)

notsonuts

Apr-05-13 5:47 PM

Seriously, Myron. You think running a report on the Supreme Court hearings on the gay marriage issue makes The Journal biased in favor of gay marriage?

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-05-13 7:39 PM

Saying polygamy and ********** will come next is the sign of desperation. Just ask Congressman Gomert, who can map a path from gun control to **********. Maybe even from raising tax rates.

The website link is the Family Research Council which says marriage has been badly weakened by decades of divorce, out-of-wedlock childbearing and cohabitation. They support adoption as an alternative to single parenthood. That slippery slope may be right here... Single parents are not in a marriage – is that really the best place for the child? Should divorce be legal? “ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.” Where will it end?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-05-13 7:45 PM

The listed harmful effects are pure conjecture. That study mentioned was done from 1984 to 1996. Gay marriage became legal in the Netherlands in 2001. There were no married partners in the study, which was in fact a study of steady and casual relationships on the spread of HIV. Monogamous couples were excluded from the study. Participants were no older than 30, chosen from HIA/AIDS clinic rosters in metropolitan Amsterdam.

Who would accept the average length of the relationships of heterosexual unmarried men with STD’s or drug use, under 30, in New York City, as being representative of all heterosexual men?

Those guys did average much better than Kim Kardashian’s traditional marriage though.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Apr-05-13 8:48 PM

Myron is the perfect foil for the bigots.

Nicely done!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Apr-05-13 11:42 PM

Sven - You should not speak so unkindly about the pro-gay people. Calling people "bigots" is not nice.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Apr-06-13 12:09 AM

The fourth paragraph is superb.

He is being facetious, isn't he?

Isn't he?!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Apr-06-13 3:15 AM

Here's an interesting question for those who support re-defining marriage to include homosexual unions:

Where would you stand if a group of American Muslims or Mormons went to court to assert "equal marriage rights" for their marriages? Would you support their claims? If not, what would be the rational basis for your position?

This would be a natural step for those in the Muslim community who are eager to incorporate elements of Sharia law into our legal system.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Apr-06-13 9:49 AM

KARE 11 Land of 10k stories: Lesbian couple from the 70's, fighting for equal rights. One partner handicapped from accident, other partner not able to legally care for partner. Decade battle: "I just want to bring my partner, that I love, home". Then, wins and can bring partner home. This is where it gets interesting-healthy partner starts another relationship with another woman. Now, all 3 live together, just want equal rights. And I quote the story: "if I was legally married, I wouldn't have started another relationship". WOW, that's the love and devotion that is a poster for equal rights (they've been recognized nationally for decades!). I really lost respect for that cause when they're the poster. Sorry, but this story is out there, look it up.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Apr-06-13 10:42 AM

Oh, listen to the heathens whine. Well said, Myron.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Apr-06-13 10:44 AM

How long until 14 year old girls can get married link in Thailand?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Apr-06-13 10:44 AM

*like

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-06-13 2:54 PM

If KARE reported on every incidence of marital infidelity or messed up relationships of nonmarried, or married, heterosexual couples there wouldn't be time for any other news. Sorry, but if you've not lost respect for tradtional marriage for the same reason, you're expecting more of gay couples than straight.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ring2003

Apr-06-13 3:12 PM

Allowing more people to enjoy marriage will result in less people getting and staying married? Makes perfect sense. (Intense sarcasm). Please, please show me one way that allowing others to marry will in anyway affect heterosexual marriages. There isn't one. That argument is crap.

And Michael- Muslim and Mormon weddings ARE recognized legally. Are you referring to plural marriage? You know there is a difference, right? And the comments about animals and 14 year olds- This legislation is about two consenting adults. What is so hard about that for some of you to understand? The "slippery slope" argument is crap too.

No one is hurt by gay marriage and to pretend that you will be is shameful. If gay relationships are distasteful to you, so be it. People's rights should not be based on what your personal biases are. Why don't you put your efforts into doing something that will help your fellow citizens instead of fighting to hurt them?

