For all the writing critics...

[sluggish]

I have to present an argument for my comp class.  Give me your harshest-

Separation of Church and State.  Are you for it or against it?  Today it seems too many people are trying to have it both ways.  People on the far right would legislate their own brand of morality by outlawing same sex marriage.  People on the far left would legislate their brand of morality by forcing private organizations to recognize same sex marriage.  While everyone can agree that no one should be able to tell another person what they can or cannot do or say, both sides of this argument are attempting to do just that.
   
Although there is no actual mention of a "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution of the United States, what has become known as the Establishment Clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group calling themselves the Danbury Baptists quotes the First Amendment and states, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."  This letter with its quote of the constitution and it’s statement about Separation of Church and State have been combined with the Establishment Clause to show what is generally agreed by the Supreme Court to be the Founding Father’s original intent of the Clause.   

What is marriage?  A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants. The fact that marriage often has the dual nature of a binding legal contract plus a moral promise can make it difficult to characterize.  While the religious aspect of a marriage is disputable case by case, it cannot be disputed that all marriage ceremonies conducted in a church by a pastor/priest/rabbi, and made official and binding by the state, are religious ceremonies which are sanctioned and observed by the government and therefore unconstitutional.  The argument used to excuse this mingling of the affairs of government and faith is that the state is not concerned with the religious aspects of the union, but only the legally binding part of it.
   
We live in an age of political correctness.  It is difficult to get through a day without the "PC Police" telling us what we should do or say or even think.  I remember several years ago when there was a big controversy over the Atlanta Braves and their fans doing the "tomahawk chop."  This show of support for the team was said to be insensitive to Native Americans and their traditions as well as an unfair stereotype.  Why is this practice so obviously insensitive and wrong while at the same time, taking something that so many people devote their lives to (their religious beliefs) and twisting it, in their eyes, into something considered to be an abomination by them and forcing them to recognize it as a legal entity isn't?

Everyone should have the same rights and privileges as everyone else.  To say that one group of people can't do the same things as others just because some or even a majority don’t agree with their sexual practices is wrong.  People with same sex relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as traditional heterosexual couples.  This, combined with the established rule of Separation of Church and State, requires that the word 'marriage" be stricken from every law book in the land and replaced with the term "civil union."  A civil union which cares not what race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation two people are.  This would be a legally binding contract that grants all the rights and responsibilities that a marriage does, with all of the religious implications removed.

As has been proven over and over again, there is no such thing as separate but equal.  We cannot have marriage for straight people and civil unions for homosexuals.  There must be one binding, legal contract that encompasses all relationships between two people, because just as the government has no business in our churches, it also has no business in our bedrooms.  Just as the government has no right to single out homosexuals, it also has no right to legislate an "official" definition of a word.  Let each church and religion decide what its own definition of marriage is, and let the government legislate what a civil union is.

I see a day when two people who want to make a legal commitment to each other will testify before a civil union hearing, then go to their church (if they see fit) to be married before their god.  These would be two distinctly separate actions; neither one dependant on the other.  This should effectively make everyone happy, satisfying the homosexual’s right to equality while not breaking the constitution by legislating a definition of a religious ceremony while also maintaining the sanctity of traditional religions.

[lasersailor184]

Not bad writing.  Several facts I believe are wrong.  But it won't matter if you don't

CITE YOUR SOURCES!


Even if you believe in a certain fact, citing your sources while talking does what my speech professor refers to as Borrowing Credibility.

For example, you are a nobody.  Why should anyone listen to you?  Oh!  You're telling us that Professor So and So from this great university says that all monkeys are left handed? It must be true because Professor So and So said it!

This is regardless of whether or not this is a paper or a speech, or an argument.  You have to borrow credibility as much as possible, especially with an inflamatory topic.   Not to even consider the plagiarism aspect.  Remember, plagiarism is about ideas, not just words arranged in a certain order.

Also, the following is a personal belief, don't take it for fact or gospel.

Why is this practice so obviously insensitive and wrong while at the same time, taking something that so many people devote their lives to (their religious beliefs) and twisting it, in their eyes, into something considered to be an abomination by them and forcing them to recognize it as a legal entity isn't?

