re: Stalwart Sentinel pg 3Lets not forget other areas of
technological innovation (Boston, Austin, Seattle) are *somewhat liberal*
to lost in DC 12:52 p.m. June 18But, nobody expects The Spanish
inquisition? the Dark Ages? The Taliban? The Albigensian crusades? The other
crusades? Burning the library at Alexandria? p.s. we would not
expect anything religious to evolve; would we? Well, not in the last 6 millennia
@RedShirt --"nobody is harmed"Your claim
doesn't make it true, Red.Also, public safety is about the RISK
of harm, not the CERTAINTY of it. For example, I may drive home drunk and get
there safely -- but that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be
legal.Here are excerpts from what Chief Justice Baumann said when he
reaffirmed the constitutionality of Canada's polygamy ban in 2011: -- "..women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of
domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental
illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused
and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from
emotional and behavioral problems."-- "The prevention of
collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is
clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial..."--
"Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great
many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious,
cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur
wherever polygamy exists."Once again: the courts understand
these distinctions, even if you do not.
@Redwings --"I never stated a moral argument. I simply stated a
biological fact that is not and never will be changed. "If your
purported "biological fact" is irrelevant to morality, then it is
irrelevant to this discussion."Homosexuals use the body in ways
it was not meant to be used."Once again, you can't
distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals on this basis. Heterosexuals engage
in the very same acts that homosexuals do.Also, you're once
again inserting morality. The terms "meant" and "incorrectly"
are loaded with moral subtext. There is no "incorrect" or
"correct" way to use a body, in biological and/or scientific terms.
There are harmful ways and unharmful ways; there are productive ways and
unproductive ways; there are efficient and inefficient ways; and so on. But
terms like "incorrect" and "meant" only enter the picture when
you insert religion and/or morality into the argument.You might as
well claim that portacaval shunts or tracheostomies are "incorrect",
since the body was not "meant" to be used in those ways. You might as
well claim that rib grafting, used to create replacement ears, is
"incorrect".Sorry, but those terms just do not apply.
To "Contrarius" but in the scenario that I proposed for the redefinition
of "marriage", nobody is harmed, so your comparison to human sacrifice
is wrong. Why is it ok for 2 people to be married, but not 3, 4, 5, or more?The arguments for gay marriage come down to just a few basic themes:1. They want to marry the person they love.2. They want the same
benefits as a heterosexual couple that has married3. The government has
no business telling them what they can and can do in their bedroom.4.
Equal rights.5. They were born loving multiple people.Using
those requirements for marriage, how can you deny that if you allow homosexual
marriage that plural marriage is wrong? It meets the same criteria.You say that plural marriage is illegal because the voting people wanted it
that way. In California the voters said NO to gay marriage, but the unelected
courts are changing that.So again, if you allow gay marriage, you
must allow any other union to be called marriage.If you disagree,
explain why 2 people that love eachother can be married but 3 wrong.
@Redshirt --"Read "Man and wife?...""That study (actually a US study) looks at STRAIGHT stable homes vs. STRAIGHT
unstable homes. It doesn't mention gays/lesbians/homosexuals/same-sex
couples even once. Yup, I've got the full study.Keep trying,
Red."Read "Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands the way of
Scandinavia" "Kurtz (the author) made several untrue or
misleading claims. Here's a few facts:1. unwed mothers in the
Netherlands have actually been increasing on a smooth parabolic curve since the
1970s -- looooong before registered partnerships. There's a graph of this
at procon.org, if you want to look it up.2. the change in unwed
mothers before and after partnerships was the SAME, in the same years, as other
European countries that did NOT have partnerships.3. Scandinavian
countries that have partnerships ALREADY had higher rates of unmarried
cohabitation than other European countries BEFORE the partnership laws.4. heterosexual marriage rates actually INCREASED after partnerships in those
Scandinavian countries. As of 2004 (the date of Kurtz's article), Denmark
had its HIGHEST marriage rate since the 1970s. Other Scandinavian countries with
partnerships also had higher marriage rates than before the partnership laws.Keep trying, Red.
@Redshirt --I seem to be having trouble posting this afternoon.
