Debate Over Same Sex Marriage

Good Essays
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 ... 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.