barrykind
Advanced Member
Member # 35
|
posted
The Hard Line
The New York Times Comes Out
By R. Cort Kirkwood
August 20, 2002
(AgapePress) - The New York Times has fully emerged from the closet. Next month, it will begin publishing announcements of "same-sex commitment" ceremonies.
Earth-shattering news it is not, given the paper's pro-homosexual orientation, and it certainly isn't the first paper to do so. Some of us wonder what took so long. Undoubtedly, the same-sex committers do.
Tardiness aside, the Times' decision puts the imprimatur of Official Journalism on the practice, given that it is the "paper of record." Now, papers can celebrate "sexual diversity" for real.
But the unspoken message is that we cannot know good from evil, that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable, and finally, that homosexual and heterosexual acts are comparable morally and socially.
What Raines Said
Howell Raines, the paper's top editor, was unambiguous on that point.
"In making this change," he said in Sunday's edition of the paper, "we acknowledge the newsworthiness of a growing and visible trend in society toward public celebrations of commitment by gay and lesbian couples -- celebrations important to many of our readers, their families and their friends."
And "we recognize," he added, "that the society remains divided about the legal and religious definition of marriage and our news columns will remain impartial in that debate, reporting fully on all points of view."
There you have it. A "growing and visible trend," its moral dimension notwithstanding, demands "impartial" expression in the newspaper because "society remains divided" about it.
Society Divided?
Well, let's take the Raines argument to its logical end. Society suffers many "trends" important to "many" of the paper's "readers, their families and their friends."
The media never tire of telling us racism is a "growing and visible trend," to use the Times' locution. Given the "impartiality" of its "news columns," and because "society remains divided" about race, perhaps the Times will "report fully on all points of view" and run notices for white power rallies, or better yet, white power weddings.
A preposterous analogy? Very well. But you get the point.
And who ever said "society remains divided about the legal and religious definition of marriage"? No one, except those fomenting the division, probably less than 5% of the population, enlightened liberals of the Fourth Estate included.
Apparently, a miniscule group's radical fantasy is now evidence of "societal division." Truth is, however, "society" is clear as glass on the subject of marriage where homosexuals are concerned.
"Division" there is not. The legal and religious definitions of marriage are settled in nearly all 50 states. Most likely, regardless of what it thinks about homosexual behavior, "society" does not believe homosexuals can or should "marry," marriage being a metaphysical impossibility for two members of the same sex.
But demands there are, from the homosexual lobby and its friends in the news media.
What They Ask
And what they demand is this: moral approbation for sexual perversion.
The rest of us are expected to accept that what two men or two women do on their "wedding" night is morally tantamount to what husband and wife do on their wedding night.
More bluntly, they demand that we think the filthy anal intercourse and other sodomy that spawns deadly microbial disease are morally indistinguishable from the healthy and sacred marital intimacy that begets human life.
That is why the homosexuals would topple the marriage laws, and it is the import of this announcement.
The Times' proclamation was expected. That's the most disheartening thing about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Cort Kirkwood is a syndicated columnist and managing editor of the Daily News-Record in Harrisonburg, Virginia. He can be contacted at kirkwood@shentel.net.
© 2002 AgapePress all rights re
--------------------
The HEART of the issue is truly the issue of the HEART!
John 3:3;Mark 8:34-38;James 1:27
Posts: 3529 | From: Orange, Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
