Published March 22, 2014
...
Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
138,455 Literary Works • 672,123 Reviews
Deleting your work does not change what you said.
I'm going to combine my review and my debate into one post.
Review:
I liked how you were open to debate and discussion about this topic, instead of assuming that your view is always the correct one.
However, there were some things I didn't like.
I'll start with the content of your essay. You didn't have a very strong argument against LGBTQ+ rights. This is because you didn't refer to any sources, other than your own opinion. This shows readers that you don't have any backing to your argument. In addition, you only talked about the definition of marriage in your essay. You didn't mention other reasons why you disagree with LGBTQ+ rights.
As far as grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and quotation rules go, there were some mistakes there, too.
1. "that is the question you must ask yourself," must be capitalized at the beginning of the sentence.
2. "If we change the law to allow gay marriage than it is totally redefining the term." In this sentence, "than" should say "then."
3. "semi meaningless" should read, "semi-meaningless." Although, I would just cut out "semi" because it does not support your argument well.
4. "However my argument against gay marriage has nothing to fo with my faith." In this sentence, "however" should be followed by a comma and "fo" should say "do."
Remember to proofread! Most of these mistakes would not occur if you took the time to examine what you have written. Getting a second person to read it can also help detect phrases or words that do not make sense or are spelled incorrectly that the author might not catch.
Debate:
First of all, the definition of marriage is the only thing you wrote about. Are you really only concerned about a few words written in a dictionary?
Second, your only reference, other than your own opinion, is the Bible. You may be forgetting that the world is not entirely comprised of Christians. In fact, only one in three people follow Christianity. So denying rights to an entire group of people based on one religion, when only 1/3 of them follow that religion, does not make much sense to me.
Also, you should be aware that the Bible is very outdated. It also bans letting your hair beccome unkempt, tearing your clothes, lying, mixing fabrics in clothing, and getting tattoos. Almost no one is harrassed and having their rights taken away for these things, so why should homosexuality be any different?
In addition, married couples recieve many extra benefits, such as property and inheritance rights, insurance benefits, access to some federal programs, and economic benefits such as family rates for insurance. By prohibiting someone from marriage, you are keeping them from enjoying perks of marriage that straight couples receive. That makes same-sex marriage a civil rights issue becuase we are being discriminated against.
Just so you are aware, the dictionary definition of marriage is as follows: "Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws." This says nothing about a man and a woman, so this invalidates your entire argument.
There you are. I hope you take my corrections into consideration and stay open-minded about being accepting of everyone.
Your review was better than the essay!
Wow. Thanks.
Maybe I'll write an essay soon in favor of same-sex marriage.
Hi, TakeThatYouFiend. So....
Judging from reading the other reviews, it sounds like A LOT of people are "misunderstanding" you.
Usually, when so many people "misunderstand" you, you need to change something.
You claim that this is meant to be an opinionated essay that people shouldn't take very seriously. Just so you understand, people take this topic VERY SERIOUSLY. If you wanted to make an essay that wasn't taken very seriously, choose another topic.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not telling you you're "not allowed" to write about this topic without a ferocious debate, because that's ridiculous. You can write whatever you want to.
I'm saying that you should just be prepared for the barrage of angry comments/reviews this is going to get.
Now, outside of my personal opinion, I honestly didn't think this essay was written very well. First off, that is not capitalized in the second sentence. That's either a typo, a brain fart, or....well...you can ask your first grade teacher.
Secondly, the first paragraph of an essay is meant to be the thesis paragraph. Nowhere do you state your thesis statement. You just ask the reader questions. That is a HUGE mistake. Never, ever, ever have your thesis statement as a question. That is just opening your essay up to me cut and diced to anyone's heart's content.
Next, you randomly bring up the Bible, and the fact that you are a Christian, but later claim neither of these have anything to do with your "argument." Trust me, if you want to be more convincing, drop both of those out.
Another typo: fo should be do.
Comparing gay marriage to a marriage to an animal is offensive no matter what way you put it. It completely takes down your argument of how you are not opposed to gays in general. You basically just stated that gays are the same as animals. Please don't claim that I am misunderstanding you. What you just stated cannot be denied, so change the way you phrase it if you don't want it to be interpreted that way. It's as simple as that.
When you say, I hope you can see here that my argument is not pointless.
Well, that really takes away from your argument. It sounds defensive, as if you yourself are doubting your argument. I suggest taking that out.
However my argument against gay marriage has nothing to fo with my faith. <<there's the 'fo' I was talking about. Also, there should be a comma between however and my.
Too many questions. An opinionated essay should be a strong, convincing opinion without constant questions resembling "so don't you agree with me?" "aren't I right?" "how can you not agree with me?" "define what you think marriage is, and I'm going to assume it's the same as mine!"
This essay was less of an opinionated essay, and more of a weak argument, weakly written, and with weak structure.
My own opinion on this topic set aside, I assure you, overall rating: 3.5/10
HAHA I JUST HAD TO COME BACK AND MAKE THIS EDIT: RIGHT AFTER I CLICKED SUBMIT EDIT, AN AD POPPED UP THAT SAID THIS:
Are you against gay marriage or for it? Click here to vote now!
Welcome to Snarking With Spotswood! If you are offended by any of my potentially harsh criticism, please know that it is because I care.
I am very passionate about this topic due to the fact that one of my best friends is gay and has suffered a lot of stigma.
He lives in Texas. People actually call him queer...
Remember what you learned in first grade English. ALWAYS begin a sentence with a capital letter.
Look, I know that you are only fourteen, but you should REALLY know that you NEVER use the first person in an essay. Instead of saying "I think", you should say "some would say", because YOU are incorporated into the "some category", so to speak.
A weak sentence. It detracts from your essay and almost makes it sound like you are doubting yourself. Plus, it sounds awfully defensive.
I won't bother going deeper into grammar, since I get bored correcting grammar. I am a grammar Nazi, but I prefer reviewing CONTENT.
Shall we begin?
Yes it has, but that doesn't change the fact that there have always been gays. Homosexuality was actually very common in the Roman Empire.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it also sounds like you are actually endorsing polygamy here or, at the very least, saying that it is better than gay marriage.
If so, I'd look into mormonism if I were you.
Is this an essay or a Hitler speech? I'm confused.
Unlikely.
Take 12th grade AP Government and then you'll know why.
