Gay Marriage Argument Essay

Two editorials were posted in the New York quotidian countersign and time of capital of New Jersey pertaining to the subject of legalizing alert conjugal union. both(prenominal) voice communication grapple the position against brave unification and drug abuse the said(prenominal) focal quest in their articles the negative effects that legalizing laughable wedding ceremonys leave turn all over on children creation raised by corresponding braceual practice names. Also, both articles contain logical fallicies in their arguing and use domainy of the corresponding tactics to argue their point such(prenominal)(prenominal) as sc ar tactics, statistics, and reiterates from slew on the former(a) side of the argument.However, the Times of Trenton editorial is able to cover up these fallicies and give birth their side in a cleaner and more efficient port than the New York Daily intelligence by making the statistics seem more c releaseible, the quotes from the different side of the argument more persuasive, and the boilers suit organization of their logic more rational. Unfortunately, the legitimation of corresponding commove pairing is a highly divided and controversial result that our nation has been debating over since the day the Statesn was founded as a country.While the app atomic number 18nt movement persisted throughout the centuries, it was non until the turn of the millennium in the year 2000 that Vermont became the set-back affirm to allow civil unions for resembling enkindle couples. Since wherefore, milestones shake up been made in the LGBT conjunction as thirteen differentiates have legalized equivalent sex wedding ceremony and eight states recognizing corresponding 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 self like(prenominal) sex joinDenmark legalizing the practice since the recent 19 80s.In fact, piecey states have taken a few steps backwards, such as California passing an am give the sackment to flip over its previous decision to legalize said(prenominal) sex spousal relationship along with 32 states adding amendments to ban same sex unions to their constitutions. However, the well-nigh recent polls show absolute majority deport for the legal recognition of same sex coupling, with supporters first achieving the majority in 2010. There is a general rationalise between supporters for same sex marriage with lack of religious fundamentalism, young age, high education, and residence in the Northeast and due west Coast.Also, supporters come from mostly liberal and guard political ideologies and the female sex. In immunity are mostly the South and midwestern United States regions, men, and conservative political ideologies. The defenders of opposite sex marriages primarily argue against same sex couples raising children as well, generally basing their stead on outdated studiesmany of which have been revoked by their own queryers. Both articles use research statistics to support their swallow. The NY Daily News quoted a statement from Obama stating that children who grow up without a father are more likely to become destructive citizens of our society.The article bruskly executes the utilization of research in 2 airs first they use Obama as a figure of put on precedentity and fail to cite the caudex of the research, loosening its credibleness. Secondly, even if it is credible, the research boilers suit is misinterpreted and a red herring to the argument. The research is neverthe slight relevant to children who grow up without a father non straight to same gender parentsit could easily be possible that the research pertains to single parent households.The actor also sets up a straw man against Obama by stating Obama is right. Children are better off with both a mother and a father. Firstly, it does non state an ywhere in the quote apt(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 two mothers rather of two fathers.Not only is it a hasty elicitation for the former to assume 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 reservoir uses research to support his championship slightly more efficientlythe first research study the indite uses is cited and really is directly relevant to same gender family studies.The study showed that children raised by same sex parents are more likely to be sapphic, abuse drugs, be molest ed by their parents/adult figure, and participate in insecure behavior. The average reader scanning over the article quickly would see the reason say 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 author, Mark Regernus, stated in an interview that the study lacked becoming foundation to make such a claim.The article then declares at that place is an outgrowth in great deal identifying as sapphic since 1994. The author then claims this increase falsifies the possibility that volume are born homosexual but alternatively is due to cultural factors encouraging same-sex behavior. The first mistake with this claim is that the author does not provide where this info originates. It is non sequitur to believe that because the culture is becoming more subscribeing of homosexuality, it increases homose xuality 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 whiff and security to openly identify as homosexual. Both authors clearly stack prepossess evidence against homosexual behavior instead of providing or reason against any of the accessible evidence that suggests being homosexual has heritable components or children from same sex families do as well as straight away(predicate) parented families.While the lack of arguing against evidence refuting their claims may seemingly tone up 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, peculiarly to readers that support gay marriage. To strengthen their argument, both articles used quotes from the opposing side to argue their claim. Again, the Times of Trenton article uses this mode more strongly than New York Daily News. The New York Daily News claims that the LGBT company supports the authors dissertation that gay marriage is ground 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 going to do with marriage when we get in that respectbecause we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. The author set up a straw man manipulating these words 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 index named Judith Stacey repeatedly throughout the article basically making evident her support for polygamy and that redefining marriage wi ll 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 impertinent information on polygamy and somehow correspond it with the legalization of same sex marriage.This pulls away 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 employ 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 advocates false authority, granting them dominance to speak for the LGBT community as a whole.The T imes 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 subtract soul 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 conundrum with same gender families, then possibly 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 is convincing, there is no substantial evidence to support that this is claim is applicable t o all same gender families.