I'll answer the second part of your post now -- I'll have to re-create
my previous answer to the first part of it. "who is to say what
defines a marriage anymore."The same people who "say" it
now -- the laws passed by the voting populace, the Constitution, and the
courts."If the only requirement is that consenting
adults...desire of their own will to be married, who are you to say that it is
wrong."Ahhh, nobody ever said anything about "the only
requirement". Marriage laws, just like any other laws, are subject to our
country's entire BODY of laws and its Constitution.For
comparison: human sacrifice is not legal. Even if the prospective sacrifice
consents to being thrown into the bonfire to worship whomever, it's still
not legal. Why? Because our other laws forbid harming human beings in such a
manner.The courts already recognize this distinction, Red. It
doesn't matter whether *you* do, or not. They do. And I trust them to know
a heckuva lot more about the laws and Constitution than you do.Stay
Tuned for the other part.
@ plainbrownwrapperYou and amazondocs seem to read into my post more
than is there. I never stated a moral argument. I simply stated a biological
fact that is not and never will be changed. Homosexuals use the body
in ways it was not meant to be used. That heterosexuals do so as well does not
change the biological fact that the body is being used incorrectly from a
biological standpointI did not state a position for or against gay
marriage, etc. I am simply pointing out the fact that homosexuality is not in
line with biology and physiology. I am simply trying to point out
that no matter how much we as a society try to shift the meaning and nature of
things, there are some things that cannot be changed. That reality should be
acknowledged and included in the debate.
To "plainbrownwrapper" you asked for it.Read "Man and
wife? That's best for baby" from the The Age (Austrialian Newspaper)
There they report on a study performed in Austrialia looking at what is best for
children.Read "Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands the way of
Scandinavia" in National Review. In this one they show how since Gay
marriage was legalized in the Netherlands the number of marriages has
significantly dropped and the number of children being born to unwed mothers is
increasing.Now, as for the redefinition of marriage. If the gays
say that they just want the right to marry the person that they love (actual
argument), who is to say what defines a marriage anymore. If the only
requirement is that consenting adults (this counters your polygamy argument
since it is based on teen girls being assigned a husband) desire of their own
will to be married, who are you to say that it is wrong. The only requirement
is to love eachother. So, why can't 1 man and 4 women be married if they
love eachother and desire it? Why not 2 bixexuals, 1 hetersexual man, and 1
@Redshirt --"the ideal situation for children to be raised in
includes both a mother and a father."Nope. Studies actually
indicate that the ideal situation for children is to be raised in a stable
household with two parents. Studies have never shown that children grow up
better in stable straight homes than in stable gay homes."In
places where gay marriage has been adopted, there is a rise in unwed
mothers."Balderdash. Show me any evidence that gay marriage is
actually linked to unwed mothers."you must also redefine
marriage to accept plural marriages, and any other definition..."Nope.1. Polygamy conveys known, concrete risks to women and
children. The courts already recognize this fact, even if you don't. And
public safety has always been a valid legal reason to limit personal
freedoms.-- This principle has already been tested, in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia. That court easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their
polygamy ban, based on this argument.2. Incest and pedophilia harm
children. Refer back to the public safety argument above. Also, children are
incapable of giving informed consent -- which is essential for legal
contracts.Your arguments all fail, Red. Keep trying.
To "plainbrownwrapper" there are arguments against gay marriage. Here
are some of them.Children need both a mother and a father. Studies
indicate that the ideal situation for children to be raised in includes both a
mother and a father. (yes some couples are infertile, but adoption is always an
option)In places where gay marriage has been adopted, there is a
rise in unwed mothers. Unwed mothers are more likely to live in poverty than
women who are married before giving birth.If you redefine marriage
to accomodate the gays, you must also redefine marriage to accept plural
marriages, and any other definition that people can come up with.
@Redwings --"Humans are subject to death, which is a biological
process. Are you suggesting otherwise?"We're working on it.
;-)In the two thousand years since Christ, life expectancy has
increased from 28 years to 67 years (worldwide average). We have cheated death
of millions of victims it formerly took by many diseases as well as traumatic
events. Much of human medicine would have been regarded as
witchcraft and unnatural in Christ's time. Healers **have** been condemned
and killed as witches through the ages, simply because they did things which
other people thought were "unnatural" or "not biologically
correct"."Homosexuals use part of one system as a substitute
for another."So do many heterosexuals. Are those heterosexuals
therefore evil?"Two homosexual males can NEVER make a biological
child. "Neither can infertile couples. Are their marriages
therefore invalid?"Human do not fly. They sit in a device of
their invention which flies. That device is not biological."LOL!
