Equal Rights for All
Gay marriage has always been a subject of great controversy. Andrew Sullivan addresses this issue in his persuasive essay entitled “Let Gays Marry.” Sullivan’s essay appeared in Newsweek in June of 1996. Through his problem/solution structure of this essay, Sullivan uses rhetorical appeals to try and persuade the audience to accept gay marriage as a natural part of life.
Sullivan, an editor of The New Republic, also wrote Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality (26). Andrew Sullivan, who is openly gay himself, is a devout Catholic who has spent his life researching subjects involving the gay community. His articles are simply ways for him to show his feelings to the general public. His audience for “Let Gays Marry” is the general public, but could be more specifically written for gays who are too scared to stand up for the rights for gays to marry. He may have written this essay to inform the public how gays feel about the issue of marriage, but also to encourage gays to stand up for their rights as Americans.
“Let Gays Marry” is structured in a problem/solution format. Sullivan takes the issue of gays not being able to legally marry and offers a solution to the people of America. He addresses the issue that gays are not treated the same as other Americans in the issue of marriage and proposes that same-sex marriages become legal in order to solve this problem (26). Sullivan also knows that Americans believe that having same sex marriages would be against religious values (26). He then explains that gays don’t want to change anyone else’s beliefs, but simply want to live happily like other married couples in the United States (26). The last issue addres...
... middle of paper ...
...rica changed (26). Marriage has come a long way within the last century and should continue to modernize along with the people of America.
Andrew Sullivan uses many strategies to try to fully inform his audience of the rights of the gay community. Sullivan uses rhetorical appeals to persuade his audience to see his view of same-sex marriages. Sullivan successfully shows his side of the argument and confronts faults that others may see with his views. Using his problem/solution format, Sullivan resolves the problems that many Americans assume would accompany the legalization of same-sex marriages. Through his essay, Sullivan hopes to show to the general public that legalizing gay marriage is a natural step that must be taken in order to support the growth of America.
Works Cited
Sullivan, Andrew. “Let Gays Marry.” Newsweek 3 June 1996: 26.
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.
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.
Sullivan, a proponent of same sex marriages is a firm believer that gay and lesbian couples should be treated as equals in society and no different than anyone else. Many people are afraid of the effects that same sex marriages may have on our culture, and Sullivan explains that gay men and women are no different from anyone else in society as far as political and moral beliefs are concerned. These people are not out to change America as a whole, they just want the freedom to decide and to do as they wish. Sullivan explains that homosexuals want the right to marry for the same reasons as anyone else and that the lobbying of gays in America, for marriage, is not to destroy our moral system or who we are, they just want to be able to devote to one another as a regular couple does.
"Let Gays Marry" is an article written by Andrew Sullivan arguing that homosexuals should be given the right to be legally married in the United States. In this essay, Sullivan argues that homosexuals have just as much right to marry as heterosexual couples. Sullivan argues that throughout US history that the definition of marriage has been altered several times to accommodate changing times, and that it is time to recognize gay's right to marry. Throughout the article, Sullivan uses several sources to back up his argument, but also makes several comments to weaken his argument.
A lot of men experiencing Premature Ejaculation also say that they have less control over ejaculating, with virtually everyone suffering from this wishing that they are able to go longer. When a man is affected with early climax, it-not just allows him from totally appreciating his sex-life, but in addition it leads to defeat, emotional and connection tension. The companion of someone experiencing Premature Ejaculation can be left frustrated and unsatisfied, and it’s that this deficiency of an effective sex-life which results in mental and relationship strain and worry. Although lesser ...
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
Eric Schollser argues in his paper “Today’s Nuclear Dilemma,” that the nuclear weapons in the world, and the issues that they are associated with, should be of major concern to today’s society. Nuclear Weapons were of world wide concern during the time of the Cold War. These weapons, and their ability to cause colossal devastation, brought nightmares into reality as the threat of nuclear war was a serious and imminent issue. The US and Russia both built up their inventories of these pieces of artillery, along with the rest of their arsenals, in an attempt to overpower the other. This past terror has become a renewed concern because many of the countries with these nuclear weapons in their control have started to update their collections. One
Out of all the dangerous powers and authority our government wields, possibly the most threatening powers are nuclear weapons. People tend to be frightened by things they do not understand, which make nuclear weapons a perfect catalyst for fear. These weapons have the most overwhelming and destructive power known to man; although, nuclear weapons are only safe in countries that try to maintain harmony and stability. Nuclear weapons are defined as “explosive devices whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.” This power is both dangerous and unstable in the hands of small erratic countries.
