Within the scope of Gay rights, same-sex marriage has been widely debated as a controversial issue as to whether or not marriage is a constitutional right for all individuals. For some, the idea that same sex couples have the same matrimonial benefits as heterosexual couples has been purely a question of civil rights. Others have seen same-sex marriage as a moral question, and concluded that such union violates traditional matrimonial values based on religious beliefs. The subject matter of legal benefits and the creation of family have also been at the center of this controversial debate. In “My Amendment” by George Saunders he tries to convey his logic behind same sex marriage and how it’s perceived in society. Saunders uses numerous literary …show more content…
Saunders convey his text in such a way that it allows one to see the absurd depictions that society has created social norms, but a large percent of society doesn’t fit these expectations. The verbal irony in “My Amendment” helps express Saunders strategy to reach the reader in a way that gets them to think about the oppression that gay couples face in society.” To tell the truth, I feel that, in the interest of moral rigor, it is necessary for us to go a step further, which is why I would like to propose a supplementary constitutional amendment (Saunders1). The word play that Saunders decides to use in his text highlights his true feelings of things he feels should be granted to gay couples based on human rights no matter the lifestyle they decide to live. The reference to the constitution helps one to understand that your constitutional rights should play out over any other factors, simply stating one is human and was born with certain rights. This helps to display the verbal irony of Saunders position on this topic. However, there are others who are in objection to this belief. The spiritual connection that this topic clashes with is heavily debated. Dennis and Lepine introduce the religious ideas in their article; “Some have even suggested that God made them as homosexuals. While the impact of nature vs. nurture can be debated, God makes it …show more content…
Saunders uses technique such as ethos and pathos to speak out at the reader and drop hints though his satire. “Then I ask myself, Is this truly what God had in mind?”(Saunders). Saunders applies to the emotional side of the reader to appeal his views on how absurd the hype of same sex marriage shouldn’t be a social destruction, but should be left up to the couple who is in that situation. Marriage is both ubiquitous and central. All across our country, in every culture, race, social class and community people get married. For many if not most people marriage is not an invaluable matter. It is a key to the pursuit of happiness, and some people want to ensure their happiness with the individual they made that connection with through marriage. To be told “You cannot get married” is thus to be excluded from one of the most traditional values of the American lifestyle. The scale that Saunders created in his text applies to this because the national tradition or marriage is being affected by sex and not viewed through love which is what accounts for a
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
My Amendment begins as a simple letter from a reader named Ken Byron to a writer of a Pennsylvania newspaper discussing his agreement with the writer about their disdain for Same-Sex Marriage and his desire that it be banned in the Constitution. Byron’s argument quickly goes from an expression of his own opinion to an absurd idea of banning Samish-Sex Marriage between an effeminate man and masculine woman. Byron has such strong beliefs that Samish-Sex Marriage should not take place that he has created a scale defining what constitutes a Samish-Sex Marriage and what he believes can be done to ensure no one is entering into Samish-Sex Marriages. George Saunders’ story My Amendment offers a critique of a repugnant social practice through the use
June 26, 2015 marks a milestone for a long-sought victory for equal rights movement for genders as the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that the Constitution guarantees a right to Same-Sex Marriage (nytimes.com). In addition to the celebration of the LBGT community over the Supreme Court’s decision on June 26, gay people are continuing to win over the society’s oppositions arises from over the decades toward legalize Same-Sex-Marriage. In the short story “My Amendment” from George Saunders’ In Persuasion Nation, the author uses his satirical writing style to represents his ideas and opinions on today controversial issue in the world: marriage equality. In this satirical writing piece, Saunders creates a character names Ken Bryon, who considers
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.
