No one can choose who they fall in love with. When a man loves a woman and they decide to get married they are given the right to hospital visitation, Social Security benefits, immigration, health insurance, estate taxes, family leave, nursing homes, home protection and pensions. These are all rights that gay couples are not granted. Not only should gay couples be given the right to love each other unconditionally, but they should be granted equal rights. It would be devastating if the person you have loved for many years was in the hospital and unconscious but you could not make a decision for them because you are not legally allowed to be married. These rights should be granted to all people so this type of situation never has to happen. Some believe that it is morally wrong to love a person of the same sex, but each person has different morals and beliefs. This is the reason there is a separation of church and state. Some may believe that they should not divorce because it says not to in the bible, but it is still legal because of the separation of church and state. The same should apply for gay marriage. Everyone has a right to their own religion and beliefs. One person’s right could be another person’s wrong so the government should allow same sex marriage to give those who believe in it the option to marry. Also, many may argue that gay couples cannot reproduce. This, though, should not be a factor of a marriage. Some same sex couples choose not to have kids at all and it is acceptable. There are also many children who are living without parents and are waiting to be adopted. Along with adoption, there are also the options of artificial insemination or surrogate parenting. Once a gay couple decides to have children, many will also argue that it is a bad environment to raise children in, but it is estimated that 8 to 10 million children are happily being raised in 3 million gay households. All these people are living as a family. Unfortunately, though, these “families” are unable to be married. This is unfair and unjust. Every family should have equal rights. Along with rights, the overall happiness of two people should be taken into account. It is not fair for a person to be told by the government that they are not allowed to marry the person they love. If the government says same sex marriage is illegal, it is not going to stop same sex couples from being together. Allowing same sex marriage will not change the amount of gay couples; it will only give them equal human rights, just as women, African Americans, and handicapped people have been given equal rights. The power of love is much greater than the ties of a man and a woman; it is an unconditional partnership between two people who have not chosen who they love, but love has chosen them. Gay marriage should be legalized and all people should be given the right to ALL benefits, not just some.
Marriage is a sacred sacrament created by God and he clearly states a man and woman shall be together. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” Genesis 1:27. According to the book of Romans 1:27 “If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural.” Those who believe in God will be breaking a sacrament if they are involved in same sex marriage. Making gay marriage legal will destroy the definition of marriage because marriage is between a man and woman. In legalizing gay marriage, it will be wrong for the state to force priests into marrying gays as it goes against their beliefs. Since not everyone believes in God, this topic is complicated because of the many different beliefs of different religions. Another reason for same sex couples should not be married is because it takes away the nature of household where a child will be born with a father and mother. I believe a healthy household includes a father and mother because they bring two different types of approach to the child. In a household, fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior in boys and sexual activity in girls. A recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. According to David Popenoe's work, “a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.” Growing up without a mother can also affect the child. A mother excels in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Allowing same sex marriage will weaken the traditional family in our society. Allowing same sex marriage could also lead to more arguments about more rights about love. Allowing gay marriage could cause people to argue about legalizing the right to have more than one wife because they love more than one woman, the right to marry his or her brother or sister, and the right to marry a kid because the love him or her. All of these are similar because they are unnatural. If you legalize gay marriage, every other unnatural loves will fight for rights resulting in lot more arguments about what love is.
