Questions Uploads

discussion board,

/in /by

In a discussion board, discuss the steps you plan on taking to revise your critical analysis essay. Use the reading from earlier in this module as guidance.

When discussing these steps, be sure to point to specific areas of your draft that you plan on revising based on your reverse outline as well as instructor feedback, and explain how you will approach that process this week.

Before you begin writing, please review the assignment rubric (click here) to make sure you fulfill all of the required tasks in your response. You can also download/print the rubric by clicking here.

Your initial post should be three fully developed paragraphs (5-8 sentences each).

 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"

Persuasive Essay

/in /by

31 arguments against gay marriage (and why they’re all wrong)

In rallying in opposition to marriage reform, religious campaigners claim that their arguments are grounded in reason and common sense. But take a closer look and you’ll spot the homophobia, says Jason Wakefield

–   By Jason Wakefield   – Friday, 16th November 2012

I am a gay man who, when arguing for gay marriage, has been called “lesser”, “unnatural”, “deviant” and “sinful”. In these arguments the love I have for my fiancé has been belittled as just “sex” or only “friendship”. I have been told my natural urges are a choice. I have been told I do not deserve equal rights. I have even been told I am going to hell. Furthermore, I have been told it is offensive to brand such remarks “bigoted”, and that I am the bully.

I do not believe all opponents of gay marriage are hateful. Some have just not been exposed to the right arguments, and so I will demonstrate here that each anti-gay marriage argument ultimately serves to oppress or imply the lesser status of the minority of which I am a part. In rallying against the introduction of equal marriage, religious campaigners have frequently stressed that their objections are not driven by homophobia, and have deployed numerous arguments to demonstrate this. To the untrained ear these arguments sound like they may have grounding in reason, but on closer inspection reveal themselves as homophobic.

What follows is a handy guide to spotting, and refuting, these arguments

Type A: The Insidiously Homophobic Arguments

1. “We need to protect marriage.”

The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.

2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”

Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.

3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”

The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.

4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”

This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.

5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”

This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.

6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”

Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.

7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”

The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.

May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?

8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”

No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.

The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.

Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.

9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”

Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.

10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”

Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.

Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?

11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”

A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.

The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.

Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.

12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”

For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.

13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”

To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.

14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”

Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.

15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”

Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.

Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their Homophobia

While we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.

16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”

There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.

17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”

If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”

This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point – straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?

19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”

Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.

Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments

20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

Clearly not a Biology graduate.

21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”

Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.

22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”

The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.

People actually use this argument.

23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”

If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.

24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”

Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.

25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”

This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.

26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”

Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”

Person B: “That sounds nice.”

Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”

Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”

27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”

Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!

28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”

The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.

29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”

The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.

The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.

30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”

Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.

31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”

Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?

Conclusion

In an attempt to portray his campaign to “preserve traditional marriage” as reasoned and unprejudiced, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has argued that supporters of gay marriage shouldn’t resort to name-calling and accusations of bigotry. But then he is a homophobe and a bigot. There is not a single one of his arguments that does not imply the lesser state of homosexuals, or serve to justify the discrimination.

In fact the recent government proposals are only for the legalisation of civil same-sex marriage, and do not allow for ceremonies to be conducted on religious sites. It is an entirely secular proposal, yet Carey and various churches and church-goers are keen to make the civil rights of homosexuals their business. Given centuries of religious persecution of gay people it is entirely justified to call Lord Carey, the Coalition for Marriage, Christian Concern, and all other proactive opponents of gay marriage “bigots” and their arguments homophobic.

