marriage

Latoya JonesSame sex marriage Paper 210/13/14

There is no justifiable reason as to why same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed, the

government speaks of equality but is selectively discriminative. “Either kill me or take me as I

am, because I’ll be damned if I ever change.”(Marquis de Sade) while times are changing and the

social norms are not the norm anymore, people mentally still stay complacent on old ideas of

matrimony, and the idea of how marriage should be leaving very little room for growth. Some

will argue it should be Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve simply because they were brought up

to believe that marriage should be only between a man and woman. With the constant change of

times one thing that will always be consistent is love. Love is an emotion that does not change

from sex to sex it is still felt the same way between whoever the receiving parties are that share

it. While same sex marriage is becoming legal in several states, it is also still banned in the

majority, and is still an issue that is constantly being discussed with people, while their still

sharing their views on this topic.

The rhetor draws us into this article by speaking of equality by saying “fundamental

right of all people to be treated equally by the government. Governments must not discriminate

based solely on differences that are irrelevant to legitimate governmental objectives” The pathos

approach is clear in the thesis statement. The writer is drawing the audience in with emotion. To

be treated equally stands out those words are powerful, and carry weight. In the United States we

constantly speak of equality. The article goes on to make a point that there is no reason to not

allow same sex couples equal rights as any other couples. The statement is backed up by saying

“But there is no compelling governmental reason to deny gay couples equal marriage rights or

the benefits that attend them. Government’s elemental duty consists of protecting individual

1


rights from aggression.” The article continues by saying same-sex marriages imperil nobody’s

rights. It’s very clear the author is pro same sex marriage by the emotion illustrated the word

choice which can slightly lower the credibility of what is being said because the author has an

almost bias approach to the issue. The views are made very clear throughout the article from the

wording that is used from start to finish. Opinions don’t matter when facts are stated this article

leaves very little room for opinion, of course everyone will still share their own views and beliefs

on this matter however when speaking on gay marriage and its compared with the lowering of

divorce rates it leaves very little room for argument, because that is a fact divorce rates are lower

in states that allow same sex marriage. Yes one can say this is a coincidence but coincidences

happen infrequently and not in patterns; patterns prove theories. If one was to look at the divorce

rates in states who ban same sex marriage they tend to be higher than in states that do allow same

sex marriage. The factual information isn’t up for debate it has already been decided. Examples

are used to connect with the reader. While some words are “thirty dollar words” overall the

verbage is in layman’s terms on a fairly basic frequency so that it reaches out to the people who

it is intended for; religious middle class folks. Religion and morals are brought in several of the

paragraphs, which seems that this is meant to sway people of a certain religious standpoint to see

their point of view.

“Women’s suffrage was condemned as an “exceedingly dangerous” experiment that

would destroy chivalry, defy god’s will, violate biological law, and require “a radical change in

human nature of which the world has never given the faintest sign.” Women gained the vote –

and yet somehow, western civilization abides. The author is trying to appeal to us using a logical

standpoint with a small amount of sarcasm by saying “yet somehow western civilization abides”.

2


Are people pro marriage or pro marriage based on gender? happiness can lye n all types of

relationships.

Upon reading there were several different definitional strategies used throughout to

support the original claim of equality for all. The reader used no dictionary definitions which

speaks on his/her credibility it shows one that they have done the research and not just throwing

out Webster dictionary definitions to sound articulate. Contextual definition strategic approach is

used in which takes the reader on a look back at time. The reader went as far back as women’s

rights and correlated the two because, at one point in time the very same things that are now

being said about same sex marriage were also said about women’s rights and yet we still stand.

Women now have rights and it wasn’t so unethical or morally wrong once we opened up to it.

Which is also somewhat analogical because we know about women’s rights and see that it can

work; the known. Same sex marriage is still considered to be the unknown because it’s been new

not enough examples are readily available to say it is of the known. The article has several

analogies and which define what it is not which is known to be the negative definition.

The overall article was very informative the pathos approach throughout appealed to our

emotional side by proving that everyone isn’t treating equally by pointing out how unjust same

sex couples are treated and by giving examples and comparisons. Although, the targeted

audience seemed to be for people with strong religious background it also appealed to those who

are on the fence about the situation and just needed more information, facts and examples as to

why it should be allowed. Logos is another form of persuasion used clearly throughout the article

as the author comes off very knowledgeable and articulate however, some may say the author

hurts his own credibility by seeming a little to bias and only showing one side of the argument

3


not showing both and counteracting it with factual information. The information presented

throughout is undeniably true as for when he speaks of women’s rights and how we have made it

passed that and it wasn’t what the government and people made it out to be in the beginning.

That we know to be true because women clearly have rights now so that is an undeniable fact.

However with many other examples one could simply argue them to be fallacies because he is

very broad about where the information is obtained you will see words like “government” which

doesn’t leave us with much information to go off of. In other instances the author goes as far as

to give the senator’s names Ken Cuccinelli a Republican who is firmly against same sex

marriage becoming legalized and also speaks of his oppose Terry McAuliffe this in turn speaks

out towards credibility as he is giving the audience credible names, known names that anyone

can look into and research what this person is for.

The author does an outstanding job at illustrating his point and supporting his claim

throughout the article with some factual information and examples to prove his point to be true,

leaving very little room for disagreement if nothing else this article will force you to see the facts

and appreciate the argument of same sex marriage. This article may not make someone

completely pro same sex marriage however, with undeniable truths one can at least see the other

side and can gather an appreciation of the opposing side’s stance on the issue. To reiterate as

said earlier stated before opinions hold no weight when it comes to facts because it has already

been decided, therefore an opinion would mean nothing. There is no justifiable reason as to

why same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed. The government speaks of equality but it is clearly

selectively discriminative when same sex marriage is the issue. Love doesn’t define gender so

why can we as a people so easily determine who is allowed to become one. The ingredients for a

4


healthy relationship are the same in any relationship regardless of gender love, faithfulness and

honesty.

` Work Cited

5


Hinkle, A. Barton. "Legalize Gay Marriage." Reason.com. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.859569856

6

marriage

Documents

Transcript of marriage