Visual Piece
Artist Statement
I believe simply that any two individuals in the US should be allowed to get married. I don't understand why gay people are not allowed to marry one another, and I represent this perspective in my visual piece. I have, pretty obviously, the US flag. This represents everything the US stands for, and the rights endowed to the people within the US. The Gay Pride flag is represented in this piece as the gay community and everything the community stands for. The cross with the barbed wire represents, simply, the affect and propaganda Christianity is known to use against homosexuals. I used a quote from US senator Tim Johnson for good ethos rhetoric, and the cross and barbed wire provide logos as to where the negative affect this country is experiencing roots at, to a degree. This poster has a somewhat negative tone, being that the colors of the US flag are darker, and the color from the Gay Pride flag is having difficulty seeping down to be a part of the US. I decided to make the US flag the furthest-back layer of the piece, because it is the origin that the Gay Pride flag is trying to seep over, and somewhat become a part of. I then put the cross over the US flag, as it has always had an affect on the legislative decisions made in the US, and the barbed wire to symbolize its negativity toward homosexuality. To make this poster, I had to download a few brushes onto Photoshop from the internet in order to make the seeping affect for the Gay Pride flag possible. Everything else is just a series of images with refined edges layered over one another for effect.
Marriage Equality Op-Ed
Striving for an Equal Future
It is often stated that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, but many believe that in order for everyone to be considered equal, gay people must be offered the same rights as anyone else, including the right to get married. Since the creation of the US Constitution, gay people within the U.S. have not been endowed the right to marry another person of the same sex, with the exception of only 14 states. It has always considered equality for people of different race and gender, but sexuality has somehow been exempt from attention.
Laws banning same-sex marriage are violating equality and liberty, two important values, and rights, to be considered regarding humanity. Furthermore, laws banning same-sex marriage are also in direct violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, as is stated in Section 1 (14th), “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. The privilege to get married is clearly “abridged” by 35 states to gay individuals.
With marriage comes many benefits entitled to both members of the married couple. Marriage entitles married individuals to taxing, state, government, employment benefits, and others including the ability to divide income with spouses and family members, and even the allowance to live in “family-only” neighborhoods. Of course, it is natural to assume that people might marry someone of the same sex, not because they are gay, but instead because they want to take advantage of some of these benefits. This is the reason people often believe gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. Jerry Falwell, Sr., evangelical southern Baptist pastor, stated, “We will see a breakdown of the family and family values if we decide to approve same-sex marriage” (PBS, 2013). His reasoning? The Judeo-Christian ethic that America is built on is at risk if we let homosexuality become a norm.
John Rawls’ concept of “Justice as Equality” supports my opinion that gay people and couples should, under justice, be considered equal to any other people or couples in America. The moral philosopher created A Theory of Justice, a novel that describes an opinion popular among society today, in 1971. In this novel, John Rawls, stated, “[t]he principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance”. (Rawls, 1971) To actually implement a “Veil of Ignorance” is truly impossible. The idea behind the veil of ignorance is to make oneself blind to the attributes of another that differentiate them from another person. These attributes include anything from color to sexuality to height. Of course, I am focusing on sexual orientation. And although it is impossible for one to successfully implement a veil of ignorance, it is something we could synthesize when creating laws. That’s why Rawls believed laws should be created behind a veil of ignorance. It would ensure equality in our justice system.
While African Americans were given equal rights to anyone else in 1870, and women were granted their rights in 1920, we have yet to grant equal rights to homosexuals in the year 2013? Of course, people will marry just for the general benefits of marriage, but is that not a small sacrifice for the equality, which we, as a country, have strived for since the beginning of our time? Yes, this country was built on the beliefs of Christianity, but times have changed, and to what impact should religion really have on our governmental decisions and beliefs? In reality, it shouldn’t have much impact at all, and why should it have impact on the rights given to homosexuals? It almost isn’t comprehendible that we have gone on, as a nation that claims it strives for equality, without endowing equal rights to every man and women that resides within our borders.
The definition of marriage is currently the formal union of a man and a woman. But should this definition remain true, it disrupts the equality that should rightfully be endowed to the men and women of any sexuality in the United States. But how valid, at the same time, is this definition? The Declaration of Independence uses the term “men” to refer to all people that reside within the US, as definition. Therefore, with such important and broad political issues like marriage equality, one’s sex should not be considered when specifying and defining laws related to the equality within society.
The United States is a country that aims for rights distributed equally to every one of its citizens to the best of its abilities. However, the progress to make this a reality lacks a lot of motivation. This is proven when we look at marriage equality. Let it be known that homosexuals aren’t equal to anyone else in this country, given the laws against their unity. It is time we stopped dividing ourselves. The Constitution was meant to prevent this division, and yet it is basically ignored by the justice system we have in place. We must petition for the abolishment of every law banning gay marriage in every state within the United States of America until this dispute is in the past, like the disputes involving women’s rights and African Americans’ rights already are.
