Tuesday, September 21, 2004
The Sports Page Is no Longer Safe
For cripes sake! The Sports section is not immune from the NYT's efforts to advance the gay agenda.
This is the main article for the day judged by it's 2 pages in the electronic edition. This is no way, shape or form should be in the Sports section. The article is a gay rights piece and should be in the National section if it warrants attention in the first place.
The more and more I read the NYT, the more and more I am convinced that it does not share my priorities, and judging the results of the various votes on gay marriage, the rest of the country's priorities either.
I hold a Seinfeldian view on homosexuality. I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. What I am unable to conclude is whether the right to marriage is immutable. I already know that marriage is an r-i-t-e, though.
All that aside, why must gay marriage, and there is no doubt that this issue permeates the article, be on the Sports page?
For cripes sake! The Sports section is not immune from the NYT's efforts to advance the gay agenda.
This is the main article for the day judged by it's 2 pages in the electronic edition. This is no way, shape or form should be in the Sports section. The article is a gay rights piece and should be in the National section if it warrants attention in the first place.
The more and more I read the NYT, the more and more I am convinced that it does not share my priorities, and judging the results of the various votes on gay marriage, the rest of the country's priorities either.
I hold a Seinfeldian view on homosexuality. I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. What I am unable to conclude is whether the right to marriage is immutable. I already know that marriage is an r-i-t-e, though.
All that aside, why must gay marriage, and there is no doubt that this issue permeates the article, be on the Sports page?
Comments:
Post a Comment
