The Boston Globe is continuing its advocacy of gay marriage and Harry Forbes notices. The Sunday Boston Globe Magazine featured a gossipy story about friends disclosing their infidelity. As Harry says, there are two million heterosexual couples in Massachusetts and 2,000 “married” homosexual couples, so which group does the Globe look to for its “normal” faithful family? Check the byline at the end of the story.
Technorati Tags: homosexuality, marriage, media-bias
It’s not clear that the Globe “looked” for anything. As far as we know, the article’s author, who happens to be gay, as Harry pointed out, is not a staff writer. Though I’m still willing to concede, knowing the Globe, that its editors probably considered the article a way of humanizing gay men for their readers. In that respect, yes, their editorial decision could be interpreted as “advocacy of gay marriage,” insofar as marriage, for everyone, regularizes and reinforces relationships that can be messy, as anyone can attest who knows anything about cohabitation or promiscuity or any other irregularized arrangement. At the same time, however, finding fault with extending civil marriage to same-sex couples (regardless of one’s feelings about the role the courts played here in Massachusetts) could be interpreted as “advocacy of gay promiscuity.” Maybe marriage won’t make same-sex relationships as strong and invincible as it does straight relationships. But it can’t hurt.
Putting a fictional legal stamp on gay relationships and pretending a turnip is a rose won’t have any effect on fidelity among homosexuals.
David Valdez Greenwood and his family are the gay family “du jour” of the Boston Globe magazine’s “Coupling” column. This is probably the fifth time something from this writer has appeared.
You read the piece and laugh as you recognize the common foibles of any relationship, and then you suddenly realize the Globe has pulled a fast one one you, Valdez Greenwood is the “wife” in a homosexual relationship…
I’m wise to it now, and I think it’s another example of the Globes attempts at social engineering.
Peterforrester: you say
“At the same time, however, finding fault with extending civil marriage to same-sex couples (regardless of one’s feelings about the role the courts played here in Massachusetts) could be interpreted as “advocacy of gay promiscuity.” Maybe marriage won’t make same-sex relationships as strong and invincible as it does straight relationships. But it can’t hurt.”
It follows, then, that you believe that granting the status of marriage to those who struggle with, say, pederasty, bestiality or necrophilia, insofar as “marriage” strengthens those relationships.
Let’s be consistent.
Fr. Jim Clark asserts,
“It follows, then, that you believe that granting the status of marriage to those who struggle with, say, pederasty, bestiality or necrophilia, insofar as ‘marriage’ strengthens those relationships.
Let’s be consistent.”
In the United States, at least, Father, consensual sexual relationships between adults are legal. I’m not sure, then, how you think the regularization of already existing, legal relationships is comparable—in any way—to your examples of pederasty, bestiality, necrophilia, none of which involve consensual adults. It seems that you’re using “It follows, then” in a very novel manner with which I’m unfamiliar. But, hey, I’m no Thomist.
According to your line of reasoning, as John Corvino put it,
“One might just as well argue that those who advocate allowing men in dining rooms without neckties have a burden to explain why they must nevertheless wear pants, or that those who advocate banning abortion have a burden to explain why we shouldn’t also ban contraception, interracial dating, and dancing…”