Should same-sex relations have equal rights in the society? These days, the majority of people in the world are loyal towards the homosexual relationships. Within last decades, our society became more conscious about gay and lesbian couples. They can feel free in the streets and have special recreation spots. However, they do not have the equal legal rights, in other words they are banned to get married in the majority countries of the world.
Moreover, even people who are loyal towards gay relations, are often oppose gay marriages. Isn’t it a paradox? So what is it all about? And why many people are so negative about same-sex marriages? The purpose of the essays is to cast light on the essence of the gay marriages and provide evidences that same-sex marriages have right to be legalized. In order to provide these ideas, we are going to analyze two articles which promote and ban gay marriages.
Thus, as it has already been mentioned, many people support same-sex relationships, but, at the same time, they are against one-sex marriages. What is the reason of it? First of all, there are thousands misunderstandings, misconceptions and prejudices that surround gay relations.
First of all, the first prejudice that has a long history is that gay relationships are not natural and cannot be characterized by strong commitment to each other. Second, gays are considered to be unable to build long-lasting relationships. Third, some people consider non-traditional sexual orientation a psychological defect that should be treated. Thus, gays face many difficulties when trying to build relations.
However, why are there so many negative reactions concerning gay relations, especially, gay marriages, then? It is widely known that there were different types of gay relations in ancient times. It was common among Roman emperors and in Sparta. There were even gay wedding records performed in small chapels among monks. The ban on the gay relations has its history in every country. In Europe, this ban is related to the establishment of the Catholic Church. In The Middle Ages, gay relations were considered to be sinful and were strictly punished.
Fortunately, modern society is not often regulated by religious dogmas, and people can feel freely and choose any lifestyle. However, the echo of the last decades is still can be heard. Recent events in the world prove that our society becomes more conscious and open-minded. Thus, many countries have already legalized gay marriages and this tendency seems to expand over the world.
The two articles under consideration discuss the problem of the gay weddings and provide opposite points of view on the issue. The first article, “Pro Gay Marriage – Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal: Why We don’t Need a Constitutional Ban” by Kathy Belge promotes the legalization of the gay marriages and provide convincing evidences while using various rhetorical modes of persuasion, such as logos, ethos and pathos. In order to attract the reader’s attention and persuade the audience, the author of the article relies on logos and ethos for the most part.
As opposed to the article by Kathy Belge, the Eric Young’s article, “Pro-Family Groups Rally Connecticuters to Overturn Court’s Gay ‘Marriage’ Ruling” provides the same idea and claims that many people who vote for the same-sex marriages should be supported. In order to support this idea, the author also makes uses of different methods of persuasion, but the majority of his arguments are based on ethos. He offers the evidences supported by facts and citations taken from speeches of famous people.
As it was said, the purpose of this essay is to convince the reader that legalization of the gay marriages in important and these people should have the same right as people who live in two-sex families. In this light, the article by Kathy Belge is more convincing, as it is more persuasive.
The author put the reader into the rhetorical situation of the gay family Carla and Miriam and illustrates the problems that these women face. In fact, it is a strong persuasive technique as the reader is involved and can feel himself/herself in the same situation. Using pathos, the author appeals to the reader’s emotion and depicts the injustice towards the couple involving bright examples and explanation. For example, we can read that:
“When they returned, they felt like a married couple. They moved in together, opened their gifts and started talking about having a baby. Even though, the couple feels committed to each other, they have none of the legal rights that protect other married couples” (Belge n. pag.).
The author also reveals to the readers common sense asking a rhetorical question: “Gay Marriage: What’s the Big Deal?” She also addresses human feelings and sense of equity while telling that “marriage is an institution that much of our culture revolves around. And preventing a loving same sex couple from making a legal commitment to each other can only hurt their children” (Belge n. pag.)
Thus, we can see that the author is much beyond the prejudice and misconceptions, and successfully uses the rhetorical techniques to convince the reader in her point of view.
The author of the second article “Pro-Family Groups Rally Connecticuters to Overturn Court’s Gay ‘Marriage’ Ruling” uses more formal language and bases his writing of ethos. He provides vivid citations of people who fight for the equal rights of all Americans appealing to the self-esteem and sense of equity of the reader. He makes use of strong and emotional statements to motivate the readers protect their faith:
“We will work for a majority ‘yes’ vote this November 4th to hold a state constitutional convention and will fight to get a direct initiative law out of the convention” (Young n. pag.)
However, the author also turns to pathos in citing such claims as:
“With today’s ruling the Supreme Court has said to the people of Connecticut that ‘No, even this victory will be denied to you. We, your robed masters, will decide the big questions of politics and you little people will have no choice but to bend to our will,’” Wolfgang stated Friday” (Young n. pag.)
Thus, we can conclude that the society moves towards the legalization of the gay marriages and it is a considerable step forward. We can also see that modern society becomes free of the prejudices about one-sex relationships.
In this light, there is nothing blameworthy in gay marriages. Moreover, the facts show that the countries that legalized gay marriages felt the improvement of the society, moreover, it prevented the expansion of the sexually transmitted diseases. For example, in the Denmark, the majority of the clergy was against the legalization of the same-sex marriages. However, after having seen all advantages of this decision, they recognized the benefits that it can provide.
Moreover, there is an ethical and moral aspect of this process. For instance, why two loving people cannot make their relationships legal and share the same rights as other couples: have children, right for belonging and being on each other’s health plans. The world is fighting for equality, but often “close eyes” on very important issues. Why old prejudice have such influence on modern people that claim to be free, open-minded and seeking to live in equal society.
Thus, if we want to correspond with notion of free, equal and modern society, we should be opened for new norms and way of thinking that provides the freedom of choice to every individual. At the same time, there are still debates on the psychological aspect of the gay marriages. For example, if a one-sex family has a child, who this child will feel itself among children from the traditional families. This question also needs urgent consideration and fast solution.
Thus, there is still much debate on the legalization of the gay marriages. The ban on the legalization of such marriages is based mostly on prejudices and misconceptions. However, countries that have already made stet towards the legalization, recognize the benefits to individuals and society that it brings.
The articles “Pro Gay Marriage – Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal: Why We don’t Need a Constitutional Ban” by Kathy Belge and “Pro-Family Groups Rally Connecticuters to Overturn Court’s Gay ‘Marriage’ Ruling” by Eric Young are very convincing in supporting gay marriages.
The persuasiveness of the articles is specified by the use of the rhetorical persuasive means: logos, pathos and ethos. However, the authors still live open some questions to debate. For example: how can society defend its point of view and overcome fear and prejudice concerning one-sex relations.
Belge, Kathy. “Pro Gay Marriage – Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal: Why We Don’t Need a Constitutional Ban”. About.com Guide. Web. 28 Mar. 2011.
Young. Eric. “Pro-Family Groups Rally Connecticuters to Overturn Court’s Gay ‘Marriage’ Ruling”. The Christian Post. Web. 28 Mar. 2011.