Paper

Key ingredients of persuasive writing

Introducing opposing views

It is important to keep in mind that arguments do not occur in a vacuum. In other words, when people argue they – usually, it is hoped – are responding in some way to someone else – either to their words or actions.

Task 3: Look at the following two examples related to the topic of gun ownership in the US and answer the questions that follow.

a) Guns should be banned because there is no point in having them. All they are used for is killing people. According to a recent statistic, there are more gun deaths every year than road accidents.

b) Gun rights groups argue that gun ownership is a necessary means of protection against criminals. This claim, however, is flawed because studies have shown that people are more likely to die from being shot with their own gun during home invasions than not. This statistic further proves…

Discuss with a partner which argument you consider to be stronger. Why?

Task4: First, with a partner, share your views on the following topics:

· abortion

· smoking in public

· same-sex marriage

· legalization of drugs

· euthanasia (right to die)

Now, take turns creating arguments showing an opposing view to the ones you discussed above. You may use the following language to help you.

Useful language

· X argues that… , but it is clear that …

· Many people* believe… , however…

· By focusing on __________, X overlooks the deeper problem of…

· I disagree with X’s view that ___________ because, as recent research has shown, ____________.

*Always try to be as specific as possible.

Making concessions

Issues, of course, are not always black and white. In more complex arguments, it might be necessary to make concessions, where you are agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously. However, this is not to be confused with being wishy-washy, where you fail to take any kind of position.

Task 5: With the same partner, go back to the arguments made earlier and take turns trying to partly agree or disagree with one aspect of an argument. You may use the following language to help you.

Useful language

· Although X has a point that __________, overall it is difficult to agree on ____________because____________.

· There is some merit to the claim that___________, there is a major issue with _______________.

· While X is correct/ right in stating______________, they/he/she fail to see the point with regard to _______________.

· X correctly claims that ______________, however X’s assertion that______________ does not fit the facts.

Task 6: Debate

Working with another group (group A and group B), you will be debating the following topic:

“Same-sex marriages should be legalized in Hong Kong.”

Group A should argue for the statement, and Group B should argue against it. Decide first which group you are. You will then have 5 minutes in your group to discuss how you will make your argument. Your lecturer will time you. (Remember to incorporate language from previous discussion classes, as well as some from above, if possible.).

The debate will last for 5 to 10 minutes, and then be prepared to report back to the class who had the most convincing arguments.

You may make notes below:

Sample essay: ‘Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in Hong Kong’

1. Last year, the Hong Kong government refused the British Consulates’ request to perform a same sex marriage ceremony for Britons in Hong Kong (Liu, 2014). It revealed that, despite being an international city, Hong Kong is still a socially conservative society at heart. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to say that same sex marriage remains a controversial issue. As of 2015, only seventeen countries in the world legally recognize same sex marriage (Goldsmith, 2014). The controversy surrounding same sex marriage mostly concerns three interconnected aspects: the legal aspect, the religious aspect, as well as the social aspect. This paper aims to demonstrate that same sex marriage should be legalized in Hong Kong despite opposition from the public and religious groups because it is a basic human right guaranteed by law.

2. The refusal to legalize same sex marriage under the Marriage Ordinance is a violation of Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights. Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights clearly states that “all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of law”, and it prohibits any discrimination based on sexual orientation (Au, 2011, p. 17). By definition, sexual orientation discrimination is defined as treating an individual less unfavorably in comparable circumstances due to their sexual orientation (“Sexual orientation and”, 2004). In the case of same sex marriage, refusing homosexuals the same right to marry and have the same rights guaranteed by marriage as their heterosexual counterparts should be deemed as discrimination as it treats homosexuals less favorably under the circumstances of marriage. Therefore, the Marriage Ordinance in Hong Kong, which only guarantees the rights of heterosexual couples to marry is discriminatory in nature and contradicts the Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights. In fact, the Marriage Ordinance even violates transsexuals’ rights to marry because it only takes people’s biological sex into consideration (Au, 2011). It has been ruled as unconstitutional by Hong Kong’s High Court in 2013 (Lau & Lai, 2013). The same reasoning applies to same sex marriage and it is clear that the Marriage Ordinance should be amended to uphold the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. From the legal perspective, homosexuals’ right to marry cannot be denied.

