1. In “What’s Wrong WIth Gay Marriage” , Katha
Pollitt speaks not about the passing of the law itself
allowing homosexuals to marry in Massachusetts, but
rather provides counter arguments to those presented
by people opposed to gay marriage. She speaks to her
audience in a very casual and clear manner and is not
focused on convincing her audience that she is right , but
rather simply discrediting the opposition.
Colson,however, is more focused on stating his points
against gay marriage rather than attempting to counter
the opposition's arguments.
2. Pollit also talks about the history on marriage,
stating how marriage has been around forever and has
stood the test of time. For much of human history,
polygyny was the rule, she states it shows it in the Old
Testament and we should read it. In much of Africa and
the Muslim world it still is. She tells us about the many
not so good types of marriages out there. Starting with,
arranged marriages, forced marriages, child marriages,
and even marriages predicated on the subjugation of
women. Gay marriages is like a fairy tale romance
compared with most chapters of the history of wedlock.
3. Katha pollitt's counter arguments is that she has enough
proof of what she is stating in her article and she wants
someone to argue with the opposite view which in this position
it is colson, and hear how ridiculous it is to hear that gay
marriage is wrong. As she says, “will someone please explain to
me how permitting gays and lesbians to marry threatens the
institution of marriage?” As she looks into the social
conservatives, they think that marriage is just about
procreation and pollits agrees, as she states “couples often live
together and tie the knot only when the baby’s on the way.”
Marriage couples do often do this, also she describes “Marriage
is the way women domesticate men.” By this includes physical
violence, sexual violence etc. An example that she makes where
a man rapes his wife instead of his date, would most likely not
show up on the police blotter. For the reason of that is just
commences, it probably won't seem as worst as if were the
other way around.
4. Charles Colson’s, “Gay marriage: Social Suicide,”
he notes that he doesn’t not believe in same sex
marriage, he believes it social suicide. He argues about
how same sex marriage would not be able to bring
children to the world like a man and women marriage
would. “Sexual revolution led to decoupling of marriage
and procreation”.All he is trying to say is that gay
marriage would not be beneficial to the world.
5. Charles Colson in his essay “Gay Marriage:Societal
Suicide”, try to persuade people to be against same-sex
marriage, but mainly to conservative people. In this essay
Colson uses formal and dramatic diction , for instance he opens
his essay with the query “It’s America witnessing the end of
marriage?”, since the the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts passed a law to grant marriage licenses to gay
couples, which will cause, according to him, the end of
traditional marriage between a man and a woman, as the bible
states.His essay is written for a conservative community, since
the essay is published for the religious magazine, Christianity
Today. Colson argues that same-sex “marriage”, quoting it
sarcastically, will increase crime, will increase family collapse
and will increase out-of-wedlock births since “after the
imposition of same-sex marriage, Norway’s out-of-wedlock
births shot up”.
6. As for Charles Colson, he is against same-sex marriage.
In his article is list why gay marriage is going to do bad to the
world. He says, “Tragically, the sexual revolution led to the
decoupling of marriage and procreation; same-sex “marriage”
would pull them completely apart, leading to an explosive
increase in family collapse, out-of-wedlock births-and crime.”
He states in his argument clearly that, he does not think that
same-sex should have the right to get married. He uses
evidence he saw with his own eye's, Christians, and evidence
from a family led by a married mother and father. He also says,
“how do we know this? In nearly thirty years of prison ministry,
I’ve witnessed the disastrous consequences of family
breakdown-in the lives of thousands of delinquents.” to make
his argument even more meaningful.
7. The form of diction which Pollit exhibits in her
essay /article, displays of lots of humor and sarcasm
towards those who agree with the viewpoints of her
thoughts. She brings out political issues which support
her views as well for those opposed to her thoughts.
Colson on the other hand seems to have a very direct
and aggressive tone supporting religion. His view points
fall toward those who also believe in the acts of god and
religion to those who are gay or lesbian.
