We live in a country that is based primarily on freedom. We pride ourselves to be a country that practices freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom, freedom, freedom. It seems as if on this topic freedom is not free.
The last couple years the buzz around the country about same sex marriage has been huge; especially the hype around the passing of Proposition 8 in California. The clause would allow the California Constitution to state that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” After the passing of the clause on November 5, 2008 the hype about same sex marriage was intensified. Supporters of the clause argued religion, education, adoption, and tax rights. People against the clause argued equality and unfair treatment, and financial and tax privileges.
First I will talk about the opponent’s arguments. Education. The argument is that if the law proposition 8 is passed that educational institutions will have to teach that same sex marriage is indeed normal and acceptable, and is in every way equal as traditional marriage between a male and female. Adoption. If Proposition 8 is not passed adoption agencies would be forced to serve all same sex couples. Religion. Clergymen and religious people argue from the Bible stating that the foundations of marriage are based solely on a man and a woman. Also, they are worried that religious sects may be accused of hate crimes if they reject or choose to not allow a same sex couple to hold ceremonies in their buildings. Tax Rights: Some religious institutions are worried that they will lose their tax exemption status. Also there are concerns that there will be people that take advantage of the tax benefits that married couples receive.
Here are the weak points in those arguments. Education. In an ever increasing dynamic country, we should educate our children on all things. In order to have well rounded, un-sheltered children that are ready for every issue and topic, we need to teach them, or introduce them to it. I do not believe that it is any schools responsibility or feel its necessary to teach “right” or “wrong” concerning this topic. But, presenting that there are same sex couples and that marriage is a union and partnership formed between two people is just stating and teach a fact, and better preparing children for the world that is around them.
Adoption: Denying a same sex couple the opportunity to raise a child is unfair, and infringes on those couples constitutional rights. There are many same sex couples that are more fortunate than heterosexual couples and can provide a life and environment that would be wonderful for a child. Using this as a reason for why someone should not be allowed to adopt a child is like saying that all single parent children are less likely to succeed. These statistics do not take every couple or situation into account. Same sex couples should be treated equally.
Religion: A very sensitive topic for many people. Stating or basing a decision off of the Bible alone is ludicrous. If we were to live by every law or commandment that was stated in the Bible we would be sacrificing animals and getting executed for almost everything. In DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 it says: "If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately." In LEVITICUS 18:19 "The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed." There are many things that are outdated in the Bible, and no longer apply to times today and to the way that we live our lives. There are so many things that we don't follow suit in the Bible that it is ridiculous to hold on to one passage that says that a marriage should be strictly between a woman and a man and not hold on to hundreds of other passages that require us to do equally ridiculous things. You cannot argue that the book is legitimately true and perfect when you don't follow every aspect.
Works Cited
Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce. What the Bible Says And Doesn't Say About Homosexuality. Found (Sept 21,2010)
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
Same Sex Marriages, Civil Unions, & Domestic Partnerships
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Research
I'm planning on searching out more specific laws and regulations on Proposition 8 and going to Ellis to find scholarly better sources. I also have friends that I plan on speaking to as well on both sides of the argument.
Position Paper Outline -- Gay Marriage "To be or not to be"
Summary of Opponents' Position:
There are many different reasons that the opponent is against gay marriage. One of those reasons is religious purposes. In the Bible it states that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. So, to religious people that statement rules that there should be no same sex marriages in this country. Another factor against Same sex marriage is the children aspect. "Research" has found that many children succeed and thrive in a home with both a mother and a father. Another factor is the teaching of same sex marriage in schools. Many people are worried that if the law is passed in all 50 states that children will have to be taught about it in school and are therefore more likely to enter into such union themselves. Another factor is tax benefits. Some people are worried that friends will marry friends to gain the tax benefits or tax cuts that a married couple can obtain.
