I returned home from a lovely vacation in Germany to find the following comment from “Ashley” awaiting me in my Inbox:
“I was searching around for information about the issues concerning same sex marriages for my speech class [and] I decided to write my speech on why homosexual marriages should not be legal … I just want to say that I am truely [sic] praying for you and I hope that God will have mercy on you … Know that if you love the same sex (as a wife or as a husband) know your love is in vain.”
Note: The complete text of Ashley’s comment is available on this page.
First and foremost: Ashley, thanks for stopping by MadeByMark.com and for taking the time to leave a comment.
I am glad to learn of your enrollment in a speech class, Ashley, where you may soon (unless you’re stuck in a fundamentalist church school somewhere) learn the difference in an argument and an unsupported assertion.
An argument is an arrangement of evidence offered as part of an effort to influence the opinion of the audience. I might argue, for example, that granting marriage rights to gay and lesbian people is necessary if the United States wishes to remain true to its promise of freedom of religion. To support my argument, I might point out:
1) Many gay and lesbian people have concluded their God wants them to be married. Refusing them the right to marry infringes on their right to live according to their own religious convictions.
2) The state already grants marriages that are not recognized by the churches. The Catholic Church and the Church of Christ, for example, don’t like it much when their members divorce and remarry. In fact, they dislike it so much, these churches often refuse to recognize the spiritual validity of the new marriage. The state however, allows heterosexual people to marry, divorce, and remarry as often as they like … because the state is not (and should not be!) bound by religious conclusions regarding the validity of marriage.
And so on.
An unsupported assertion is a special type of argument: one offered without any supporting evidence. If I were to say “People who oppose gay marriage on the grounds of their religious belief are idiots,” and stop there, I would be making an unsupported assertion … because I would be making this statement without offering any proof to back it up. (In order to convert this from an unsupported assertion and into an argument, I could cite certain comments left by certain people on MadeByMark.com.)
With these definitions in mind, Ashley, let’s engage in a little speech-class exercise of our own by taking a look, point by point, at your comment. In doing so, I’m not picking on you … I’m just trying to help you explore whether your own post was an argument (and therefore acceptible in speech class) or an unsupported assertion (which shouldn’t be, unless you go to a school controlled by the likes of Jerry Fallwell).
1) “First of all to all of those who think that same sex marriges are fine and think that God is on your side, I just want to say that I am truely [sic] praying for you and I hope that God will have mercy on you.”
This is what, in speech class, we call a non-sequitor — a point that makes no argument at all, because the second statement, positioned a response to the first statement, really has nothing to do with the first statement at all.
The fact that you’re praying for “people who think same-sex marriages are fine” doesn’t argue for or against gay marriage. (It might confirm that you’re a religious bigot in training pants, but that’s another issue.) You might as well say, “To those who think same-sex marriages are fine, I’m cleaning my house this Saturday.”
So far: no argument.
2) “Same-sex marriage is, by definition, an OXYMORON.”
An oxymoron is, by definition, “the combination of incongruous or contradictory terms,” like compassionate conservative or clear-thinking fundamentalist.
It’s true that in most — but not all — places in the United States, legal marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. But the whole point of the same-sex marriage debate is to challenge the currently accepted legal definition of marriage so that it does include same-sex unions.
Saying “same-sex marriage is an oxymoron” might feel good, but it makes no argument for or against accepting same-sex unions … and it misses the point of the entire debate.
So far: no argument.
3) “Marriage was ordained by God, patterned after God’s creation of the first couple, Adam and Eve.”
When making a case from Scripture, it’s good form to cite book, chapter, and verse. (Of course, you couldn’t do that here, could you? If you’ll actually go read the story of Adam and Eve — particularly Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 — you may be surprised to find that the words “marriage” and “ordained” don’t appear there.)
Side note: You may also want to read the entire Old Testament before setting it up as your standard for marriage law. By that law, girls who have lost their virginity before marriage must be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-15, 20-21), anyone who commits adultery must be stoned to death (Deut. 22:22), and rapists must pay the victim’s father fifty bucks and remain married to their victims for the rest of their lives (Deut. 28:29).
So, still no argument here — just an unsupported assertion (and, perhaps, a dangerous one).
4) “I also think that the we as the United States of America recognize that there is a God and as a nation we should follow the bible. We can’t sit up here and declare that God real and then do not follow the word.”
This is phrased as an opinion (“I think…”), and that, of course, is really all it is.
Worse, it’s a not very well-informed opinion, because it conveniently ignores the fact that different people read and interpret the Bible in different ways.
There are hundreds of Christian denominations in America alone, each with a different take on what the Bible has to say. Whose conclusions, Ashley, will you make law?
In the end, you’re not talking about having the nation follow the Bible at all — you’re wanting everyone in the nation to have to follow conclusions about the Bible that you agree with.
Those of us who really cherish God and God’s word don’t want the state set up as the final arbiter of religious truth. Instead, we support America’s great tradition of freedom of religion.
5) “I keep seeing information about the fact there were eights types of ‘marriages’ mentioned in the bible, God uses those examples for tell explain different laws to the people. They are not marriages.”
I think you mean to refer to this list. (Speech 101: Cite your sources.) Your point with regard to this list unclear (a good sign you need to do some more thinking), but you seem to be saying the marriages cited on the list published by ReligiousTolerance.org were examples, cited by God, as a way of making some point about marriage.
But this is clearly not the case. The marriages cited on the list are, clearly, called marriages, even by Scripture. They do not appear to be examples of any kind; instead, they are frequently God’s own commandments regarding:
– widowed childless women to become impregnated by their brothers-in-law
– the keeping of concubines
– the practice of polygamy
– the keeping of sexual slaves
– the forced (and permanent) marriage of rapists to victims.
You’re very adept, Ashley, at embracing scriptures that support your conclusions … and at ignoring those that don’t. This will probably lead to a stellar career as a fundamentalist minister … but it won’t much impress folks who are quick enough to notice what you’re doing.
6) “No one can tell a person who they should love.”
Despite the poor grammar, this seems to be a point on which we agree.
However, not even this is an argument … it’s just another unsupported assertion, see?
7) “If you love the same sex (as a wife or as a husband) know your love is in vain.”
This one just floors me. In vain … how? According to whom? And what, exactly, does “Your love is in vain” even mean?
Ashley, I don’t know you from Adam’s housecat, as Grandma used to say. I don’t know what church you go to, or even if you go. I don’t know how old you are. I can’t tell, from your post, whether you are twelve or twenty-seven.
But I think it’s pretty clear you’ve got a lot to learn, my dear, about speeches … and, perhaps, about life.
My partner, Clyde, and I have been together for almost eleven years. The love we share has transformed me. I’m a better person because of it — more moderate, more level-headed, more healthy, more balanced. Life with Clyde is richer, brighter, more fulfilling than any life I could have had on my own.
I live my life knowing that every single day, there’s someone beside me that cares more for me than he does himself. Every single day, I know there’s someone who completes me, motivates me, helps me, believes in me.
With or without the legal status of marriage, I assure you, my dear, that such a love is not, in any way, “in vain.”
Good luck with your speech, Ashley. I hope that, in process of researching and delivering it, you’ll take advantage of any opportunities for insight and growth that come your way.
Add comment