2. Public opinions should not be a concern when it comes to legislating laws that guarantee minorities their basic rights because public opinion is often contradictory and based upon ignorance. In 2014, the Hong Kong University published a survey regarding public support for gay rights (Loper, Lau & La, 2014). It revealed that the majority of the Hong Kong citizens believe that homosexual couples should not be discriminated against and are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual married couples, such as hospital visitation and property inheritance. Yet, the same majority voiced their disapproval of same sex marriage (Loper et al., 2014). This shows that public opinion is unreliable as most people are ignorant of the fact that one simply cannot support equal rights for same sex couples while denying them marriage rights, as marriage in itself is a right. It also demonstrates that, just because the majority of people support an opinion, it does not make the opinion a logical or correct one. Additionally, a law should be implemented to protect minorities and should be independent of public opinion. When the High Court ruled the W’s transsexual marriage case, the judge specifically stated that “public consensus regarding a transsexuals’ right” to marry is irrelevant to their decisions, as making a decision due to a lack of support from the majority is ‘inimical in principle to fundamental rights’” (Lau & Lai, 2013). It demonstrates that Hong Kong is a place governed by the rule of law, and that equality for all shall come first before public consensus.

3. Religious concerns should never be included in the same sex marriage debate and should be excluded in the Marriage Ordinance. In Hong Kong’s Marriage Ordinance, it specifically states that all marriages shall be “Christian marriages”, which excludes same sex marriage (Au, 2011). Since Hong Kong’s residents are guaranteed freedom of religion under the Bill of Rights and the Basic Law (HKSAR, 2012), the Marriage Ordinance not only discriminates against people with different religious beliefs, it also promotes religious domination by implying that only ‘Christian’ marriage is a legitimate marriage. Therefore, such wording in the Marriage Ordinance should be amended to guarantee total religious freedom. Moreover, the mere act of taking religious groups’ concerns of same sex marriage not being aligned with their particular religious doctrines into consideration indirectly breeds religious fascism. In 2013, after dozens of Christian groups voiced their opposition to the proposal of the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ordinance through protests and petitions, the Chief Executive C.Y Leung publically announced that he would not seek legal advice or consultation for the legislation in the near future as the city is polarized in opinions and he worried that it might “deal a blow” to religious groups in Hong Kong (Frost, 2013). The action of considering the welfare of Christian groups over homosexuals indirectly promotes and support Christian fascism, by allowing those groups to forcefully bully people into living accordingly to their own Christian values.

4. One of the major arguments against same sex marriage is its possible social consequence of damaging the minds of young children. Some argue that with the right to raise children, same sex marriage violates children’s rights to health and wellbeing (Joslin, 2011). Specifically, there are concerned that children with same sex parents are more likely to ‘turn’ gay and hence, threaten traditional marriage by leading to its decline, which in turn threatens the human population and even evolution (Rwezaura, 2004). However, these concerns have already been scientifically disputed. Over the past 20 years, researchers have conducted numerous studies, which have proven that the sexual orientation of the parents does not affect the psychological wellbeing of the children (Wainright, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). Children with homosexual parents also develop standard gender roles and identities (American Psychological Association, 2005). Furthermore, researches have shown that children who are raised by same sex parents do not have a higher chance of becoming homosexuals (Lesbian and Gay Parents, 2005). Therefore, to argue against same sex marriage on the basis that it would bring damage to children in our society is completely false and purely based on prejudice.

5. In conclusion, the legal right for homosexuals to marry is undeniable and cannot be denied by means of public opposition, religious concerns or social concerns. People are entitled to their opinions and their lifestyles, in which a Christian can choose to believe in marriage between a man and a woman and practice marriage according to Christian doctrines; while a homosexual is equally entitled to live according to his or her own beliefs. Similarly, in a Christian marriage, contraception is deemed inappropriate; however, laws do not prohibit others the rights to birth control. People are entitled to live according to their own diverse values. Marriage in a society that is governed by the rule of law should be free from any religious context, and be treated as a legal contract between consensual adults. Thus, there are no legal grounds for any one or any group in the Hong Kong society to prohibit the legalization of same sex marriage. (Word count: 1,203)

1

1

1