Limitations of Opponents' Position:
Most of the opponents arguments are weak, they argue facts out of the Bible, but if we were living the ways of the Bible in all aspects we would be sacrificing animals and In DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 it says: "If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately." In LEVITICUS 18:19 "The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed." There are many things that are outdated in the Bible, and no longer apply to times today and to the way that we live our lives. There are so many things that we don't follow suit in the Bible that it is ridiculous to hold on to one passage that says that a marriage should be strictly between a woman and a man and not hold on to hundreds of other passages that require us to do equally ridiculous things. You cannot argue that the book is legitimately true and perfect when you don't follow every aspect. Another weak point is the issue on children. Gay couples married or not are adopting children. Saying that they have a lesser chance of being a healthy "male or female" is the equivalent to comparing them to single mothers. It is not based on the sex of the couple but the way the couple raises the children. Many other issues and weak points are found in this topic.
My understanding of the Issue:
Proposition 8 has been an ongoing issue over the last many years. States have passed and unpassed the legalization of same sex marriage. Supporters of the law believe that they are being discriminated against. They fight for equal rights, and for financial security and tax privileges that heterosexual couples have the privilege in partaking.
Reasons why my understanding of the issue is better than my opponents
Our country prides itself for being "free". Freedom of speech, free will, free, free, free. But, on this issue it seems like no one is free. Arguing that the Bible says that it isn't proper for two people of the same sex to be married is like arguing that we shouldn't eat pork anymore because the Bible says not to. Arguing that a gay couple has less of a chance of raising a healthy and well gifted child is automatically stating that all same sex partners are not capable of such things. Where in fact many same sex couples are successful and perfectly capable of providing better homes than most heterosexual couples. There's also the point of a same sex couple taking advantage of the system, but in the same sentence a heterosexual couple could take advantage of the system if they wanted to as well.
Who is the person that gets to say: "Because I believe it is morally incorrect, no marriage is not allowed" that in itself seems to be a hypocritical statement. You are free to do what you would like but you are not free to get married.
Conclusion
We live in a country that is based primarily on freedom. We pride ourselves to be a country that practices freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom, freedom, freedom. It seems as if on this topic freedom is not free.
Sources
Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce. What the Bible Says And Doesn't Say About Homosexuality. Found (Sept 21,2010)
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
Same Sex Marriages, Civil Unions, & Domestic Partnerships
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
There are many different reasons that the opponent is against gay marriage. One of those reasons is religious purposes. In the Bible it states that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. So, to religious people that statement rules that there should be no same sex marriages in this country. Another factor against Same sex marriage is the children aspect. "Research" has found that many children succeed and thrive in a home with both a mother and a father. Another factor is the teaching of same sex marriage in schools. Many people are worried that if the law is passed in all 50 states that children will have to be taught about it in school and are therefore more likely to enter into such union themselves. Another factor is tax benefits. Some people are worried that friends will marry friends to gain the tax benefits or tax cuts that a married couple can obtain.
Limitations of Opponents' Position:
Most of the opponents arguments are weak, they argue facts out of the Bible, but if we were living the ways of the Bible in all aspects we would be sacrificing animals and In DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 it says: "If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately." In LEVITICUS 18:19 "The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed." There are many things that are outdated in the Bible, and no longer apply to times today and to the way that we live our lives. There are so many things that we don't follow suit in the Bible that it is ridiculous to hold on to one passage that says that a marriage should be strictly between a woman and a man and not hold on to hundreds of other passages that require us to do equally ridiculous things. You cannot argue that the book is legitimately true and perfect when you don't follow every aspect. Another weak point is the issue on children. Gay couples married or not are adopting children. Saying that they have a lesser chance of being a healthy "male or female" is the equivalent to comparing them to single mothers. It is not based on the sex of the couple but the way the couple raises the children. Many other issues and weak points are found in this topic.
My understanding of the Issue:
Proposition 8 has been an ongoing issue over the last many years. States have passed and unpassed the legalization of same sex marriage. Supporters of the law believe that they are being discriminated against. They fight for equal rights, and for financial security and tax privileges that heterosexual couples have the privilege in partaking.
Reasons why my understanding of the issue is better than my opponents
Our country prides itself for being "free". Freedom of speech, free will, free, free, free. But, on this issue it seems like no one is free. Arguing that the Bible says that it isn't proper for two people of the same sex to be married is like arguing that we shouldn't eat pork anymore because the Bible says not to. Arguing that a gay couple has less of a chance of raising a healthy and well gifted child is automatically stating that all same sex partners are not capable of such things. Where in fact many same sex couples are successful and perfectly capable of providing better homes than most heterosexual couples. There's also the point of a same sex couple taking advantage of the system, but in the same sentence a heterosexual couple could take advantage of the system if they wanted to as well.