AGAINST Gay Marriage FOR Gay Marriage
1. MARRIAGE IS FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN Critics argue that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, and to change that would go against natural law and risk undermining both the institution of marriage and the family’s role in holding society together. Legalization denies marriage’s central role as a step towards procreation. There are civil partnerships available for gays, but marriage is a step too far. In the French context, the changes in the law will remove the terms “mother and father” from the civil code weakening the rights of heterosexual families. 1. EQUALITY Proponents argue that equal rights must mean equal rights. A civilized society does not discriminate on grounds of race, religion, sex or sexuality and denial of marriage rights is clear discrimination. Gay and heterosexual couples both deserve the legal rights associated with marriage – on taxes, property ownership, inheritance or adoption. No matter how you try to dress it up, denying equal rights to gays and lesbians is homophobia.
2. UNDERMINING RELIGION Gay marriage runs fundamentally counter to many people’s religious views. To legalize it would offend deeply held beliefs and further erode the key role religion plays as a moral bedrock in society. Christian, Jewish and Islamic leaders have all spoken out against gay marriage and point out that it runs counter to sacred writings. 2. MARRIAGE WORKS, SO LET EVERYBODY HAVE IT Marriage is a successful institution and it makes sense to open it to as many people as possible. Since the beginning of history, couples have sought to seal their love and solemnly bind themselves together through marriage. Opening that bond to all will strengthen society. Legalization recognizes reality: there are gay people, they love each other and they want to commit to each other through marriage in the same way as straight couples.
3. ALL RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS It makes no sense to talk about equal rights in this context. If that were the case, polygamous or incestuous marriages would have to be legalized too. There are always limits to rights. Legalization would be another step towards the mainstreaming of homosexuality in society. Nobody is stopping gay people from loving each other or staying in relationships, but that does not mean they can marry. 3. FREEDOM OF CHOICE The state should have no say on how consenting adults conduct their lives. If two people love each other and want to get married they should be allowed to do so regardless of the colour, religion, nationality or sex of their partner. Love and marriage should be a purely personal choice. When governments interfere in the private lives of people, dictating who can marry who, individual freedoms are compromised with potentially dangerous implications.
 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"

Persuasive Essay

/in /by

Sunday’s print column

I’ve been informally debating opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage for nearly 20 years and have a pretty good handle on their most frequently employed arguments. Today I helpfully list them and explain why none passes the test to which we would ordinarily put a prohibition.

Gay marriage violates tradition.

Yes, most cultures have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for hundreds if not thousands of years. But tradition is a mixed bag. It includes slavery and grotesque exploitation of workers, or course, the denial of rights to women and the execution of those who committed thought and property crimes.

Traditionally, we treated illnesses with ineffective or dangerous mumbo jumbo, cast aside the disabled and righteously persecuted those with differing religious views.

Integrating a society and expanding human rights has always shattered tradition, and we have consistently been better off for it.

Gay couples can’t produce children.

Marriage is a reflection of the biological necessity of a one-to-one heterosexual union for procreation, true enough, and it provides a legal framework that strengthens that union for the benefit of all.

But that’s not all marriage is, by any means, which is why the law generally allows prisoners to marry even when they’re likely never to be released, has no bar against elderly couples getting married , imposes no fertility requirements on prospective marriage partners and considers long-term childless marriages equal to others.

Further, lesbian couples often get pregnant (with outside help, admittedly, but many heterosexual couples get outside help as well) and their families could benefit as well from the legal framework of marriage.

Having a mom and a dad is better for children than having two moms or two dads.

I had an impassioned email argument on just this point last week with an old friend who otherwise supports full equal rights for gays and lesbians.

 “My intuitive sense and common sense tells me there are benefits to heterosexual two-parent situations,” he wrote. “Legions of people with years of parenting wisdom think there is a difference between two dads or moms, and one of each. The burden of proof is on those who want to set aside the widely accepted norm.”

First, no, when it comes to denying a basic right to a class of people, the burden of proof falls on those who rely on intuition and common sense – which, I’m just sayin’, happen to be the support pillars of all forms of bigotry – rather than evidence.

Benefits? Harms? Quantify them or stand down.

Making that case won’t be easy. Studies show little developmental or social difference between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by homosexual parents. In fact on 2010 study in the journal Pediatrics found that children of lesbians scored better in such areas as self esteem, behavior and academic peformance than children of straight parents.

Second, even if we concede for the sake of discussion that a stable, loving male-female couple is the gold standard for parenting, it’s otherwise offensive to deny those who fall short of the gold standard the right to marry.


For instance, even if data-mining researchers could demonstrate a strong probability that cetain pairings would produce suboptimal parents — couples without high school diplomas, say, or couples with a 30-year gap in their ages or couples with three or more divorces between them — we would never think of denying such couples marriage licenses.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will put us on the slippery slope toward legalizing polygamy.

The practical and philosophical arguments pro and con for multiple-partner marriages (hey, you want to talk about tradition!) are largely distinct from the arguments pro and con about marriage equality. Historians find, for instance, that it destabilizes a society when some men take many wives and leave large numbers of other men without the opportunity to mate.

Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally alter the basic idea of two people agreeing to unite for life and taking on the responsibilities and privileges of that agreement.

Proposals to legalize multiple-partner marriages, should they ever seriously arise in the legislatures and the courts, would be considered separately from laws regarding single-partner marriages, just as the law now considers alcohol separately from crack cocaine, and hasn’t slid helplessly down the slope to legalize them both.