The right of a person to believe in their own religion is one of the many rights we as Americans are granted. We are all entitled to our own religion and it should not get in the way of the law. Legalizing gay marriage; in no way, shape, or form; forces anyone into a same sex marriage. A priest still has the right to remain unmarried to any person, just as they have the right to remain celibate. Legalizing same sex marriage simply grants the rights of those who choose to marry a person of the same sex. There are many other religions that also allow marriage, along with same sex marriage. A person’s belief can change from person to person, but the law is the law. That is why there is so much stress on the separation of church and state. When children are growing up, the most important thing is to have parents who nurture, love, and care for their child. A gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of creating a loving a nurturing home as a heterosexual couple. If there are two mothers without a father or two fathers without a mother, these couples love their children just as much and successfully raise children as well. There are many single mothers and divorced parents that raise children and those children only have one parent figure. A gay couple may lack a “mother” or a “father,” but there are still two nurturing parents. Studies show that children who grow up in a household with gay parents, that they are just as successful as children who are raised in a household of a man and a woman. A gay couple may struggle with having to teach their daughter about puberty, but this also happens with single fathers. There are ways, though, to educate yourself about things such as that so you can inform your children about things that are important. The nature of a household should not be determined by the sexuality of the parents. The “traditional” household is to each their own. The perfect family in one’s eyes could be a mother, father, grandparent, and two children. It could also be two mothers, and no children, or one child. No matter the choice, a parent will choose how their child is raised. Children are successfully raised in both settings today. It is better for a homosexual couple to happily raise a child together the two to unhappily raise children separately. To legalize gay marriage is just that: gay marriage. It is neither advocating nor opposing polygamy nor incest. Same sex marriage should not be illegal just because the two people who love each other have the same sex organ and are unable to produce with each other. These people are just as capable of love as anyone else and deserve happiness. People who do not support gay marriage are not being forced into a same sex relationship. It is a person’s own right to stay away from it. There is no evidence, though, that shows why a gay marriage is unhealthy to people, the environment, or self. It only brings happiness to those who have found love. Gay marriage should be legalized because we all deserve to be happy in our lifetime.
There are true facts starting off with this first argument, such as the rights of the married couples. However, there is no evidence to back up this claim. For example, this website would allow credible facts for the argument; which states the rights of legal marriage: tax benefits, health insurance, etc. (nolo.com). There might be some more things to be added, such as stating what amendment people have the right to their own religion and beliefs. As the website of thenewcivilrightsmovement.com states, “[T]wo long-term studies recently published found just the opposite. In fact, one of them, a twenty-five year-long and vigorously peer-reviewed study published in the journal Pediatrics, found that adopted children raised by lesbian parents are better-adjusted and do better in school than their opposite-parented peers.” This gives credible support to the claim that gay couples could in fact be very responsible parents, and sometimes even better than straight parents, as it was understood in the second paragraph. Is the government implying that the amount of gay couples will increase? It seems as though this statement may or may not be true, therefore it should have some sources. What might be other thoughts or views from the government on same sex marriage? In the first paragraph, its seems as though there are biased beliefs; because there are quotes from the bible, and it seems to have a very strong standpoint in this argument but towards the end, it seems as though it drifts off to people who explain their opposing views of gay marriage through science. “It is very complicated because there are many views.” Which views? It should be clearly stated which categories of people are against gay marriage, like the religious and non-religious group, or even the political group. However, there is no discussion on the views of other people who do not have religious views are against gay marriage as well. This website might give more perspectives on other people besides religious people. The theosophical.wordpress.com website states that there are also oppositions against same-sex marriages; 1 in 4 atheists/agnostics oppose gay marriage or do not have an opinion. There also seems to be some legitimate research here, but again the “recent study” shows nothing but opinion if there is not a credible source for it. Also, the wording could be taken differently, such as “girls who grew apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family.” This could also be seen as girls who grow up without their fathers due to divorce. And as the study shows above, gay couples are seen to be more stable and responsible for their children. So as an “intact” family this could be of means of a stable family in general, regardless of the parents being straight or gay.
