Decoo's Summary

“Although sharply divided, public attitudes toward gays and lesbians are rapidly changing to reflect greater acceptance, with younger generations leading the way” (NORC University of Chicago, 2010, p. 1). This push for international acceptance of the LGBT people could not come any sooner. Lesbians, gays, bisexuals as well as transgender individuals from around the world have almost all experienced some sort of discrimination in their lives. This is why there is such a gap between heterosexual and LGBT people. There are hundreds, if not more, reasons for why some people will not accept LGBT individuals and couples, whether it is religion, family values or simply the fact that some people find LGBT people unnatural. This is why the common sufferings

Burro Genius is story about the life of Victor Villasenor showing how he overcame racism at school and his difficulties in reading to become a famous writer.

After many years of neglect by the British, the colonists’ lives soon drastically changed. The British became more involved in the colonies and established unreasonable regulations. Influences by many events, the American colonists knew they had to take action against the British and fight for their independence. The Americans were justified in waging war and breaking away from Britain because of unfair taxes, the social and economic life was harmed, the violation of inalienable rights by the British, and the colonists were not represented in government and treated as citizens.

Katha Pollitt’s, “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage,” is an article about why Gay Marriage should be accepted without question. Pollitt views what “social conservatives” (530) have to say about marriage, and how their belief that marriage is all about procreation isn’t persuasive to those outside of the “right-wing think tank, Catholic marriage tribunal, or ultra-Orthodox rabbi court.” (Pollitt 530). Pollitt tells her readers to scratch procreation and then examines the theory that, “marriage is the way women domesticate men.” Continuing with well known right-winger George Gilder’s theory, she uses his statistical support that married men are much less likely than single men to take drugs, steal a car, murder someone, etc against

The essay written by Katha Pollitt, titled, “What’s wrong with gay marriage” is an intriguing one. At first, the author, explains the notion that marriage and procreation do not necessarily go hand-in- hand. And later, she carefully interprets the true meaning of marriage; by stating that there is a separation of church and state. Most importantly, the author speaks to her audience in a clear and logical manner; without adding personal biases. Although the essay may seem to have deterministic view on social behavior. Nonetheless, I believe that does not disqualify the series of argument which she makes.

“Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person’s core identity, and goes right to the very center of his being. It’s like being black in s society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black Asians” (Tamara L. Roleff). Although marriage, cohabitation and parenting styles of homosexual families pose no threats to the heterosexual society; many still believe same-sex marriage goes against its true purpose. “At the national level, American public opinion on the issue remains split (44 percent support legalizing same-sex marriage; 53 percent oppose same-sex marriage in a May 2010 Gallup Poll) even as opposition toward legalizing same-sex marriage is at its lowest point in decades

In his paper “Against Gay Marriage”, William J. Bennett uses quotes from a multitude of sources to support the argument that he is making, such as when he is commenting on the effects of the recent Hawaii Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. Bennett uses outside evidence to support major points such as his opposition to schools accepting homosexuals and teaching that homosexuality is equal. While most prolific in the second half of the argument, William J. Bennett uses both minor quotes and more important quotations of outside evidence to support his argument; however, Bennet does so in an unskilled manner. In several circumstances he uses uncited evidence from unnamed people, and he also quotes minor words with an unknown motive for doing so. The unclear motive for quoting minor words could be considered

In the article “Same-sex marriage protects Families and Children in Many Way” the author points out that “Parenting by same-gender couples is an established and growing part of the diverse structure of families in the United states.” (same-sex, 2015). Therefore embracing Americans diversity and promoting differences have lead to same-sex marriage being permitted and eventually accepted. Promoting same-sex marriage will financially support couples because it will allow both parties to put both names on title to a home, etc. In previous studies, 34.3% of lesbian couples and 22.3% of gay couples are raising children nationwide. Researches have proven that children who grow up up with married parents benefit that the relationship is recognized by the law. Arguing that being a good parent is not based of whom each other love, but on how on is treated and cared for. Also proven in studies shows that married couples have higher levels of happiness and less sickness than those who are unmarried. By promotion of same-sex marriage finacial support will increase, children will grow, and same-sex marriages will live happily and

