In
a topic-driven, well-organized, and well-substantiated paragraph,
make a connection between Butterfield’s argument and Miller’s
argument. Where do they agree, disagree, or agree/disagree in part? In your paragraph response, use summary, paraphrase, and quotations—from each source. Be specific.
make a connection between Butterfield’s argument and Miller’s
argument. Where do they agree, disagree, or agree/disagree in part? In your paragraph response, use summary, paraphrase, and quotations—from each source. Be specific.
NOTE: After posting on the blog, open up the CANVAS assignment (by the same name) and DO copy and paste the URL address into the CANVAS "WEB URL" text box so that I have record of your submission on Canvas. Thanks.
Andrew Falgiano
ReplyDeleteProfessor kirk
September 28, 2015
ENGL 1003
Butterfield and Miller have a connection and agree that values and social norms have shifted since post WWII. Butterfield says, “both a theological and philosophical issue is a stake here. The theological issue is the development of a category of person hood that rejects Original sin. In rejecting Original sin, the Romantics declared their belief in the inherent divinity and goodness of humanity.” Similarly Miller states, “ At the same time the culture witnessed a shift in the way we viewed human nature. Swapped the traditional American view, grounded in a certain inherited from the Prodestent understanding of original sin, for the newly refurbished an Americanized psychotherapy.” Both authors expenses the decline of the beliefs in traditional christian and biblical teachings regarding how humans view themselves as inherently good.
Jordan Kirk
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
English Comp 1
28 September, 2015
In Butterfield and Millers explanation of where human sexuality began, the two authors fully agree and present many of the same facts in their arguments. Both writers state that Freud was the introducer to categorical sexual identity, but Miller takes us further back In history after WW1. He says that after the war had ended "Americans plowed their prosperity into material self gratification." Miller shows us that same-sex marriage was "inevitable" because of mans self-centered, I'll do what feels right to me, attitude. And Butterfield agrees right along with him that the culture had shifted into an understanding that, in her own words, "no overriding or objective opposition can challenge the primal wisdom of someone's subjective frame of intelligibility." Butterfield's argument of the rejection of "Original Sin" directly corresponds with Millers teaching of people "making truth subjective and traditional truth claims irrelevant and meaningless." Numerous arguments in each piece of writing connect and show readers how the general acceptance of ones chosen sexual identity was "waiting to be made from the rough ingredients that we've been living with for well over half a century." (Miller)
Andrew Griffin
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
Freshman Comp. 0007
9/28/15
The connection
There are definitely connections between Millers article, Why the gay Marriage debate was over in 1950, and Butterfields, Openness Unhindered. The first and most obvious is the subject, Homosexuality. Homosexuality has been an issue since Lucifer fell and became the prince of this world. Both right about it and give reasons against it, and they both address the fact that in modern society, being Homosexual is celebrated. Both writers, both Miller and Butterfield, agree that it “was not rapid”, and that it took a time for it to happen, from biblical times till now, this has been brewing in the devils pot.
Between the two authors, there are many similarities on their belief of when culture started to change. They both agree that post war the values and what we became to think as the social norm began to change. Miller quotes a historian that said, "What the nation experienced, was a classic instance of norms coming into line with values." Also, Miller ends with talking about the gay marriage war saying, "it was over what's left of the traditional Christian understanding of human design and destiny." This is just another way of saying we have to catch up with the new values people start to create .
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDumar Camacho
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
Freshman Composition
28 September, 2015
Butterfield and Miller- Connection
Butterfield and Miller both agree on several subjects like for example, they both talk about how the the word sexuality has changed over the years. Both Butterfield and Miller writer about how Freud “was no fan of faith.” This shows us how they both know that Freud did not like the concept of faith but he had arguments he presented. Miller quotes John Crowe on his argument that “Most Americans had already traded away the traditional view of God and replaced it with varying degrees” which this is a topic Butterfield also agrees with. Butterfield believes that our full representation comes for God while Miller agrees with Crowe that it is good for people to have “self-fulfillment” and believes this “provides us with the best hope for the future of mankind.”