Gay marriage does not destroy the sanctity of marriage. If anything, legalizing gay marriage would restore the power of our Constitution. It is time to make our nation’s equality a reality.
Works Cited
PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/interviews/falwell.html>.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1971. Print.
Pg. 34
"14th Amendment." LII. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv>.
It is often stated that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, but many believe that in order for everyone to be considered equal, gay people must be offered the same rights as anyone else, including the right to get married. Since the creation of the US Constitution, gay people within the U.S. have not been endowed the right to marry another person of the same sex, with the exception of only 14 states. It has always considered equality for people of different race and gender, but sexuality has somehow been exempt from attention.
Laws banning same-sex marriage are violating equality and liberty, two important values, and rights, to be considered regarding humanity. Furthermore, laws banning same-sex marriage are also in direct violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, as is stated in Section 1 (14th), “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. The privilege to get married is clearly “abridged” by 35 states to gay individuals.
With marriage comes many benefits entitled to both members of the married couple. Marriage entitles married individuals to taxing, state, government, employment benefits, and others including the ability to divide income with spouses and family members, and even the allowance to live in “family-only” neighborhoods. Of course, it is natural to assume that people might marry someone of the same sex, not because they are gay, but instead because they want to take advantage of some of these benefits. This is the reason people often believe gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. Jerry Falwell, Sr., evangelical southern Baptist pastor, stated, “We will see a breakdown of the family and family values if we decide to approve same-sex marriage” (PBS, 2013). His reasoning? The Judeo-Christian ethic that America is built on is at risk if we let homosexuality become a norm.
John Rawls’ concept of “Justice as Equality” supports my opinion that gay people and couples should, under justice, be considered equal to any other people or couples in America. The moral philosopher created A Theory of Justice, a novel that describes an opinion popular among society today, in 1971. In this novel, John Rawls, stated, “[t]he principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance”. (Rawls, 1971) To actually implement a “Veil of Ignorance” is truly impossible. The idea behind the veil of ignorance is to make oneself blind to the attributes of another that differentiate them from another person. These attributes include anything from color to sexuality to height. Of course, I am focusing on sexual orientation. And although it is impossible for one to successfully implement a veil of ignorance, it is something we could synthesize when creating laws. That’s why Rawls believed laws should be created behind a veil of ignorance. It would ensure equality in our justice system.
While African Americans were given equal rights to anyone else in 1870, and women were granted their rights in 1920, we have yet to grant equal rights to homosexuals in the year 2013? Of course, people will marry just for the general benefits of marriage, but is that not a small sacrifice for the equality, which we, as a country, have strived for since the beginning of our time? Yes, this country was built on the beliefs of Christianity, but times have changed, and to what impact should religion really have on our governmental decisions and beliefs? In reality, it shouldn’t have much impact at all, and why should it have impact on the rights given to homosexuals? It almost isn’t comprehendible that we have gone on, as a nation that claims it strives for equality, without endowing equal rights to every man and women that resides within our borders.
The definition of marriage is currently the formal union of a man and a woman. But should this definition remain true, it disrupts the equality that should rightfully be endowed to the men and women of any sexuality in the United States. But how valid, at the same time, is this definition? The Declaration of Independence uses the term “men” to refer to all people that reside within the US, as definition. Therefore, with such important and broad political issues like marriage equality, one’s sex should not be considered when specifying and defining laws related to the equality within society.
The United States is a country that aims for rights distributed equally to every one of its citizens to the best of its abilities. However, the progress to make this a reality lacks a lot of motivation. This is proven when we look at marriage equality. Let it be known that homosexuals aren’t equal to anyone else in this country, given the laws against their unity. It is time we stopped dividing ourselves. The Constitution was meant to prevent this division, and yet it is basically ignored by the justice system we have in place. We must petition for the abolishment of every law banning gay marriage in every state within the United States of America until this dispute is in the past, like the disputes involving women’s rights and African Americans’ rights already are.
Gay marriage does not destroy the sanctity of marriage. If anything, legalizing gay marriage would restore the power of our Constitution. It is time to make our nation’s equality a reality.
Works Cited
PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/interviews/falwell.html>.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1971. Print.
Pg. 34
"14th Amendment." LII. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv>.
Project Reflection
We began this project by studying several moral philosophers, and their opinions on what justice is really all about. Some included utilitarianism: the most positive result for the greater good, deontology: the consideration that actions are justified by duty, libertarianism: the belief that the state should only have a limited say in the actions of people, and justice as fairness: a philosophy by John Rawls that is explained simply by its label; the idea that justice should be dealt based on what's fair. I think that John Rawls' justice as fairness applies most closely to my stance that gay marriage should be legal in all states in the United States of America. Once we had studied these philosophies, we were told to take a stance on a political issue that has caused dispute. We then had to write Op-Ed's in relation to visual pieces we also made expressing our stances on the disputes. We also provided suggestions in the Op-Ed's on what the government should do to solve the dispute in favor of our stances.