Why would they offend? They aren't insults.
Using your logic, or your lack thereof, polygamy should be legal because it says that it is allowed in the Bible. You are backing up your "facts" up with the Bible, so you basically just contradicted yourself in a very passive way.
From what it appears, you probably wrote this essay in about two minutes and didn't bother to read it over. I hope this wasn't for an assignment.
Okay, you've just overstepped a HUGE line. My ears (or, in this case, eyes) may be deceiving me, but it sounds like you are comparing gays to chimpanzees. Are you saying that it is not true love if a man loves another man? You need to get out more.
What would the benefits of marrying yourself be? Are there any that you can think of off the top of your head? If so, I'd like to find out!
No it's not.
Yes it does. Don't lie. If you weren't a Christian fundamentalist (I am assuming that you go to a non denominational or baptist church), you probably would not be opposed to this. It is an irrefutable fact that most everyone who opposes gay marriage does so for religious reasons, so don't lie to yourself. If anything, you should just "take pride", for the lack of a better term, the fact that your animadversion towards gay marriage is rooted in your religious beliefs. You don't need to justify anything.
Marriage has a religious connotation, but nowadays it is simply a legal contract that ensures that they have certain legal rights to be entitled to certain benefits. Are you saying that two men who love each other shouldn't be allowed to have those benefits?
You are probably a Republican, a member of the far right, which explains why you are averse to gay marriage.
Conservatives tend to fear socialism, but wouldn't it technically be considered socialism if, for instance, gay marriage was outlawed and the government told everybody what to do and who can and cannot get married. If the government outlawed gay marriage, it would be basically the same thing if they outlawed interracial marriage. Think about it.
Homosexuality is genetic. It isn't a choice. Why would somebody choose to be gay, to be stigmatized? Nobody wants that. Do you think I choose to have manic depression? It's genetic. I can't help it. My friend is gay, as is his Aunt, and his great aunt. Notice a trend?
I am not equating it to a mental illness in any way, but they both have genetic components. Because it is genetic, it makes it completely natural.
Saying homosexuality is a choice is just like saying that you choose to be straight. Do you choose to be straight?
And so we come to an end of my snarky review. Sorry if it seemed harsh, but it is because I care. It is great that you want to stand up for what you believe in, but try to write about something that you can actually back up with facts.
Also, I don't really think you can call this an essay. Where's the thesis? Where in this did you state your subtopics? It seemed like a dump of information. It was a prose, but not a research essay.
It's not that you are bad writer, but you are only fourteen, so you still have time to dramatically improve your skills. If you stay more coherent and learn to write actual essays, you'll go places, kid! The more you work at it, the better you will become. You will only get better.
If you take my advice, you'll actually be able to look back in three years and think something along the lines of "Damn, my writing sucked when I was fourteen." I guarantee you that everyone on this site has done that. I thought I was an amazing writer at fourteen, but after some folks on a website that I used to belong to were "mean" to me and telling me that I wasn't very good, I was crushed, but I moved on and became better. I am glad they said that stuff to me. I always go back to that thread to remind myself that I have gotten better. In hindsight, they weren't being mean. They were just being snarky and giving amazing advice.
Remember, we are ALL brilliant at fourteen...
You have no hope of ever writing good.
Just because you don't have a chance of writing good, with enough practice, you may be able to one day be able to write well, not good, but well.
Keep Writing.
Thanks, excuse me if I ignore the points you made on the content, but you have completely misunderstood me, and that is my fault.
Sorry if this seems annoyingly amateur, I am no essay writer (mainly I do poetry, I the combat the imbalance of sad works on this site) and I am just experimenting in a new field for my English writing exam.
You say two minutes; Wrong, five. I tried to match the exam conditions a little.
I hope this explains in part my ineptitude here, and also the lack of evidence.
Oh, I thought this was more of a serious type of thing. And I was close haha (in terms of time). And you were not being inept at all.
Okay, but whatever happened to the seperation of church and state? Sure, we've broken that idea many times, but truth is, not everyone is a Christian anymore. I am Christitan but I do not believe that we should be the ones to decide who gets to marry whom because it's judgemental, and that is not our duty (to judge).
why does everyone say "We shouldn't judge"? If that's the case let crime run rampant cuz it' not our place to judge! sorry kind of ranting but that really bugs me
I knew that comment would get me some flame. You're right about that, "judge' isn't the appropriate term. but I just dont think we should be imposing on same sex marriage. Now, if it were the case of a person trying to marry a minor then of course we should judge! But same sex marriage isn't technically harming any person, in my opinion, so why not?
Christianity does not own the idea of marriage. I s'pose Christians have some claim over the term but the concept of two people pairing is older than the idea of religion. Remove the religious influence and the debate doesn't exist.
Look, this has been debated by more qualified people with a much more comprehensive insight than you will find on this site. The points you raised have been debunked countless times. The debate is beyond this.
Also, there is not 'gays and/or lesbians.' Think of a Zenn diagram. 'Gays' is a big circle. 'Lesbians' is a smaller circle entirely encompassed by the larger circle. If I were you and I wanted to be taken seriously, I would drop the term 'gays.' Try 'homosexuals.'
Hello Fiend,
Your piece has been on my screen for a few days, waiting to be reviewed. I have just now figured out what I wanted to say. For now, I am going to completely ignore the subject matter and discuss format issues. My big issue with this essay is the lack of structure. Your first sentence should be a thesis. Instead, you created an awkward run on sentence. Your first paragraph should be the introduction and should consist of 5 to 7 sentences. You started out with very little structure and you didn't properly inform your reader of what your essay would consist of. The format didn't flow very well. Normally in an essay of this type you start with an introduction, then 2 to 3 supporting paragraphs, then you finish off with a conclusion paragraph.Your essay did not do that at all. My other big problem is with your disregard of sentence structure and your unnecessary addition of parenthesis. The first sentence is split in half by a question mark. I would fix the sentence : The question you must ask yourself is: What is marriage? For the sentences with parenthesis, remove them and put commas in their place. If the sentence sounds awkward then the information is unnecessary, or should become it's own sentence.
When I was reading your argument I really questioned your logic. The arguments were weak and lacking true proof. I also found it odd when you mentioned the bible being changed, but said that your stance did not have a christian basis. I challenge you to go back to your essay and really consider your arguments. Try to build a solid essay with the correct parts and strong arguments.
