Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
Defense of Traditional Marriage by Ryan T. Anderson
The article is based on a topic that is widely discussed in both the political, legal and even the religious fronts. It looks into the issue of marriage and what really defines marriage in the context of the contemporary society. The author also looks into the various arguments that are put forth by other people and groups concerning the issue of marriage. He also opens up on his personal belief of what the purpose of marriage is. The author of the article also looks into the legal threats that there are against the traditional institution of marriage in its traditional form and also highlights the dangers of redefining marriage within the society and allowing it to divert from the traditional concept of marriage that is universally known by most societies in the world.
b. Issues argued out and conclusions
The arguments put forth by the writer is that the traditional meaning of marriage where the union of a male a female in a heterosexual union with the attached feelings and the ultimate goal of having children should be the valid and binding definition of marriage and it is the one that should be protected by the constitution of America. The writer detests the attempts to redefine marriage in whichever form and needs it to be protected just like the freedoms of speech, religion and liberty are protected. His argument further is that the same -- sex marriages are indeed not banned by the constitution and any person who choses to get to such a union is not stopped in any state and even the institutions that would like to recognize such unions are not stopped by any means. The only thing that the author argues against is the inclusion of the same sex marriage definition in the constitution since this recognition and inclusion in the constitution will force everyone else to recognize them even if they do not believe in such unions of marriages. This will include individuals, organizations and even churches even though they may believe in such marriage arrangements. He emphasizes that redefining marriage to eliminate sexual complementarity does not in any way equal marriage equality. The author takes the biological approach and indicates that marriage is meant for reproduction which is only possible between a man and woman, as well as a social perspective that the reality is a child needs a father and a mother. The author further highlights that all the major religions like Christians, Muslims, Jews all agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. Great thinkers in Greek and Roma times also left marriage as a union between a man and woman hence it should remain as such. The writer further notes that the current attempt to redefine marriage weakens the institution of marriage and only plays to the needs of the adults and their feelings and not the realities of the children and their needs. It is based on the emotional intensity and is bound to fail once the emotions die out. He fears that redefining marriage will leave the marriage issue to be whatever emotional bond that the government will define it to be hence highly compromising the traditional meaning and function of marriage. The writer is however careful to point out that the marriage being that it is between a man and wife is no grounds whatsoever for the demeaning of the gay or the people who may never marry totally, they still deserve all the respect as any other American. Policy can be crafted that upholds the right of the gay and all the other sexual orientation without necessarily redefining marriage.
c. Argument evaluation
The author takes a stand and an approach towards his topic and argues it out well without mixing the facts and at the end makes his conclusion and stands clear to the readers. In forming his arguments and communicating his ideas, the writer takes a deductive reasoning or argument when he moves from the general fact to the specific application of the facts. He gives the reader the traditional meaning of marriage that the traditional community and society believed in and knew, the society that was there before the sexual orientation was even on the radar, the society where same sex marriage and the heterosexual marriage was a thing that was obvious and taken for granted as was the norm. The writer then takes that general approach to marriage and applies it to the American society today and argues that it should be the yardstick to use in the contemporary society.
The writer also correctly implies the inductive argument in his article. He defines marriage from the specific religions that are well-known lie the Christian religion, the Muslim and the Jewish definition. From this smaller approach, the writer feels the definition can be applied to the wider American society even among those who are atheists or of any other religion that may be. This is an inductive approach which he uses effectively to convince the reader since the points of references he uses are sound and well trusted by majority, even those who do not subscribe to these religions.
In as much as the writer puts forth his argument for the retention of the traditional definition and sense of marriage, there are several issues that the stand he takes brings forth, taking into account the contemporary society and the current trends.
The religious argument put forth by the writer has two main flaws. In the Bible, homosexuality is defined as an abomination, not just as sin before God. But so are other two sins, namely idolatry and murder. However, the contemporary society does not use murder or idolatry to hinder people from marrying. We see convicted murderers allowed to marry even while still behind bars, why then should homosexuality be used to hinder marriage? This annuls the religious argument. This brings in the second argument on this, the issue of marriage in the U.S.A. is purely a civil affair and not religious in any way hence the inductive argument by the writer is void since it ignores the fact that no state requires religious service to authorize a marriage. There are no deities that need to be invoked in order for marriage to take place hence the argument is misplaced by restricting marriage to the traditional meaning on religious grounds (GLAD, 2011).
The other argument is the fact that marriage is meant for procreation according to the writer. This seems misplaced since by and large marriages are no longer just for procreation but it is all about the closeness and companionship of two people. Many married couples decide not to have children, even though they are biologically capable of producing them hence debunking this argument. There are to fertility tests conducted before marriages hence even in marriages where having a child will not be possible, they are still upheld and allowed hence this argument of procreation cannot be used to stop the same sex marriage. Indeed people marry even when both the man and the woman are beyond the child bearing age and the marriages are recognized. Indeed, in Illinois, first cousins are allowed to marry as long as they can prove that they are infertile, yet with such amount of flexibility, there are no proper grounds for refusing the same sex marriages from being recognized and allowed.
The other argument that the writer puts forth is the historical view of marriage, where he argues that marriage has been between a man and woman from the immemorial times. He argues that the biological concept of marriage that unites a man and woman is the natural union that is acceptable and it should be one that there is a possibility…[continue]
"Demonizing Same Sex Marriage" (2014, April 07) Retrieved December 4, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/demonizing-same-sex-marriage-186971
"Demonizing Same Sex Marriage" 07 April 2014. Web.4 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/demonizing-same-sex-marriage-186971>
"Demonizing Same Sex Marriage", 07 April 2014, Accessed.4 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/demonizing-same-sex-marriage-186971
He also discusses certain terms, these being epithymia, pathos, and orexis, terms that denote "the inclination of the will that leads to same-sex acts." Paul uses the terms in different passages, showing negative connotations. Other words are also examined for what they say about Paul's meaning and the view he takes toward homosexuality. The passage is thoroughly explored in this chapter, leaving the reader with some question as to
Fifty Shades of Grey Since its availability to the reading public, the novel Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James has all but exploded in sales. The buyers are mostly women. Another phenomenon since then is the wide array of opinions the book has solicited, either intentionally or unintentionally. Some have maligned the book for being little better than porn, while others have lauded it for its in-depth understanding of women,
Language's Role In Sustaining Inequality Between The Sexes Although it is disputed whether language causes sexism or sexism causes certain language, language does play a part in sexism (Wikipedia). Given that the development of society has gone hand in hand with the development of language, it is unlikely that the causation will ever be determined. However, whether language causes sexism or sexism causes certain language, it is clear that language plays
"Arthurian female heroes, contrariwise, exist (at least for a time) as active helpers to male heroes, but always in the service of the patriarchal culture the hero upholds" (Fries, 3). One could argue that since this universe is thus so narrow for women, that embodying these counter-hero roles is actually the one way in which women can become empowered. Since autonomy and self-determination does not so strongly exist for
Joyce's Ulysses Claude Rawson is best known as a scholar of Jonathan Swift and the eighteenth century, but Rawson's has also used the savage irony of Swift's modest proposal for a series of essays which consider Swift's invocation of cannibalism in light of a longer tradition (in Anglo-Irish relations) of imputing cannibalism literally to the native Irish as a way of demonizing their "savagery" or else to implying a metaphorical cannibalism