Should the NY Times publish accounts of same-sex unions?

Argumant in favor:

Argument against

There’s even a third point of view

All quotes from

I agree with the decision to publish these announcements.

Resolved: december can write a decent GD OP - when it suits.

**Good job december.**That’s the standard you should always strive to. Balanced and even handed, but still favorable to your OP position.

Also glad to see that you are vindicating all the people that defended you in the Pit.


Hell, yeah they should.


Not much of a debate though, is it…? :smiley:

How about: would spotlighting same-sex unions have any impact on the reported high incidence of AIDS amongst young gay men?


I apologize for the nasty things I said to you in the pit thread.

I misread your OP there, I was wrong.


If the owners of The NYT consider it “fit to print”, yes by all means they should go ahead, it’s their paper. That small detail seems to have eluded Mr. Sprigg of the FRC (as in, why should a private media corporation “consult” anyone to make an editorial decision?).

OTOH, it does not mean that any other media outlet need feel – or be held by any group to be – obligated to follow suit if they don’t want to.

However, Mr. Sprigg contradicts himself, as his statement seems to indicate a fear that the Times DOES HAVE “power” to redefine the public’s understanding of the legal/social/religious construct known as “marriage” by printing gay union announcements. If this newspaper had THAT much power to redirect public opinion, wouldn’t the national ideology and mood in general be a whole lot more liberal by now?

jjimm: Not being inside the community, I can only speculate if raising the “social” stature of committed monofidelity could help a segment of the gay population be more resolved to avoid high risk conduct (a translation of the hetero “saving myself for The One” cliché?) – however, the high social status of committed monogamy among heteros has not particularly helped us avoid problems of teen pregnancy, infidelity and heterosexual STD, so it’s really iffy as to how significant that would be.

I’m with Noah – who even reads the Society pages anymore? I’m all for the publishment and approval of same-sex unions, but lets not pretend wedding notices get any more notice than those asbestos abatement ones.

I don’t see why not. It’s just a kind of contractual arrangement, after all, and the Times publishes other notices of contractual arrangements, such as business mergers. It’s a social announcement, too, and the Times publishes other notices of social announcements, like golden wedding anniversaries and college graduations.

And I think arguing that “we can’t do it because no other culture has ever done it” is a deeply silly argument. No other culture has ever done a lot of the things that American Culture is currently doing, like in utero fetal surgery, or sending people into orbit and to the Moon.

People like Sprigg think that if they ignore the issue, it will go away. Yeah, right. Look how well that’s been working with issues like teen pregnancy. All through the Eisenhower Era, the issue of teen pregnancy was ignored. If you got pregnant while you were in high school, you had to drop out of school, and you basically dropped off society’s radar. So look how well that reduced the incidence of teen pregnancy. :rolleyes:

Ditto with issues like battered wives, and alcoholism.

But I feel for Sprigg’s manifest sense of hurt at not being consulted by the Times. :smiley:

Um, no, Peter, I doubt whether the New York Times is in the habit of checking with Donald Wildmon and Jerry Falwell before they make major editorial decisions. :smiley:

Heh heh, that “I don’t think they consulted any pro-family group” made me laugh too.

They accuse the NYT of serving a “radical social agenda”, and then deride them for not consulting them about their social agenda.

If you don’t like it, turn the fucking page Sprigg.

Here’s another vote for Timothy Noah’s comment in Slate. I don’t care whose notices they publish, because I don’t read them. It isn’t news. That said, though, the NYT is free to publish whatever they want.

I’m with Noah, too.

Wedding announcements aren’t news. Even of the rich and famous. If I don’t know them well enough for them to mail me an announcement, I don’t care.

(People Magazine is an appropriate place to publish this).

However, if you are going to publish wedding announcements, you should publish everyone’s wedding announcement - including those of same sex unions - which is why the local paper here only published PAID wedding announcements.

Besides, as everyone who has ever had a $40,000 wedding and a six month marriage knows - a wedding does not a marriage make. What makes a marriage is committment (and I don’t care what gender or species the committed parties are).

Somehow I don’t think the point is the actual publishing of announcements, but the announcement they just made. The NYT takes a pro Gay Rights stand here, that’s the good news.

I, too, agree with Timothy Noah. I couldn’t care any less about these announcements.

That being said, if the New York Times is going to publish heterosexual unions, they should also publish homosexual unions.

That pro-family comment made me chuckle, too. In fact, the phrase “pro-family” seems a bit silly to me. It strikes me as sort of like “The League for a Seven Day Week”.

I don’t see why they shouldn’t.

And I’m sorry I got snarky with you before.

I appreciate the apology, Guin. I’m sorry you’re having a rough time right now.

Srtange that no one has commented on the “pro-family” label, which seems downright silly. On that scale, you might do just as well call such organizations “anti-family” because their purpose is restrict the sorts of familes that societies allow to legally exist.

Good point Apos. They complain that “The New York Times has neither the right or power to redefine marriage” but fail to show why they feel they have the right or power to define marriage.

If the NY Times’ society pages is now printing announcements of same-sex unions, which are not legally recognized as marriages in this country, does that mean they will also now print announcements of non-marital opposite-sex unions?

december, Honey, et al -

The ability gracefully to offer, and graciously to receive, an apology, reflects credit on those involved and gives pleasure to those who observe.

Well done.