All people are free to love whomever they want. But society and the laws should encourage the traditional nuclear family. Men and women are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. These differences come together as a strong family unit that is best for raising children. This is the natural order. The man and woman with children nuclear family is the strength of our society. It is what has brought us a society to the point we are at today. This developed society allows gay members the freedom to live and love whomever they want. But society should encourage and develop the strong nuclear family that is the basis of our society. Like George W. Bush said in his State of the Union address, "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." It is clear that when the nuclear family breaks down the risk is much higher for poverty, and children being lost to drugs, gangs and crime. The nuclear family should be supported by the state and encouraged. Deterioration and breakdown in the nuclear family can have a devastating effect on our society. It is a downhill path in which we lose the very fabric of our society and we cannot let it slip away. As I said before, same sex marriage takes the away the meaning of the sacrament of marriage. A true marriage is when a priest of the Catholic Church marries a man and woman who love each other. A gay marriage will be more like a government document because the Catholic Church will not allow same sex marriage resulting in most of the gay marriages being in front of a judge in court. In doing this, marriage will be less meaningful because it will have nothing to do with the religious beliefs. Marrying from a court is not the same as being married by a priest. Let the meaning of marriage mean man and woman because it’s the religious tradition and have civil unions be the official marriage of gays and have their own traditions. To answer Astrid’s question about the religions I found out that the Catholic Church is not the only religion against same sex marriage but also: the Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches. Another problem with gay marriage is that people should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. If gay marriage were legalized, they would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy. This is unfair considering more people in America are against same sex marriage because of their religious beliefs and the tradition of a marriage. According to abcnews.go.com, they took a survey on how many people are for and against same sex marriage. The results came in, as fifty-five percent was against same sex marriage, forty-one percent for same sex marriage, and six percent uncertain. Not only is abcnews.go.com, survey favors against same sex marriage but also there are many other websites. I think that marriage should stay as it is and many others would agree with me.
This debate was very thought out and well fought. The first debate between Kayla and Scott had many strong points. I liked how Kayla stated that allowing same sex marriage will not change the amount of gay couples. I felt like this was a good argument because it shows that they’ll still do it even though it’s not legal. Scott’s post was very good at responding to Kayla’s arguments. He used very good Bible verses that helped his argument tremendously. I also liked how he said that even though not everyone believes in God, there are still reasons same sex marriage should not be allowed. This backed up his support from the Bible verses a lot. By the time I got to Astrid’s comment I got a little confused. Her use of quotes was a little too much for me to handle and I felt like it made the debate a lot more confusing. Scott wrapped up the debate well with his last argument of people should not have to pay tax dollars if they do not support it. This was a good last argument showing what him and many others in America’s reasons for not supporting same sex marriage.
Kayla, you did a good job in the beginning bringing up divorce & how that applies to the separation of church and state. Also, your use of the statistic that 8 in 10 million kids are living happily with a gay couple definitely adds to the logos of your argument. Bringing up the fact that women, African Americans, and people with disabilities adds to the argument and made me really think 'why shouldn't homosexual couples have basic rights too'? You also did a good job in your second post comparing the different family situations and how the success of the child isn't up to one mother and one father.
Scott, you did a good job of bringing up the government forcing priests to marry homosexual couples, it counteracted her statement about rights. Also, I would have focused a little less about religion in the beginning, there are many people who don't believe in God and don't support gay marriage; they might not be able to relate to your argument right away. But bringing up the study about the girls and the absence of their fathers added to the logos of your argument. There was a logical fallacy in your argument though, I think comparing legalizing gay marriage to marrying siblings is a slippery slope.
Astrid, the beginning of your first post was a little confusing, I didn't know which side of the argument you were on until you posted the quote. The quote was a good asset to your argument (logos), and you did a good job addressing opposing arguments specifically and refuting them.
Overall, everyone had good points are were respectful!
For this debate there were three people arguing. Astrid and Kayla were arguing for same sex marriage and Scott was arguing against it. In the first post, Kayla brings up some very good points. She uses very good pathos starting out her argument. She talks about love and how no one can choose who they fall in love with. She talks about the fact that heterosexual couples are given certain rights like hospital visitation and the ability to make decisions if their partner is ill. She then continues to go on about the fact that homosexual couples cannot do that because they are legally married. She uses pathos to her advantage. For her next few points, I like how she brings up what someone arguing against could bring up and immediately refutes them. She says that people might think same sex marriage is wrong because it isn’t in the Bible but America has separation of church and state. Therefore that should not matter. She continues on to discuss about the fact that children brought up in same sex household are just as successful in life as children brought up in households of heterosexual couples. Scott, in his post, brought up religion and the Bible. This could probably hurt his ethos because someone reading it might not be Christian. I think Scott did a very good job of refuting Kayla’s argument on children of same sex couples. He talks about children growing up without a father figure or mother figure. He talks about single parents and how their children turn out. I think the fact that he brought up research done to support his points helps out his argument a lot. I believe Astrid also did a very good job in her posts. She basically uses what Scott said and argues against each point. She also provides tons of evidence to back up her claims. In Scotts second post, I think he did a pretty good job arguing for his position but I think the fact that he brought up religion so much kind of hurt his argument. Also I noticed a logically fallacy in Scott’s argument. He talks about when allowing gay couples to get married then there will be incest and polygamy. This is slippery slope. All in all I think all three of them did a very good job in arguing their positions.