Who is the person that gets to say: "Because I believe it is morally incorrect, no marriage is not allowed" that in itself seems to be a hypocritical statement. You are free to do what you would like but you are not free to get married.
Conclusion
We live in a country that is based primarily on freedom. We pride ourselves to be a country that practices freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom, freedom, freedom. It seems as if on this topic freedom is not free.
Sources
Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce. What the Bible Says And Doesn't Say About Homosexuality. Found (Sept 21,2010)
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
Same Sex Marriages, Civil Unions, & Domestic Partnerships
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
Friday, September 17, 2010
Position Paper Topic
My View -- Gay marriage should be legalized
United states is based off of freedom
Because of that main point alone people should have the right to do what they like
Positive tax reasons
Solidifying relationship building a future
My Opponent -- Gay marriage should be illegal
Tax purposes
religious purposes
consitution
United states is based off of freedom
Because of that main point alone people should have the right to do what they like
Positive tax reasons
Solidifying relationship building a future
My Opponent -- Gay marriage should be illegal
Tax purposes
religious purposes
consitution
Monday, September 13, 2010
Write This Assignment
Fallacies appear almost everywhere now day. The ad that I chose to talk about today is a smoking ad from the 80’s. Camel is a cigarette company that used advertisement with Doctor’s to appeal to their audience. All of their advertisements from that time suggested that Doctors preferred Camel cigarettes over any other cigarette.
There were many fallacies used in these particular advertisements. Ad Populum (Bandwagon) is used where it suggests that more Doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette, and that 20,679 say “luckies” are less irritating. These statements suggest that it is the popular thing to do. That these popular and well known people smoke so you should smoke too.
These ads also use false authority and non sequitur. They suggest that because a Doctor is smoking that it is okay to smoke. They also suggest that by using their cigarette it will be not as irritating to your throat.
Slippary Slope is also used. They suggest that if you used the brand “luckiest” it will lead to a less irritated throat.
This article also points out that if you used the brand “luckiest” it will lead to a less irritated throat.
This article also points out that hasty generalization, they state in the article that cigarette companies would attend medical conventions and give Doctors a free pack of cigarettes on their way out of the event the Doctors would be asked what pack of cigarettes they had on them. This gives a false impression on how many Doctors actually smoke Camel Cigarettes.
The main goal of any company is going to be to appeal to the reader in any way that they possibly can. Using fallacies that may not be obvious to everyone helps people want to use their product.
http://www.smart-kit.com/s443/tobacco-companies-manipulative-advertising-images-of-influence/
There were many fallacies used in these particular advertisements. Ad Populum (Bandwagon) is used where it suggests that more Doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette, and that 20,679 say “luckies” are less irritating. These statements suggest that it is the popular thing to do. That these popular and well known people smoke so you should smoke too.
These ads also use false authority and non sequitur. They suggest that because a Doctor is smoking that it is okay to smoke. They also suggest that by using their cigarette it will be not as irritating to your throat.
Slippary Slope is also used. They suggest that if you used the brand “luckiest” it will lead to a less irritated throat.
This article also points out that if you used the brand “luckiest” it will lead to a less irritated throat.
This article also points out that hasty generalization, they state in the article that cigarette companies would attend medical conventions and give Doctors a free pack of cigarettes on their way out of the event the Doctors would be asked what pack of cigarettes they had on them. This gives a false impression on how many Doctors actually smoke Camel Cigarettes.
The main goal of any company is going to be to appeal to the reader in any way that they possibly can. Using fallacies that may not be obvious to everyone helps people want to use their product.
http://www.smart-kit.com/s443/tobacco-companies-manipulative-advertising-images-of-influence/
Thursday, September 9, 2010
DeathInc Draft 1
Penn and Teller are known for their unconventional outlook of exposing different topics or issues in their show Bullshit. In this episode Penn and Teller give a behind the scene view of the funeral business and its many flaws. “Living is what matters, the rest be bullshit.”
The way the material was presented allowed the episode to appeal to many different demographics; from people that have just experienced death, to people that may be preparing for death in the future, to the actual funeral industry itself.