Would you feel better about homosexuals if all their interactions
were carried out with the aid of artificial devices? Those are available, you
To "Stalwart Sentinel" fortunately for us, you are wrong about what got
us out of the depressions.Read the following articles:"How Government Prolonged the Depression" WSJ"Contrary
to popular myth, FDR prolonged agony of Depression" DN"Great
Depression" Library of Economics and Liberty"The Great
Depression" at the VonMises Institute"The New Deal Debunked
(again)" at the VonMises InstituteEconomists and businessmen
agree that the government made things worse. Do you know more about economics
than the economics people who wrote those articles?
@ amazondocs: "There is no such thing as "biologically correct",
btw. Biology is not morality, and humans are not slaves to biological
design."Humans are subject to death, which is a biological
process. Are you suggesting otherwise?There are specific biological
systems in the human body. Homosexuals use part of one system as a substitute
for another. I did not make the rules, and neither did you. Two homosexual
males can NEVER make a biological child. That is a fact that will never change.
No court, public opinion poll, legislation, or "evolving on the issue"
will ever change it.Human do not fly. They sit in a device of their
invention which flies. That device is not biological. To say that human are
not slaves to bioloical design is a delusion.I am sorry that reality
does not conform to your opinions.....
Oh dear DeseretHow irony is lost on you.For a survey of news
by PewYou generate your own duplicitous headline.Penalty-free
persecution: your new self image.Pain-free martyrdom: your new ladder to
Redshirt 1920 DJIA high: 109.88. 1921 DJIA low: 63.90. Percentage
lost: 42%.1929 DJIA high: 381.17. 1932 low: 41.22. Percentage lost:
89%.2007 DJIA high:14164.53. 2009 low: 6547.05. Percentage lost:
54%.Please stop getting your news from the right wing blogosphere.
You're not an intern and I'm not here to give you on-the-job training.
Further, the 1920 losses were not nearly as large (net) so had a
much smaller affect on our economy. What's more, the lax regulations put
into place during the tenure I note above is what allowed for the speculative
gains made during the Roaring 20's which caused the DJIA to artificially
balloon nearly tenfold. Just like in 2007-08, conservative policies in the
20's set the stage for the fall. Finally, you claim
progressivism prolonged the Great Depression, I claim it got us out. I guess
the fact that America's most promising times (50's, 60's) were
under the largely uninterrupted control of both Houses by the more progressive
party spanning 1933-81 along with long spans (such as FDR) of Democrat
Presidents would mean the American people agree with me.
@Redwings --"Except for the fact that heterosexuals use their
bodies in a biologially and physiologically correct way and homosexuals do
not."LOL!The acts engaged in by homosexuals are
enjoyed by many heterosexuals as well. Does that make heterosexuals evil?There is no such thing as "biologically correct", btw. Biology
is not morality, and humans are not slaves to biological design.To
compare: airplanes are not "biologically correct". Human beings were not
biologically designed to fly. Are airplanes therefore evil?Artificial hearts are not "biologically correct". Are they therefore
@ RanchHand: "The "homosexual lifestyle" is identical in every
other regard to the "heterosexual lifestyle". Live and learn"Except for the fact that heterosexuals use their bodies in a biologially
and physiologically correct way and homosexuals do not. Unfortunately biology
and physiology cannot be changed by court decision, the media, or by calling
@ulvegaard;If you do not agree with a particular
"lifestyle", you are perfectly free to not engage in that particular
"lifestyle". You do NOT have the right to tell other people what they
may or may not do simply because you don't approve.BTW;
religion is a "lifestyle", sexual orientation is an orientation, not a
"lifestyle". The "homosexual lifestyle" is identical in every
other regard to the "heterosexual lifestyle". Live and learn.
To paraphrase what a previous poster said - it is the law of supply and demand.
There is more demand for the liberal perspective rather than the conservative
perspective and that ought to have the conservatives seriously concerned about
the message they are trying to get across. Don’t blame it on
the media – without the greater demand for a liberal perspective - there
would be no supply.
The point is, we are constantly being led to believe that 'everyone is
doing it' and that ideals have so radically changed in this country by
masses that in order to be current, we need to all surrender our personal
standards and beliefs or be branded as anti-social and anti-progressive.People have a right to know that they are not alone in their convictions
and that it is okay to maintain personal opinions. If I don't agree with a
homosexual lifestyle, that doesn't make me a bad or out-dated person and it
is not the right of the media to invent statistics to suggest that I am.
