Gay Marriage: Yes or No

Kirby

Otemuyiwa

Communication Arts

21 February 2012

Gay Marriage: Yes or No

                Among other things, gay marriage is one of the most controversial issues society is dealing with. Whether people respect gays or whether they hate them with a fiery passion, this issue has been big for the last 10-20 years. A lot has changed since then, but the issue still stands: Should same-sex marriage be allowed in the United States?

            One of the 2 main reasons people are against gay marriage is because it is against their religion. According to Seth Forman from Daily News in the article, “Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive change,” the number one reason against gay marriage is religion. Catholics and Orthodox Jews are against this overall change of making gay marriage legal. Also, 70% of African Americans don’t agree with this change. Forman asks, “Have [these groups of people] become the new Ku Klux Klan?” Have they? They are doing everything the KKK did, just with a different group of individuals. On that note, Robert Stengel wrote in 1997 in TIME Magazine, later published in the book Marriage and Divorce that, “Christian right takes this belief a step further, suggesting that gay activists are in fact attempting to poison the youth of America with same-sex propaganda.”(142-43) He is saying that Christians take the overall issue of gay marriage a lot further than it needs to go, and that in their opinion gay activists are filling people’s minds with persuasive arguments.

The second reason against gay marriage is the rights of children. People are saying that without one of the two gender parents, kids can’t develop regularly and it can lead to a lot of emotional issues. But, April Martin writes differently. In the book Marriage and Divorce, Martin tells of how in a custody decision, the court has to rule whether or not gay partners are good enough people to take care of that child or children. She also says that overall, adoption agencies are a significant supporter of gay marriage. They “increasingly turn to gay couples to provide loving homes for neglected, abandoned, and disabled children who have nowhere else to go.”(176-77) Agencies everywhere want their children to experience a life they never had or that was taken away from them. Martin herself is a lesbian and believes that she and her partner deserve to adopt a child who needs to be loved and cherished.

            Robert Stengel wrote in the book Marriage and Divorce from TIME Magazine that, “Marriage is for people who love; homosexuals love.” He’s asking: If straight people can be in love and marry, then why shouldn’t gays? Yes, they can be in love, but they aren’t allowed to be married. Their love may be stronger than most straight couples, but that doesn’t matter. They do the same things as straights, just in a different way. Also, Stengel says that not allowing gay marriage is violating the rights we obtain from the Declaration of Independence, which are, “…one’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” If gay marriage is denied, then it denies access to their civil and human rights. Their own rights that everyone else around them has are taken away. Once they get their rights back, their own idea of true happiness can be achieved.

            Starbucks is currently under fire for its public support for gay marriage, according to Frank Bruni of New York Times. Steven Andrews, the president of USA Christian Ministries has called for a boycott all across the country. He says that people “can follow Satan if they want to,” but that Christians and others who believe in God shouldn’t “join them on their caffeinated road to hell.” Microsoft and Amazon have also come out with their public support for gays. Will there eventually be a national boycott of these companies too?

            Six states and the nation’s capital have laws saying gay marriage is legal. Those states are: New York, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Washington D.C also has similar laws. Recently, Washington announced that the legislation for gay marriage has passed and will be signed by Governor Christine Gregoire in the next couple of weeks. But there are Christian conservatives that are not pleased by this. They are trying to get enough signatures to postpone the law’s application. In California, things are really changing. In the article, “California Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional” by Lisa Leff tells of how Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional by the federal Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012. This issue is under consideration for the Supreme Court. The overall decision was from a panel of 3 judges, and with a majority of 2-1, they said Proposition 8 is a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Also, the panel said that there is no evidence that former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have told someone before he issued the original ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional that he was gay and was in a long-term relationship. From June 16, 2008 to November 4, 2008, gays could legally marry in the state of California. On November 4, 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52% of the vote. An estimated 18,000 gay and lesbian couples “tied the knot” in the time Prop 8 was turned down to when it took effect. (Leff) Now, who knows what is going to happen in California.

            Gay marriage is an issue that has been going back a forth for many years. Since the start of this debate, the country has been divided into believers and non-believers, agree and disagree. If this continues to sweep up in the country’s newspapers and television with news of new laws or boycotts, the overall issue of same sex marriage will never be resolved.

Works Cited

Current Controversies “Marriage and Divorce.”San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, 1997.

Print.  