Nuclear weapons are the safest defense mechanism in the world. Although nuclear weapons can lead to mass destruction and the loss of thousands of lives when detonated, they are the optimal solution to the conflicts between countries in the future. The actual use of the nuclear weapon is not the deterrent, but rather just the mere fact that a country could use it against another country which avoids the large scale conflict. Thus, nuclear deterrence presents itself as a preferred security option. Firstly, based on deterrence theory, nuclear weapons will lead to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This means that if nuclear weapons are used in warfare, either side will not be able to succeed in winning, as the destruction caused by the weapons will be too much for either side to recuperate from. Since the detonation of “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, nuclear weapons have never been used in warfare again. The world saw the destruction which a nuclear bomb could have. Ever since, this has driven fear to never use nuclear weapons. Although many countries possess nuclear weapons today, they have yet to engage in a nuclear war. This has so far maintained “a tense but global peace” (Mutual Assured Destruction, 2014). As the use of nuclear weapons would lead to the ultimate destruction of humankind, nuclear deterrence is a viable security option as shown by the MAD principles, the application of the MAD doctrine throughout history and the current global stability.
Beginning with the topic on gay marriage and the controversial battle between authors, Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett, Sullivan is the gay supporter. In Sullivan’s piece, “Let Gays Marry,” he opens with a statement by the Supreme Court, “A state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” He feels that this simple sentence has so much meaning, saying that whatever type of person, male or female, black or white, everyone deserves the same legal protection and equal rights. Therefore, gay marriage should not be excluded from the legal system. He tells that some churches practice different beliefs and may oppose gay marriage but religion has nothing to do with the state appeals. Sullivan explains how the definition of marriage has changed in the past and that it can be done again. Sullivan ends his piece by saying that changing the law would not affect straight couples, so why are they against gay marriage? He believes the change would allow gay couples to experience what straight couples already have.
The inherent lack of rationality in the mind of a terrorist is the quintessential factor behind the frightening prospect of nuclear proliferation among radicals, whether they are fundamental religious extremists, or political radicals. The globalized world of the 21st century has seen the threat of politically driven state ideology fade out and give way to the new threat of terrorist ideology. The dangers of such illogical principles are only compounded when on considers the nuclear element, and its significance in the hands of those who seek solely to harm others. The interconnectedness of the modern global community has compounded the threat of worldwide terrorism, and with greater nuclear proliferation, the potential for a devastating nuclear terrorist attack should shock and awe civilians everywhere.
Throughout the entirety of the twentieth century, the most disputed topic of discussion has perhaps been that of nuclear weapons. Some people argue these weapons of mass destruction are vital to the survival of order and decency in the world, while others contend that nuclear weapons will bring an end to civilization as we now know it. Regardless of both of these arguments, there are two things that just about nobody can deny – nuclear weapons are extremely expensive and enormously destructive.
From the creation of nuclear weapons at the start of the Cold War to today, the world has experienced struggles fueled by the want of nuclear power. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s nuclear weapon program are some of the most important conflicts over nuclear weapons. Thanks to the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 to end World War II, the world has come extremely close to a nuclear war, and more countries have began developing nuclear power. Unmistakably, many conflicts since the start of the Cold War have been caused by nuclear weapons, and there are many more to come.
Globalisation allows individuals, groups, corporations, and countries to reach around the world farther, faster, more deeply, and more cheaply than ever before. Most large local companies regard globalisation as opportunity, thereby exploring overseas markets for maximum market share and optimum business strategies. However, managers would face a series of challenges caused by leadership models, cultural backgrounds, political and economic risks, HR management, etc. To study multinational management skills is very useful for my future career. In this essay, I will set goals for this subject, identify the skills I have honed and need to improve, and explain my strategies for achieving goals.