P.S. I know this sounds harsh, but I found it necessary. I also am a christian and I was severely disappointed that all of these people were complimenting your essay because of your stance and ignoring the issues. PM if you have questions.
I agree. It wasn't much of an essay.
Canada's doing fine. I don't think interspecies marriage has ever been put forward there at all, in any formal way, looking for legal recognition.
Basically, if you can get married, I should be able to aswell. Marriage is both within the church and outside it. I and all other gay people should have the option to [i]marry[i] if they so wish. Why? Because you can. Anything less is inequality.
Alos marriage isn't as pure and perfect as you may think. With stuff like marrying for money, marrying for citizenship in a certain country, marrying when drunk. It's pretty messed up.
You make some really good points, and you present your argument clearly and back it up. That's really good.
Short, but sweet and to the point.
I did notice a little error however:
This should be the word, "do".
Other than that, great job! You write very well.
~Teen~
There were quite a few structural errors here, KT. I wouldn't consider it an essay...more of a dump of information in prose format.
Amen. Marriage is already not sacred. it is so sad. We can always pray for them, right?
You do realize people don't CHOOSE to be homosexual, right? Secondly, it's not a disorder, so we're not "praying for them" as if there is something wrong with them. Please be respectful.
Hi there Fiend! Here to review~
I suppose my main structural issue is that this doesn't have any of the qualities of a successful essay (thesis, evidence, support, conclusion, etc). There are certainly a lot of claims made, but not exactly any evidence to back anything up other than personal opinion or emotion. It's great to feel a certain way about an issue, but "because this is how I feel!" isn't an effective argument.
Let's break things down a little further.
To begin, we have a bit of a thesis: marriage is changing and it's going to be bad. But even so, that's a conglomeration of the first two paragraphs where I had to do a little pulling to get something coherent. I would suggest forming a clear thesis statement that lays out exactly what you're going to argue in this essay (presumably that marriage is bad).
Now we have a few points used to develop that argument. From what I can decipher, these are: the Bible won't mean the same thing and other even worse marriages will happen. Now it's okay to claim whatever you like in an essay, but those claims have to be supported by evidence. How exactly will the meaning of the Bible change? The words won't change, so if the words are the same isn't the meaning the same? Or do you agree that a document written centuries ago might be open to interpretation in modern times? Does that refute your argument as it stands? All things to consider when including a claim (evidence based or not) in an essay!
There's also no real evidence given in regard to the "these other bad marriages will happen!" claim. Do some research, include some facts from reliable sources! Though part of that problem might also be that it's against the law to enter into a marriage where one party is unable to intelligently consent to a legal agreement (children, animals, inanimate objects, anything that isn't an adult human!). Since those things can never legally happen, it hurts your argument to include them as non-supported evidence. Unless you can prove that as a result of the legalization of gay marriage, I'll be able to legally and lawfully marry my cat, I'd hesitate from including it as support for your argument. You might have something in regard to polygamy, though that should be supported by evidence in the essay.
Finally, I think it's important to consider a level of this argument completely absent from the essay: that marriage is not only a religious contract but a legal one. Plenty of people who don't believe in God get married every day! Are their marriages still real marriages? Of course they are, because being married in the eyes of the church is different from being married in the eyes of the law. Our government extends various rights to married people (such as tax incentives, the ability to visit your loved one should they be hospitalized, etc). One of the major arguments for legalizing same sex marriages is that by denying couples the right to legal marriage their being denied basic human rights extended happily to every straight couple in a legal marriage. There's no reason that, legally, a woman shouldn't be able to marry a woman. All of the debate against legalizing same sex marriage comes from a religious perspective, which should be considered in an argument such as this to make it effective.
An effective argument is made by taking a strong and clear position (thesis) and then backing it up with evidence-based claims that support that position and create a strong and valid argument. As far as this essay stands, those things aren't being done and so it's a very weak argument that can be easily refuted from any number of sides.
Keep writing!
-Lauren-
Hello there while your debate essay certainly create a rousing round of debates in the future I shall take you up on the arguing against so how about it?
Let me first start out with that calling yourself a Christian in the debate essay dose not help you in this for many other Christians are for the gay marriages, although I do see that it is not about your faith but I the end isn't everything about religion or politics?. you seem Christianity a role in your debate clearly states man and women, dose it not say in the new testimony that our lord loves his children equally? by labeling your " gays and lesbians" as different beings you address unintentionally how you say placing a foot in your mouth. Now that we have disclosed the Christian aspect of your argument. May I also add like rhiasofia clearly states in the olden days the arrangements were made by their parents based on how much land was in possession, the class rank of both, and whether or not it would propel them further up the ranks in the classes. It was normal that the spouse and groom did not like each other, nor met in person before the rehearsal for their wedding. If that is suppose to be how marriage is defined I would hope that we do not live in that age again. Also, in the olden days while we are on the topic it was as the man chose to do with his women, who was seen simply as property. He could cheat, lie, used, abuse, sell his children and wife, or even murder if he so decide and it would still be deemed acceptable now this is a average but not the majority of most marriages. But if this is the definition of marriages then why would anyone do it? Next you brought of love. Now true love the definition is true love, or love in general is...
"Love. Love is the greatest gift God ever gave man. Love is not wanting to go anywhere without her. Love is not caring what other people think about the two of you. Love is when you feel depressed and sickly when you're not with her. You feel like your life has no meaning or purpose without her. And that if she wasn't holding your hand you would float away to heaven from where she came. Love is caring for her physically and emotionally. It's telling her everyday, anytime, anywhere, anyhow, for no just reason that you love her. Love is telling her u want to spend the rest of your life with her"
Now dose it state a man or a women no it dose not it addresses a her but could also be used as a him. So In turn if the definition of love dose not bound a person's life style and values to one they can not be held to is that wrong? the answer to that is no.
Now in your defense you clearly state " And yet I hear you cry there should be equal rights for homosexuals!" This in turn leads to the notion that you should not believe that homosexual should have the equal right as anyone else? For is it not clearly stated not only in our constitution but in the bible that all men are created equal? and that the lord once again love all his kin? by saying that homosexual are not equal you are one again turning your argument against yourself. And lastly on this one point you brought up is that we are the same. We have two eyes, dreams, hopes, and feelings. We have goals and just the same as any other human whether straight or not. To deny our gay marriages is to go against the constution in the Principle it was created under " all people are created equal"
Now my last remark before I bid you farewell.
