One viewpoint with multiple approaches From the two prompts of "Prop 8 Hurt My Family-Ask Me How" and Theodore B. Olson's "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage", the second article provides a deeper and more rational attempt on explaining why gay marriage is an essential right for every individual to acquire, and is also the ultimate sign of American Principle. Unlike the first prompt, which mainly consists of emotional appeal, Theodore B. Olson uses logical and ethical rhetorical strategies to convey the reader of his viewpoint. Coming from a standpoint of it not being a "liberal or conservative issue, but an American one."(82) Simply alienating the existence of homosexuality in today's society is merely impossible. "It is a fact …show more content…
Olson does not have to give examples of bad situations that are happening due to this controversy, yet still establishes himself as incredibly humane and considerate. While laying down concrete facts of how " This Bedrock American Principle of Equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike"(76), he uses logical appeal to bring respective criticism towards Proposition 8 as denial of basic human rights that this soil and foundation has been built upon. As a reader, you have to be intrigued and question yourself in a sense of "who am I to denounce another human being's rights?" On the other hand, while reading the first article, it would be a slight chance of getting the reader to feel bad due to the well gathered …show more content…
Bush administrations, challenge the traditional definition of marriage and press for an 'activist' interpretation of the constitution to create another 'new' constitutional right?"(75) Though religion sometimes does play a big role in this prop 8 issue since it is traditionally "has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman"(77), how could you, as a committed believer in God not accept another person due to their sin, when it's clearly stated that(hypothetically) to God all sin is the same. If for some reason you would want to show them your values by accepting them, most likely that would work a lot better than neglecting the fact of their obvious
Proposition 47, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, is an act that applies savings towards mental health and drug treatment programs. It is extremely controversial and viral, with large amounts of support and protests. This piece of rhetoric is relevant and has a critical impact on our local community and state of California. As the Californian General Election Official Voter Guide states, the goal of Prop 47 is to “…ensure that prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenses, to maximize alternatives for non-serious, nonviolent crime, and to invest the savings generated from this act into prevention and support programs in K–12 schools, victim services, and mental health and drug treatment” (Bowen 70). This explains
Thomas B. Stoddard’s “Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal” is a successfully written argument with some minor flaws in technique. Stoddard uses this article to present his major claim, or central thesis, on the reasons gay marriage should be legalized. He presents his argument using minor claims. In a lecture on February 2, 2005, James McFadden stated a minor claim is the secondary claim in an argument. Stoddard uses minor claims in his discussion of homosexual people being denied their rights by the government and by others who discriminate against them. He also discusses how love and the desire for commitment play a big part in the argument for and against gay marriage.
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
California's Proposition 13 had a big impact on American government and public policy because it put to vote the reduction of property taxes. This Proposition had a great impact as it swept the county and made headlines in newspapers around the world. People used this initiative process to gain a greater control over their lives. The California taxpayers stood up and said no more to excessive taxes because they were tired of out of control property taxes and losing their homes because they could not pay property taxes while the government did nothing to help them. This in turn hurt the schools, cities, counties and special districts. From this proposition, we have a few others like proposition 218 and proposition 37.
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.
There are a number of reasons why people supported Proposition 8. There was indubitably a measure of homophobia which influenced the result, but proponents of the revision focused their arguments on other issues. Those who supported “Prop 8” claimed that it was not hateful or discriminatory, and that it did not in fact take away the legal rights of non-traditional couples. This argument hinged upon California Family Code Section 297.5, which granted the same rights and responsibilities to civil unions and domestic partnerships as to marriages. The flaw in this reasoning is astoundingly obvious. By taking away a couple’s ability to marry, the state would be taking away one o...
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
Homosexuality is a sensitive topic and often avoided in conversation. For centuries the human race has oppressed and persecuted others strictly because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual etc. Although it is disturbing to most of us, these actions still occur in our society today, as many believe that homosexuality is abnormal and disgraceful. One supporter of this belief is Michael Levin, who strongly believes that homosexuality is highly abnormal and thus, undesirable. Although his beliefs and theories supporting this claim are subjective, there is evidence that can support his stance on this topic; we will analyze this claim in further detail and how it relates to his other views mentioned in this essay.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- these are the unalienable Rights all Americans receive when we are born. President Obama made an excellent point; gay Americans receiving these unalienable rights? Anna Quindlen also made a good point,” No religion should be forced to marry anyone in violation of its tenants (gay marriage), although ironically it is only religious ceremonies that gay people can marry, performed by a clergy who find the blessing of two who love each other no sin”… The purpose of Quindlens article is to persuade the reader that gay marriage should be acceptable to today’s society and Gay couples should receive the same benefits when they are married as straight married couples. In her article Quindlen establishes her appeals to logos and pathos but needs to establish a more credible ethos.
“Homosexuality is found in over 1,500 species. Homophobia is found in only one” (1,500 Animals”). Conversion therapy, or otherwise known as “reparative therapy,” is a homophobic process by which many therapists attempt to “cure” homosexuality. Conversion Therapy demonstrates the ignorance of this world by causing mental and physical harm to its participants in an attempt to “cure” something that is not a problem, and that is why the federal government needs to ban it once and for all. Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness, which led to attempts to “cure” it.
An issue that has, in recent years, begun to increase in arguments, is the acceptability of homosexuality in society. Until recently, homosexuality was considered strictly taboo. If an individual was homosexual, it was considered a secret to be kept from all family, friends, and society. However, it seems that society has begun to accept this lifestyle by allowing same sex couples. The idea of coming out of the closet has moved to the head of homosexual individuals when it used to be the exception.
In society, the people that constitute marriage are the policy makers in our government. Unfortunately, marriage is a privilege and not a right. In some states, homosexuals are not allowed to get married (Lamanna and Reidmann, pg. 276). Although people in s...
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 conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.
When one hears the words “LGBT” and “Homosexuality” it often conjures up a mental picture of people fighting for their rights, which were unjustly taken away or even the social emergence of gay culture in the world in the1980s and the discovery of AIDS. However, many people do not know that the history of LGBT people stretches as far back in humanity’s history, and continues in this day and age. Nevertheless, the LGBT community today faces much discrimination and adversity. Many think the problem lies within society itself, and often enough that may be the case. Society holds preconceptions and prejudice of the LGBT community, though not always due to actual hatred of the LGBT community, but rather through lack of knowledge and poor media portrayal.