I can read and annotate to identify the author's claim and the types of evidence the author used to support his/her opinion.
To do this I must use reading strategies to help me identify the claim and have an understanding of the five types of evidence.
I will demonstrate this by annotating and answering the questions in the article.
Warm-up: I've been telling you guys how relevant these social issues are to us, and I know I have probably been wasting my breath because you guys know that. But, here is just another example of these social issues are relevant and real. After watching the video from last night's Grammy's, write a reaction. How did this video make you feel? What things stood out with you or resonated with you? Lyrics? Ceremony? Acceptance?
Directions: As always, we will be looking at both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Evaluate the article below for its types of evidence and effectiveness. Did she make a compelling argument?
Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm
Children
By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
Based on the title, the author most likely
believes that same-sex marriage ________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need
is love. Based on that supposition[1], they conclude it’s just
as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is
to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic
assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!
A proponent of same-sex marriage believes ________________________________________________________________________.
All else being equal,
children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this
environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological [2]experiences they need in
order to thrive.
Men and women bring
diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the raising of
children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are
not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a
good father.
So here are five reasons
why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a
father:
First, mother-love and
father-love—though equally important—are different and produce distinct
parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the
unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a
father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love
without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the
complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.
Only heterosexual
parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent
of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early
in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a
girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world
of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the
converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite
sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.
Secondly, children
progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages
require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For
example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of
their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and
thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy
is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead
identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to
identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine
identity.
A father teaches a boy
how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a
son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the
same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a
mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are
the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become
delinquent and end up incarcerated.
Father-need is also
built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a
father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual
place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity
affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely
to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for
male attention and validation.
Overall, fathers play a
restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting
out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no
father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless
children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.
According to the author, a child needs a mother
and a father because ______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Third, boys and girls
need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked
inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules
over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion,
while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a
child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally
and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only
facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child
see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.
Fourth, same-sex
marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young
people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all
choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from
traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will
grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries.
Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to
consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated
previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely
to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only
was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also
approved by their society.
There is no question
that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece orRome—among
many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were
nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a
“gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies.
That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.
I agree/disagree with the author’s fourth
argument because ______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________.
And fifth, if society
permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage.
The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory,
then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other
marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and
psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing
psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the
children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent
then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers
and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.
Certainly homosexual
couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require
more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary
natures of a male and female parent.
The accumulated wisdom
of over 2,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental
configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding
such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical
experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.
Same-sex marriage
definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize
with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t
allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a
contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children,
we can’t allow the children to lose.
Post-Reading Questions:
1. What
is the author’s claim
2. What
was her strongest piece of evidence? What type of evidence was it?
(facts/statistics, quotes, comparison, anecdotal, historical reference).
3. What
is the author’s weakest argument? How would you challenge it?
The strongest alternate title for this article would be . . .
a.
Kids with Same-Sex
Parents
b.
The Need for a Mother
and a Father
c.
Same-Sex Marriage is
Wrong
d.
Same-Sex Parents Often
have Gay Children
[2]
Psychological – of or relating to mental factors
No comments:
Post a Comment