This is actual research in the making
" (straight, gay, black, and white) disapproves of the Ku Klux Klan, and that they are the ones preaching against gay marriage, not God or whatever. The ones who were prejudice before I using these reasons in aiding for the stop toward gay marriages. Is it not said in the bible that our lord died because people thought they were better than Him.
My last thing is that gay marriages are just as welcomed as straight marriages and to look down upon them while your opinion is just a walking hypocrisy in the making. I hope this has helped seen a side that you have seen before and it was quite fun to debate and read your arguments have a nice day
~Fallen
Everyone is getting me wrong.
Yes i see that now and i do apologize i was just bring up the various other viewpoints.
fiend please tell me how to define the word LOVE.
Stop being so lazy and find a ddictionary. Just because people are in love doesn't mean they should get married.
um you took me WAAY to literally, I mean how do you define love as whether a man and a woman get married or if a man and a man or woman and a woman get married
Hmm. So, since you asked, I decided I would research definitions of marriage. Funny, how most never used the term "husband" and "wife", but rather "spouses". Those that did have a definition using "husband" and "wife" had alternate definitions, one of which would say "an identical relationship between to people of the same sex". And, if you want to argue back hundreds of years, people are able to refute this in many ways. For example, hundreds of years ago, you can say it was "husband" and "wife". One might also find several examples where that marriage was forced or arranged. That marriage could have been violent. That marriage could have been shared with multiple women. Those vows could have been broken as the husband had relations elsewhere. That marriage could have been between a 70 year old man and 14 year old "woman". So, in this case, going way back in our history does not support you, but rather drags up thousands of other nasty things that were common, which you don't want to associate with your pure and perfect straight marriage.
Well, I already gave you evidence that the term is not defined as you seem to believe it is. Really, more than anything else, the word means a conjoining. So, on to the rest of this paragraph. These older texts will gain new meaning. Hmm. Doesn't seem like such a bad idea, if you want to ask me. Think about it, we already have changed our view of so many of the things in the Bible, because they just aren't applicable to todays' culture. Let's think about this for a sec. How medieval and cryptic would we be if we stuck to the true meaning of each and every awful verse? Well, lets see. Women couldn't be teachers, leaders, or have any place in society-except for the place eternally passive and subordinate to men, for whatsoever reason (1 Timothy 2:12). Oh, and if that women did wrong, or simply your friends were bored, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to give her, regardless of her being the wife of the man, to the friends so they might rape and abuse her at will (Judges 19:25-28). We've decided that slaves are wrong, even though they are prevalent within the Bible. Sacrificing ones' child is unacceptable, no matter what religious role it serves. So why is it that this one has stuck with us as something that is so wrong? It is such a slight and miniscule thing. It is natural and genetic, as is shown by various studies. What solid proof do you have that states that it is wrong, either in this passage or in real life? You have the Bible, which is plenty of proof for you, I'm sure. But do you think that that vouches for everyone? I am a straight white female who grew up in a very conservative, rich, largely southern Baptist town, and I can tell you that it is wrong to use a book, written well over a thousand years ago, that isn't even relevant to a large proportion of people as your sole source of evidence. That is not going to prove anything but your own close-mindedness.
You shouldn't ever start a sentence, nonetheless a paragraph with "and".
Plus, there needs to be a "that" between "cry" and "there". Lastly, the exclamation point makes no real sense and is serving no purpose there. Okay, now content. This is probably the single worst and most offensive bit of this whole spiel. Well, yeah, there definitely should be equal rights for homosexuals, you better believe that we're going to keep on saying that. Don't know why it's such a hard concept for ya'll to get. Okay, and here you go with the "redefining" of the marriage again, which I think I've already properly torn down. Maybe I'll put the word for word definition here, just for reference as I refute the rest of this paragraph.
1.legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
2.specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse
3.joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people
So let's get into this. I feel that gay marriage in every way already fits the "definition" of marriage. My emphasis will be on the words "two people". Well, there's just two homosexuals looking to get married. Last time I checked, they're just as much people as you are (perhaps more so, if we want to get down to it). That is why your continuation into polygamy and zoophilia are entirely unrelated and do nothing to support your argument. Polygamy is not two people, emphasis on that two in marriage. To speak of a marriage between animal and person is simply ludicrous in more ways than one. For starters, an animal isn't a person, emphasis on people. Second off, sex between person and animal is already illegal, so the thought of a wish for marriage between person and animal is ridiculous and never going to happen, regardless of whether or not homosexuals have equal rights. Au contraire, it is not illegal for homosexuals to have consenting sexual relations, so it seems ridiculous to not allow marriage.
Perhaps your argument is not pointless, but it is certainly far from logical the way it is presented here. I fail to find anything in this that convinces me in any way. It is a feeble and see through argument. Atop of that, you presented it in a horribly informal manner, which I'm loathe to even refer to as an essay. You state that this has nothing to do with your religion, but that comes across feeling very much like a blatant lie with your tone and evidence throughout the essay. There is not a single fact or statistic to hold up your argument here, it is entirely you you you, and your beliefs. I'm sorry, but your unsupported beliefs should not, and will not, decide the lives of people. And if this is once more going to state that marriage is defined as a matrimony between those of opposite sexes, I'm going to explode. That is the one thing besides your belief and religion holding this up, and it wasn't even a proper definition you were going by. It was your definition, influenced by your beliefs, and henceforth your religion.
Good day, sir or ma'am.
Firstly I meant as defined by law.
Secondly you most definitely are allowed the word and at the start of a sentence.
Thirdly there have already been marriages, although not lawfully, between animals and humans.
Fourthly suggesting that homosexuals are better humans than heterosexuals is just as offensive as suggesting the opposite, which by the way I did not do. I didn't say I was against equal rights, but that it was non applicable. I am perfectly happy with an alternative to marriage for homosexuals.
Firstly I meant as defined by law.
Secondly you most definitely are allowed the word and at the start of a sentence.
Thirdly there have already been marriages, although not lawfully, between animals and humans.
Fourthly suggesting that homosexuals are better humans than heterosexuals is just as offensive as suggesting the opposite, which by the way I did not do. I didn't say I was against equal rights, but that it was non applicable. I am perfectly happy with an alternative to marriage for homosexuals.