There were also people that were relatable to the average person as well. There was a priest that discussed the markups each funeral company has in the different things they sale. And, on the other end they also used people as a way of making fun of how extreme some people can become as far as being wrapped up in the idea of death. For example: they had two people that thought they were vampires, or the owner of the company that froze bodies. Both of these cases were extreme, and exposed the viewers to a more extreme way of looking at death.
To appeal to such a wide scope of people Penn and Teller chose to present the material in many different ways. There were many facts and figures used. For ex: there are 25 million deaths each year, and the average funeral is 10,000. That being so, the funeral industry makes trillions of dollars each year off the emotionally fragile consumer.
Sarcasm and humor were also used throughout the episode. In one portion of the episode Penn says “Death isn’t so scary, as long as we put happy music to it.” Then for the rest of the episode every time there is something the least bit disturbing there is cheerful music in the background. The music is used as a buffer to soften the blow of what is actually being seen.
They discussed how most people live by the “evil eye concept” in regards to death, which means if you talk about it, it might happen to you. Stating this in the beginning allowed the viewer to be prepared for facts and information throughout the rest of the episode and set the tone.
They used Logos, Pathos, and Ethos to appeal to viewers in this episode. For Logos, presenting material and facts that were concrete. For Pathos, they reiterated that funerals are for the living not for the dead, and that we should praise the people around us while they are alive instead of when they are deceased. For Ethos, they had an inside video that exposed the funeral industry praying off of the emotionally fragile victim and presented the facts that it should not matter if you have your loved one cremated in a cardboard box because the box is going to be burned. Penn and Teller tried to stress the fact that you should not focus on trying to please the dead, but instead focus on what is important and more rational.
The way the material was presented allowed the episode to appeal to many different demographics; from people that have just experienced death, to people that may be preparing for death in the future, to the actual funeral industry itself.
There were also people that were relatable to the average person as well. There was a priest that discussed the markups each funeral company has in the different things they sale. And, on the other end they also used people as a way of making fun of how extreme some people can become as far as being wrapped up in the idea of death. For example: they had two people that thought they were vampires, or the owner of the company that froze bodies. Both of these cases were extreme, and exposed the viewers to a more extreme way of looking at death.
To appeal to such a wide scope of people Penn and Teller chose to present the material in many different ways. There were many facts and figures used. For ex: there are 25 million deaths each year, and the average funeral is 10,000. That being so, the funeral industry makes trillions of dollars each year off the emotionally fragile consumer.
Sarcasm and humor were also used throughout the episode. In one portion of the episode Penn says “Death isn’t so scary, as long as we put happy music to it.” Then for the rest of the episode every time there is something the least bit disturbing there is cheerful music in the background. The music is used as a buffer to soften the blow of what is actually being seen.
They discussed how most people live by the “evil eye concept” in regards to death, which means if you talk about it, it might happen to you. Stating this in the beginning allowed the viewer to be prepared for facts and information throughout the rest of the episode and set the tone.
They used Logos, Pathos, and Ethos to appeal to viewers in this episode. For Logos, presenting material and facts that were concrete. For Pathos, they reiterated that funerals are for the living not for the dead, and that we should praise the people around us while they are alive instead of when they are deceased. For Ethos, they had an inside video that exposed the funeral industry praying off of the emotionally fragile victim and presented the facts that it should not matter if you have your loved one cremated in a cardboard box because the box is going to be burned. Penn and Teller tried to stress the fact that you should not focus on trying to please the dead, but instead focus on what is important and more rational.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Assignment 2
1. Topic popularity
2. Persuasiveness
3. Unfamiliarized with the topic
4. Statistics
5. Personal Beliefs
I think that I've narrowed down the top 5 reasons that a person would agree or take action on a topic. If a topic is extremely popular it might be seen as a trend or "the cool thing" to listen to or take action upon. Ex: The vote campaigns make voting a "cool thing" to do because of all the celebrities. The persuasiveness of a topic also, some people are very good at convincing you that something is right and persuading you to sway in their direction. If a person isn't familiar with the topic they might agree with you just because of the fact that they're unsure. Statistics are another good example, if a person sees facts that they can relate to they might be more likely to take action or agree. And, the personal beliefs or opinions will sway a person to agree or take action also.
