Gay marriage is an issue that has been debated for many decades now. It is one of the most controversial issues people can discuss and most typically, people have a very strong viewpoint on whether it should or should not be legal. Though each individual believes that their perspective on gay marriage is the “right” point of view, there are strong arguments for both opinions. Those who believe it should be legal typically take the “all love is equal” standpoint where those who believe it should not be legal tend to sway towards the “gay marriage is unnatural” standpoint. In the two articles discussed in class both angles on gay marriage are addressed and the arguments help to show the reader the different perspectives on gay marriage.
Starting with the article by John Corvino titled “What (Gay) Marriage Can Be,” in this article Corvino uses the example of champagne at an anniversary party. To summarize, a man and a woman, Will and Kate, are throwing a party. Kate wants to serve champagne and Will says no. Kate tells Will that he is to take care of the beverages then. On the day of the party, Kate sees what she describes as champagne being passed out at the party. Kate approaches Will and asks about the champagne and Will proceeds to tell Kate that it is not champagne they are serving but rather sparkling wine. Kate views sparkling wine as the same thing as champagne, but Will says they are very different and if you use the term “champagne” to describe what “sparkling wine” is, then no one will appreciate the difference. If we were to take this argument and apply it figuratively to the debate about gay marriage, than Kate would be take the standpoint of the person who is for gay marriage. Kate says champagne is champagne regardl...
... middle of paper ...
...to the readers how their argument is not valid. He uses examples, emotions, and wit to sway the readers of his article towards why gay marriage should be legalized.
The standpoints that these two articles take are black and white. Corvino is arguing for gay marriage rights while Girgis, George, and Anderson is arguing against them. Both articles focus on the same topics: children, coitus, and comprehensive union, however the ending conclusion for these articles are completely opposite. Corvino takes the argument of Girgis, George, and Anderson and shows how it is invalid. Girgis, George, and Anderson are going off of their own arguments and beliefs on the topic without another article to base their case off. With this dispute there is not a right or a wrong answer, both articles hold valid arguments, it just depends on which answer the reader holds to be true.
He uses logical reasoning to make the readers see his point of view by using facts. He states that every crime offense committed in the modern world makes the offender go behind bars even if the crime is not brutal (197). He thinks that they offenders should be beaten and flogged rather than being locked like animals in a cage. He uses statistics to also prove his point that and says that not even all of these criminals are brought to justice by the government (197). His solution for the problem, hence, is flogging. I think his logic is flawed because not all criminals, no matter the level of public embarrassment and degradation are going to reform and turn new
... understandable to a wide audience, inviting citizens from all walks of life and levels of education to be engaged. But his arguments are, without a doubt, simplifications and he doesn't even bring up arguments that challenge his own, let alone take them seriously.
attempt to evoke an emotional response from the reader. He does make some good points
The constitutional right of gay marriage is a hot topic for debate in the United States. Currently, 37 states have legal gay marriage, while 13 states have banned gay marriage. The two essays, "What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt and "Gay "Marriage": Societal Suicide" by Charles Colson provide a compare and contrast view of why gay marriage should be legal or not. Pollitt argues that gay marriage is a constitutional human right and that it should be legal, while Colson believes that gay marriage is sacrilegious act that should not be legal in the United States and that “it provides a backdrop for broken families and increases crime rates” (Colson, pg535). Both authors provide examples to support their thesis. Katha Pollitt provides more relevant data to support that gay marriage is a constitutional right and should be enacted as law in our entire country, she has a true libertarian mindset.
In conclusion, I felt that this column was written as a piece of trickery. It was devised to fool average people into agreement. I also felt that anyone with mild intelligence and critical reasoning skills could easily punch an incalculable number of holes in his arguments. So, did he achieve his goal? I believe that this piece of writing could easily win over half of the U.S. population, but that doesn’t speak well for his writing necessarily.