To "Stalwart Sentinel" the depressions that you are referring to
didn't start until liberals started to "fix" the system. The truth
of the matter is that the crises you list could have been resolved without the
mass suffering. Take the 1920 stock market crash. In terms of percent loss, it
was worse than the 1929 crash or the 2008 crash. Why is it that the 1920 crash
is little more than a foot note, and the 1929 and 2008 crash are historical
moments of great suffering? The answer is simple. Progressivism. The 1920
crash had virtually no government response other than to cut taxes AND cut
spending. The 1929 and 2008 crashes had government jumping in to "help"
and to get things going again.So, again, if progressivism is so
great and does not lead to disaster, then why is it that the 2 bad recessions
lasted so long under Progressive leadership, and 1 recession that was worse
lasted so short under conservative leadership?Doesn't that
indicate that conservative principals work, while progressivism doesn't?If Progressives are not looking towards socialism, why is it that so
many of their programs nationalize things or provide universal welfare?
Aren't those socialist things?
@Tators --"They are only reporting what the Pew study
indicated."Let's try to look at the actual facts for just a
second here.The Pew study actually indicated that mainstream media
stories were 47% favorable for gay marriage -- while public opinion polls are
**51%** in favor of gay marriage.Hmmm. Mainstream news reported with
4 percentage points LOWER overall favorability than public opinion polls
show.That supposed "unfair bias" doesn't look quite so
impressive now, huh?The ONLY difference was that more mainstream
media reports tended to be mixed rather than outright negative. And that's
because -- as the study itself reports -- the opposition position doesn't
have a clear message -- NOT because the media is biased.I do see one
obvious example of bias here. @SCfan --"This was a
PEW study."The Pew study itself doesn't mention the word
"bias" even once.
To "Ragnar Danneskjold" no, I did not say that. I just find it ironic
that they would claim that truth has a liberal/Progressive bias, when
liberals/Progressives are historically known to use lies and false statements to
push their socialist adgendas. Do we accept a liar's word that what they
claim is the truthAlso, FYI, liberals/Progressives are not political
parties, but are philosophies or ideologies.I don't trust
anybody in politics. There are some that are more honest than others, but none
tell the whole truth all the time.
Redshirt - Excellent point, I forgot we progressives have a "socialist
adgenda" (sic). Considering the world's private banking sector (NYC),
entertainment industry (LA), and technology industry (Silicon Valley) are all
located smack dab in the middle of the most liberal strongholds in the US, we
must be the worst socialists to ever exist. You really thought that one
through.You want actual "adgendas" (sic) that have proven
disastrous? There have only been two times in the last 100 years in which
conservatives controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency.
Immediately following one of those tenures we suffered the Great Depression,
immediately following the other we suffered the Great Recession. Start on day one of humankind and chart the "conservative" viewpoint
versus the "progressive" viewpoint and as knowledge, information,
technology, and education increase, that society becomes more progressive.
Truth has a liberal bias.
I wonder what the results would have been if Pew Research just looked at Deseret
@lost in DC --" I rarely use God as my own argument. "Really?I occasionally save a few of my own comment posts for
future reference. Here's just a couple of things I've responded to
from your posts in the past.Lost: "He told the women to go her
way and sin no more."Lost: "I see you choose to ignore the
numerous biblical references that condemn homosexuality. "Lost:
"sin remains sin."Yup, those were you. Lost:
"True religious values do NOT evolve"Then I'm sure
you'll be happy to stone everyone who gets divorced and remarried.
That's adultery, according the Bible -- and adulterers get put to death.
Right?Lost: "that homosexuals have less right to marry than
anyone else. The same rules apply to all.""Black people have
the same right to marry as anyone else. They can marry people of their own race
just like white people can."That argument didn't work in
Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work here.
So Redshirt1701, are you saying that "liberals/progressives" are the
only ones that lie to get people to accept their policies? Grow up. Anyone that
believes that either party has the exclusive on dishonest policy makers who only
look out for their own interests is painfully naive.
Some of you seem to be shooting the messenger, namely DN. This was a PEW study.
Read the article. Disagree with PEW if you want, but it sounds, from what some
are posting, that you want same sex marriage to be accepted by 99% of the
people, and any opposition is not legitimate.