Wow. You all made very good points for each side of the argument. This was a lot to read but I will try my best to provide some constructive criticism. Kayla, you had a strong first argument which touched on a lot of emotions that many people, including myself, can relate to. You began by saying that everyone should be allowed to love whoever they want and receive equal benefits from marriage. You also used great logos when you got into the statistics which opposed the idea that a gay marriage is a bad environment for raising a child. You also predicted the argument that allowing same sex marriage will not change the amount of gay couples. My only complaint is that you did not expand on that idea and you also had no sources of credibility in your first entry. Scott you did a great job of stating your opinion from a strong religious view point. You also did well temporarily bringing it away from your beliefs and including some scientific logic concerning the effects of biological fathers and mothers. Unfortunately, you also used no appeals to ethos. You could have possibly fallen into some logical fallacies with harsh, vague, or unclear statements concerning the intact family, nuclear family, and losing the fabric of our society. Astrid, you did well coming into the argument as the third person. I liked that you were the first person to support your information with sources and notice that the other comments had not established much credibility. You did a great job of picking apart the statements of the other comments and it was often helpful when you caught their shortcomings. This debate was difficult to read because of the length, lack of organization and grammar. But it was interesting and well done over all.
No one can choose who they fall in love with. When a man loves a woman and they decide to get married they are given the right to hospital visitation, Social Security benefits, immigration, health insurance, estate taxes, family leave, nursing homes, home protection and pensions. These are all rights that gay couples are not granted. Not only should gay couples be given the right to love each other unconditionally, but they should be granted equal rights. It would be devastating if the person you have loved for many years was in the hospital and unconscious but you could not make a decision for them because you are not legally allowed to be married. These rights should be granted to all people so this type of situation never has to happen.
ReplyDeleteSome believe that it is morally wrong to love a person of the same sex, but each person has different morals and beliefs. This is the reason there is a separation of church and state. Some may believe that they should not divorce because it says not to in the bible, but it is still legal because of the separation of church and state. The same should apply for gay marriage. Everyone has a right to their own religion and beliefs. One person’s right could be another person’s wrong so the government should allow same sex marriage to give those who believe in it the option to marry.
Also, many may argue that gay couples cannot reproduce. This, though, should not be a factor of a marriage. Some same sex couples choose not to have kids at all and it is acceptable. There are also many children who are living without parents and are waiting to be adopted. Along with adoption, there are also the options of artificial insemination or surrogate parenting. Once a gay couple decides to have children, many will also argue that it is a bad environment to raise children in, but it is estimated that 8 to 10 million children are happily being raised in 3 million gay households. All these people are living as a family. Unfortunately, though, these “families” are unable to be married. This is unfair and unjust. Every family should have equal rights.
Along with rights, the overall happiness of two people should be taken into account. It is not fair for a person to be told by the government that they are not allowed to marry the person they love. If the government says same sex marriage is illegal, it is not going to stop same sex couples from being together. Allowing same sex marriage will not change the amount of gay couples; it will only give them equal human rights, just as women, African Americans, and handicapped people have been given equal rights. The power of love is much greater than the ties of a man and a woman; it is an unconditional partnership between two people who have not chosen who they love, but love has chosen them. Gay marriage should be legalized and all people should be given the right to ALL benefits, not just some.