Same-sex marriage trivializes and therefore weakens the institution of heterosexual marriage.

I almost didn’t include this argument on the list because it’s faded so dramatically in recent years as country after country, state after state has allowed gays and lesbians to marry with no measurable detriment to straight marriage or conventional families.

If anything, philosophically, the fervor with which same-sex couples demand to be granted the dignity and respect of legal marriage underscores the value of marriage and ought to remind us straight couples not to take it lightly or for granted.

Homosexual behavior is immoral and ought not be encouraged.

I will not debate the morality of various forms of private sexual conduct between consenting adults and neither should our lawmakers.

To me, immoral conduct is that which harms others, period. To you or your religious tradition, it may encompass much more, and that’s fine. Advocates aren’t asking you or your officiants to bless gay marriage, celebrate it or even, in your heart, to like it. They’re asking you to recognize the line America tries to maintain between personal morality and the judgment of the law; between what’s your business and what’s none of your business.

Homosexual conduct itself has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in 2003. And if anything, encouraging same-sex couples to commit to one another for life will decrease promiscuous behavior among gay people, should that be of particular concern.

—

The correspondence between me and my old friend to which I alluded above ended genially, but it generated yet another lengthy and heated debate in the comment thread that didn’t end so well. Toward the bottom, one of my long-time sparring partners on the blog said he was hurt and angry by how warmly I’d objected to his views (I called them churlish and tedious).

“People like me have to accept an extraordinarily redefinition of marriage,” he wrote, “and must accept that we are not only tedious and churlish but quite possibly there lurks within us some sort of unspeakable bigotry or indeed evil if we do not submit to this agenda in its entirety?”

He went on, “The gay rights movement has done an outstanding job of propaganda in comparing itself to the civil rights movement. That comparison is a deep insult to the fight for black civil rights in this country, unless you can point out a heterosexual segregated lunch counter or school, which you can’t.”

My answer was not much of an olive branch:

Gay people have been treated horribly in our society and most other societies for, well, forever. They have been marginalized, ostracized and abused, and unlike others who have suffered such fates, many of them have not even been able to seek solace and take comfort with members of their own families.

Heterosexuals-only lunch counters? Are you joking? For most of history, every place gay people went was presumptively heterosexuals only. Every school, every arena, every workplace…. and to “integrate” them was to risk not just banishment, but assault.

I consider this a deep, deep moral wrong — a stain on our culture, a shameful and very long chapter in our history. And I truly think it’s the least — the very least — we can do now to grant gay people equal rights and opportunities; legal respect. Even those who find their private consenting sexual behavior repellent to contemplate, offensive to the natural order and scripturally forbidden must, I believe, find the common decency within to afford them these minimum rights. Particularly given that such a concession comes at no cost to themselves

And I confess to but don’t apologize for expressing this view with great vehemence and for exhibiting so little patience with the idea that due to inchoate and unproven fears, religious dictates and aesthetic concerns we ought to continue for one more day to treat gay people and gay couples as second-class under the law.

I’m impatient only with those I respect and from whom I truly do expect better.

Posted at 10:23:59 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks for putting out this article, these are some really effective and thorough counterarguments and reflect my own past thoughts and arguments on the issue. My only point of contention regards multiple-partner marriage – although polygamy may lead to a depletion of female partners, there would be no such effect in symmetric multiple-partner marriage where both males and females have the option to marry multiple people, which is what the polyamory movement has sought. However I recognize that at the moment it’s more important to focus on the civil rights that are short-term attainable and enjoy wide public support.

Posted by: Derrick Coetzee | Saturday, May 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM

That feeling your sparring partner is bemoaning is called cognitive dissonance.

I know it well. I support equalizing the rights of hetero- and homosexuals to form unions recognized by government and supported by law. (In other words, call it marriage and extend it to all or get the government out of the “marriage” business and make something called a “civil union” the legal accompaniment to a religious marriage, I don’t care, just apply it equally to all.)

And yet, when a scene flashed on TV the other night of two men kissing passionately, I turned away instinctively.

How can I reconcile these two things? It gets worse.

Worse, in the sense that it’s not a simple matter of rational vs. emotional response. Because I also have an emotional response — a positive one — toward my gay friends and colleagues who are lucky enough to find loving partners. And, yes, to have children and form families.

That’s cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, my brain sends negative signals about clear public displays of homosexuality; on the other, it sends positive signals about the love I see between two gay men or gay women. (For that matter, it sends negative signals about many of those who argue against gay marriage.)