To "Stalwart Sentinel" truth has no bias, it just is. The ironic thing
is that liberals/progressives have the hardest time accepting truth when
presented with it.For example, if truth has a liberal/Progressive
bias, why is it that when Progressives start pushing their socialist adgenda,
they have to lie to get people to accept their policies? If what they are
saying is the truth, why hide it? Could it be that the truth has no bias, but
the truth is that liberals/progressives have an adgenda they are trying to
promote that historically has proven disasterous? Isn't that an unbiased
truth that is ignored because of the inability of liberals/progressives to
accept the unbiased truth?
Candide -Secular values based on Reason and the Golden Rule break
down as quick as you describe morals based on religious dogmas. With differences
in cultural beliefs and in a globally communicative world whose Reason is the
authority? Whose idea about how to implement the Golden Rule should be the
standard? The Golden Rule and Reason have merit, but so does
religious dogma in spite of the fact that people interpret what God wants
differently. Also, Reason alone cannot prove there is a God, but it
cannot disprove God's existence either. Your statement "the supposed
whims of a non-existent deity" is only your opinion and therefore weakens
So, you think that homosexuals have the same rights to marry as anyone else?
What are the same rules that apply? You are going to have to explain this to me.
RanchHandsorry to see you having to resort to untruths. I rarely use God
as my own argument. Not to say never, but rarely.Of course, you
could not argue with what I said, so you made something up. Typical.Candide,Nope, sorry to disappoint you. True religious values do NOT
evolve, unlike secular. The secularists believed in slavery (Rome, Africa,
etc), state supremicy over the individual (USSR, China) and ruling classes who
could kill others with impunity (feudal Japan, Rome). etc.Ragnar
DanneskjoldThe lie? That homosexuals have less right to marry than anyone
else. The same rules apply to all.
Truth has a liberal/progressive bias - that is what conservatives forget. From
heliocentrism to evolution to civil rights to LGBT rights - conservative,
religious-based politics are wrong time and time again. Not all
arguments are created equal and therefore not all arguments ought to be afforded
the same level of credence when a topic is being discussed. If Fox News
considers my "right" to project my personal, moral beliefs onto others
in equal weight with a fundamental right for all protected by the COTUS, that is
not being unbiased, that is being demonstrably incorrect.
@lookupAbraham Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address discussed the fact
that both sides in the war believed that God was on their side. This is even
more proof that secular values are a better determinant of morals. If you have
two sides, both being made of groups of Christians, that are diametrically
opposed to each other, both claiming they are in the right, how do you choose
which is right? Obviously it can't be based on religion because both groups
had their pious members and assertions of God's blessing. You must
therefore base morality on something other than religious dogma. I purport that
the Golden Rule and reason are a much better basis for morals. As for
Wilberforce and Rev. King, they were men that fought for freedom and civil
rights and they believed they were doing what was right and what God wanted.
There were lots of others doing the same thing that were not religiously
motivated. Also, there were other men at the time that believed the exact
opposite and that they were doing what God wanted. Again another reason to base
morals not on the supposed whims of a non-existent deity, but on reason.
Point made. Previous comment pointing out the DN's own bias was not
What every liberal here is forgetting is that the press is supposed to be
unbiased. There shouldn't be articles supporting or opposing gay marriage.
What should be outraging everybody is that only 44% of the time were articles
neutral.No matter what the bias is of the press, shouldn't we
be more upset that there is a bias at all?Why is it that the Press
has allowed themselves to be corrupted to the point where they are little more
than a propaganda arm of the Progressive movement?The funny thing
about all the liberals and their complaints is the simple fact that Fox News is
the least biased new source, yet they hate Fox.
It is good to see all the independant thinkers and the Deseret News who
aren't buying into the political dogma that is being forced down our
throats everywhere we turn.
