AP Language and Composition, Period 4
21 February 2016
What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage? Questions
1. What three arguments against same-sex marriage does Pollitt summarize in her first three paragraphs, and how does she refute each argument? The three arguments that Pollitt summarize against same-sex marriage is that marriage is all about making the future generations, causing men to be less violent, and how marriages of different kinds occurred throughout history without anyone complaining. Pollitt refuted the argument of marriage just being a threshold for procreation by stating, “There’s something creepily authoritarian and insulting about reducing marriage to procreation, as if intimacy mattered …show more content…
She states is directly at the end of the essay, “Gay marriage--it’s not about sex, it’s about separation of church and state” (Pollitt 562). In the paragraph before the thesis, Pollitt examines marriage in the term of religion and in the term of the state/government. It is given that marriage though occurs before God and a minister is still affected by the government. People who marry must fill out papers to receive a marriage certificate. Those who are divorced can remarry someone else even though it is frown upon by Catholics. Religious beliefs only affects the approvement for marriage. Just like what Pollitt stated, “It’s not about what God blesses; it’s about what the government permits” (Pollitt …show more content…
Why she decide to write about gay marriage as well as giving readers background to how the issue has affected the world and what people think about it. She challenges people to think more on why they are opposed to gay marriage stating, “Will someone please explain to me how permitting gays and lesbians to marry threatens the institution of marriage? Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has declared gay marriage a constitutional right, opponents really have to get their arguments in line” (Pollitt 560). It sets up her main idea of the essay and of each paragraph. Her questions help lead her thoughts into what people have been using as an excuse for opposing gay
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In spite of the fact that a privilege to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court said that such a privilege is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of the fact that such choices are vital to our survival and our values. Accordingly, they should essentially reside with the individual instead of with the state. This choice is a conflict with the popular argument that something cannot be an actual constitutional right unless it is spelled out straightforwardly in the U.S. Constitution. It additionally stands out amongst the most imperative models on the general thought of common uniformity, clarifying that essential social equality is basic to our reality and cannot really be restricted on the grounds that a few people trust that their god can 't help
We see this issue being talked about as recently in the Churches Synod on the family. The big issue is how inclusive can the church be to divorced Catholics when it comes to other sacraments like the Eucharist. Seeing that the church has been struggling with the issue of marriage and divorce since the 300’s is a comfort. Through all these chapters what I see is the church has had to deal with questions, schisms, dissent to the core beliefs almost since the very beginning. Through all the issues the church is still standing and a beacon of hope to the
In the article, “An Appeal to Maryland Voters, for my Mom”, the author Chrysovalantis P. Kefalas, shows how his argument on why the ruling of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, is justified. Kefalas defends this action this action to show that despite religious views, authorities and laws should not hinder others from happiness and living a life that they desire. His argument take words directly from a widely used source to show that there is reason on both the sides of the law, and religion. He appeals to the Audience’s emotions by describing personal afflictions with himself and the beliefs he once had, and how his situation has affected his life as well as his family. His use of Ethos, Pathos and Logos give his argument a natural balance that can be seen from both sides, making it strong and effective.
The title of this short essay is “ In Praise of the Threat”, and the author is Rebecca Solnit. Haymarket Books published this short essay in 2014. The main point that Solnit was making throughout the reading was that we should all have the same rights no matter what. She goes on to say that same sex marriages don’t get the same equality and normal one man and one woman get. Solnit also explains how women had not rights and basically when women got married their husbands where the ones who told them what to do.
Obergefell v Hodges 2015 Obergefell v Hodges (2015) is a landmark 5 to 4 decision in favor of legalizing gay marriage. James Obergefell petitioned the state 's ban on same sex marriage. He argued that it is a fundamental guaranteed under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It provides an example of how certain rights should be exemplified, and it shows which rights are the most important and concerning. Today, this court case has inspired people to have the freedom to choose any marriage partner that they love. This translates over into the right for gay people to
One can only remarry if their spouse passed away, if their spouse committed adultery, or if their spouse deserted them. You cannot remarry if it is because of any other reasons. Divorce is a seen as a sin and also as an act of adultery in the Catholic religion.
Matthew Feeler Political Science 101 M/W Byron 11/17/16 Midterm: Question 1 The 14th Amendment was created after the civil war in 1868 and the underlying premise of the amendment gives equal protection and rights to slaves. This main idea was obviously the cause of the civil war and gaining freedom from slaves. Although, another part of the Amendment was what is known as the “due process” in which citizens are granted rights to life, liberty, and property. A huge topic of controversy for years has been the idea of same-sex couples being able to marry, and recently in 2015 the supreme court ruled that same sex marriage is legal which to some was very surprising, although some believe that with the 14th amendment, this is a right that should
In my brief I will explore the effect of the Loving V. Virginia (1967) on the case of Obergefell V. Hodges (2015) and how it led to legalization of same sex marriage. I will prove that the 9th amendment which addresses the right to marriage did not specify that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I will also prove that the precedents set by prior cases reflected on the decision of the supreme justice. I will first explain the prior cases and discuss their rulings and reflect on the reason judges chose this. I will then discuss the Obergefell v. Hodges case and its similarity to prior cases .
She also talks directly to the reader in the last portion of the piece, which helps us to establish that O’Brien believes that the target audience for her article is people who are against gay marriage as she uses statements such as ‘you might not like the idea of attending a gay wedding’ and ‘you might not want your son or daughter to be gay’ which is her assuming that her audience were previously against
This paper focuses on the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). This paper will give an overview of the case, the major arguments made by the plaitiffs and the defendents, as well as how the case has affected other rulings. This case has answered many legal questions and will shape any future cases that deal with gay marriage, possibly even equal rights. Deatiled CH: James Obergefell and John Arthur was a same-sex couple and was married on July 11, 2013 on a medical transport plan on the tarmac at the airport in Baltimore, Maryland due to Arthur being unable to move (3,2) .
When debating the legalization of same sex marriage, religious reasoning and accusations of bigotry often provoke obstinance. Instead of reiterating those arguments, William J. Bennett, a prominent cultural conservative, former secretary of education, and author of The Book of Virtues, focuses on societal effects in his op-ed article, “Against Gay Marriage.” Though Bennett’s piece conveys partiality, it also attempts to discuss this issue scrupulously to ensure readers will consider his argument and perhaps accept his implications. While some of Bennett’s word choices convey tolerance of the gay community, his rhetoric incites readers to accept that preserving society requires marginalizing homosexuals.
Joey Cho Mrs. Middleton English 10 17 October 2016 Persuasive Research Essay Outline Introduction LGBT/ same-sex marriage is one of the most heated and controversial debates in our current society. Unlike the past thousands of years whereas marriage was defined as a legal union between a man and a woman, now the concept of marriage has been extended to a broader context. “Homosexuality” in most cultures is viewed as a disgrace, and it is often considered as a great sin from a religious aspect.
But one of the important issues discussed in hot debates is the Gay marriage that has recently been permitted in the States. This was a real change in the whole country; many people welcomed the idea because they believe in total freedom of the human being and citizens’ liberties. But other groups mostly coming from religious backgrounds stood against what has been restructured in the amendment concerning this point. The debate will never come to an end simply because proponents and opponents will see it from different angles and no one will decide who is right and who is
The idea of "traditional marriage" has changed over time, and the meaning of marriage as continually being between one man and one woman is truly off base. Harvard University student of history Nancy F. Cott expressed that until two centuries back, "monogamous families were a small,