Critique on Against Gay Marriage
Is marriage strictly between male and female, or should it also be open for homosexuals? William Bennett, a well known politician believes in the traditional marriage, being between a male and female. His thesis reads “We are engaged in a debate which, in a less confused time, would be considered pointless and even oxymoronic: the question of the same-sex marriage” (409). Not only is this statement bias, but other elements of his work held problems. The way his case was defended was ineffective to his case. The debate held good statements; it just failed to support the statements. His writing also holds other unacceptable elements, giving his work more reasons to be ineffective. William Bennett’s debate “Against
…show more content…
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
Gay marriage further damages the connection between marriage and parenthood by causing people to not consider marriagement just to be a parent. He later on argues that marriage has been a tradition since the beginning of time and everything supports it. “The family, led by a married mother and father, is the best available structure for both child rearing and cultural health. This is why, although some people will always pair off in unorthodox ways, society as a whole must never legitimize any form of marriage other than that of one man and one woman, united with the intention of permanency and the nurturing of children” (Colson
critical thinking and argument, with readings. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Stoddard, T. B. & Co. (2005). The 'Standard' of the 'St Gay marriages: should they be legalized? In Barnet S., & Bedau H. (Eds.)
Lisa Miller uses the Bible as a basis for her argument for gay marriage in her essay "Our Mutual Joy: The Religious Case for Gay Marriage". She first begins her argument by saying that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament show model examples for marriage. Therefore, neither a homosexual or heterosexual couple would want to look to the Bible for marriage advice. Instead, the Bible should be read for its universal truths. Miller goes onto say that there is no real definition of marriage in the Bible, and the laws and guidelines in the Bible were put in place for a culture that no longer exists. If Christians no longer subscribe to animal sacrifice, then why would they condemn homosexuality? She ends by discussing the fact that Jesus ' message was one of inclusion. So, all those who claim to follow the Bible 's teachings should love others regardless of their sexual orientation.
However, the good is outweighed by the bad in that this article has almost no factual support. Worley seems to be venting her thoughts without any outside factual support. It is difficult to label this article as effective due to the lack of any factual support and evidence to back up her arguments. That is exactly what needs to change in the article. Worley must use more sources for information to back up her points, then the article may be more convincing and worth
These stories bounced around a little. He told about how little he knew of his grandfather’s death then to his father’s death then his diagnosis then about his journalism days and back to his father and how he would have helped in the assisted death if he was allowed the choice. It jumps from one point then another which could confuse the reader a little, as it did with me. However, the structure of his argument was consistent. He would list an opposing statement then give data that disproves it and strengthens his own argument. Once listing the supporting facts he purposed a suggested solution that would allow a better and more regulated way to allow patient and families to make the decision to seek a doctor for assisted death. Terry even took it a step farther and gave the guideline for the solution to be successful. It seems as if he uses this tactic of listing an opposing thought and then gives a fact supporting his argument instead allows him to pick apart the flaws to the audience to make the opposing arguments seem weak in
He makes some very valid points pertaining to the zero tolerance policy practiced by schools and how it has a negative effect on children in our school systems and essentially pushes them into our juvenile and prison systems. I am a firm believer that the zero tolerance does nothing good for students in school. In my mind it completely goes against everything our schools supposedly stand for. We tell kids to go to school to learn, but the first time they break a rule we suspend them and send them home or even worse we expel them for the entire year. I just don’t see how that isn’t setting kids up for failure down the road and neglecting them of a quality education. One statistic the author presented that really caught me off guard was when they said that when someone is suspended or expelled even once in their entire time in school their chances of ending up behind bars is increased at a rate of five times than that of someone who doesn’t get suspended or expelled. This made me really reflect on how many friends I had in high school that were suspended and ultimately flunked out. It made me wonder if the system truly wasn’t there for them to help them get an
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.
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.
In Andrew Sullivan 's "For Gay Marriage" (29-33) and William J. Bennett 's "Against Gay Marriage" (33-36), both authors address the issue of legalizing gay marriage, and more specifically the implications it would have on various aspects of society. Sullivan 's article focuses on how the legalization of gay marriage would not drastically change society as it is now, only provide validation and equality in all aspects of life. Bennett 's article focuses on the same specifics of society, such as fidelity and the definition of marriage, as his is written as a rebuttal to Sullivan 's, explaining how legalizing gay marriage would greatly impact society for the worse. Each author 's argument is influenced by either the inclusion or omission of the
He examines the core arguments against homosexual sex such as: it is abnormal, the idea that homosexuals choose to be that way, it goes against the purpose of our sexual reproductive organs, it is disgusting and how it goes against biblical teachings. He first looks at the meaning of homosexual sex being “unnatural”. It is hard for him to claim that one definition of natural is right compared to another person’s. He does argue against the idea of natural law theorists by saying that many things that are important in our society are not natural, and there are many natural things that people detest. He says, “If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean”(Shafer-Landau 239). Disease and death are natural things that people do not like. Cancer is natural but no one believes that it is just or good. Then there are unnatural things people enjoy in life such as medications and a democratic government. These examples refer back to Corvino’s quote, challenging the true intentions of those who argue things based on naturalness. Another challenge to the naturalness of homosexuality is the idea that a homosexual person chooses to live that lifestyle, they were not born that way. It is hard to believe this is true however due to the fact that most heterosexuals cannot
The main points of the Symbolic Interactionism perspective is that symbols are what shape how we communicate and how we view the world. Our changing ideas affect how we understand and view different things around us. Without symbols society would be not be very coordinated, people wouldn’t be able to specify a specific time for school or where to meet for lunch. The main points of the Functional Analysis perspective, is that society is made up of several individual parts that work together for society to function properly. Each of these smaller parts has functions that are beneficial consequences of people actions and dysfunctions that are harmful and threaten the equilibrium. In this perspective the smaller parts are look at to see how they
Nicholas Carr has many strong points in his article. He successfully proves that what he has to say is worthy of his readers time, and that maybe we should all take caution to how much time we spend on the
In conclusion his article is highly ineffective due to his illogical arguments. While many of his hypotheses may be readily accepted by the audience, his attempt to reason others his approach is faulty. While his goal of empowering others with his same beliefs might be effective, he still misses with persuasion. Schulman's argument could be strengthened if he removes the statements regarding female sexuality in marriage as well as contraceptives. Finally he should actually discuss the view points of those who support homosexual marriage, not simply the views of those who are against it.
Why isn’t gay marriage legal yet? How does gay marriage affect people that aren’t gay? Why does it matter to those people? Why can’t gay people have the same rights as straight people? Gay marriage should be legal worldwide. Gay marriage or same-sex marriage is when a man and man or women and a woman get married. Same-sex marriage impacts society in different types of ways, some people are affected by it because they think it is against the bible, others seem to have no impact or problem with same-sex marriage. However for the gay community it affects them, because in some states they are not allowed to marry the one they are in love with it. Also it impacts them because there are groups of people against same-sex marriage and the gay community is constantly being judged by people opposed to same-sex marriage. Seventeen states have legalized same-sex marriage; Thirty-three states banned same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage provides a more stable environment for children of gay couples. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not affect or harm heterosexual marriages. Marriage is a union of love, not a union of genders.
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.