Nate Holladay
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
English 1003
28 September 2015
Rosaria Butterfield vs Joel Miller
Rosaria Butterfield and Joel Miller have written on the topic of where America got off track regarding sexual orientation. Butterfield takes a wordier, religious stand on the issue, describing how the word “gay” has had its part of speech changed over the years due to the idea of Romanticism. Miller, on the other hand, claims that it all went downhill after WWII. There was a “liberalization of values that happened.” Some people would call this kind of behavior self-gratification. There is a slight agreement between the two authors on the subject of “blindness.” For Rosaria Butterfield, it’s “heterosexual blindness.” For Joel Miller, it’s a blindness to other areas of sin. Miller argues, “Does x make you happy? Then it’s probably good. Does y make you anxious? Then it’s probably bad.” The claim that he is making here is that most people look for things that stimulate only one side of our thinking capabilities. We should think about both sides before relaxing or worrying. In Butterfield’s argument, homosexuals choose to be gay instead of thinking it over.
Nate Holladay
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
English 1003
28 September 2015
Rosaria Butterfield vs Joel Miller
Rosaria Butterfield and Joel Miller have written on the topic of where America got off track regarding sexual orientation. Butterfield takes a wordier, religious stand on the issue, describing how the word “gay” has had its part of speech changed over the years due to the idea of Romanticism. Miller, on the other hand, claims that it all went downhill after WWII. There was a “liberalization of values that happened.” Some people would call this kind of behavior self-gratification. There is a slight agreement between the two authors on the subject of “blindness.” For Rosaria Butterfield, it’s “heterosexual blindness.” For Joel Miller, it’s a blindness to other areas of sin. Miller argues, “Does x make you happy? Then it’s probably good. Does y make you anxious? Then it’s probably bad.” The claim that he is making here is that most people look for things that stimulate only one side of our thinking capabilities. We should think about both sides before relaxing or worrying. In Butterfield’s argument, homosexuals choose to be gay instead of thinking it over.
Roger Tinsley
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
ENGL 1003
September 28 2015
Butterfield v. Miller
Butterfield and Miller both have their agreements and disagreements on the subject of gay marriage. Butterfield's approach takes a more personal approach and tells her readers her personal experience to emphasize her point on the topic. Miller takes a more spectator approach but makes a good point by quoting good credible sources. Both authors have the same view on the topic and knew that gay marriage being legal was coming but they just didn't know when. The differences between the two authors are that Butterfield uses the bible and her friends in argument as Miller uses psychology. The two authors are a great source for a research paper on the topic of gay marriage.
Megan Pliauplis
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
Freshman Composition
September 28, 2015
Butterfield v. Miller
Butterfield and Miller both are very informative and education as they talk about same sex attraction. However, Butterfield argues more on why being homosexual is wrong. You could read any chapter from Butterfield's book and notice her opinion on same sex attraction right away. She makes her argument obvious. Miller, on the other hand, does not state his argument as bold as Butterfield. Miller's article is more educational than Butterfield's book. Butterfield does tell the history on homosexual attraction, but that is not all she talks about. Miller's whole article is about how the evolution of being gay came about and how it was not as rapid as we think it to be. Both of these resources are reliable and easy to understand.
Dustin Parsons
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
Freshman comp 1
9/28/15
Butterfield and Miller
Butterfield and Miller are both very passionate and understanding in their tones. some things they agree on is that the meaning of the word gay has changed over the years. it used to mean that somebody was happy and wasn't a bad thing at all but today it is used as a hate word in ways. they both agreed that the word changed after WWII. something I find interesting is that they both said that gay marriage would be legal at some point. and look at us now, gay marriage is now legal in the united states. a difference between the two is that Butterfield is speaking more from a experience tone. miller is more from an education standpoint.
Dina Fajardo
ReplyDeleteProfessor Kirk
ENGL 1003
28 September 2015
Butterfield and Miller
Butterfield and Miller were both informative about their topics. Both agreed on many things like how values and social norms have changed, they also talked about Freud introducing sexual identity. While they had the same views on the topic, both of them had a different style of writing. In Butterfield's book, "Openness Unhindered", she was more personal in her writing, and she expresses how gay marriage is wrong by using the Bible. Millers article is more of a research paper, and using psychology terms.