http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/fashion/18PAPE.html
I think this is terrific. Gay couples ought have have the same right as hetero couples, to have their union recognized. This sort of publcity could lead to a sensible law recognizing gay unions. As a side benefit, the Times reports may tend to encourage gay monogamy, which could help reduce the spread of AIDS.
I disagree with a lot that Howell Raines has done to the Times, but he’s done the exact right thing here.
Mods – I meant to put this in Great Debates. Can you move ti there? Thanks.
Oohh… how nice, that condescending thing he does towards black people, he does it to gays too!
Hadn’t noticed that before…
Yes, the NY Times Society column will have the effect that its obituary column couldn’t achieve.
With a line like this:
“As a side benefit, the Times reports may tend to encourage gay monogamy, which could help reduce the spread of AIDS.”
… I’d say this thread is in the right forum already, december. Maybe someone more friendly will come along, but I ain’t moving shit.
<<Yes, the NY Times Society column will have the effect that its obituary column couldn’t achieve.>>
As the OP said, this is a side issue for me. It’s not what I wanted to debate.
However, that sarcastic comment above shows a lack of knowledge about what’s actually occurring in the US. In fact, the death rate from AIDS has gone way down, because of the relative effectiveness of the current medicines. There have been several articles within the last few months observing that with the reduction in the death rate, there has been an increase in unsafe sex within the gay community, particularly among young men.
fuck you, december
I’m not surprised they’re starting this up and I expect other big city newpapers will follow.
Not yet.
Jeezum Pete, Guin and Coldy.
Why are you beating on the poor schlemiel?
So it didn’t come out sounding too good. Turn your offense-o-meter down a couple of notches, and give the guy a break.
december. Just what part of your novel were you planning to debate?
…Howell Raines has done to the Times, but he’s done the exact right thing here. Yes or no?
New York Times Will Begin Reporting Gay Couples’ Ceremonies Should they or shouldn’t they?
This sort of publcity could lead to a sensible law recognizing gay unions. Are you For or Against.
4 …the Times reports may tend to encourage gay monogamy, which could help reduce the spread of AIDS. The end justifies the means. Yes or NO
I vote that you never had a debate in mind. At least, not one that you could cogently put into words.
december
Do you have a problem with people being happy in general?, or does the same-sex thing get your goat.
If, in this world, two people can find mutual love and respect why would you have a problem with that? And why shoudn’t their union be celebrated?
There was a story on the cover of our local paper a few weeks ago which featured 2 gay men kissing, it was a wonderful picture of 2 people in love and yet several assholes found it their moral duty to write a letter to the editor complaining about it. To these people I say read the last paragraph of this post as it applies too all of you.
If Little Honey brings home someone in a few years who is either:
Gay
Black (or any other color, for that matter)
Republican
And tells me that she is in love and that all of her intellectual, emotional and physical needs are being met, I will celebrate the fact that she has found someone who loves and respects her.
I am going to give it up and let you be my very first…
december
Fuck you!!
::it was good for me, was it good for you?::
Honey
Yep, that’s the one. The Times’s decision was quite controversial out in the big world beyond SDMB.
I agree with most of this
Gay couples do have the same right as hetro couples to have their unions recognized.
This might lead to a sensible law regarding gay unions.
I could see how this might encourage monogamy.
I can also see how monogamy might reduce the spread of AIDS.
So, I really don’t see why people have a problem with this post.
**Honey **, did you misread the OP?
The problem is that december’s toungue is firmly planted in cheek, and many of us can see that through cyberspace. He was that obvious.
…and then you gratuitously added the crap about how this was gonna help solve the AIDS crisis.
:rolleyes:
Weasel. Lame. Disingenuous.
The NYTimes is but the latest to do this. They aint the first. It’s only news because they’re so big.
No debate here. Move along.
Allow me to chime in with Scylla here. As far as I can tell, december honestly believes that gay civil unions are a good thing (perhaps gay marriages as well, but I really have no idea what goes on in his mind aside from what little I read of his posts). As a matter of fact, the only reason I opened this thread was because last I checked, december was all in favor of gay rights, and seeing this in the Pit struck me as out of character. So I think december meant to say that he considers the NY Times’s decision a good thing on its own, regardless of the impact it might have on AIDS infection rates.
I suppose there really isn’t likely to be any serious debate on this matter on this site, merely a bunch of “me too” posts, but it’s not like that’s never happened.
Furthermore, I see it as a reasonable assumption that increasing acceptance of gay unions would lead to an increase in monogamy, and may perhaps slow the spread of AIDS among the homosexual community. There are probably flaws with this, and certainly the NY Times by itself is unlikely to have a noticeable effect, but it’s not exactly a homophobic opinion to hold or anything.
If you’re just going to leave this here because you think the OP deserves to be Pitted, why don’t we just move all of december’s posts to the Pit? I don’t see how this is any more deserving of scorn than many of his or others’ GD threads.
At least in many of his other threads in GD he kinda had something to debate.
In the present thread, he kinda forgot to come up with a debate topic. Just MPSIMS material, almost.
He opened his mouth without having a plan.
You know, if you keep telling december to piss up a rope even when he shows an inkling of kindness and understanding, we’re not going to help this lad along the road to enlightenment. His tounge may be planted firmly in his cheek today, but who knows? Next week it might be a fat penis.
Seriously, congratulations for seeing some sense in the action, december. It’s common ground which I did not know the two of us shared.
Except that penis thing. That’s just not my bag, but hey, if you want to do it, go right ahead. It’s sort of a free country.
OK, well, I can see how ambiguity would be a valid criticim, but as I said, this OP would hardly be deserving of the sort of scorn exhibited here if it were posted by anyone better liked than december. I was mainly objecting to responses such as Guinastasia’s, which didn’t really seem to bring up any sort of valid criticism of the OP, and was needlessly insulting.