I wonder how the local papers would score in this.
lookup,Nice points and information. Thanks.BlueYou
simply lifted the comments from the Pew Study that favored your opinion and then
editorialized with your own interpretations.The pro-gay marriage
message appeared more consistent because the news outlets adopted the message
provided to them by its supporters. The article also mentions that the news
outlets did NOT report the primary talking points of the opposition, even when
they were agreeing with them. That is voluntary filtration and bias and is NOT
reporting the facts, as you claim.The disparate coverage (i.e. bias)
is clearly outlined in the report and news outlets were more than willing to
carry the message fed them by gay-marriage proponents.And from the
article: "During the week of the hearings, when most of the coverage
occurred, the media offered many profiles of the plaintiffs or members of the
LGBT community with few voices of opposition mixed in."Is that
not the very definition of biased coverage?How many major newspapers
in California carried editorials in favor of Prop 8? None. The media
bias has always been there as they continue their efforts to tell us how to
lookup, I didn't say the original article ended with the quote I offered. I
said (correctly) that it was the _conclusion_ reached by the researchers. Yes, the article's final words are what you offered: "Finally,
commentators who favored same-sex marriage, such as Rachel Maddow and Chris
Matthews, spent more time discussing the issue than commentators who opposed it,
such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly."Now then, would you
expect liberal commentators to _not_ spend as much time in favor of marriage
equality as conservative commentators? Is it "bias" that FOX pundits
spend less time talking about a social issue on which they know they have the
losing position?More to the point, the Pew research isn't
really about left vs. right commentary. The research differentiated between
commentary, news stories, and social media. Again, that's _reporting_
news, not bias.And when you say, "I think 'marriage
destruction' would've been more appropriate (according to LGBT
activists themselves)..." I have to ask you, are you serious? Exactly which pro marriage equality activists are advocating "marriage
destruction?" Name them.All you're doing is proving why
those opposed to marriage equality are losing.
@CandideYeah -- just like Lincoln was inspired by "secular"
views to end slavery in the US (you might want to read the 2nd Inaugural
Address). Or William Wilberforce, in Britain, was moved by "secular"
values to end the slave trade (you might want to read his biography). Or the
REVEREND Martin Luther King, was inspired by "secular" ideas to lead the
Civil Rights Movement (you may want read three of his biographies and learn
about his religious training). I love it when people rewrite history to suit
Don't blame the Deseret News for this story that doesn't enhance the
pro-homosexual marriage stance. They are only reporting what the Pew study
indicated. The Pew study reported that twitter and other social media have shown
a difference in public opinion on this controversial subject within single digit
percentage points... relatively close. And yet national newspaper
reporting have printed 5 times the number of articles in favor of homosexual
marriage than opposed to it... not relatively close. Since the slant of these
articles isn't even remotely correlated to the public opinion divide, then
yes, there is definitely a bias by that segment of the media. And that bias is
toward homosexual marriage. It's the responsibility of
newspapers to be neutral and balance their reporting with some type of
correlation to public opinion. That hasn't happened in this case. As such,
a bias has definitely been shown. Don't attack the messenger for pointing
This article does make me laugh --Here we have the obviously and
heavily biased DN, criticizing other media outlets for supposedly exhibiting
bias?? BWAhahahaha.It would be interesting to see just how many
articles the DN has published opposing gay marriage, and compare them with
DN's *pro*-gay-marriage pieces. Anyone wanna take bets on where the vast
majority of them would fall?As for mainstream media -- most
mainstream articles on racism would be against racism. Here's a hint for
you: that isn't because the media is unfairly biased against racists.
It's because racism IS WRONG.Keep reading and rereading the
quotes that Blue posted, until the message sinks in:----------"Within the media debate on the subject, this report found that
those arguing for same-sex marriage had a more consistent message than those
arguing against."That would be because equality is an easy and
honest message to share. Opposing equality based on irrational fear is always
going to be a tough sell.The Pew article concludes with this,
"The findings show how same-sex marriage supporters have had a clear message
and succeeded in getting that message across all sectors of mainstream
@BlueThe article did not end with the statement you quoted -- and
most of this article quoted the original article verbatim.It ended
with "during the week of the hearings, when most of the coverage occurred,
the media offered many profiles of the plaintiffs or members of the LGBT
community with few voices of opposition mixed in. Finally, commentators who
favored same-sex marriage, such as Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, spent more
time discussing the issue than commentators who opposed it, such as Sean Hannity
and Bill O'Reilly." Which provides two examples of how the media
increased momentum for same-sex marriage acceptance or in the words of this
article, inserted its own bias. Is it really so different?And just
because a cause has a slick slogan like "equality" doesn't mean
that's what they stand for or that they are right. It may just mean they
are good marketers. I think "marriage destruction" would've been
more appropriate (according to LGBT activists themselves) but that isn't
such a good sell in the media, is it?
