Does It Matter Who You Love

My first article, “70% of Americans support same-sex marriage -- a new high -- a new survey finds” by Scottie Andrew revolves around how recent studies have shown that the public’s opinion on same sex marriage has changed. This article articulates that LGBTQ+ marriages are becoming more and more accepted in the United States compared to how it was in the 80’s. The author has little to no bias point of view when establishing the fact that we, as a country, are becoming more accepting to those we once deemed as unacceptable. Subtle bias may be found in the bandwagon fallacy and positive diction that this article portrays when discussing the public’s opinion on LGBTQ+ marriages.

The next article, “Gay marriage backlash -- and it’s about righteous time” by Cheryl K. Chumley reports that it is about time that the church exhibits its outrage over the LGBTQ+ community and how their lifestyle is becoming more mainstream. Chumley writes about how although the Supreme Court may permit gay marriage, it would be like a slap on God’s face if the church does the same. This author has a very conservative point of view when discussing her point that the church accepting the LGBTQ+ community would be twisting the biblical truths of the word of God. Clear bias is repeatedly shown throughout this article by both the hasty generalization fallacy and negative diction when discussing the author’s discontent with the increasing acceptability of gay marriages in today’s society. 

When comparing both articles with one another, it is easy to see the positive vs negative spin they both have. For example, In Andrew’s article, he goes on to include pictures of ‘love conquers hate’ buildings. However, he purposefully chooses to omit any anti-LGBTQ+ pictures throughout the article. This omission of any of the ‘opposing’ side pictures helps make the reader feel as though most people support this community while the haters are the minority. This, in turn, has a bandwagon effect, which causes the reader to want to side with the majority, also known as LGBTQ+ allies. An example of this bandwagon effect can be seen when the author states that “Every age group, every racial group, every education group, both men and women and every religious group with one exception are now all in majority support" (Andrew, 2020). This sentence displays the very subtle bias that the author has added in to make those in favor of these LGBTQ+ rights seem that because they are the majority, they are the correct opinion to follow. Which may cause the reader to feel as though they have to support this community or else they will be in the wrong.

However, when discussing the second article, it is plain to see the hasty generalization fallacy at work in order to make it seem like being anti-LGBTQ+ is alright. For example, Chumley writes that “And yes, that’s “marrying” in quotation marks because, biblically speaking, God is the creator of marriage and He made clear His definition is one of uniting man with woman” (Chumley, 2019).  This excerpt clearly displays how she quickly jumps to a conclusion that she feels people may be able to relate too and agree with. However, she includes no evidence or any reasoning behind this bold claim. Chumley also includes lots of negative diction to further villainize those who are part of the LGBTQ+ community. She describes the acceptance of these marriages as “egregious” and “unbiblical” according to the bible. Stating that it was a “massive mocking” of what God had intended for us (Chumley, 2019). These sentences alone convey the author’s clear discontent with the approval of their marriages. After seeing the differences in both fallacies and connotations both authors had used, it is clearly evident that both writer’s had very different perspectives and biases.