Firstly I meant as defined by law.
Secondly you most definitely are allowed the word and at the start of a sentence.
Thirdly there have already been marriages, although not lawfully, between animals and humans.
Fourthly suggesting that homosexuals are better humans than heterosexuals is just as offensive as suggesting the opposite, which by the way I did not do. I didn't say I was against equal rights, but that it was non applicable. I am perfectly happy with an alternative to marriage for homosexuals.
Firstly I meant as defined by law.
Secondly you most definitely are allowed the word and at the start of a sentence.
Thirdly there have already been marriages, although not lawfully, between animals and humans.
Fourthly suggesting that homosexuals are better humans than heterosexuals is just as offensive as suggesting the opposite, which by the way I did not do. I didn't say I was against equal rights, but that it was non applicable. I am perfectly happy with an alternative to marriage for homosexuals.
Firstly I meant as defined by law.
Secondly you most definitely are allowed the word and at the start of a sentence.
Thirdly there have already been marriages, although not lawfully, between animals and humans.
Fourthly suggesting that homosexuals are better humans than heterosexuals is just as offensive as suggesting the opposite, which by the way I did not do. I didn't say I was against equal rights, but that it was non applicable. I am perfectly happy with an alternative to marriage for homosexuals.
Totally against gay marriage. Keep writing these kind of works Fiend!!! We need someone to speak up and say what is right and wrong, and you are doing an awesome job!!! I'm giving you a like for this!!
That's a horrible thing to say against homosexuals. What have they done to you?
She didn't say she was against homosexuals. Just homosexual marriage.
Thanks TakeThatYouFiend!!! Keep writin
It's still against homosexuals, because she is showing she wants them to be prevented from marrying and expressing their love from each other. Love is love, regardless of anatomical relations.
And marriage is marriage, regardless of love.
would you suddenly hate and bully your best friend if you found out he was gay?
no, I would pray for him and tell him what I thought about it. I don't hate gays,just the action that they make.
would you still hang out with him?
no, it is wrong to condone something that is against your beliefs. Hanging out with him would be condoning it.
well wouldn't that make him sad? What if he gets bullied?
Him getting bullied is besides the point. If he doesn't want that, he wouldn't have become gay. Its not my problem if he is sad about it or not. I cannot condone something that is morally wrong.
People don't "become" gay, they just are. I hate when people try to say that it's a choice.
Is their any chapter in the bible that shows god condemning homosexuals?
People always have a choice when it comes to doing something wrong. They have free will, and are able to make choices for good or bad. God didn't create you gay, and he doesn't intend for you to be gay either.
No, God destroyed the city of Sodom because of that particular sin. Not sure what book though...... Gay is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance though. I'm pretty sure God wouldn't allow it now because our culture has changed.
okay, why hasn't god condemned us if we have "sinners" in our midst. What is the point of his silence?
No, nobody has a choice in the matter of being gay or not being gay. There is scientific evidence that is genetic. Plus, there are many, many species of animals that have same-sex mating patterns. I guess those penguins and giraffes just decide that they're going to be gay too, huh?
He is speaking @Verser. Look at history. Look at the Bible. Look at nature. God talks through all that. Actual Marriage is supposed to have two main functions. Bringing forth Children( fairly sure gays can't do that), and bringing each other happiness.
Like rhia said, you don't make a decision to be gay, you either are or aren't. Also, why do you care about other people's love. How does that affect ANY of us.
To you he is. The whole idea on god is based on FAITH. Any christian knows this. Marriage is love, who are YOU to define LOVE and HAPPINESS? You said marriage is about bringing each other happiness, well homosexual marriage DOES bring that couple happiness. You can't change that in any way
It affects us in the way, of the example that they set. I don't care about there love. Love is something special and pure. Gays can love just like anybody, but it is
against the law of God to love like they do.
And no you do make the decision. God wouldn't create you gay, as he created marriage and God wouldn't go against his own law.
but gays can't bring forth children either.
Love is love cricket. Their is genetic FACTS that you are born gay, their is no decision involved and if god made us in his image, maybe a part of him is gay too?
must I repeat this again? Love is LOVE.
Marriage isn't just about love and making yourself feel good. Its about helping each other get to heaven and bringing forth CHILDREN(which like I said before, Gays can't do).
Oh my god, like we don't already have enough children in this world? Really, how medieval is that, to think everything is about having kids? There are far more important things in life. Love. Happiness. Learning how to be spiritual without shoving your beliefs down everyones' throats. This is 2014 for goodness sakes, not 1420.
Cricket, not everyone believes in god, has it occurred to you that some people don't CARE if they go to heaven or hell because they are partial to THEIR religion? Just like you're partial to your religion. Also, gays can't make babies its true, but lesbians can
So for some people, matrimony is not focused on the AFTERLIFE, but instead focused on living a happy LIFE with WHOEVER your partner is.
I totally have to get my bro to join, he LOVES this stuff
having children isn't medieval thinking. I'm pretty sure we have been having children ever since humans were created.
And saying what I believe and arguing my point isn't shoving my beliefs down people's throat. Its speaking up, when you believe something is wrong. Just like you guys are speaking up and saying what you believe... so am I.
Lesbians are woman who are gay. And I'm fairly sure two woman can't have a child, at least not naturally and the way it is intended.
Therese, what if I told you that, because I didn't like who you are, because I think you're a bad influence, you aren't allowed to marry someone who shares the same beliefs as you. That would never fly. That's wrong. You can't verify the right to make this kind of choice for someone else because you don't like who they are. That's not how it works.
agreed
If your reasons were valid( which the ones you just gave aren't), then yes you are fully justified in telling me those things. Everyone was given free will to do wrong, but no one has the RIGHT to do wrong. And I'm saying I don't like or love or whatever the gay person. I'm saying I don't like their action and their decision. Totally different.
No, not totally different. That is literally the same thing you're using to justify why it's wrong, switched around. You are saying that you think that being gay is wrong. Because you think it's wrong,
No, I'm saying that God said its wrong, the Bible said it is wrong, nature says its wrong, all of history says its wrong. I'm not basing what I say, off of my own personal opinion.
you're allowed to justify it not being allowed. You also use your personal beliefs, which also have no concrete evidence applicable to everyone. The point that I'm trying to make is that you're allowed to decide that it's wrong, yadadada, with only your beliefs to go on. Beliefs which many people don't share with you. If you're allowed to have completely invalid reasons, so am I, to make a point to you.