2. Persuasiveness
3. Unfamiliarized with the topic
4. Statistics
5. Personal Beliefs
I think that I've narrowed down the top 5 reasons that a person would agree or take action on a topic. If a topic is extremely popular it might be seen as a trend or "the cool thing" to listen to or take action upon. Ex: The vote campaigns make voting a "cool thing" to do because of all the celebrities. The persuasiveness of a topic also, some people are very good at convincing you that something is right and persuading you to sway in their direction. If a person isn't familiar with the topic they might agree with you just because of the fact that they're unsure. Statistics are another good example, if a person sees facts that they can relate to they might be more likely to take action or agree. And, the personal beliefs or opinions will sway a person to agree or take action also.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Try this out assignment 1
1. Gay Marriage-- Many states have passed and reneged on the very popular and controversial proposition 8
Angles-- Can any two same sex people get married for tax advantages? Gay Rights.
Immigration -- Workforce services releasing information about immigrants located in Utah.
Angles-- Should workforce services be withholding this information? Privacy & Security in different government services, who actually is viewing and has access to personal information?
Polygamy-- Religious sect FLDS leader being sentenced
Angles-- Should polygamy be illegal? What social and emotional damage does this cause to children and wifes affected by it?
Use of the substance "Spice"-- Utah county has recently passed a law that prohibits anyone from using spice to get "high" in the canyons of utah county.
Angles-- What boundaries will be crossed in trying to find out if a person is "high"? Will this new fad be outlawed much like peyote?
EPortfolios-- New system set up by Salt Lake Community College to provide future students with an accumulation of "general studies"
Angles--Is this a complete waste of time? What does any student actually learn from this? What job would actually look at an eportfolio in an interview?
2. Gay marriage is a highly controversial topic in the United States today. Over the last decade it has become something that is seen in the news everyday. Proposition 8 has been something that many states have been passing and "unpassing" over the last couple years, and it's intriguing to me to see the reasons behind either the passing of the law or the denial.
We live in a country that is based primarily on freedom. We pride ourselves to be a country that practices freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom, freedom, freedom. It seems as if on this topic freedom is not free.
Who is the person that gets to say: "Because I believe it is morally incorrect, no marriage is not allowed" that in itself seems to be a hypocritical statement. You are free to do what you would like but you are not free to get married.
3. In a country that is based primarily off of free will, it seems as if the topic gay marriage proves that freedom is only free under the right circumstances.
4. I think a position paper would be the best Genre for this topic.
Angles-- Can any two same sex people get married for tax advantages? Gay Rights.
Immigration -- Workforce services releasing information about immigrants located in Utah.
Angles-- Should workforce services be withholding this information? Privacy & Security in different government services, who actually is viewing and has access to personal information?
Polygamy-- Religious sect FLDS leader being sentenced
Angles-- Should polygamy be illegal? What social and emotional damage does this cause to children and wifes affected by it?
Use of the substance "Spice"-- Utah county has recently passed a law that prohibits anyone from using spice to get "high" in the canyons of utah county.
Angles-- What boundaries will be crossed in trying to find out if a person is "high"? Will this new fad be outlawed much like peyote?
EPortfolios-- New system set up by Salt Lake Community College to provide future students with an accumulation of "general studies"
Angles--Is this a complete waste of time? What does any student actually learn from this? What job would actually look at an eportfolio in an interview?
2. Gay marriage is a highly controversial topic in the United States today. Over the last decade it has become something that is seen in the news everyday. Proposition 8 has been something that many states have been passing and "unpassing" over the last couple years, and it's intriguing to me to see the reasons behind either the passing of the law or the denial.
We live in a country that is based primarily on freedom. We pride ourselves to be a country that practices freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom, freedom, freedom. It seems as if on this topic freedom is not free.
Who is the person that gets to say: "Because I believe it is morally incorrect, no marriage is not allowed" that in itself seems to be a hypocritical statement. You are free to do what you would like but you are not free to get married.
3. In a country that is based primarily off of free will, it seems as if the topic gay marriage proves that freedom is only free under the right circumstances.
4. I think a position paper would be the best Genre for this topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)