Summary:      The article, “Same-Sex Marriage Wins by Losing”, was published July 30, 2006, by Dan Savage to the New York Times.  “Basically, the point of the article is that both courts found that marriage is like a box of Trix: It’s for kids.”(Savage, Paragraph5)  This means that for our human race to continue, marriage must be between one man and one woman.  We must simply produce offspring.  “The binary biological nature of marriage, “only opposite sex couples are capable of “responsible child rearing.”(Savage, Paragraph 8)  “Children tend to thrive in families consisting of their biological mother and father.”(Savage, Paragraph7) It is the same way with the parents and their biological children.

Commentary:     I agree that marriage is like Trix: It’s for kids.  A child will benefit more from having one father and one mother in a household.  In the Bible, God says marriage is between one man and one woman.  The continuation of humanity will only be successful if opposite-sex couples have children.  We were made from God’s own image and He intended on us following His word. 

Evaluation:     One of the most credible sources is the New York Times.  Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle Newsweekly.  I detected some fallacies.  Unless a study has been conducted, how would they know that only opposite-sex couples are capable of responsible child rearing?  Also, are children actually better off with their biological mother and father?  The author is using logos, which is an appeal to logic, to persuade readers.

Savage, Dan. “Same-Sex Marriage Wins by Losing.” Editorial. The New York Times 30 July 2006: 1-4.

Summary:  The outhor of “Gay Marriage Overreaction”, wishes to remain anonymous;  however the point of the article is very clear.  In the American system, the constitution shouldn’t be changed to reverse a single judge in Nebraska.  They shouldn’t try to nationalize the situation just because it didn’t work out for that state.  “When a federal court int Nebraska struck down the state’s constitutional ban on recognition of gay relationships, opponents of same-sex marriage claimed vindication for their noxious proposal to define marriage in the U. S. constitution.  The decision makes clear that Congress must pass, and the people of this country must ratify, an amendment to the U. S. constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.”  Family Research Council President Tony Perkins stated.  (”Gay marriage” paragraph 1)  “Last year,  Congress debated the federal marriage amendment.  The opponents claimed that no state laws were threatened, but after today’s ruling they can no longer make that claim,” says R. Tex. 

Commentary:  I would have to say that I disagree with gay marriage.  I also think that the opposing side in Nebraska should express their opionions, but not take it to the national level.  There is a chance it could backfire and same-sex marriage could be made legal, which is not a good outcome.  Should they risk it being legalized by taking it to the higher courts or should it be the state’s decision?

Evaluation:  The Washington Post is trustworthy because many people use it to do research.  This shows that it is a credible source.  The people of Nebraska are overreacting about the situtaion, which tells you that the author is using pathos to persuade the readers.  I did not detect any fallacies.

Same-sex Marriage

Summary: David B. Rivkin Jr, and Lee A. Casey, authors of the article Conseratives Keep Gay Marriage Out of the Courts, belive Americans should leave the marriage ammendments to the states and stop arguing over it.  The decisions made by the state legislation would be in the best ritual of the American federalism or the federal principle of the government in which the power is divided between the constiuent political units and central authority.  “Marriage is critically important to individuals on both sides of the issue and to society.  But at least since independence, the question regarding who may marry has been the province of the state legislatures.”  “The importance of marriage is no more crucial tha many other issues of individual autonomy and morality that have also historically been decided by the legislatures;  for example, adoption and child-welfare.”

Commentary:  I agree with the authors’ opinions’ that the decision of same-sex marriage should be left up to the state legislature instead of taking it to the higher courts.  By taking it to the higher courts, it could possibly backfire in their faces and make it legal for all states to marry gay couples.  I disagree with same-sex marriage.  The best option would be for the state to decide whether or not it is legal or illegal.

Evaluation:  The New York Times is a very reliable and credited source .  Rivkin and Casey are knowledgable on their views and appear to be infamous.  They are also skilled at using pathos and logos as an attention getter to their many readers.

Welcome to Learnerblogs.org. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!