Marriage is a sacred sacrament created by God and he clearly states a man and woman shall be together. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” Genesis 1:27. According to the book of Romans 1:27 “If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural.” Those who believe in God will be breaking a sacrament if they are involved in same sex marriage. Making gay marriage legal will destroy the definition of marriage because marriage is between a man and woman. In legalizing gay marriage, it will be wrong for the state to force priests into marrying gays as it goes against their beliefs. Since not everyone believes in God, this topic is complicated because of the many different beliefs of different religions.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason for same sex couples should not be married is because it takes away the nature of household where a child will be born with a father and mother. I believe a healthy household includes a father and mother because they bring two different types of approach to the child. In a household, fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior in boys and sexual activity in girls. A recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. According to David Popenoe's work, “a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.” Growing up without a mother can also affect the child. A mother excels in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Allowing same sex marriage will weaken the traditional family in our society.
Allowing same sex marriage could also lead to more arguments about more rights about love. Allowing gay marriage could cause people to argue about legalizing the right to have more than one wife because they love more than one woman, the right to marry his or her brother or sister, and the right to marry a kid because the love him or her. All of these are similar because they are unnatural. If you legalize gay marriage, every other unnatural loves will fight for rights resulting in lot more arguments about what love is.
The right of a person to believe in their own religion is one of the many rights we as Americans are granted. We are all entitled to our own religion and it should not get in the way of the law. Legalizing gay marriage; in no way, shape, or form; forces anyone into a same sex marriage. A priest still has the right to remain unmarried to any person, just as they have the right to remain celibate. Legalizing same sex marriage simply grants the rights of those who choose to marry a person of the same sex. There are many other religions that also allow marriage, along with same sex marriage. A person’s belief can change from person to person, but the law is the law. That is why there is so much stress on the separation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteWhen children are growing up, the most important thing is to have parents who nurture, love, and care for their child. A gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of creating a loving a nurturing home as a heterosexual couple. If there are two mothers without a father or two fathers without a mother, these couples love their children just as much and successfully raise children as well. There are many single mothers and divorced parents that raise children and those children only have one parent figure. A gay couple may lack a “mother” or a “father,” but there are still two nurturing parents. Studies show that children who grow up in a household with gay parents, that they are just as successful as children who are raised in a household of a man and a woman. A gay couple may struggle with having to teach their daughter about puberty, but this also happens with single fathers. There are ways, though, to educate yourself about things such as that so you can inform your children about things that are important.
The nature of a household should not be determined by the sexuality of the parents. The “traditional” household is to each their own. The perfect family in one’s eyes could be a mother, father, grandparent, and two children. It could also be two mothers, and no children, or one child. No matter the choice, a parent will choose how their child is raised. Children are successfully raised in both settings today. It is better for a homosexual couple to happily raise a child together the two to unhappily raise children separately.
To legalize gay marriage is just that: gay marriage. It is neither advocating nor opposing polygamy nor incest. Same sex marriage should not be illegal just because the two people who love each other have the same sex organ and are unable to produce with each other. These people are just as capable of love as anyone else and deserve happiness. People who do not support gay marriage are not being forced into a same sex relationship. It is a person’s own right to stay away from it. There is no evidence, though, that shows why a gay marriage is unhealthy to people, the environment, or self. It only brings happiness to those who have found love. Gay marriage should be legalized because we all deserve to be happy in our lifetime.
There are true facts starting off with this first argument, such as the rights of the married couples. However, there is no evidence to back up this claim. For example, this website would allow credible facts for the argument; which states the rights of legal marriage: tax benefits, health insurance, etc. (nolo.com). There might be some more things to be added, such as stating what amendment people have the right to their own religion and beliefs. As the website of thenewcivilrightsmovement.com states, “[T]wo long-term studies recently published found just the opposite. In fact, one of them, a twenty-five year-long and vigorously peer-reviewed study published in the journal Pediatrics, found that adopted children raised by lesbian parents are better-adjusted and do better in school than their opposite-parented peers.” This gives credible support to the claim that gay couples could in fact be very responsible parents, and sometimes even better than straight parents, as it was understood in the second paragraph. Is the government implying that the amount of gay couples will increase? It seems as though this statement may or may not be true, therefore it should have some sources. What might be other thoughts or views from the government on same sex marriage?