When confronted with cognitive dissonance, that thing in our minds which we call consciousness automatically seeks a way to eliminate it. In a metaphorical sense, it seeks a compromise that allows it to reconcile the conflicting signals.

Thus, weird phenomena like stroke patients who, no longer getting signals from their left side, insist that the arm lying alongside them belongs to someone else.

And thus, people like your friend who support equal rights for homosexuals but make a final shy at adoption, and justify it because they “know” heterosexuals make better parents. Or your sparring partner in the comments, who cannot contemplate changing his opinion because to do so would force him to acknowledge that he harbored prejudice.

Me? Maybe I’m a bit more comfortable with dissonance. Maybe it’s because I saw my father overcome his prejudice against African-Americans on an individual basis, but somehow still retain it as a general principle, and that makes it easier for me to see and reject the symptoms in myself. Maybe it’s because I recognize the direction of change within myself — my mind and body used to have a much lower threshhold for displays of homosexual affection.

But it sounds as if you, Eric, are not troubled by cognitive dissonance on this issue. In which case, it may be harder for you to understand what your more thoughtful opponents are going through. You argue, for instance, that this form of discrimination against homosexual couples is a deep moral wrong — and this, you say, is reason enough for everyone to oppose it even if they find homosexuality itself “repellent to contemplate, offensive to the natural order and scripturally forbidden.”

The only way that statement makes sense is if one thinks that the sum of “repellent … offensive … and forbidden” doesn’t come close to equaling “morally wrong.”

I’m pretty sure that for a lot of your thoughtful opponents, their sense of morality is based in large part precisely on what feels repellent and offensive, and what is scripturally forbidden. We know you don’t work on scriptures, and maybe you’ve worked out a moral sense that ignores your gut feelings and works solely on equations of logic. But more likely, I think, you simply don’t have those feelings of repulsion and offensiveness about homosexual actions, or do so to a far lower extent than your opponents.

And thus, to you, there is little or no cognitive dissonance. Your moral sense is triggered only by the act of discrimination; it’s a slam dunk.

ZORN REPLY — A lot of things may gross me out or cause me to turn away, but that doesn’t mean I should impose that on everyone or strive to make or keep them illegal. And the line between moral judgment and legal judgment is a key one to preserve.

 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"

Persuasive Essay

/in /by

You are working on the rough draft of your paper this week.  Your book guides you through the creation of a rough draft with an exercise.  Your paper should be set up as a paper, however, and not as answers to those questions provided in your book.  In other words, your paper should be submitted and be formatted as any formal paper.  It should have required APA formatting, an introduction with your thesis statement, body paragraphs, an acknowledgement of the counterargument, and a conclusion paragraph.  Additionally, it should have fully formatted in text citation and a works cited/references page.  Your final paper is required to be 5-7 pages, so I would try and get as close to that 5 page minimum as you can.  The more work you put into your paper this week, the more comments I can make for its improvement before the final draft.  I look forward to reading them! 

I also thought this would be a good time to discuss how to make sure your paper is cohesive from start to finish. 

Papers have two levels of unity: External and Internal

External unity is when all your paragraphs relate back to your thesis statement.  This basically demonstrates that you have stayed on topic throughout your entire paper.  Every paragraph should relate back to your overall argument….Example Thesis: Common Core Standards in primary education are a deterrent to student learning because they encourage rote memorization, discourage creativity and kinesthetic lessons, and because they reduce student achievement to scores on standardized tests

. 

My body paragraphs would all then relate back to proving my statement.  I would want each paragraph to demonstrate how common core standards do each of those things asserted. 

Internal Unity is when all the sentences in a paragraph relate back to that paragraph’s own topic sentence. 

A topic sentence is the first sentence in a paragraph which states what that paragraph will be about.  I like to think of paragraphs as having the same basic structure as a paper as a whole.

They should look like this:

Topic Sentence

Supporting Sentences

Conclusion/Transition Sentence that rounds up that paragraph and leads to the next. 

This is very similar to the overall structure of a paper:

Thesis statement/introduction

Supporting Body Paragraphs

Conclusion Paragraph

I even like to call the topic sentence the “baby thesis statement.”

To check for internal paragraph unity, read each paragraph on its own, isolated from the rest of the paper.  Do each of the sentences in the paragraph relate to the main idea of that paragraph?  If not, revise/remove. 

Here is a link to an external website that has some topic sentence practice/description.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/2/1/29/
 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"