Perhaps there is 5 to one public support of equality in marriage. Simply
reporting reality. With this topic I've noticed that any organization or
group that comes out against equality in marriage is given a lot of coverage. Is
I'm curious what "lie" lost in DC thinks that the gay marriage
supporters are using?As for the article, not only is the study
misrepresented, but these studies can be highly inaccurate or biased themselves.
Just look at their assumption. If I write an article talking about the issue of
gay marriage, it seems perfectly reasonable to give the justification for the
requests of the group. But if equal time isn't given to the opposition, it
is biased? It just ignores the way that news stories are structured.The news may be biased, but even more than that, they are lazy. There are very
few well thought out articles where both sides of an issue are presented in an
unbiased manner. If similar research was done on any number of subjects, results
would be "biased" to whatever is the subject being discussed, or the
issue of the day.
There is something very telling here but it is not what conservatives think.
The troubling issue here is that conservatives have a woefully inferior argument
but expect equal treatment. I'm sorry but personal religious convictions
are not sufficient justifications to keep two loving, committed people from
exercising their Constitutionally fundamental right to marry one another.
I'm sorry but when God told Noah in the OT that He'd never flood the
world again is not on equal footing with the painfully overwhelming majority of
climatologists. I'm sorry but personal religious convictions are not on
equal footing with a woman's Constitutionally-protected right to have an
abortion. I'm sorry but your unfounded belief that the US government will
one day turn tyrannical is not justification to overcome gun regulation that has
been deemed constitution by the SCOTUS. The problem here isn't
the media, the problem is that conservatives choose the wrong side of nearly
every single issue, be they social, economical, or judicial, and then they
expect us to treat those arguments as though they have merit.
Lost in DC-If you believe the Bible to be true you must already believe in
infanticide and non-traditional marriage. Have you even read the good book? It
is full of infant murder-killing children because they made fun of a bald
man(Kings 2), killing all first born sons(Exodus), killing entire cities,
including men women and children(Leviticus, Exodus, Judges and many more). As
for traditional marriage, how many wives do you have, how many concubines, did
you marry you brothers widow? Secular values, like equality, liberty, and
justice are the ones that have shaped this country and will continue to do so
for the betterment of all people. Religious values have changed due to the more
enlightened views of people that no longer buy into the tribal values of old. We
no longer burn witches, purchase slaves, sell our daughters, or stone those that
work on Sunday. So, secular morals are on a much higher ground than are
religious pretense to morality.
What this article calls "bias" in favor of marriage equality for
law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples has to do with the fact that those who oppose
marriage equality have never been able to present any logical arguments.They insist that marriage equality goes against "God's
Word," even though the United States is not theocracy, and churches will
continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.They insist they're trying to "protect" marriage for the
sake of children, even though couples do not have to marry to have children, the
ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a
marriage license, and Gay individuals and couples will continue to raise
countless adopted children to healthy, well-adjusted adulthood, regardless of
their marital status.And silliest of all, they raise the prospect
that if EVERYONE was Gay, the human race would go extinct ... as if the marriage
equality movement was an effort to make homosexuality compulsory for
everyone!If the news media are guilty of anything, it's just
approaching this issue from a CONSTITUTIONAL point of view.
I seem to recall some heavily biased polls against same-sex marriage which were
nothing like mainstream media on any of the other polls.Now, why -
do I ask - would Des News publish highly incredible poll and criticize
another?Can we say bias, anyone?
@lost in DC;And yet you constantly use "god" as your own
argument. LOL. The irony, it burns.
Candide, Tolstoy,TOO funny!!!no, I don't think the
religious will accept infanticide or the abondonment of traditional marriage as
moral as do the securalists.I think it sad the gay marriage folk
depend on a lie to further their cause. I fail to see how using a lie is using
reason or fact to support their position.
The media, journalists, press and professors at many universities have been
setting the state since the 1960s to get this type of coverage. The Democrats
have benefitted from this type of coverage with the immigration issue, also.
Hillary did this type of move when her President was our President, not her.
She knew it would come up when she was running for office and would get the
people to vote for her based on a biased press. Biased and based are only one
letter apart but the press uses the "I" version to not have it based on
a strong foundation.
Way to go Des News. Never let the facts get in the way of a good (biased) story.
Bias in the media? Wow, who would have thunk. Besides, Homosexual marriage is
the current flavor of the month.