ReplyDeleteIn the first paragraph, its seems as though there are biased beliefs; because there are quotes from the bible, and it seems to have a very strong standpoint in this argument but towards the end, it seems as though it drifts off to people who explain their opposing views of gay marriage through science. “It is very complicated because there are many views.” Which views? It should be clearly stated which categories of people are against gay marriage, like the religious and non-religious group, or even the political group. However, there is no discussion on the views of other people who do not have religious views are against gay marriage as well. This website might give more perspectives on other people besides religious people. The theosophical.wordpress.com website states that there are also oppositions against same-sex marriages; 1 in 4 atheists/agnostics oppose gay marriage or do not have an opinion. There also seems to be some legitimate research here, but again the “recent study” shows nothing but opinion if there is not a credible source for it. Also, the wording could be taken differently, such as “girls who grew apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family.” This could also be seen as girls who grow up without their fathers due to divorce. And as the study shows above, gay couples are seen to be more stable and responsible for their children. So as an “intact” family this could be of means of a stable family in general, regardless of the parents being straight or gay.
All people are free to love whomever they want. But society and the laws should encourage the traditional nuclear family. Men and women are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. These differences come together as a strong family unit that is best for raising children. This is the natural order. The man and woman with children nuclear family is the strength of our society. It is what has brought us a society to the point we are at today. This developed society allows gay members the freedom to live and love whomever they want. But society should encourage and develop the strong nuclear family that is the basis of our society. Like George W. Bush said in his State of the Union address, "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that when the nuclear family breaks down the risk is much higher for poverty, and children being lost to drugs, gangs and crime. The nuclear family should be supported by the state and encouraged. Deterioration and breakdown in the nuclear family can have a devastating effect on our society. It is a downhill path in which we lose the very fabric of our society and we cannot let it slip away.
As I said before, same sex marriage takes the away the meaning of the sacrament of marriage. A true marriage is when a priest of the Catholic Church marries a man and woman who love each other. A gay marriage will be more like a government document because the Catholic Church will not allow same sex marriage resulting in most of the gay marriages being in front of a judge in court. In doing this, marriage will be less meaningful because it will have nothing to do with the religious beliefs. Marrying from a court is not the same as being married by a priest. Let the meaning of marriage mean man and woman because it’s the religious tradition and have civil unions be the official marriage of gays and have their own traditions. To answer Astrid’s question about the religions I found out that the Catholic Church is not the only religion against same sex marriage but also: the Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches.
Another problem with gay marriage is that people should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. If gay marriage were legalized, they would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy. This is unfair considering more people in America are against same sex marriage because of their religious beliefs and the tradition of a marriage. According to abcnews.go.com, they took a survey on how many people are for and against same sex marriage. The results came in, as fifty-five percent was against same sex marriage, forty-one percent for same sex marriage, and six percent uncertain. Not only is abcnews.go.com, survey favors against same sex marriage but also there are many other websites. I think that marriage should stay as it is and many others would agree with me.
This debate was very thought out and well fought. The first debate between Kayla and Scott had many strong points. I liked how Kayla stated that allowing same sex marriage will not change the amount of gay couples. I felt like this was a good argument because it shows that they’ll still do it even though it’s not legal. Scott’s post was very good at responding to Kayla’s arguments. He used very good Bible verses that helped his argument tremendously. I also liked how he said that even though not everyone believes in God, there are still reasons same sex marriage should not be allowed. This backed up his support from the Bible verses a lot. By the time I got to Astrid’s comment I got a little confused. Her use of quotes was a little too much for me to handle and I felt like it made the debate a lot more confusing. Scott wrapped up the debate well with his last argument of people should not have to pay tax dollars if they do not support it. This was a good last argument showing what him and many others in America’s reasons for not supporting same sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteWow, this debate is really thought-provoking... it's so hard to step outside of one's own biases, eh?
