Our Mutual Joy Lisa Miller Analysis
“Our Mutual Joy: The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”
Judging by the title of this article written by Lisa Miller, readers would tend to believe that this would be a piece of work written to support the religious side of the war on gay marriage. However, when reading through just the first paragraph, it becomes apparent that the essay is actually contributing to the discrimination of the Bible. This instantly detracts from the author’s argument because this places a biased predecessor on the information to come. The author places emphasis on the fact that there is no reason why gay marriage should be illegal. Proving her essay to be void of valuable information, this author did not effectively and correctly present the facts on …show more content…
Miller really likes to use her own opinions and perspectives when talking about the stories in the Bible. When talking about King David and his friend Jonathan and their love for each other, the point that they may have been romantically involved with each other comes up. There is no evidence that there was any sort of sexual relationship going on between the two men. The author states that “what Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy, is up to imagination (Miller 233).” This is obviously an opinion based statement because there are no hints present in the passages about the two men that there was anything other than platonic involvement with each other. When using ethos to analyze this, it is clear that there is no logical explanation for why this would help her argument on gay marriage. It is not related to her thesis, also there is no source sited for where she got the …show more content…
When Miller incorporates a direct quote from a minister, she ignorantly states that “the Bible and Jesus neither explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman. Furthermore, she follows this statement with an unsupported personal opinion that “no sensible modern person wants marriage to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes (Miller 229).” All it takes is to open the Bible to 1 Corinthians or chapter 2 of Genesis to verify that marriage is meant to be between two people of opposite sex. Not doing her research and her continual use of opinion-based statements proceeds to hindered Miller’s argument because it is not
Judging by the title of this article written by Lisa Miller, readers would tend to believe that this would be a piece of work written to support the religious side of the war on gay marriage. However, when reading through just the first paragraph, it becomes apparent that the essay is actually contributing to the discrimination of the Bible. This instantly detracts from the author’s argument because this places a biased predecessor on the information to come. The author places emphasis on the fact that there is no reason why gay marriage should be illegal. Proving her essay to be void of valuable information, this author did not effectively and correctly present the facts on …show more content…
Miller really likes to use her own opinions and perspectives when talking about the stories in the Bible. When talking about King David and his friend Jonathan and their love for each other, the point that they may have been romantically involved with each other comes up. There is no evidence that there was any sort of sexual relationship going on between the two men. The author states that “what Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy, is up to imagination (Miller 233).” This is obviously an opinion based statement because there are no hints present in the passages about the two men that there was anything other than platonic involvement with each other. When using ethos to analyze this, it is clear that there is no logical explanation for why this would help her argument on gay marriage. It is not related to her thesis, also there is no source sited for where she got the …show more content…
When Miller incorporates a direct quote from a minister, she ignorantly states that “the Bible and Jesus neither explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman. Furthermore, she follows this statement with an unsupported personal opinion that “no sensible modern person wants marriage to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes (Miller 229).” All it takes is to open the Bible to 1 Corinthians or chapter 2 of Genesis to verify that marriage is meant to be between two people of opposite sex. Not doing her research and her continual use of opinion-based statements proceeds to hindered Miller’s argument because it is not