I would rather a question like this be something that would come in the conclusion.  Like a sudden calling for logic at the end.

Also:

There must be one binding, legal contract that encompasses all relationships between two people, because just as the government has no business in our churches, it also has no business in our bedrooms.

I think you should avoid the word "Must."  It's very demanding.  Almost commanding someone to do something.  People repel from this.  So you might want to reword it.


But that's just what I believe.

[Rolex]

You've got a few places calling out for commas and proper capitalization that could use your attention. The words church, state and separation don't need to be capitalized. You should get extra credit for spelling separation correctly. Kudos!

It isn't too bad at all. If we knew your age or what level the course is, constructive criticism of your writing could be tailored better.

One small idea for you to consider is that it reads like writing. What I mean is that many people write differently than they speak, as if writing should sound differently. But, when we read, we are speaking in our minds, especially for this kind of composition.

Good luck and keep writing.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Rolex
One small idea for you to consider is that it reads like writing.

I can read reading... but I can't read writing, 'specially when it's wrote rotten.

[DREDIOCK]

What is marriage? A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants.

Might also want to mention that the definition of marriage you cite here is a current *revised* definition only changed to read that way in the last 6-7 years in the majority of dictionaries.

Prior to that it was by definition in most dictionaries defined as a legal union between a "Man and a Woman"
 And was defined that way for 100's if not thousands of years.

It is only recently that it has been redefined to read "individuals"


BTW you have it wrong on the seperation clause.
And thew clause itself is far from a settled issue.
 But.
What you wrote is probably what your professor wants to hear.

And some states government have indeed singeld out Homosexuals. And have a state contitutional ammendmend prohibiting Gay marriage.

Not trying to sound as an attack on you.
 But does your professor want opinion or facts?
OR doesnt it matter?
Alot of what you wrote is opinion and not necessarily factual

[Gunthr]

Hi Sluggish,

Something you might consider:

Since you are supposed to be presenting an argument here, you could give your composition considerably more punch and persuasion by choosing either "separation of church and state"  or "gay marraige" as your topic.

You start out very strong with the topic sentence "Separation of Church and State; are you for it or against it?  But then you let that drop and meander over the the "gay marraige" issue.  Sure, there is a vague connectiion between the two, but they are really separate topics.  Pick one as your main thrust.  You can mention its connection to the other as a subordinate point.  Your argument will be clearer, stronger - less vulnerable to counter points this way.

I do like your use of short declarative sentences.  You avoid the common error of run-on sentences.  G'luck  

[FiLtH]

I just skimmed through but looked good. Watch the run-on sentences-

  "Why is this practice so obviously insensitive and wrong while at the same time, taking something that so many people devote their lives to (their religious beliefs) and twisting it, in their eyes, into something considered to be an abomination by them and forcing them to recognize it as a legal entity isn't?"

[aztec]

Originally posted by Rolex
One small idea for you to consider is that it reads like writing. What I mean is that many people write differently than they speak, as if writing should sound differently. But, when we read, we are speaking in our minds, especially for this kind of composition.

 

This is a great point Rolex and something I continue to battle with in my own writing. (Mainly songwriting). Even though I'm aware of it, I still find it very difficult at times to get that conversational flow.

Here's a quote from the song Spaceball Ricochet, by T Rex, lyrics by Marc Bolan that I try to keep in mind while writing.

" I read a book, I get hooked every time the writer talks to me like friend."

[sluggish]

Thanks for all the constructive help.  Many of the terms are more or less factual depending on whom the audience is (look up truthiness).  To round out the questions I'm 38, my instructor is a published 50 year old doctorate in liberal arts (he he), and the class is filled with nineteen year old kids who still think they've got it all figured out...

I believe that when presenting an argument it's important not to blatantly state your opinion; it's better to make general observations that slowly draw to your conclusion.  When I read something, if the opening statement is a direct accusation, along the lines of, "Bush did 911" or what ever, I immediately shut off and won't even comprehend the rest of the argument.  When an argument is written like that the writer ends up just preaching to the choir when an argument is supposed to be designed to sway the opposition to your way of thinking.

Anyway I digress....
Thanks for all your help.