ReplyDeleteKayla, you did a good job in the beginning bringing up divorce & how that applies to the separation of church and state. Also, your use of the statistic that 8 in 10 million kids are living happily with a gay couple definitely adds to the logos of your argument. Bringing up the fact that women, African Americans, and people with disabilities adds to the argument and made me really think 'why shouldn't homosexual couples have basic rights too'? You also did a good job in your second post comparing the different family situations and how the success of the child isn't up to one mother and one father.
ReplyDeleteScott, you did a good job of bringing up the government forcing priests to marry homosexual couples, it counteracted her statement about rights. Also, I would have focused a little less about religion in the beginning, there are many people who don't believe in God and don't support gay marriage; they might not be able to relate to your argument right away. But bringing up the study about the girls and the absence of their fathers added to the logos of your argument. There was a logical fallacy in your argument though, I think comparing legalizing gay marriage to marrying siblings is a slippery slope.
Astrid, the beginning of your first post was a little confusing, I didn't know which side of the argument you were on until you posted the quote. The quote was a good asset to your argument (logos), and you did a good job addressing opposing arguments specifically and refuting them.
Overall, everyone had good points are were respectful!
For this debate there were three people arguing. Astrid and Kayla were arguing for same sex marriage and Scott was arguing against it. In the first post, Kayla brings up some very good points. She uses very good pathos starting out her argument. She talks about love and how no one can choose who they fall in love with. She talks about the fact that heterosexual couples are given certain rights like hospital visitation and the ability to make decisions if their partner is ill. She then continues to go on about the fact that homosexual couples cannot do that because they are legally married. She uses pathos to her advantage. For her next few points, I like how she brings up what someone arguing against could bring up and immediately refutes them. She says that people might think same sex marriage is wrong because it isn’t in the Bible but America has separation of church and state. Therefore that should not matter. She continues on to discuss about the fact that children brought up in same sex household are just as successful in life as children brought up in households of heterosexual couples. Scott, in his post, brought up religion and the Bible. This could probably hurt his ethos because someone reading it might not be Christian. I think Scott did a very good job of refuting Kayla’s argument on children of same sex couples. He talks about children growing up without a father figure or mother figure. He talks about single parents and how their children turn out. I think the fact that he brought up research done to support his points helps out his argument a lot. I believe Astrid also did a very good job in her posts. She basically uses what Scott said and argues against each point. She also provides tons of evidence to back up her claims. In Scotts second post, I think he did a pretty good job arguing for his position but I think the fact that he brought up religion so much kind of hurt his argument. Also I noticed a logically fallacy in Scott’s argument. He talks about when allowing gay couples to get married then there will be incest and polygamy. This is slippery slope. All in all I think all three of them did a very good job in arguing their positions.
ReplyDeleteWow. You all made very good points for each side of the argument. This was a lot to read but I will try my best to provide some constructive criticism. Kayla, you had a strong first argument which touched on a lot of emotions that many people, including myself, can relate to. You began by saying that everyone should be allowed to love whoever they want and receive equal benefits from marriage. You also used great logos when you got into the statistics which opposed the idea that a gay marriage is a bad environment for raising a child. You also predicted the argument that allowing same sex marriage will not change the amount of gay couples. My only complaint is that you did not expand on that idea and you also had no sources of credibility in your first entry. Scott you did a great job of stating your opinion from a strong religious view point. You also did well temporarily bringing it away from your beliefs and including some scientific logic concerning the effects of biological fathers and mothers. Unfortunately, you also used no appeals to ethos. You could have possibly fallen into some logical fallacies with harsh, vague, or unclear statements concerning the intact family, nuclear family, and losing the fabric of our society. Astrid, you did well coming into the argument as the third person. I liked that you were the first person to support your information with sources and notice that the other comments had not established much credibility. You did a great job of picking apart the statements of the other comments and it was often helpful when you caught their shortcomings. This debate was difficult to read because of the length, lack of organization and grammar. But it was interesting and well done over all.
ReplyDelete