In the process of this project, I have realized that taking a stand on and expressing my political opinion on a current dispute is actually pretty nerve-racking. I say this because taking a stance on this issue has caused a lot of further dispute between not only people with opposing opinions, but with myself, as well. I think this is because I was told to research the opposing viewpoint on the political dispute, and this made me consider why people would take this stance. A lot of good points were actually made that I had not even considered before, and this taught me that a lot of the original opinions I have may be biased, and should be further researched. A lot of the opposing viewpoints that I researched used good rhetoric, which is simply ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical appeal). These three rhetorical tools helped me shape my own article in favor of my opinion, and really help me sway peoples' opinions. This knowledge I have gained about rhetoric has affected the way I see others' opinions. It almost makes me immune to some of the emotional appeal people may use to persuade, because I think that they may be forming biases in using pathos. The biggest Habit of Heart and Mind I used in presenting my perspective on gay marriage was Advocacy. I advocated with some known adults, and other resources, to get opposing information to my stance on gay marriage, thus helping me form my Op-Ed.Through my research I think I am able to actually hold a conversation with someone about gay marriage despite their viewpoint on the issue. I could provide them with opinion-swaying influential concepts. The most challenging part of this project was relating to the other opinions on gay marriage, because I already had a set opinion on the subject.
I think that my rhetoric and argumentation was really strong in my Op-Ed. I used several examples of ethos (credibility) in not only the majority of my Op-Ed, but once in my visual piece, as well, using a quote from US senator Tim Johnson. With the use of rhetoric in my essay and visual piece, I think I was able to make my essay very strong and persuasive. I believe, however, that I was a little weaker with the sentence craft in my Op-Ed article. The sentences weren't consistently lengthy, and the paragraphs were the same. I could have proofread several more times in order to achieve the effect of the sentence structure and paragraph structure.
To make the visual piece more amazing, if I were given another week, I would've blended the pieces together more well, and made roots from the cross into the US flag to express the concept that the US was rooted on Christianity. I also would've edited the barbed wire to make it seem like it was more realistically with the cross. Furthermore, I would've taken the opacity of the cross up a notch to express that it is a huge part of the US. To make my Op-Ed more amazing, I think I could've included more pathos in order to get an emotional appeal across.
In the process of this project, I have realized that taking a stand on and expressing my political opinion on a current dispute is actually pretty nerve-racking. I say this because taking a stance on this issue has caused a lot of further dispute between not only people with opposing opinions, but with myself, as well. I think this is because I was told to research the opposing viewpoint on the political dispute, and this made me consider why people would take this stance. A lot of good points were actually made that I had not even considered before, and this taught me that a lot of the original opinions I have may be biased, and should be further researched. A lot of the opposing viewpoints that I researched used good rhetoric, which is simply ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical appeal). These three rhetorical tools helped me shape my own article in favor of my opinion, and really help me sway peoples' opinions. This knowledge I have gained about rhetoric has affected the way I see others' opinions. It almost makes me immune to some of the emotional appeal people may use to persuade, because I think that they may be forming biases in using pathos. The biggest Habit of Heart and Mind I used in presenting my perspective on gay marriage was Advocacy. I advocated with some known adults, and other resources, to get opposing information to my stance on gay marriage, thus helping me form my Op-Ed.Through my research I think I am able to actually hold a conversation with someone about gay marriage despite their viewpoint on the issue. I could provide them with opinion-swaying influential concepts. The most challenging part of this project was relating to the other opinions on gay marriage, because I already had a set opinion on the subject.
I think that my rhetoric and argumentation was really strong in my Op-Ed. I used several examples of ethos (credibility) in not only the majority of my Op-Ed, but once in my visual piece, as well, using a quote from US senator Tim Johnson. With the use of rhetoric in my essay and visual piece, I think I was able to make my essay very strong and persuasive. I believe, however, that I was a little weaker with the sentence craft in my Op-Ed article. The sentences weren't consistently lengthy, and the paragraphs were the same. I could have proofread several more times in order to achieve the effect of the sentence structure and paragraph structure.
To make the visual piece more amazing, if I were given another week, I would've blended the pieces together more well, and made roots from the cross into the US flag to express the concept that the US was rooted on Christianity. I also would've edited the barbed wire to make it seem like it was more realistically with the cross. Furthermore, I would've taken the opacity of the cross up a notch to express that it is a huge part of the US. To make my Op-Ed more amazing, I think I could've included more pathos in order to get an emotional appeal across.
