Gay Option
Gay Option
In the article “The Gay Option”, Stephanie Fairyngton argues that it is wrong to think about homosexuality as deviations from nature’s norm. She understands that it is easy for people to think about homosexuality as an illness rather than a person’s choice. The main reason for this is that it is hard to understand people who choose this challenging state of beings. Because society has a stereotype of heterosexuality as somehow better choice than homosexuality, they would think that person who chooses to love same-sex person are sinful and immoral. Therefore, it becomes very challenging to accept people who chose to be homosexuals. On the other hand, it is easy for people to accept gays and lesbians, when they think about it as a biological abnormality. The author understands that until people think about homosexuality as a predetermined abnormality, homosexuals would have a bigger chance to be accepted by society and be recognized by law. The main reason for this is that people who think about homosexuality as about something that is fixed they would lose the threat of homosexuality and see it as absolute as race or sex. The author wants to prove that if person has a desire to love a same-sex person, it should be seemed as normal as have a desire to pursuing a passion for any spiritual or emotional cravings. She believes that every person has a right to choose the way that can make him happy. Therefore, society shouldn’t eliminate people who choose a different way of love because this is the way that makes those people satisfied.
Viewed from Aristotelian perspective, Stephanie Fairyngton uses three types of appeal: logos, pathos, and ethos. In the article, author shares her experience and emotions that she gets through her life throughout the whole text. She describes her emotions and feelings in the way that force people to empathize and take pity on her. She uses pathos when she describes her feelings by using words like “self-loathing” or
In the article “The Gay Option”, Stephanie Fairyngton argues that it is wrong to think about homosexuality as deviations from nature’s norm. She understands that it is easy for people to think about homosexuality as an illness rather than a person’s choice. The main reason for this is that it is hard to understand people who choose this challenging state of beings. Because society has a stereotype of heterosexuality as somehow better choice than homosexuality, they would think that person who chooses to love same-sex person are sinful and immoral. Therefore, it becomes very challenging to accept people who chose to be homosexuals. On the other hand, it is easy for people to accept gays and lesbians, when they think about it as a biological abnormality. The author understands that until people think about homosexuality as a predetermined abnormality, homosexuals would have a bigger chance to be accepted by society and be recognized by law. The main reason for this is that people who think about homosexuality as about something that is fixed they would lose the threat of homosexuality and see it as absolute as race or sex. The author wants to prove that if person has a desire to love a same-sex person, it should be seemed as normal as have a desire to pursuing a passion for any spiritual or emotional cravings. She believes that every person has a right to choose the way that can make him happy. Therefore, society shouldn’t eliminate people who choose a different way of love because this is the way that makes those people satisfied.
Viewed from Aristotelian perspective, Stephanie Fairyngton uses three types of appeal: logos, pathos, and ethos. In the article, author shares her experience and emotions that she gets through her life throughout the whole text. She describes her emotions and feelings in the way that force people to empathize and take pity on her. She uses pathos when she describes her feelings by using words like “self-loathing” or