Forman, Seth “Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive

change” New York Daily News 23 June 2011: 7 February 2012

Leff, Lisa. “California Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional” TIME Magazine 7 February 2012

Martin, April “Title of Article” Title of Magazine 2003: Print     

Stengel, Robert “Title of Article” TIME Magazine 1997: Print

http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/nogaymarriage.php

In the article, “Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage,” nogaymarriage.com is trying to persuade readers by using ten arguments why you should be against gay marriage. The author has a very detailed viewpoint about gay marriage. They say that same sex marriage will decay families, lead to polygamy, teach children perversion, spread quickly to other countries, and that the culture will be anti-Christian. Each argument has detailed evidence that supports what they are saying. The authors uses cause and effect to show the cause of same sex marriage and its effect on the country. For example, they say that because gay marriage is coming around and being legalized, children as young as kindergarten will have to learn about same sex marriage in a textbook. The authors don’t speak of anything that goes against their belief of no same sex marriage, because they have their firm belief. They chose words like “traditional” and “undergo.” They could’ve used more positive words, but since they have a strong bias, they used more negative words. They used ethos by stating ten arguments that go against gay marriage. They think these are the only reasons that count because their bias is so strong.
I don’t really know a lot about the authors. The article is from nogaymarriage.com, so the author’s must not care for same sex marriage. There is no date, so I can’t be sure whether or not this is a reliable source.

Same-Sex Marriage

It’s been an issue for the last 10-20 years. Some states are legalizing it. Others aren’t. People have very strong beliefs about gay marriage. Some say, “It isn’t fair for them not to be given the same civil rights because they are different.” Other people say, “Gay marriage is a sin,” or “It is between a man and a woman. Should they be given the same rights as straight people? Should they be treated differently?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-dreher_1108edi.State.Edition1.2295efb.html

In the article, “One Gay Marriage, Empathy is a 2-Way Street” by Rod Dreher, the author informs people that there are both negative and positive things about same sex marriage, and that there are good arguments for both sides. He states that, “That's not an argument against gay marriage, but it is an explanation for why gay marriage remains unpopular in this country.” He is referring to his first piece of information. “Gay marriage represents a ‘cultural revolution’, a redefinition of what marriage is. Same-sex marriage hasn’t really been an issue up until about 10-20 years ago, so the society hasn’t had to deal with it. It was among the unthinkable. Now, since it is legal in some states, humankind still finds it unthinkable.” This shows that he isn’t for same sex marriage, but he isn’t specifically against it either. The author doesn’t show a real viewpoint, but there are hints that he is leaning against same sex marriage. Dreher is focusing on the negative comments about same sex marriage rather than the positive side, but he still does not really bring his viewpoint into his writing. The author uses description to describe what people are thinking about same sex marriage, and why they think what they think. Since the author has no real viewpoint, there is no real conflicting evidence. Dreher uses words like, “unthinkable” and “unpopular” to say that he doesn’t think the same sex marriage issue is that much of a disgrace. He doesn’t use words like “terrible” or “a disgraceful issue.” He has no real bias or slant.

Rod Dreher is a reliable source because he has been writing for a long time. He has wriiten for many different newspapers, like Dallas News and the Wall Street Journal. His credentials include a Bachelor’s degree in journalism from Louisiana State University. This article was published in late 2009, so roughly 2 years ago, so it isn’t that out of date.  I find this a reliable source because he knows what he is doing.

http://wrightjj1.people.cofc.edu/teaching/PHIL3000/Wedgewood,%20The%20Fundamental%20Argument%20for%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20(1999).pdf

 In the article, “The Fundamental Argument for Same Sex Marriage” by Ralph Wedgwood strives to persuade the reader that same sex marriage  is a question of fairness and equality. Wedgwood believes that banning same sex marriage is the denial of equality. That it isn’t fair to gays that they have to be denied of being happy just because they are different then the marriage between a man and woman. He says, “But many same sex couples have the same interests, which marriage would serve in essentially the same way. So restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is a denial of equality.” He obviously doesn’t take this issue lightly just by his word choice. He is using a mixture of description and compare and contrast to show the readers that the discrimination against same sex marriage violates their right to equality. He handles conflicting evidence by coming back with an even bigger argument than the conflicting evidence itself. For example, he says that the laws preventing same sex couples from getting married defies their legal rights as citizens. Wedgwood uses words with powerful persuasion definitions like, “abridges” and “binding,” which makes his case even more convincing. These words definitely create a bias of what his own viewpoint is. The author uses ethos to support his argument that denying same sex couples the right to marry is unfair.

Ralph Wedgwood is a philosophy professor at University of Southern California. I believe this is a very reliable article because of his credentials. They include a bachelor’s degree in Classics and Modern Languages, and a PhD in philosophy at Cornell University. Though the article was written more than 10 years ago, not a lot has changed with the issue of same sex marriage. With everything he wrote and everywhere he has taught or been involved with, this is a very reliable article to go off of.

The sources of these viewpoints are as followed:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-dreher_1108edi.State.Edition1.2295efb.html

http://wrightjj1.people.cofc.edu/teaching/PHIL3000/Wedgewood,%20The%20Fundamental%20Argument%20for%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20(1999).pdf