Lisa Schiffren’s article “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron” left me confused, and led me to believe the author was unsure of her feelings. There were not many referenced, and Schiffren failed to talk much about the politics, which is what I believe should have been the key factor of her argument.
The article begins talking about baby’s and how they are the bases of marriage, and then out of no where starts to talk about the political stand point. The comment about how “parenthood has transformed many baby boomers into advocates of bourgeois norms” confused me about what the meaning of this article was.
I found myself questioning whether the article was focused more on if we as society will accept same gender marriages, if it’s the right thing because of religion, or if to be legal. Schiffren makes one comment in the article “In a diverse, open society such as ours, tolerance of homosexuality is a necessity,” this makes me wonder is this article focused on what our society thinks; do we tolerate “gay marriages” because we know its there and don’t want to speak out? I assumed when reading this paragraph my question would be answered. But as I read through the remainder of the article I only found myself even more lost. The author goes on saying “Whether homosexual relationships endure is of little concern of society.” This quote from the author makes it seem as if society doesn’t care much about what homosexuals do. But, and I quote “ ‘Same-sex marriage’ is inherently incompatible with our culture’s understanding of the institution.” This makes it seem that society does care and is against “gay marriages.”
I then found Schiffren discussing religion. She writes “Though it is not polite to mention it, what the Judeo-Christian tradition has to say about homosexuality unions could not be clearer. In a diverse, open society such as ours tolerance of homosexuality is a necessity.” Does this quote mean that society excepts this, because from what I have learned, the Bible is against homosexuality. This quote not only brought up once again how society tolerates same sex relations but also tied the comment in with religion. This makes no sense, Schiffren continues to contradict herself.
I am then left with the politics mentioned in the article. Throughout the entire article no political references were used. Schiffren referred to the Hawaii courts consideration but never shared any details about the case. When the beginning of the article talked about the case I assumed this article would be about if politics should allow homosexual marriages to be legal . But the only comment made about the government was in paragraph ten about how they give “tax benefits, inheritance rights, and employee benefits only to the married,” she then goes on to argue that theses benefits are used to help families raise children, which is impossible for homosexuals. Schiffren does not even discuss this argument in detail or have any references to back her up.
Not only does Schiffren not support any of her arguments, but when she discusses her thoughts on homosexual marriage I am confused as well as she seems to be, about whether she agrees or disagrees with the idea. She goes through the entire article
discussing all of these different points, religion, politics, society, and the government. But doesn’t really say how any one or herself feels about the entire subject. I think that the point of the article is to persuade people to feel a certain way about homosexual weddings, if we don’t know how the author feels or any of her references how can readers make their decisions?
All of which brings me to my next point. The purpose of this article was very unclear. Schiffren jumped from one point to another which made it hard to determine what point she was trying to get across. It was obvious the article is about homosexuals. And by the title you would think it was to focus on “gay marriage.” But the article continued to discuss so many different issues, that everything was very unclear. Because Schiffren had such a short article she should have tried to focus more on one or two points. Rather than trying to have three or four and not enough detail. It seemed as if the author only knew a little about each subject and that is why she was so brief.
Because the author didn’t put much explanation into each subjects she left the entire article confusing. I can not stress enough that Schiffren needs to make this article more clear, and needed more support; I was left baffled by the end. She had no strong references and seemed confused on her own decision which would make her unable to persuade readers. And what she was supposed to persuade the reader to believe was also very unclear. “Gay Marriages, an Oxymoron,” didn’t seem to have a real point. And what I feel should have been discussed more, which is politics, was almost left out completely. The article should of at least have had something to do with the title. politics should consider it