Way to go, DesNews, you took a Pew Research study and portrayed as something
completely different than what it really is. (That wouldn't be
"bias" now, would it?)The Pew headline reads, "NEWS
COVERAGE CONVEYS STRONG MOMENTUM FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE." That's not
"bias," that's a statement of fact. Get the difference?From the actual Pew article: "Within the media debate on the subject, this
report found that those arguing for same-sex marriage had a more consistent
message than those arguing against."That would be because
equality is an easy and honest message to share. Opposing equality based on
irrational fear is always going to be a tough sell.The Pew article
concludes with this, "The findings show how same-sex marriage supporters
have had a clear message and succeeded in getting that message across all
sectors of mainstream media."Again, that's not bias,
that's reporting facts.
Speaking of bias.. Please, read the actual link. It doesn't speak of bias
at all. This article misrepresents the study and it's this article, not the
study that claims bias. The study found more statements supporting marriage
equality, but as a reflection of shifting positions on the subject.
To claim there are not news organizations that try to form societal opinions
would be naive. That being said, what is at play is largely supply and
demand.If there was a demand for more coverage in favor of
"traditional marriage" the law of supply states it would be there.The liberal bias in the media can largely be attributed to the fact
there is more demand for a liberal media rather than a conservative one.
You poor, poor conservatives. The big, bad media is out to get you and make you
think equality is actually a good thing./sarcasm
To All who say this type of story is obvious. This type of story
that is "obvious" is DEFINITELY worth printing. There are lots and lots
of people out there who don't think there is a media bias. Every year 17
year olds turn 18 and a huge percentage of them don't know there is media
bias. Some of them don't even know what you mean by the idea "media
bias." There are plenty of 20 somethings that haven't seen enough
hard core proof but are starting to suspect. This is hard core proof.
Can't deny 5-1 very easily. Plus journalists themselves often think they
are doing a better job at not being biased. They remember the "1"
statement they said and lose count of the "5". Great story.
Not only media bias exists and continues, but the gradual brainwashing of our
children in the public schools in many parts of the nation, particularly on the
east and west coasts. On most college campuses today, the new rebel is a
"Pew study: News media inserted bias into gay marriage debate"-----------------Astonishing!Surely, this ranks up
there with headlines like, "Flash: Recent evidence reveals that water is
If you want to make this into a big news story, then fine. Gay people are
winning the PR war. Suck it up; at least they're in touch with who they
are, and not arguing from the viewpoint of a fantasy world.
The only thing surprising about this story is that it was actually written...
and printed!Media bias most certainly exists, and is itself proof of
the bias that infects nearly every college campus, and most of secondary
education as well. All that enthusiasm for "diversity" in its varied
facets vanishes instantly upon the utterance of any conservative thought, or
challenge to the liberal dogma.
Perhaps the "counter arguments" would get more coverage if they were
actually based on something otber then false prapaganda. It's hard to give
equal report ing without ignoring tbe facts when the opposition to gay marriage
abandened fact and reason so long ago.
It's about time the religious start catching up to the morality of
Everyone knows about media bias. Bias exists on both sides, with a heavy tend to
liberalism. Conservative views simply aren't popular. Hollywood knows what
makes money, and it isn't what you hear at the pulpit.The thing
that is really sad about all this "influence" is that those who follow
the world seem to think they have some kind of independence of reason.Being brainwashed to accept or live in sin isn't independence, it's
the exact opposite. What I hear at the pulpit is that we all make mistakes, we
all can change and improve. All of us listening to that message have experience.
We all know what it's like to do wrong, and many have changed and done
right. Inherently, we know more fully right from wrong. So those preaching that
they somehow have a superior understanding of tolerance, morality, law, and
reason... they really are accepting the most limited view one can have, which is
moral relativism.The family inherently is not limited, but
expanding, growth, and the human destiny. Homosexuality inherently limits
everything we are. Happiness is only found through repentance, not through sin.
Popularity will never change that.
The media wants liberals in power, no guns in citizen's hands, gays getting
special privileges and praise for their choice, legalized marijuana, etc....Sad state of affairs. This country is ripe for destruction.
No Way! You telling me the media are in an effort to change society in basic
foundation of society by portraying as normal and without consequence? The funny
thing is that a large majority are believing this line. Turn off the news-
you'll gain more value from ESPN.
I am utterly flummoxed by the revealing outcome of this poll.(sense the sarcasm)