Many people tend to not care about politics or anything of that nature. However E.J. Graff presents a very valid point. She states “No biggie, some people think: Just write a will and some health care proxies, appoint a guardian, and you're all set (4). However it is not that easy as may think. E.J. Graff thoroughly evaluated her claim and made a lot of valid points on the continuous revolving issue of the homosexuals and adoption rights. She also has a few flaws in defending her claim to include informal fallacies, bias sources, and a slight attack on the opposing party.
The author, E.J. Graff’s, claim is that homosexuals should have greater parental rights. She has a variety of reasons for her claim, first one being Homosexuals not having …show more content…
E.J. Graff’s article has a few key flaws. On page three of the article she semi attacks the conservative viewpoints by saying, “Conservatives want it both ways: They want to throw out the common findings because of methodological suspicions while making a big deal about one-time results” (3). The informal fallacy that sticks out the most is in the very beginning of the article. She states, “Forget all those times you've read Goodnight Moon, those long nights you spent in a steam-filled bathroom trying to keep your sick child breathing. In the eyes of the law, you may suddenly be just a kind stranger. No emergency room, insurance plan, schoolteacher, tax man, or judge will count you as essential to your child” (1). This is the slippery slope informal fallacy, meaning that one thing happens and it is just a non-stop snowball effect. This statement can also be classified as the Post Hoc fallacy. Because their rights to adopt were denied or revoked you can forget about all of the insurance plans, emergency room visits, etc. When looking at her works cited page, she does use a lot of bias sources. Authors with strong libertarian values wrote both the book The Morality of Gay Rights: An Exploration in Political Philosophy by Carlos Ball and Families of Value: Gay and Lesbian Parents and Their Children Speak Out by Jane Drucker (7). Even though her sources are bias, she is not trying to manipulate the audience because she is preaching to the choir. The article was published in libertarian websites and publications. Her audience already reads articles like this so there for she is only strengthening their arguments. However she does have some good backing statements in her article. “Many readers may know two-mom or two-dad families, they probably do not know about the daily legal insecurity, the extra level of anxiety and effort, and the occasional shocking injustices those families face” (2). Another one that stood out
The author, E.J. Graff’s, claim is that homosexuals should have greater parental rights. She has a variety of reasons for her claim, first one being Homosexuals not having …show more content…
E.J. Graff’s article has a few key flaws. On page three of the article she semi attacks the conservative viewpoints by saying, “Conservatives want it both ways: They want to throw out the common findings because of methodological suspicions while making a big deal about one-time results” (3). The informal fallacy that sticks out the most is in the very beginning of the article. She states, “Forget all those times you've read Goodnight Moon, those long nights you spent in a steam-filled bathroom trying to keep your sick child breathing. In the eyes of the law, you may suddenly be just a kind stranger. No emergency room, insurance plan, schoolteacher, tax man, or judge will count you as essential to your child” (1). This is the slippery slope informal fallacy, meaning that one thing happens and it is just a non-stop snowball effect. This statement can also be classified as the Post Hoc fallacy. Because their rights to adopt were denied or revoked you can forget about all of the insurance plans, emergency room visits, etc. When looking at her works cited page, she does use a lot of bias sources. Authors with strong libertarian values wrote both the book The Morality of Gay Rights: An Exploration in Political Philosophy by Carlos Ball and Families of Value: Gay and Lesbian Parents and Their Children Speak Out by Jane Drucker (7). Even though her sources are bias, she is not trying to manipulate the audience because she is preaching to the choir. The article was published in libertarian websites and publications. Her audience already reads articles like this so there for she is only strengthening their arguments. However she does have some good backing statements in her article. “Many readers may know two-mom or two-dad families, they probably do not know about the daily legal insecurity, the extra level of anxiety and effort, and the occasional shocking injustices those families face” (2). Another one that stood out