8. The way writers use diction can tell you a lot about who
they are writing to, the form they are writing in and their
personal feelings. In Pollitt’s article she uses careful word
usage to convey to her audience that she is looking for “real”
arguments as to why gay marriage is wrong. She begins by
asking if someone “ explain to [her] how permitting gays and
lesbians to marry threatens the institution of marriage?” If you
pay attention to the words she picks you can tell she is speaking
to those who already believe that she is right. Colson’s purpose
is very different then Pollitt and it’s very clear in his use of
diction. Colson goes so far as to titles it Gay “Marriage”:
Societal Suicide instead of possibly titling his paper Why Gay
Marriage is wrong.You can tell by the quotations around
“Marriage” that he doesn’t even consider their legal marriage
as marriage. His professional use of words helps us to tell that
he is speaking to those who agree with him but might also be
directed at those who have said that they don’t have an
opinion or just don’t care. He published his article in
Christianity Today which shows that he is targeting those who
are very religious because in his article he talks about religious
aspects to this topic.
9. The purpose that Pollitt wants people to
understand is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with
gay marriage and they should go through with permitting
the law. She also says that people who think gay
marriage is threatening should have no say in if the law is
permitted or not. Pollitt also gives a clear understanding
to her audience by stating that the constitutional law will
not harm society in any way and that the gay men will
affect the “improvement theory”. Colson’s purpose is not
going against Pollitt’s but he is saying that if the nation
permits gay marriage then it will destroy traditions and
family religions. His audience would be people who are
voting for gay marriage law and whether it should be
permitted or not, and this is why he gives reasons and
examples on why it shouldn’t be permitted. These two
authors use the language they use so they grab the
attention of the person reading the article and express
how they feel about what’s going on with gay marriage.
Also to inform the reader this is a serious matter going
on in our nation and that we need to take action as soon
as possible.
********************************
In regards to the contentious issue of same-sex marriages, there
are only two sides: for or against. Should homosexual couples be
afforded the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples? What
would happen if the United States enacted law to approve all same-sex
marriages? Would the world and it's inhabitants, along with it's
diversified culture, disappear and cease to exist? Or would changing the
definition of marriage to include two men or two women simply do
nothing but give those groups their very freedom to choose? At the
core of it, this is what authors Katha Pollitt and Charles Colson debate
in their essays “What's Wrong with Gay Marriage?” and “Gay
'Marriage': Societal Suicide,” respectively.
In Pollitt's essay, “What's Wrong with Gay Marriage?”, she makes
the claim for approving same-sex marriages. By defining marriage in
terms of what other countries view as acceptable, be that arranged,
child or forced marriage, Pollitt successfully engages the reader in
questioning why gay marriage is so polemic when the rest of the world
is actively involved in much more egregious wedlock violations. Pollitt
also contends that separation of Church and State, or importantly lack
thereof, damns the institution of marriage wholly by making it “not
about what God blesses [but what] the government permits.”
Charles Colson's essay titled “Gay 'Marriage': Societal Suicide”
attempts to lay the moral foundation for anti-gay-marriage using
religion as its mortar. In this essay, Colson endeavors, albeit poorly, to
tell the reader that without the “proper” family of a married Mother
and Father that the offspring will not live in an environment conducive
to acceptable mental growth. This, as he points out through the use of
unsubstantiated statistics, can and often will lead to increased crime
rate and out-of-wedlock child birthing. Colson goes on to imply that the
institution of marriage exists solely for purposes of procreation and
that those of whom who cannot procreate (e.g. homosexual couples)
have no right being able to marry. If only he had given some thought to
impotent or infertile couples, he might not have been so quick to jump
the gun on that statement.
While both authors are correct in their own rights, it inevitably is
left to the reader to decide what stance they take. Yet, even being
uninformed or impartial to the issue at hand, a stronger argument is
clearly made in Pollitt's essay. If for nothing else than the fact that
Colson relies heavily on facts that were not sourced and also his
religious bias. Whereas Pollitt takes a more constructed approach,
using argument and counter-arguement to reinforce the facts that are
presented