What if we don't CARE what god said? What if we don't believe in god? You're basing everything off of your religion. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe SOME things your religion says is wrong?
Exactly. It's ignorant and hypocritical to say that we should all behave as your belief says is right. I don't care about god. I don't care about the bible. I think it's stupid to be frank. I'm not going around telling people to stop worshipping because of my beliefs.
No, nothing my religion says is wrong. So no ,of course it hasn't occurred to me that something my religion said is wrong.
I'm fairly sure nature is against gay marriage too. Yes ,there are some animals that are neither male or female and can reproduce without the other sex. But they were created that way. Humans were not created that way. We were created male or female, and if NATURE wanted us to reproduce with the same gender, then we would be able too.
Its my duty to speak up when I believe something is wrong. I'm not forcing my beliefs down your throat. I'm just saying why I believe gay marriage is wrong, and I'm saying why I think it shouldn't be allowed.
When exactly did god "say" that it's wrong? I know exactly what the bible says, but I want to bring up another view on this. There's lots of awful scriptures in the bible (1 Timothy 2:12), (Judges 19:25-28), (1 Peter 2:18), and you guys say that these are here to show us what we aren't supposed to do. So, who's to say that the story of the burning of Sodom isn't there to tell us that that was wrong? Who get's to decide that?
Cricket, that's a big step saying your religion is perfect, I get that you have a very strong belief, but everything has flaws, HUMANS have flaws and weren't we created in gods image? What does that imply to you? Also, how does nature dictate us? If anything, WE use nature. WE dictate nature and although thats not necessarily a good thing, its still true. So I'm sorry, what was it you were saying again?
Ducks, giraffes, penguin, and sheep cannot reproduce without another of the opposite sex, just as humans. They still tend to have same-sex intercourse with other animals because they were just born gay. They aren't reproducing, yet they continue doing it. Do you think those animals control that? And since they can't, that would mean that god had created them like that to start. Sooo...
God shows us in several ways. The Bible is just one of them. There's the moral law, (that everyone knows from the moment they reach an age of reason), there's looking around and seeing what nature says about it, there's lets try 6,000 years of history that has opposed it. God talks through quite a bit of stuff.
And are you saying if the Burning of Sodom wasn't there ,then would I consider it wrong? Sorry, if I don't understand.
ohai all u intoolectooal pepel
And I'm fairly sure humans are higher than animals, and are capable of thinking for themselves. The animals that try to do same-sex intercourse with the same gender are usually cast out or killed.
Hey what if some people don't believe in god? Wouldn't that make all your arguments invalid to them?
sup bro
No, of course not. Godless people still have the moral law, that even some gay people follow. They may not follow all of it(as they are gay), but they still look to it as guidelines I guess you could say.
what makes you think that? Also yes, humans can think for themselves, humans have FREE WILL. We aren't bound by our religion like some people.
You are avoiding answering the question. You keep saying "God shows us" "The Bible" and "Nature says" but I don't hear any darn thing from any of them. You continue to repeat these same exact words without giving any proof, anything to back it up. I pulled stories from the Bible, which you did not address. I'm giving you science. You continue spouting the same three words over and over, but claiming you're right. SHow me that you're right.
Why do YOU think it's wrong. Not why the bible thinks its wrong, not why nature thinks its wrong, your opinion and your opinion ALONE
What I was saying about the burning of Sodom is not that it isn't there. I'm saying that lots of awful scriptures are in the bible, racist, sexist, morally wrong scriptures. When the question is raised as to why the bible has these types of teachings(see the scriptures I listed in an earlier reply on this thread), Christians say that those serve as a lesson as to what we aren't supposed to do.
I'm not addressing what the Bible says as you don't even believe in it. I told you the story of Sodom, and you tossed that aside because you don't believe in the Bible. I really don't want to get in a Bible discussion about this either, as I'm not a Bible expert. I only know a few things from what I have read.
AHEM, VERSER!!!!! NOT FAIR!!!MY BRO ISN'T HOME!!!! cries*
Anyways, what I'm saying is if all those are just to say don't do that, how do we know that the burning of Sodom isn't just in there for God to say "hey, don't do that". Who get's to decide which of these are actually teaching us, and which are saying this is something you shouldn't do?
Why don't we take a break and collect some ideas. For starters, its 3v1 so I don't think cricket can handle all these texts at once and secondly, I believe taking time to collect thoughts will lead to much stronger arguments.
Oh my god, just cause I don't believe in it doesn't mean I haven't read it, doesn't mean I don't know it. I already referenced several other scriptures. (1 Timothy 2:12), (Judges 19:25-28), (1 Peter 2:18). Unlike you, I get the facts and knowledge of the other side before I decide I don't believe in it.
Yeah, but I'm fairly sure God burnt down the city to show that he REALLY didn't want us to do that. I don't think he was trying to give a light warning or a light tap on the hand. And I'm Catholic, so I believe that the Catholic Church should be the one to decide whether or not God was telling us yes or no.
Actually, the city of Sodom was burnt because one of the kings (I forget which one) wanted her daughters back,
Hmm, I guess r breaks over huh
Look this is supposed to be a friendly argument, so I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't start insulting me. I'm just trying to stand up for what I believe in, and its rather hard as like 15235 said, its three against 1 and I don't carry around a Bible and a science book in my pocket all day( points accusingly, LOL).
So where else does god say nono to gays?
Okay, and that's good. The thing is, we change whether or not these scriptures are "an example" or "a warning" depending on the time period, and everyone believes different things. There once was a time where Christians might say that Timothy 2:12 was wonderful, but because of female rights movements, that is seen as an awful belief, and has subsequently become a "warning". See where the issue lies with that?
Actually it is Sodom and Gomorrah that God burnt down. I think its in Genesis somewhere. 13:10 maybe?
So...who wants to go first Verser? or sofia?
The scripture I referenced is different, has to do with how women shalt never teach or be of any sort of authority over man "she must be quiet". I brought that up to show how our opinions on warning or example change. I know, it Genesis 19:24 actually.