Through this silencing, “Proposition 8 – made simple” once again creates a delineation between the public – nuclear heterosexual families with traditional values – and the non-public – homosexuals and their allies. We can thusly see that the public is a status that can only apply to a select group of people – namely, that of the majority in power. Because the public influences both media and government, it holds a special power in our society (Petersen 154). In this way, defining who belongs to the public can disproportionally promote the ideas of one group while silencing and diminishing the ideas of another, usually those of minority groups. “Proposition 8 – made simple” exemplifies this effect, promoting the concerns of Jan and Tom – the archetypal American couple – while choosing to ignore the possible concerns or beliefs of Dan and Michael – occupying the role of
The lawful acknowledgment of same-sex organizations has turn into a standout amongst the most critical issues in LGBT political issues. Same-sex associations and gay relation unions turned into the center of LGBT political issues in America and worldwide in the second a large portion of the 1990s. The qualification between lawfully perceived associations and relational unions is being verbalized as well as has usual significance. The term gay marriage signifies not just the need for lawful regulation of gay connections, but additionally highlights the disparities in the social regulation of homo- and heterosexuality. Supporters of
Chapter I The Problem and its Background Introduction "Gay people, like others, do fall in love and they also want to have a life on their own. They commit their lives to their partner. Moreover, they do their all to be good citizens to their nation.” (Kuehl, 2005)
Context This television show was written by Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan; it was originally released in September the 23rd of 2009 and is still ongoing. During the time this show started airing there was a big range of refining so that same sex couples get equal entitlements and responsibilities as heterosexual couples like social security, employment, taxation, immigration and more. Some states have banned same sex marriages; some companies have made a rule ‘Our Business won’t serve gays’. In this time and age society has changed a lot of things, but in some people just don’t want to accept it. Purpose
In modern society, the term marriage is an ever-changing topic that many people feel strongly about, meanwhile I believe marriage is between people who desperately love one another and choose spend the rest of their lives together. However, marriage can be interpreted in different ways such as, polyamorous who believe marriage is between more than two people, religious groups who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and marriage equality supporters who believe in same-sex unions. Though none of these groups are wrong, they seem to cause controversy due to fact not a single person can come to an agreement. In the films, “Defending DOMA” “My Five Wives,” and “Transgender Parents” we are introduced to the different interpretations of marriage.
The author explains how a marital contract should not be given to those who cannot fulfill it, such as children and family (30). He then claims that homosexuals can fulfill said license, but unwittingly contradicts himself by saying, “But it isn’t necessary to prove that homosexuals or lesbians are less--or more--able to form long-term relationships than straights for it to be clear that at least some are.” (30). This clearly shows how disconnected the author is from his audience. This is a persuasive article, attempting to sway people into believing that homosexual marriage should be legal, yet he assumes his audience feels it apparent that some homosexuals are capable of the commitment of marriage.
In Joseph Wright’s “An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump”, it shows how the Scientist’s audience all have mixed reactions to the experiment on the bird. Today when Gay Marriage was legalized, people across the United States each had a different reaction just like the audience in the painting did. Some people were excited because it was a huge step towards equality for all, some people in religion groups were not happy because they saw marriage as only between a man and a woman and it went against their beliefs, and some were completely indifferent. In Wright’s painting his audiences reactions were similar to those of the citizens in the U.S. this year when gay marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court. The audience in Wright’s painting
Anthony Esolen confronts every cliché and justification that seem to undermine the morality and social value as well as the civilizing influence of the traditional marriage in his book Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity. Esolen addresses the significant issues affecting marriages in America. The book is divided into 12 arguments. Esolen uses moral, theoretical, as well as cultural claims to defend the institution of marriage that he considers holy and ancient. He also brings into the spotlight, the issues the institution of marriage faces from present-day changes and the areas of public policy, sexual morality, and our laws.
The article talks about a variety of laws that have been passed throughout the history of the United States, that all seemed aimed at protecting the nuclear family. The article explains how it was easier to get into the country is you were married and had a family. That is just one example of how those fitting a certain model are show favoritism by the laws being passed. The article goes into much greater depth for examples showing the unfair treatment of gay or non heterosexual
There are many discussions about gay marriage. While the topic about “Gay Marriage”, Charles Colson who wrote “Gay Marriage: societal suicide”, and Katha Pollitt , the author of “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage” has some differences such as: the idea, word choices, and tone they wrote in. They impact the audience with their idea numerously. Katha Pollitt and Charles Colson have a completely opposite idea about Gay Marriage. Katha Pollitt is the one whose essay
Marriage brings legal rights that secure a couple that if not wedded, they should not have. Then again, some contend that gay person marriage may make issue bring up a youngster and upset the normal, natural reproduction of humanity (Burns, 2005). Thesis Statement Supporting gay marriage will bring peace and equality in the society and will promote better relationships and parenting. Changing Views on Traditional Marriage