199). Several of her premises argue that not allowing lovers of the same-sex to join in matrimony restricts them from receiving all of the great benefits that go along with it. Not only does this affect the lovers, but it also largely affects the children of the family. “The fact remains that marital children reap a measure of family stability and economic security based on their parents’ legally privileged status that is largely inaccessible, or not as readily accessible, to non-marital children” (Boss, 2014, p. 199). This seems to be a huge aspect to this argument, as children are the future of our world. Both of these premises are strong and support Marshall’s conclusion in a very honorable

Common views on homosexuality and how it affects a person’s wealth/income is divided into two wholly contrasting opinions. Homosexuals are either seen as impoverished and suffer as a result of their open sexual orientation in a country that is largely Christian influenced and looks down upon them, or they are seen to be slowly becoming advantaged as a result of a growing liberal and LGBT & Feminist sentiments among the younger generations of Americans. With this, common perception of homosexuals and how they fair economically is split in two wholly different parts, and yet both sides are right if at different points in time. With four sources using both unique sources of their own and sharing certain studies to develop educated conclusions, it can be seen that within a period of a year homosexual economic status can somehow go from being called advantaged to suffering from an unfair wage gap and back again. How and why? That would require both examining the article’s conclusions and their sources as follows.

“The case for same-sex marriage” is a protest against the lack of legislation protecting same-sex couples or allowing them to marry. Evidence can be found in her craft decisions. As the main component of her argument, she uses a personal anecdote about her experience when a man stopped her in the street to ask if she was going to vote “yes” on the bill. She discusses that his main argument was that allowing same-sex marriage would change the definition of marriage. However, Savino responds with the fact that the institution of marriage is largely flawed in America, as even strangers can travel to a courthouse and marry. By addressing the opposing argument, Savino makes her protest very substantial. Her personal word choice, as well as specifically naming couples that depend on the passing of the bill, make the speech more moving as well. Overall, she made strong craft decisions that support the protest for marriage equality for the LGBT

It showed that ninety-five percent of Disaffected Democrats believe that business corporations make too much profit while only fifty nine percent of the general public believe that. Eighty-two percent of Disaffected Democrats believe that there are still significant obstacles that make it harder for women to get ahead than men and only fifty-five percent of society believe that. I also answered that Homosexuality should be accepted by society and the study showed that seventy-nine percent of Disaffected Democrats believe this was and seventy percent of society. I think this is a great number from where we probably would’ve been only five years ago. Society is accepting change for Homosexuality, but you will always have that small percentage who will never accept that. It is okay for the people who don’t accept it, because in society you have your own beliefs and customs and it is hard to accept

He then ties his introduction back into the writing by again inferring that future generations of Americans will feel the most profound effects. Furthermore, he made a sub-claim that supports his argument by contending that gay men would undoubtedly be more adulterous and prone to divorce, which would, in turn, hurt divorce's institution. He then supports his claim with evidence from Swedish gay marriage statistics that show divorce rates since the legalization of gay marriage have jumped well over 100 percent.

For this motive, people see the same-sex marriage crusade much more than just spreading the organization of marriage to include homosexuals, also about the termination old age, unsupported biases to homosexuals. Being brought up from this opinion, talk against same-sex marriage could be turned down as a try to justify what really an innate and a lifeless belief to a specific demography. To put a stop to bigotry it is talked that we must open up our mindset to schemes of thoughts that were once never allowed, for example

On the other hand, in “Support for Homosexuals’ Civil Liberties”, the author states “traditional gender role attitudes and support for homosexuals’ civil liberties are found to negatively co-vary over time.” Religious attitudes differ in both their approaches to the roles of men and women in family settings and their approach towards homosexuality. The author explains that typical household is a male, who