Well yeah it is we're trying to disprove these facts you've bought up, you keep relating to god, but you have to understand, god is not based on fact, god is the ideal of FAITH. This is also a theory of why god doesn't show himself. So if you've got all your ideas from the bible, its time to start at least CONSIDERING outside ideas because maybe the bible isn't fully correct since most of it is not based on FACT but the BELIEF of the people who read it.
or both of you?
erm not read it, wrote it
Sooo, I know a couple of books off the top of my head that speak against being gay. I think its Corinthians, Timothy, Romans, Leviticus and I don't remember any other ones. But they all have stuff in them that say gay is wrong.
But that also doesn't mean you follow along unquestionably. Do you have questions about the bilbe?
I am willing to consider outside ideas. But I won't say that the Bible is incorrect or not fact. God wrote it(my belief again) so its perfect and infallible.
The fact that the bible has proof that says its wrong still fails to explain why everyone should be affected by the bible, regardless of their religion. Have you ever heard of this lovely thing called separation of church and state?
Well, god did create us in his image, and we have flaws right?
guys and girls please give him a chance to speak.
Did you read the scriptures that I earlier referenced? Because I'm pretty sure that those are the exact opposite of perfect and infallible. Esp. Judges 19:25-28.
Of course I have questions about the Bible. God wrote it and he knows everything. I on the other hand don't know everything, so yes of course I wonder about some stuff. But that's not saying that I don't believe in it.
Rhia I have heard of the separation of church and state. And I don't agree with it(don't go into it!).
How can you not believe in it?!? Chaos would ensue! Everyone would kill everyone else. I just don't understand!
Sorry guys, my mum wants me to go eat dinner. If you guys want to talk more just PM me or something. I'll do my best to reply on Sunday(that's when I will be on next).
well we don't always understand everything. sorry, have to go!!!
baiya crikets! Sorry for all the hostility
Cricket, we wouldn't have a democracy if we had church and state. We would be run by maniacal, over-religious tyrants! We would be totally stripped of our free will. Like rhia said. CHAOS!!
Bye crickets. It was fun
Oh, Verser, you said at the beginning "what would you do if your best friend was gay?" I assume you are talking to Therese but just to confirm I have absolutely nothing gainst homosexuality other than believing it to be a sin (yeah, right, I'm sinless) and thinking they shouldn't marry (I don't care if they are in a relationship, or whatever. )
I didn't start hating my brother when he came out.
Oh, Verser, you said at the beginning "what would you do if your best friend was gay?" I assume you are talking to Therese but just to confirm I have absolutely nothing gainst homosexuality other than believing it to be a sin (yeah, right, I'm sinless) and thinking they shouldn't marry (I don't care if they are in a relationship, or whatever. )
I didn't start hating my brother when he came out.
I think the mods would prefer this to be in the debate section. It's kinda aggravating going so far down the page to see other reviews.
We did move it. Its now in the debate section.
After a mere 80 or so posts.
oohhhh, don't exaggerate!!! It was only around 50 or soooo.lol
Just counted: 85. Not iincluding any done after the initial bout.
oohhhhh, fine.... have it your way.... LOL
Did you know that your avatar, Dory, is played by a woman by the name of Ellen Degeneres? Did you know that Ellen Degeneres is a lesbian.
That means, using your logic (or lack thereof), that you are condoning homosexuality by using the picture of a character played by a gay woman as your avatar.
*cough* debate section please?
Just to clarify, I didn't like Cricket's comment because I agree with it, I liked it because the discussion is really interesting and professional (for the most part.)
Written this in favor of the homosexuals. Kindly read this.
The boy who hated "Lefties"
Haha looked back at this Therese started debates since day one @ThereseCricket xD
lol Perhaps, lovesong.
To be honest, I am not sure how much I even agree with this. I do believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, it was designed to be that way. But, to force our beliefs on others is downright wrong. We don't have to compromise on our faith, but neither do we have to protest against equal rights. Honestly, they deserve equal rights, especially in a place like America, where the individual should have the choice to do what they want. We are told to love the world and those in it. Trying to prevent them from equal rights, and sounding really rude while doing it is not the way I understand love. We don't have to agree. We don't have to support them. Let the gays, lesbians and etc... fight their own battles to have the rights to marry and whatever else. Continue to support traditional marriage, but I wouldn't suggest going around telling everyone they must change their ways because of our religious belief. I mean, let people know what we believe, but other than that, we can't force our beliefs on them. It is just not right at all. I am not saying I am pro homosexual marriage or anything, but I am pro love, and being pro love, I believe we should let them do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Although we deem it to be wrong, doesn't mean we should ban it for everyone else. The world will always be this way, and we need to learn to love them, because that is the only way they will see God.
Whoa! I am not forcing anything on anyone! Just an opinionated essay.
Also I am not against gay couples. Just gay marriage.
Also I did my best not to be rude, as I say, it is simply an opinion and a logical argument of preventing redefinition, or escalating equality of rights in terms of marriage, making the term meaningless. I did not intend to deeply offend someone.
Seeing how I am a homosexual, this review will not be a review. I haven't marked it as a review, but a comment, as I do not think I have positives for this work. This isn't necessarily because I disagree with it- I am vehemently opposed to the opinion expressed in this work- but your arguments in support of denying homosexuals the right to express their love in the truest form are rather weak.
I see you are a traditionalist, who goes against social progress because it goes against the tradition of marriage. Marriage isn't just limited to man and woman, and it shouldn't be. Are you suggesting that we shall not change the conduct of marriage so that it validates your beliefs? Are you seriously insinuating that we should deny homosexuals, such as myself, the right to marry because they are homosexuals?
...no it wouldn't. Marriage is the union between two or more people, *not* just limited to man and woman. Also, even if it was, so what? Who cares if it is being redefined and makes the Bible look bad? I really don't care about this argument. Also, the meaning of marriage is subjective, and not objective, so for you to tell people what YOU think is marriage and that YOU say it's right, is incredibly selfish. Additionally, you are essentially advocating sexual repression because it will remove meaning to older texts, such as the Bible. To me that is thought crime.
Well, yes. It's about bloody time they got equal rights, seeing the levels of oppression and repression they have received. You are essentially calling for the complete denial of rights for not just homosexuals, but everyone in the LGBTQ community. Why? Because to you they are different. You don't like equality, unless everyone was equal to you. I am sorry, and I am getting way off track here, but that is a philosophical paradox.
