Trying to bring an edge to my writing
Oct. 12th, 2004 02:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greybetaI'm starting to believe that I'm too nice to be an opinion writer...I can't choose a side for very long and I digress way too much.
Forgive me for lapsing into first person on this one. I couldn't help myself. I will have plenty of time to change this article accordingly to my criticism.
I know, I should google more stuff to check my facts but I'm a bit behind on some other stuff right now. In regards to SQ711, I live in Oklahoma.
Flames are welcome.
In defense of marriage
Daniel Tu
State Question 711 preserves the sanctity of marriage against the left wing social revolution. Adding Section 35 to Article 2, SQ711 defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. Other states’ same-sex marriages become invalid in Oklahoma, and people who are not married cannot receive the benefits of marriage. It also makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.
What do those who oppose SQ711 say? There is no need to explicitly define marriage. I wish I could agree with them, but I cannot when a fundamental part of humanity is being taken for granted. Jesus Christ said in Mark 10:6-9, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” There’s a balance to nature that we must choose to maintain.
Notably, the Chinese believe in the philosophy of the yin and the yang. The yin is dark, cold, and female. The yang is light, hot, and male. So the yin and the yang oppose each other to keep the world in equilibrium. Pairing yin with yin or yang with yang upsets this delicate balance, yet homosexuality promotes doing just that. Don’t get me wrong, I do not advocate hate crimes against gays or lesbians. Rather, I see homosexuality as a perversion of nature.
Once we accept same-sex marriages, must we not also accept teaching same-sex marriages as normal? Look at our current culture. Coming out stories fill television shows and Internet ads. Biology claims that homosexuals are naturally inclined to be attracted to people of the same sex rather than of the opposite sex. We should accept people for who they are. The way somebody chooses his or her significant other is a personal decision that should be respected. We shouldn’t outlaw homosexuality because that would disregard America’s passion for equality.
People are people. If pricked, we all bleed. If the homosexual community is adamant on getting the same rights given to married couples, then they should work on getting civil unions. As I understand it, when one half of a same-sex couple gets hurt in a car wreck, the hospital denies visiting rights to his or her significant other. Civil unions could give them these kinds of rights without overstepping the bounds of marriage.
Conservatives preserve the status quo, so they will defend the traditions that have built our society. Marriage is the union between one man and one woman, so same-sex marriages should be banned. That’s the way it’s always been taught and always should be taught. In order to protect our sacred traditions, vote yes for State Question 711.
Forgive me for lapsing into first person on this one. I couldn't help myself. I will have plenty of time to change this article accordingly to my criticism.
I know, I should google more stuff to check my facts but I'm a bit behind on some other stuff right now. In regards to SQ711, I live in Oklahoma.
Flames are welcome.
In defense of marriage
Daniel Tu
State Question 711 preserves the sanctity of marriage against the left wing social revolution. Adding Section 35 to Article 2, SQ711 defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. Other states’ same-sex marriages become invalid in Oklahoma, and people who are not married cannot receive the benefits of marriage. It also makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.
What do those who oppose SQ711 say? There is no need to explicitly define marriage. I wish I could agree with them, but I cannot when a fundamental part of humanity is being taken for granted. Jesus Christ said in Mark 10:6-9, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” There’s a balance to nature that we must choose to maintain.
Notably, the Chinese believe in the philosophy of the yin and the yang. The yin is dark, cold, and female. The yang is light, hot, and male. So the yin and the yang oppose each other to keep the world in equilibrium. Pairing yin with yin or yang with yang upsets this delicate balance, yet homosexuality promotes doing just that. Don’t get me wrong, I do not advocate hate crimes against gays or lesbians. Rather, I see homosexuality as a perversion of nature.
Once we accept same-sex marriages, must we not also accept teaching same-sex marriages as normal? Look at our current culture. Coming out stories fill television shows and Internet ads. Biology claims that homosexuals are naturally inclined to be attracted to people of the same sex rather than of the opposite sex. We should accept people for who they are. The way somebody chooses his or her significant other is a personal decision that should be respected. We shouldn’t outlaw homosexuality because that would disregard America’s passion for equality.
People are people. If pricked, we all bleed. If the homosexual community is adamant on getting the same rights given to married couples, then they should work on getting civil unions. As I understand it, when one half of a same-sex couple gets hurt in a car wreck, the hospital denies visiting rights to his or her significant other. Civil unions could give them these kinds of rights without overstepping the bounds of marriage.
Conservatives preserve the status quo, so they will defend the traditions that have built our society. Marriage is the union between one man and one woman, so same-sex marriages should be banned. That’s the way it’s always been taught and always should be taught. In order to protect our sacred traditions, vote yes for State Question 711.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 02:33 am (UTC)Using a theological basis for your argument is only going to give your argument strength with people who already believe as you do. That's a somewhat less than compelling argument. In fact, it really isn't an argument, because it has no weight at all with people who disagree with you. It is more a statement of position.
Assume your audience is predisposed to reject any biblical prohibition.
Assume your audience is predisposed to reject eastern mysticism.
Now, why is homosexual marriage dangerous to society?
If you cannot write from that position, you are almost literally preaching to the choir.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 11:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 12:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 01:41 pm (UTC)People of power and celebrity can sway people to consider their opinion merely on the strength of their name.
The rest of us have to rely on the strength and clear and compelling expression of our reasoning.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 01:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 02:37 pm (UTC)But the point of the article, as revealed by the closing statement, is to influence people to vote a specific way. In fact, that vote is the place for
Winning the minds of others requires a compelling argument that will win over the undecided, and possibly even convert those of an opposing view.
The goal is the thing here, and so far as I can tell the goal is to influence people.
Also, you may well not be aware, so maybe this will illuminate the situation some. When greybeta and I first made contact, he was clear that he was following my journal because of some of my more thoughtfully written pieces. He expressed that he was trying to tighten up and improve his own writing. I'm not trying to be harsh on him or tear down his efforts. I am more fulfilling the "terms" of our friendship by offering him advice/perspectives that he should address if he is to become the formidable writer I think he is capable of being.
I don't think I am a great writer, but I think I write well when I put my mind to it. He's going to be a far better writer than I am, but as long as I can offer assistance, I will.
I hope that perspective helps me seem like less of an intrusive jerk. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 03:57 pm (UTC)