Argument Analysis on Gay Marriage
Essay title: Argument Analysis on Gay Marriage
Argument Analysis on Gay Marriage
There are many controversies surrounding today’s world, such as abortion, animal testing, and social reform issues. It seems that no one can come to a common agreement on the legitimacy of these topics. Personal characteristics, such as upbringing, culture, religion and ethnicity, all play a role in determining one’s feelings on a given controversial issue. However, one of the most protested and discussed issues in current political debate is same-sex marriage. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, only hard pressed arguments expressing speculation regarding supposed outcomes, benefits and possible tribulations that would come along with the endorsement of gay marriage. Such ideas are shown in pieces of writing by Manuel A. Lopez, in “The Case Against Gay Marriage” and by Scott Bidstrup in “ Gay Marriage: The Arguments and Motives.” These issues both discuss and contend common controversy surrounding the gay marriage debate. After reading and analyzing each essay, it is observed that Manuel A. Lopez’ style of writing and literary tone give him the upper hand in establishing a more effective piece.
In the essay “ The Case Against Gay Marriage,” Manuel Lopez, a gay man himself, contests the idea of allowing gay marriage by relating it to his homosexual experience, and more specifically to the future outlook for the institution of marriage. He takes a passive but safe entrance to his essay by discussing opinion polls and common belief among young people, noting that the main reason high school students will not oppose gay marriage is due to their upbringing in a democracy that stands for equality. He mentions the central idea that gay marriage will mostly affect future generations rather than current ones. His opening, however, shows little support for most of his assumptions and claims. Aside from his lack of supporting evidence, his most notable aspect is his literary tone towards the issue. He shows no anger or disposition towards the subject; he brings forth contrasting ideas by advocates of same-sex marriage, which ultimately shows his willingness to account for other sides of the debate. As a result, the author gains ethos. Manuel addresses the common argument posed by protesters in the line, “ Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman.” However, instead of simply agreeing with the statement, he adds that it is what stands behind the definition that matters. He then brings forth his homosexual status, which was both surprising and unexpected. As objective as anyone may be, it is hard not to listen to the arguments of a gay man who is against the idea of gay marriage. Bringing in this information hooked the reader and made it a unique essay.
He continues his arguments by debating Rauch and Sullivan, two writers who are pro-gay marriage, by taking quotes from their articles and putting forth opposing ideas. Yet he never comments on the notes in a strictly negative form. He analyzes and keeps an open mind, which is part of the reason that this essay is so convincing and easy to read. Manuel centralizes his main idea in the apparent thesis claim: “ Permitting marriage between people of the same sex would make marriage a different thing- and not a better one.” His thesis is to the point and easy to understand even though it seems somewhat out of place. His next paragraph communicates his specific attitude and extends his unbiased tone by implicating that he does not believe that allowing gay marriage would make it “just another contract.” He accredits marriage as the most important institution known to man. His argument extends to say that marriage was sculpted for thousands of years around the idea of a man and a woman and that gay marriage would more or less be only an imitation marriage. In his next paragraph, he makes a very bold statement, stating that most gays are indeed happy with their status but desire the same rights as heterosexuals in a “me-too” attitude. He argues that homosexuals do still have the same rights as everyone else; a gay man can marry a woman and a lesbian can marry a man. He then ties his introduction back into the writing by again inferring that future generations of Americans will feel the most profound effects. Furthermore, he made a sub-claim that supports his argument by contending that gay men would undoubtedly be more adulterous and prone to divorce, which would, in turn, hurt divorce’s institution. He then supports his claim with evidence from Swedish gay marriage statistics that show divorce rates since the legalization of gay marriage have jumped well over 100 percent.
In his conclusion, he implies that if gay marriage is all about love and affection, then who is to say that polygamy is wrong? What about marriage between relatives? This bit of information, although seemingly irrelevant in its placement, proves