It has been way too long since I have posted anything. Getting back into the groove of school and working are really taking a toll on me. I have been since twice in the last two months and now I have no voice. Oh well, life goes on. Today I just wanted to share a short paper that I wrote last semester for my composition 1 class. I rather enjoy this style of writing. I know the topic is a pretty controversial one right now, but I am proud of that paper that I wrote, not just my stance of the legalization of gay marriage. So here it is...
Kiersten Kiene
Mr. Anderson
Composition 1
Evaluation Paper
10 December 2013
Gay marriage should become legal
Beating around the
bush is something that Peter Sprigg does not do in his 2012 article, “Gay
Marriage Should Not be Legal.” Claiming that homosexuals will impose both
immediate and long-term effects, Sprigg gives nine examples of how the effects
will turn out unpleasantly. He touches upon everything from government
benefits, impeding upon religion, and even going as far as saying that the
homosexual parents are raising troubled children.
Sprigg heads right
into the money side of the argument, saying that “One of the key arguments
often heard in support of homosexual civil ‘marriage’ revolves around all the
government ‘benefits’ that homosexuals claim they are denied. Many of these
‘benefits’ involve one thing – taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager to get
their hands on.” (“Gay Marriage” p. 1) Any
person, not just homosexuals, can fight for their rights as an American
citizen. Many homosexuals are not given the same opportunities or benefits as
any other person. Homosexual discrimination is still existent, and may never go
away; but can be fought against by getting the same opportunities and benefits
that others may have.
He then goes on to
talk about how gay marriage will obstruct the religious view, causing “serious
damage to religious liberty.”(p. 2) But rather than clarify how gay marriage
laws will hurt those practicing religion, he discusses how some may lose their
jobs or government help. “Organizations might be denied government grants or
aid otherwise available to faith-based groups; they might be denied access to
public facilities for events; and they might even have their tax-exempt status
removed.” (p. 3) What homosexuals are fighting for is what the religious groups
want to keep. Rather than helping out both sides and just looking past homosexuals,
it has to be made a bigger deal than what it is. Sprigg continues on to say
that “Individual believers who disapprove of homosexual relationships may be
the most vulnerable of all facing a choice at work between forfeiting their
freedom of speech and being fired.” The work place is a place for work to be
done, hence why it is called a ‘work place.’ Color racism is not tolerated
within the work place, so why should sex-orientation be any different? Lastly,
he states that “Religious liberty is one of the deepest American values. We
must not sacrifice it on the altar of political correctness that homosexual
‘marriage’ would create.” No matter who
a human being loves, they are still a human being. Why waste time on such a
subject? Because they deserve the respect and rights that everybody does
deserves as a human being, no matter whom they are or who they love.
In a perfect
world, every child would have a household with a mother and a father who are in
a dedicated marriage. As well as having the mother and father are capable,
biological parents. However, we do not live in a perfect world. (p. 5) Sprigg
brings up the point that the child or children will not be living in a perfect
household, and may not live with either a mother or father. “Fewer children would
be raised by a married mother and father.” (p. 5) There are so many children
living in a single-parent household. Divorce creates the same problem. And as
Sprigg said himself, we do not live within a perfect world. What is the
difference between single-sex households and single-parent households? But the
parent who tells the child, “I’m gay,” is saying to the child the he or she has
zero intent of providing a parent of the opposite sex for them. (p. 5) Keeping
with the theme of a single-sex household, he paints the picture that all
homosexuals are keeping their child from the opposite parent. This is an unfair
and presumed statement. This unfortunately may be true for some parents, but
maybe not all. The difference between a single-parent household and a
homosexual household is that there are almost none. Weather there is another
parent in the picture for the single-parent household or not, there is still
just one sex parent in the house.
Overall Sprigg has
some valid points, but in the end they are unfair. Money, religion, and
households are something that is an issue for almost every imperfect family.
There are nearly no differences between a homosexual point of view, and a
heterosexual point of view, pretty much the same problem but opposite on either
side. Without hearing the other side of the story, there is no story.
Works Cited
Sprigg, Peter.
"Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal." Opposing Viewpoints. N.p., n.d.
Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
 |
| Posting this one for my friend Michelle in honor of her being at basic for almost a month now! |
I also read an article a few days ago about the support of gay marriage. I though it was very interesting. A survey was taken in the United States by the Public Religion Research Institute. It found that ever since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, many more Americans support gay marriage. Now, 53% of American people support it, compared to 32% back in 2003. The survey came out on Wednesday and was carried out between November 12, 2013 and December 18, 2013.
Here is the link for that story:
http://thegazette.com/2014/02/26/survey-majority-of-americans-now-support-gay-marriage/
Please keep in mind that I am not trying to persuade you either which way about gay marriage. I just want to share my paper, writing styles, and the survey about the topic. I thought it was rather interesting.