The fact that you are comparing zoophilia to homosexuality- essentially admitting to us that homosexuality is a form of paraphilia and therefore a form of sexual deviancy- is enough evidence to support the lack of understanding of the homosexual. Homosexuals are not sexual deviants. I am not a sexual deviant. We want to be loved, and you are telling us what to do, and your response will be like, "you're overreacting". No. I am not. I am responding how anyone would respond if they were told they were not allowed equal rights to someone, supposedly and allegedly, superior.
Hmm...let's see about that.
I feel the love(!)
As displayed in a response to a review by YourLowness, I do not feel welcome to argue this, because I will get verbally mutilated. Yes, I am being rude, but that is only as a reaction to your work, which I personally find to be didactic.
Overall, I would rename this work, as not an essay, but an advertisement for your beliefs. I did not come out of this thinking, "ok, I will not allow myself to marry because I am a godless sodomite." I did try and keep an open mind, seeing how you described this work as "logical", but really any argument which denies one's right is not illogical, but paranoid and oppressive. Don't worry; if I marry I won't harm God's children with my filth.
Thanks!
I think you misunderstood me at one point (not supprised, I am a terrible essay writer) but I did not compare homosexuality to zoophilia. Only I displayed a mutual argument.
Also I would like to say the Bible quotes you use are from books that are in places nothing more than lists of laws and punishment. God loves all sinners equally (I count the entirety of humanity as sinners)
Thanks, and I realize my argument is weak. I know others that may explain it better.
P.S. love the avatar!
Veey good essay I can visualize a very heated discussion about this.
Hey there, Fiend~
First off, let me tell you that this is a review, and I won't be mentioning my personal standings in it, as I see it's completely irrelevant whether I agree or not as someone who's commenting on the style and way the essay is written.
So onto it, then...
I'm not sure if you were following any "official" style of essay, or is this more of a free form kind of thing (I'm guessing the latter), but my English teacher would tell you that, as an opinion essay it clearly is, it should have an intro, a couple of arguments to support your opinion, one or two that offer the opposing view, and a conclusion in which you'd wrap that all up nicely with a pretty bow on top. I realise we're not in an English class, but it might be something to consider - regardless of it being written as your personal opinion, adding a paragraph which presents the opposing view objectively won't harm it or make you seem less sure of yourself. It will probably only help the readers to understand your arguments.
Now, you do have this paragraph;
In it, you sort of do offer the opposing view, but from the way it's presented, it's coming off as something that can't possibly make any sense to any sensible being. Your job in an essay of this sort is to give opinion and possibly persuade the reader, and for that you need more than a casual mention of some equality rights like they're a passing thought - if you can't pay proper attention and present your arguments as replies to opposing ones, you'll hardly make anyone take you seriously, let alone let you persuade them anything.
Furthermore, just as one will use academic language and proper English when writing an essay, it's pretty important to use at least somewhat professional - or if nothing else, correct - terms for what you're trying to say. Simply put, if you feel the need to add "these terms are not meant to offend by the way", then they're probably not the right terms to use.
"Heterosexuals" in place of "straight people" should be included here as well. If you're apologising for calling homosexual people by their somewhat colloquial terms, shouldn't you assume that heterosexuals might get offended for the same reason? Might not make sense to you, but think of it as illustration of why (along with credibility of course) it is very important to know your terms and use them right.
Similarly, "multiple marriage (marriage between more than two people)" is not really a thing - term you're looking for could be polygamy, polygyny, polyandry or group/conjoint marriage if you don't want the genders to matter at all. I could go into more geeky things on the subject from my Cultural Anthropology classes, but I'll restrain myself xP
Also, as a side note but regarding the content of this paragraph, comparing forms of narcissism or zoophilia (yes, those have names as well!) with homosexuality is a pretty bold move, and you need far, far better arguments if you want to make moves like that. When it comes to same sex marriages, we're talking about consensual agreement on spending the rest of your life with someone you love (and who loves you), for whichever reasons, emotional or other, those people have - that's a pretty good thing to not forget. It'd also be pretty good to remember that divorce, for example, is kind of t urning the concept of marriage meaningless too, but that's another topic.
At this point I was like "What was your argument again?" and that's not a very good sign xD You gave us a lot of topic sentences in this essay - which is good, generally speaking, but they need their supporting sentences of various kinds, examples and explanations, and real data and/or checked information with reliable sources to support them. I get you didn't write this to win some essay competition, or to submit as school assignment, but that doesn't excuse you from writing it the best you can, right? c:
The last part seemed sort of rushed, as if you really wanted to squeeze in God and sinners because you mentioned the Bible somewhere in the beginning. Honestly, I'm not sure why you even wanted to add that side of it - you say yourself that your opinion as a Christian isn't what drives this essay and it's less important, so why bringing it up at all? The Bible is probably one of the most commonly quoted sources when someone's presenting their opinion on these matters (even if they're pro-gay marriages), and I would actually really like to see an essay about this without bringing up the Bible. There must be other arguments - you bring some in yourself - so why not, instead of resorting to God and whatnot, expand on those thoughts, turn them into proper arguments and convince the readers who're fed up with Bible quotes already?
I'll stop myself here, and say that I always like the essays on the subject, and I'm always curious what arguments people can come up with and how can they present it. You have your opinion well shaped in here, it seems - now it just needs some polishing, and some more thoughts from the technical aspect of writing essays in general, and it'll be a proper, well-written essay, one your readers will be able to read and accept regardless of their own standings ^^
Cheers,
Aria~
It's a good argument, though probably not popular. You seemed to focus on one point your whole paper, though. If you want to make a more substantial argument, you may want to add more facets. You could also add to the redefining of the Bible. Perhaps there are certain sections you could quote that would be changed. Also, to "gain new meaning," is usually a positive term, but I think you meant it negatively.
Your use of parenthesis sometimes seemed unnecessary. In the case of hoping not to be offensive, we are reading a persuasive essay, being offensive sometimes comes with the territory. Other times they could be taken out or commas used instead. For example, I think "Those that wish to marry (for it certainly is true love) a chimpanzee?" would have flown better if the "for it certainly is true love" had been within commas. Extra clauses don't require parenthesis.
Thanks.
I am not much of an essay writer, as you may have noticed. This is just something I have had to explain often, so I thought I would write it down.