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Apr-06-13 3:12 PM

Auntydem: I see you just brushed right past the question on polygamy. Oh, yes, you did say that raising the question was a sign of "desperation." I'll have to remember that response the next time I have no answer to a question.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Apr-06-13 3:26 PM

Gay relationships are just that: relationships. They are not marriages. Marriage always has been, by definition, a relationship between male and female.

If homosexuals and lesbians want equal rights, that can be achieved without trying to force the rest of society to change the definition of marriage. All it would take would be adding wording to existing statutes so that other specified relationships are also covered.

What gay activists really want is social acceptability. They won't have that unless and until they completely silence Christians or persuade them to turn away from the roots of their religion.

5 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Apr-06-13 3:28 PM

And yes, my earlier comments on Muslims and Mormons were relating to polygamous marriages.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-06-13 3:30 PM

Is there some problem with Mitt’s marriage?

Seriously, are Morman and Muslim marriages between two unrelated consenting persons of legal age not recognized by all 50 states? Are they not given all the legal rights afforded to married couples in all 50 states? Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless both of the persons are the same sex, the answer is yes.

Those favoring polygamy or marriage to a child, a dog, a lamp or all of the above could go to court and ask for “equal marriage rights” if gay marriage becomes law; but they always could have done so. Those eager to incorporate elements of Sharia law could and may do so. Those eager to incorporate other religion’s laws could and may do so also.

2 unrelated consenting persons of legal age. Why assume those who support that definition would support every other claim? Would you?

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-06-13 3:32 PM

MT you're so impatient! I didn't think you'd insult me until I responded.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lovesthetown

Apr-06-13 4:04 PM

You do know that marriage is a legal contract. In order to get married you need to be able to give consent legally and dogs, cats, etc cannot do that.

Not sure why this would lead to polygamy either.

Also if someone else's marriage is going to cause problems in your marriage, you need to re-evaluate your marriage.

I suppose people like Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich are great examples of "traditional marriage".

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Apr-06-13 4:32 PM

Auntydem: To say that those who wish to promote polygamous marriage may do so does not really answer the question. The question is, Where would you stand on that question?

If supporters of polygamy were to demand that polygamous marriages be recognized and granted federal benefits based on "marriage equality" theory, would you agree that they have a legitimate claim? Would we be discriminating against them if we refused to grant polygamous marriage equal status before the law?

To really answer this question either way, you would need to assert that their claims are essentially the same as those being made by the pro-gay activists, or you would need to explain the difference.

It is a question that America should answer before agreeing with the arguments made by the supporters of homosexual "marriage." Since this would be a completely new definition of marriage, we need to weigh carefully where that legal reasoning may lead us.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Apr-06-13 4:37 PM

You can put lipstick on a pig and it will still be a pig. Two dudes getting hitched, regardless of whether one of them is wearing lipstick, will never be a real marriage.

7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Apr-06-13 5:13 PM

MIT: So, is there something wrong with social acceptability? Seems to me it's a pretty basic human need. Would you like to be banned from this site for your pompous pronouncements? No, of course not. It would be hurtful. Just like the word "bigot" makes you squirm.

And, "gay marriage" and "silencing Christianity" don't even belong in the same sentence. Christianity has nothing to do with the right to marriage.

In one post on another thread you demand greater personal freedom and less government, in the this post you want the narrowest of religious definitions to be law, and the restriction of personal freedom curtailed by the government.

There's a word for how you are behaving, MIT. It begins with an "h".

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Apr-06-13 5:17 PM

Well, we got a little excited there.

Try: ...and the restriction of personal freedom ENFORCED by the government.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Apr-06-13 9:13 PM

Where is the line where one type of immoral behavior is considered unacceptable by the law and another is given a free pass? I don't give a crap what two people choose to do in their houses, but where does it end?

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Apr-06-13 9:30 PM

Sven - You cannot use the law to force social acceptance of anything. The law can force certain actions, but it cannot control how people think and feel about something. Social acceptance and respectability is a matter of how we think about something, and that is closely related to our core moral values. No matter how many laws are passed, no matter what decisions the Supreme Court hands down, there will still be large areas of America where homosexual behavior will be regarded as immoral and therefore socially unacceptable.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 238 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web