February 19, 2013
What’s the deal? Is it the fact that there are heterosexual couples that have rights and benefits available to them unlike the homosexual couples? Or is it based on whether or not people, no matter their sexual preference, are in a marital relationship with another being. This article tries to persuade citizens, especially singles, that giving benefits and rights to married couples, gay or straight, is unreasonable. The author comes from a singles person’s perspective, which “don’t share in he deal given to married couples” and bears a different viewpoint dealing with the gay marriage issue (Harrop 675). In Froma Harrop’s “Gay, Straight: What’s The Deal”, she explains “the deal” through his use of the appeals to Logos, Pathos, and Ethos. In this article Harrop uses facts as examples to show that it’s neither fair nor right that married couples are allotted privileges that single Americans do not. Take the lesbian couple for example, “…the women filed a medical-malpractice lawsuit. One of them suffered from advanced breast cancer, which the suit claimed, a doctor had failed to detect. The other wanted to collect for “loss of consortium.”(Harrop 675).
The author belittles the couple for the “collection of monetary” which makes it seem as if she is blaming the use of the benefits that are given to married couples. The author uses this fact and compares it to those people who are close but are in a non-marital relationship. “You can’t read this without thinking about similar hurts being felt all the time in non-marital relationships… Why can’t they sue for loss of companionship, also?” (Harrop 675). On the pathos she uses emotion and an angry tone that makes her irritation over gay marriage clear as well as use the word “you” and “us” to make the examples seem more real and personable. “In doing this, the senators have earned my gratitude- though for reasons not directly related to gay rights. Rather the move will spare us all some of the repetitive back-and-forth that has characterized this debate.” (Harrop 675). This technique Harrop uses allows for the author and the single American audience to meet in the middle and find some common ground on this issue. “What really rankles me...” and “So much attention is paid to married couples that most of the public- including single people themselves- think of unmarried adults as a marginal minority.” Further show her anger of the treatment towards the single Americans (Harrop 675). Another use of pathos is show in the example about the sisters. “Government should have no interest in a citizen’s marital status. It certainly has no business sending a bigger tax bill to cohabiting sisters that to a man-and-wife team reporting the same income and deductions as the sisters.” with this the author implies that the status of the relationship does not set the morality of the government and their beliefs (Harrop 676). By using the choices of words she does, its allows for the audience to see how compassionate she is about this issue and that it is really important to her that she portrays that to her readers. What helps make this article a persuasive article is the ethos appeal. “Quickie marriages get more legal respect that friendships lasting decades.”(Harrop 675). This helps her portray that society does not approve of this certain action just to receive the benefits. Harrop gains the credibility and the sense of confidence by using examples that everyday people in society can relate to. For example Britney Spears “An hour after Britney Spears gets hooked to her next husband, the federal government will shower her with all sorts of rights and benefits not available to the man who has spent eight years caring for a