I can connect my history with my upcoming convincing papers because my history is coming from both sides of the same-sex marriage issue. I have about equal amounts of history for same-sex marriages as I do for going against same-sex marriages. I actually found it easier to find issues against same-sex marriages rather than being for the issue. The history that I reached was convincing to me and I found some of the research topics easy to read. I actually had a hard time finding information on different types of issues that did not keep repeating what others had to say. I think a lot of the history will connect to the convincing paper fairly well because of the history being credible.
On the website titled, “Same Sex Marriages Just Say "No" to Prohibition,” by Doctor Susan Block, I found a trasitionary paragraph relating to my topic. The transitionary paragraph is “Of course, there are happier, "gayer" reasons not to prohibit same-sex marriage, like the radiant newlyweds of San Francisco's "Winter of Love." That historic moment, when a courageous mayor gave the right to marry to people who love people of the same sex, ignited acts of romantic civil disobedience reminiscent of Rosa Parks and the Greensboro sit-ins. The comparison isn't perfect. You can't hide your skin color, while you can closet your sexual orientation. Yet there are parallels. Slaves couldn't marry. After emancipation, most states outlawed interracial marriage. Racists called for Constitutional Amendments prohibiting black-white marriage with the same sanctimony the anti-same-sex-marriage set utilizes today.”
In this paragraph, she relates same-sex marriages with racism from the past and an experience of the sit-ins. She also makes the comparison of not being able to hide your skin color to not closeting “your sexual orientation.” She also made the point that slaves weren’t allowed to marry but mentions about the emancipation. Then again she relates her topic with history again with no allowing black and whites to engage in marriage to today’s issue of not allowing same-sex marriages.
A problem I saw was maybe she kept going back and forth from the history to the issue that she was supporting. I also saw that she only supported being for same-sex marriages. She did mention a couple statements about what she was brought up to believe but didn’t really give a fair amount of history on each side.