His points are strong, but for almost every point he doesn’t have proof that what he is saying is true. For the rare points that do have support leave the question of “how accurate is the source?” For an example he argues that counselors are reporting that teens are thinking its “cool” to be homosexual, but what are counselors saying this? The statement “counselors report” is an absolute statement and all counselors aren’t agreeing to the statement. Even how he concludes this section on schools isn’t supported; he says schools are to be blamed. He should bring out statistics on the number of homosexual students to the change of sexual education. Statistics would make his point more believable and improve his effectiveness greatly. William leaves his readers with another question, “is what he’s saying fact or just his opinion?” Most of this article is just the opinion of William Bennett. His opinion brings forth some interesting points, but this all means nothing without support. Even with the poor flow and his lacking to understand the opponent, the article could have been effective if he supported all his statements. The support is the most important piece of an argument. William’s failure to support his points is the biggest reason why his debate was
What is marriage? For thousands years, marriage has been a combination between a man and a woman. When they love each other, they decide to live together. That is marriage. But what will love happen between two same sex persons? Will they marry? Is their marriage acceptable? It is the argument between two authors: William J. Bennett and Andrew Sullivan. The two authors come from different countries and have different opinion about same sex marriage. Sullivan agrees with the gay marriage because of human right, on the other hand, Bennett contradicts his idea because he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Even though their theories are totally different, their opinions are very well established.
Bryjak appeals to readers in a serious tone and makes very valid points for his reasoning. Bryjak’s thus fails to provide sufficient evidence on some of his reasoning to convince readers on his position.
Corvino is right in defending the morality of homosexuality, because homosexuality is morally sound. This essay has a very sound argument. Majority of the essay is spent pointing flaws in the opposition, rendering the opposing arguments null. I enjoy Corvino’s argument because by making all the opposing arguments invalid, readers are led to one conclusion: Homosexual sex is morally sound.
In the essay “Why The M Word Matters To Me” by Andrew Sullivan, he states “This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about marriage. It’s about family. It’s about love” (159). A student’s response to this statement made by Sullivan prompted him to claim that Sullivan was not speaking about marriage itself - as a concept, more rather weddings in particular within his essay. I fully agree with this student’s response and as a result, I shall be thoroughly analyzing the validity of his claim outright.
The essay, Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality by John Corvino addresses a topic that has long been controversial for more years than people can count. This topic, like a never-stopping debate, often brings various opinions onto the table, including religious morals, human future and procreation. Homosexuality has been seen as a serious sin through many people’s eyes and is often accused by others of being “immoral” and “unnatural” (Corvino). People often have a hard time accepting couples who practice relationship with the same sex. In the article, Corvino rejects the idea that homosexual sex is unnatural and immoral. He defended for his gay friend’s rights throughtout
...e same sex, regardless of race or the other characteristics provided, will never be able to fulfill this biological and societal expectation of the word “marriage.” Marriage was not created just for any relationship between humans, but is considered something governed by human nature and therefore natural law. Each of these valid reasons contradicts Corvino’s response that gay sex is not “unnatural,” proving that they clearly violate natural law.
Over the last years the topic of same-sex marriage has been of great importance to our society. The idea of the same gender being lawfully married is disturbing to a group of people but in the recent years the number of supporters has increased. The cases that argue for the legalization of same-sex marriage are focusing on the relationship of the individuals and do not see anything in same-sex marriage that could harm our society as a whole. The article “How the President go to ‘I Do’ on Same-Sex Marriage,” published by Joe Becker in April 2014, explains how Barack Obama started saying that he was undecided about the subject matter but is now leaning toward the legalization of same-sex marriage. The subject matter takes a lot of analyzing of what pros and cons are to come from the legalization of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a global argument that deals with unifying two individuals of the same gender under the law. The main reason that supporters give for justifying same-sex marriage is that it is for the same reason as straight people, to show love and commitment to each other. Furthermore, the argument of same-sex marriage is difficult to generalize because of the multiple factors that need to be taken in consideration when making any decision regarding this topic. Although Becker does have true premises, he lacks clarity in his terms which make his argument be false and invalid.
In recent years, same-sex marriage has become a more controversial topic on whether it’s right or wrong. People should not feel coerced to agree with something they believe is wrong; clearly, same-sex marriage is immoral and unnatural. Many complications come with same-sex marriages including financial pressures, social pressures, moral pressures, and health risks.
The recognition of same-sex marriage is a political, social, and religious issue. Because of this same-sex marriage is a very controversial topic. Legal acknowledgement of same sex marriage is commonly referred to as marriage equality. Many advocates of marriage equality argue that laws restricting marriage to only heterosexuals discriminate against homosexuals. On the other hand advocates against same-sex marriage argue that it would undo long-standing traditions and change the meaning of marriage in a damaging manor. In this essay I will be arguing for same-sex marriage. The arguments mentioned as well as others will be discusses throughout this paper.