Logic of Gay Relationships - Term Paper Example

Logic- Gay? Whatever, Dude. Introduction The article that has been critically reviewed in this paper is “Gay? Whatever, dude” by Charles M. Brow. Brow’s article appeared in the New York Times on the 4th of June 2010. The article can be viewed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05blow.html?scp=9&sq=gay%20marriages&st=Search In this article, Brow talks about how common the notion of gay relationships and gay marriages have become in the US today. He talks about the shockingly high rates of acceptance of gays and lesbians in the US. Brow states that nearly fifty percent of Americans have now accepted the notion of gay and lesbian relationships. He also tells that this notion is more common in men as compared to women and gives other scholars’ reasoning and hypothesis on this. Brow includes the three theories by Professor Rich Savin- Williams which has given a totally different flavor to the article. These theories are used to understand why the concept of gay and lesbian has become so widely accepted today. He blames it on the openness that exists in the work and leisure environment today. Williams believes that since the gay and lesbian members of the community have openly accepted themselves as gays and lesbians, the other members of the society can do little to discriminate against them. The article moves on to describe a very controversial concept which deals with why only the men are accepting their gay nature so openly and why women are still conservative when it comes to this. Brow brings in what he calls the “ceiling effect” to describe this. Brow concludes that there is no philosophical reasoning to why men are more acceptable to such notions, it is just that men are catching up to women and there may be a time when tables turn over women. Towards the end, Brow also touches gay and lesbian marriages and says that even though such members are acceptable in the society; their open relationships are still not welcome in the US. Gay marriages are still a controversial topic in the US and Brow thinks that it would continue to be so until the next few years. Approach of the writer Although Brow begins with a very instinctive approach towards gays and lesbians by stating that the topic that he has considered and the facts that he has gathered are “stunning” just to emphasize how magnificently faulty they are (Bergmann, 1997). It gives the reader a feel that Brow is not very happy with the notion of accepting such members in the society and particularly military in a free fashion. However, as the article proceeds, Brow changes his approach to be a more analytical one. He states theories by Professor Williams and he uses statistics and charts to explain the general trend of acceptability of gay and lesbian relationships. Brow’s approach then becomes more fact based and analytical. He questions facts like why are men more inclined to accept such relationships and why women still have trouble doing so. He also talks about how the general population is flawed in the sense that they have accepted gays and lesbians but not their relationships. When he does so, he again turns on his instinctive mode. Therefore, Brow keeps switching between the instinctive approach and the analytical approach which makes the article informative and fun to read. The writer’s opinions that may be harsh when critically analyzed add a tinge of fun to the article and make it a good piece of writing whereas the theories stated add more to its analytical value. Kinds of reasoning in the text with examples Brow’s article on the acceptability of gays and lesbians is an amalgam of different kinds of reasoning. It mostly includes causal and deductive reasoning. The process of causal reasoning refers to a representing the underlying principles in the form of rules which express causes and effects (Cederblom, 2000). Brow tells why the notion of homosexuality has gotten so much of acceptability and then he moves forward to explain the consequences of it. He believes that the recent popularity of this concept of gays and lesbians owes to the openness that the subject has gained and he fears that soon their relationships will be accepted too, which are at the moment, still a matter of debate. Brow’s way of tackling with causal reasoning is appreciable since he does so in a very subtle fashion and the reader does not realize that the writer is pushing in a lot of causes and results since it all blends with the flow of the article. That is a tremendous feat for any writer. One of the biggest cause and effect questions that this article answers is the recent upsurge in accepting gay and lesbian people in the society and what affect it has had. Brow concludes that the cause of the sudden increase in acceptance rates has been the bridging of communication gap between gays and lesbians and whom the world calls common people. He says that now gays and lesbians are seen commonly in workplace and even in armed forces. Their increased social repute has given them the confidence to speak for themselves and attain their place in the society. Since gays and lesbians are no longer ashamed of themselves and can identify themselves honestly in public, the public has also accepted them. The affect that this acceptance has had is a lot of people who were straight turning into gays and lesbians by what is called a “push factor” in economics. Also, this has made very controversial and personal topics very public which has led to public humiliation in a lot of instances. Brow also uses deductive reasoning in his article on gay relationships. Deductive reasoning is a method that seeks to show that some conclusion is derived using a set of premises. He uses statistical analysis as the premises and derives results based on the statistics and other facts. The writer has managed to uses graphs to explain the theories which have lead to the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the US. Brow uses graphs to show the percentage of people who have found gay and lesbian relationships morally acceptable since 2006. He separates the data according to genders to make the trend more obvious. From these graphs, he reaches the conclusion that men have been ever more acceptable to such relationships while women are still a bit conservative today. Brow has been able to merge the two kinds of reasoning remarkably in his article. This is a very important feature of the article since all the information is blended in a very interesting fashion so that the reader is not exhausted by heaps of information passed on him but at the same time gains significantly after reading the article. Judgment present The article under consideration uses two kinds of judgment, consent judgment and default judgment. It first gives a premature default judgment. Since gay relationships have always been a very controversial topic with most people against the topic since ages, Brow also tends to take a default judgmental in the start by agreeing that the recent acceptance of gay relationships is not a very good idea and it will cause further social problems. However, as the article gains momentum, the author begins to take a more consent judgmental approach by concluding that the recent acceptance of gays has not done much harm to the society and it has in fact given an identity to the socially inacceptable class of gays and lesbians. It then however pleases the other side by saying that gay relationships are a bit too much for the society to accept despite the modernization. Therefore, to provide a balance, gays should be accepted for who they are but their relationships should not be tolerated. A strength and a weakness in the text Brow’s article appeared in the New York Times and that is self speaking of its strength. The way the author moves with such a controversial topic in a way that would never be unacceptable to the audiences is a great feat. Brow managed to use no discriminatory or bigoted terms for gays and lesbians and that is self speaking of its non controversial nature on such a controversial topic. Brow managed to use facts and figures more than opinions to keep it as fair and objective as possible. However, the only weakness with the article is that Brow managed to conclude that gays and lesbians are an acceptable part of the society but their relationships should not be openly accepted. This is a very confusing remark to make since once the gays and lesbians will be accepted, their relationships will be a part of the deal, after all one cannot have the fruit without the seed. References Bergmann, M. & Moor, J. & Nelson, J. (1997). The Logic Book. McGraw Hill. Cederblom, J. &Paulsen, D. (2000). Critical Reasoning. Wadsworth Publishing. Read More