Gay Marriage Argument Essay

Two editorials were posted in the New York quotidian intelligence activity and multiplication of capital of New Jersey pertaining to the subject of legalizing zippy espousals. twain(prenominal) obligates argue the position against airy spousal relationship and single-valued function the equivalent focal record in their articles the negative effects that legalizing festal homophile and wifes allow for decl atomic number 18 on children existence raised by homogeneous stimu lately erects. Also, both articles contain logical fallicies in their stemma and use homophiley of the comparable tactics to argue their point much(prenominal) as sc are tactics, statistics, and acknowledgments from volume on the an separate(prenominal) side of the argument.However, the Times of Trenton editorial is able to c everyplace up these fallicies and chip in their side in a cleaner and more(prenominal)(prenominal) efficient guidance than the New York Daily intelligence opera tion by making the statistics seem more c red-facedible, the quotes from the other side of the argument more persuasive, and the general organization of their logic more rational. Unfortunately, the legitimation of aforesaid(prenominal) turn on conjugal union ceremony is a highly divided and controversial return that our nation has been debating over since the day the Statesn was founded as a country.While the drive persisted throughout the centuries, it was non until the turn of the millenary in the year 2000 that Vermont became the offset printing sound out to allow civil unions for alike energiseuality couples. Since at that placefore, milestones buzz off been made in the LGBT federation as thirteen adopts have legalized homogeneous(p) sex join and eight states recognizing self similar(prenominal) sex civil unions as of 2013. However, America is taking the matter at a slow pace compared to the thirteen countries that have already completely recognized ali ke(p) sex nuptialsDenmark legalizing the practice since the late 1980s.In fact, many states have interpreted a few steps backwards, much(prenominal) as California passing an am decisionment to derangement its previous decision to legalize same sex hymeneals along with 32 states adding amendments to ban same sex unions to their constitutions. However, the approximately recent polls show legal age represent for the legal recognition of same sex marriage, with supporters first achieving the majority in 2010. There is a general elan between supporters for same sex marriage with lack of religious fundamentalism, young age, high education, and residence in the Northeast and air jacket Coast.Also, supporters come from mostly liberal and dampen political ideologies and the female sexual activity. In face-off are mostly the South and midwestern United States regions, men, and conservative political ideologies. The defenders of opposite sex marriages largely argue against same s ex couples raising children as well, generally basing their spot on outdated studiesmany of which have been revoked by their own queryers. Both articles use research statistics to support their aim. The NY Daily News quoted a statement from Obama stating that children who grow up without a father are more presumable to become destructive citizens of our society.The article poorly executes the utilization of research in dickens meanss first they use Obama as a figure of wrong formerity and fail to cite the reservoir of the research, loosening its credibility. Secondly, even if it is credible, the research boilers suit is misinterpreted and a red herring to the argument. The research is precisely relevant to children who grow up without a father not straightway to same sex activity parentsit could easily be possible that the research pertains to single parent households.The occasion also sets up a straw man against Obama by stating Obama is right. Children are better o ff with both a mother and a father. Firstly, it does not state anywhere in the quote minded(p) that Obama said children need strictly a mother and father, only that children without both parents present are more likely to end up in a poor situation. Secondly, even if the research was relevant with same gender families, it would only present a stance against children raised by deuce mothers alternatively of two fathers.Not only is it a hasty trigger for the cause to mint that this single study proves that marriage needs to involve a man and a woman, it is non-sequitur to believe that because children without fathers do not grow up well, that same gender situations where both parents are present will yield the same results. In the other article, the causality uses research to support his claim slightly more efficientlythe first research study the agent uses is cited and truly is directly relevant to same gender family studies.The study showed that children raised by same sex p arents are more likely to be transgendered, abuse drugs, be molested by their parents/adult figure, and participate in base little behavior. The average reader scanning over the article quickly would see the pen express where the research came from and automatically assume that it is credible. However, when the research was further investigated, it was found that not only was the study widely considered by scientists to be inconclusive. Even the motive, Mark Regernus, stated in an interview that the study lacked fair to middling foundation to make such(prenominal) a claim.The article then declares in that location is an development in population identifying as pederastic since 1994. The author then claims this increase falsifies the possibility that mint are born homosexual but instead is due to cultural factors encouraging same-sex behavior. The first mistake with this claim is that the author does not provide where this culture originates. It is non sequitur to belie ve that because the culture is becoming more seizeing of homosexuality, it increases homosexuality and debunks the theory that people are born homosexual.More or less, this claim is a hasty evocation because the author does not consider possibilities such as culture changing to accept homosexual individuals giving people entertain and security to openly identify as homosexual. Both authors clearly stack deviate evidence against homosexual behavior instead of providing or line against any of the acquirable evidence that suggests being homosexual has genetic components or children from same sex families do as well as heterosexual person parented families.While the lack of arguing against evidence refuting their claims may seemingly modify their opinion, the blatant bias makes their argument less convincible to readers because it comes off as close-minded and opinionated rather than open and persuasive, in particular to readers that support gay marriage. To strengthen their a rgument, both articles used quotes from the opposing side to argue their claim. Again, the Times of Trenton article uses this rule more strongly than New York Daily News. The New York Daily News claims that the LGBT club supports the authors thesis that gay marriage is base on a lie.They first quote an author named Masha Gessen, a supporter of gay marriage Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are way out to do with marriage when we get therebecause we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. The author set up a straw man manipulating these speech communication to make it appear that the LGBT community agrees with their thesis. Gessen, however, is not directly stating that gay marriage is based off a lie, but that it is a lie to say that the institution of marriage is not going to change as a result of legalizing gay marriage.Then, the author quotes another gay marriage advocator named Judith Stacey repeatedly throughout the art icle fundamentally making evident her support for polygamy and that redefining marriage will hopefully give way to accepting polygamy. It is non sequitur and a hasty generalization to claim that if same sex marriage is legalized, it will instigate the acceptance and legalization of polygamy as well. It is also a red herring fallacy to distract the readers with immaterial information on polygamy and somehow correlated it with the legalization of same sex marriage.This pulls out the reader from the main issue of gay marriage and the main point the author is trying to make becomes vague to the reader. Furthermore, the credibility of victimization these people to represent the LGBT community is put into question. The author even states that these people are radical advocates, but the author gives the illusion that since these people support same sex marriage, the LGBT community is guilty by association and therefore shares the same opinions. The author also gives these radical advoca tes false authority, granting them dominance to speak for the LGBT community as a whole.The Times of Trenton article uses a better source to support their argument providing an article written by a gay man raising children. He says that Mainwaring can see why people oppose same sex marriage because Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two days is to deny soulfulness whom they desperately need and deserve. This quote is effective because it comes from a gay man who is actually raising children and giving his perspective, instead of radical advocates.It persuades the reader that even if someone who is gay admits there is a paradox with same gender families, then maybe it shouldnt be allowed after all. However, this is using authority instead of evidence. If a gay man claims that children of same gender families are deprived of benefits that come with heterosexual parents, then it must be true because hes gay and has children. While it i s convincing, there is no substantial evidence to support that this is claim is applicable to all same gender families.