Homework answers / question archive / Write a 3 page argumentative response to one of the following: 1

Write a 3 page argumentative response to one of the following: 1

Writing

Share With

Write a 3 page argumentative response to one of the following: 1. Thomas Stoddard argues the Gay Marriage should be legalized throughout the United States. Do you agree? 2. Express your position on Nicholas Kristof’s perspective that “For Environmental Balance, Pick Up a Rifle”. Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal By Thomas B. Stoddard ''In sickness and in health, 'til death do us part.'' With those familiar words, millions of people each year are married, a public affirmation of a private bond that both society and the newlyweds hope will endure. Yet for nearly four years, Karen Thompson was denied the company of the one person to whom she had pledged lifelong devotion. Her partner is a woman, Sharon Kowalski, and their home state of Minnesota, like every other jurisdiction in the United States, refuses to permit two individuals of the same sex to marry. Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski are spouses in every respect except the legal. They exchanged vows and rings; they lived together until Nov. 13, 1983 - when Ms. Kowalski was severely injured when her car was struck by a drunk driver. She lost the capacity to walk or to speak more than several words at a time, and needed constant care. Ms. Thompson sought a court ruling granting her guardianship over her partner, but Ms. Kowalski's parents opposed the petition and obtained sole guardianship. They moved Ms. Kowalski to a nursing home 300 miles away from Ms. Thompson and forbade all visits between the two women. Last month, as part of a reevaluation of Ms. Kowalski's mental competency, Ms. Thompson was permitted to visit her partner again. But the prolonged injustice and anguish inflicted on both women hold a moral for everyone. Marriage, the Supreme Court declared in 1967, is ''one of the basic civil rights of man'' (and, presumably, of woman as well). The freedom to marry, said the Court, is ''essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.'' Marriage is not just a symbolic state. It can be the key to survival, emotional and financial. Marriage triggers a universe of rights, privileges and presumptions. A married person can share in a spouse's estate even when there is no will. She is typically entitled to the group insurance and pension programs offered by the spouse's employer, and she enjoys tax advantages. She cannot be compelled to testify against her spouse in legal proceedings. The decision whether or not to marry belongs properly to individuals - not the Government. Yet at present, all 50 states deny that choice to millions of gay and lesbian Americans. While marriage has historically required a male partner and a female partner, history alone cannot sanctify injustice. If tradition were the only measure, most states would still limit matrimony to partners of the same race. As recently as 1967, before the Supreme Court declared miscegenation statutes unconstitutional, 16 states still prohibited marriages between a white person and a black person. When all the excuses were stripped away, it was clear that the only purpose of those laws was, in the words of the Supreme Court, ''to maintain white supremacy.'' Those who argue against reforming the marriage statutes because they believe that same sex marriage would be ''anti-family'' overlook the obvious: marriage creates families and promotes social stability. In an increasingly loveless world, those who wish to commit themselves to a relationship founded upon devotion should be encouraged, not scorned. Government has no legitimate interest in how that love is expressed. And it can no longer be argued - if it ever could - that marriage is fundamentally a procreative unit. Otherwise, states would forbid marriage between those who, by reason of age or infertility, cannot have children, as well as those whose elect not to. As the case of Sharon Kowalksi and Karen Thompson demonstrates, sanctimonious illusions lead directly to the suffering of others. Denied the right to marry, these two women are left subject to the whims and prejudices of others, and of the law. Depriving millions of gay American adults the marriages of their choice, and the rights that flow from marriage, denies equal protection of the law. They, their families and friends, together with fair-minded people everywhere, should demand an end to this monstrous injustice. SUBSCRIBE NOWLOG IN • • • • For Environmental Balance, Pick Up a Rifle By Nicholas D. Kristof Here's a quick quiz: Which large American mammal kills the most humans each year? It's not the bear, which kills about two people a year in North America. Nor is it the wolf, which in modern times hasn't killed anyone in this country. It's not the cougar, which kills one person every year or two. Rather, it's the deer. Unchecked by predators, deer populations are exploding in a way that is profoundly unnatural and that is destroying the ecosystem in many parts of the country. In a wilderness, there might be 10 deer per square mile; in parts of New Jersey, there are up to 200 per square mile. One result is ticks and Lyme disease, but deer also kill people more directly. A study for the insurance industry estimated that deer kill about 150 people a year in car crashes nationwide and cause $1 billion in damage. Granted, deer aren't stalking us, and they come out worse in these collisions -- but it's still true that in a typical year, an American is less likely to be killed by Osama bin Laden than by Bambi. If the symbol of the environment's being out of whack in the 1960's was the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland catching fire, one such symbol today is deer congregating around what they think of as salad bars and what we think of as suburbs. So what do we do? Let's bring back hunting. Now, you've probably just spilled your coffee. These days, among the universityeducated crowd in the cities, hunting is viewed as barbaric. The upshot is that towns in New York and New Jersey are talking about using birth control to keep deer populations down. (Liberals presumably support free condoms, while conservatives back abstinence education.) Deer contraception hasn't been very successful, though. Meanwhile, the same population bomb has spread to bears. A bear hunt has been scheduled for this week in New Jersey -- prompting outrage from some animal rights groups (there's also talk of bear contraception: make love, not cubs). As for deer, partly because hunting is perceived as brutal and vaguely psychopathic, towns are taking out contracts on deer through discreet private companies. Greenwich, Conn., budgeted $47,000 this year to pay a company to shoot 80 deer from raised platforms over four nights -- as well as $8,000 for deer birth control. Look, this is ridiculous. We have an environmental imbalance caused in part by the decline of hunting. Humans first wiped out certain predators -- like wolves and cougars -- but then expanded their own role as predators to sustain a rough ecological balance. These days, though, hunters are on the decline. According to "Families Afield: An Initiative for the Future of Hunting," a report by an alliance of shooting organizations, for every 100 hunters who die or stop hunting, only 69 hunters take their place. I was raised on "Bambi" -- but also, as an Oregon farm boy, on venison and elk meat. But deer are not pets, and dead deer are as natural as live deer. To wring one's hands over them, perhaps after polishing off a hamburger, is soggy sentimentality. What's the alternative to hunting? Is it preferable that deer die of disease and hunger? Or, as the editor of Adirondack Explorer magazine suggested, do we introduce wolves into the burbs? To their credit, many environmentalists agree that hunting can be green. The New Jersey Audubon Society this year advocated deer hunting as an ecological necessity. There's another reason to encourage hunting: it connects people with the outdoors and creates a broader constituency for wilderness preservation. At a time when America's wilderness is being gobbled away for logging, mining or oil drilling, that's a huge boon. Granted, hunting isn't advisable in suburban backyards, and I don't expect many soccer moms to install gun racks in their minivans. But it's an abdication of environmental responsibility to eliminate other predators and then refuse to assume the job ourselves. In that case, the collisions with humans will simply get worse. In October, for example, Wayne Goldsberry was sitting in a home in northwestern Arkansas when he heard glass breaking in the next room. It was a home invasion -- by a buck. Mr. Goldsberry, who is six feet one inch and weighs 200 pounds, wrestled with the intruder for 40 minutes. Blood spattered the walls before he managed to break the buck's neck. So it's time to reestablish a balance in the natural world -- by accepting the idea that hunting is as natural as bird-watching