Why Is There Perspective of Children in "What Does Marriage Mean?"?

                In the article "What Does Marriage Mean?" by Erika Lewis is about how many kids are
confused about gay marriage because their families taught them that it was wrong. She begins with a
scenario: there is a boy named Zane who has two moms and when everyone is talking about their
familes, he tells people. The other kid then begin a discussion of how "two moms can't get married"
because "my dad told me that's illegal". This causes Zane to feel confused and sad. Then the author
asks the question "Has something like this ever happened to you" and then says how it's alright to feel
confused because society has some backwards beliefs. She assures the readers that gay marriage is not illegal and should not be illegal. She then says that in order to understand what to do if you are in that situation, you have to understand why people are confused about gay marriage in the first place. She says people are confused because their family has passed down beliefs from the ages when everyone believed that gay marriage was wrong and the issue didn't really exist. But now that it is an issue and many people believe that gay people should the right to love one another and should be able to get married. It is because of these beliefs that many people are confused about whether gay marriage should be legal or not. "Many of these beliefs also come from religions that are against homosexuality" she explains. Her descriptions use less big vocabulary and the article seems to be targeting children as readers.

               The most interesting and compelling thing about Erika Lewis' writing was that it was meant for children. She might have done this because she believes that it is not a child's fault what they think because much of the topic, they don't understand. Also, a lot of these "beliefs" come from falsified information from their parents and their religion. It may also prove the point that if the kid didn't have his parents opinion to go off of, then they would make their own decisions based on their logic and judgment of right and wrong. In the article, the author obviously believes that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. From this article, my belief that gays should have equal rights is now stronger and more supported.

Whose Perspective is Missing in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire?

             This book in the Harry Potter series is about how Voldemort is returning to power and an unknown person put Harry's name in the goblet of fire, which entered him into the Triwizard Cup which is known as the most dangerous contest played by Hogwarts. People have even been known to die. But there are also smaller issues in the book.  As I discussed in my previous blog post, the issue of elf slavery and racism in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is clear As I said before, the argument used by those who were in favor of this slavery was that the elves liked being put to work, and  the argument used by the people that were against the slavery was that it was cruel and unjust and they didn't like it. But there is one perspective that is not given a very clear voice and that is the perspective of the elves themselves.

              For example, when Hermione argues with Ron about the slavery in the kitchen, the elves just serve them and say nothing. J.K. Rowling may have left out this perspective in order to let the reader  make their own choice in the and allow them to have their own opinion. Or maybe she left this out because it further represents exactly how the slavery issue was handled in the United States. For example, because they were enslaved, slaves were unable to speak their mind to the government, or to their masters. Instead we were left with those who were not slaves, arguing over other people's freedom.
           
            Now what happens to the other characters is that their arguments are more important. Because if the perspective of the elves was given, then the other opinions are not as important because the elves are the ones who are being enslaved. And in that kind of situation, the victims' perspectives are the most important. But without those details, the reader is forced to pick a side based on the arguments given by those who aren't slaves. And it makes it a tougher choice because characters that we know and love will have separate opinions and we are torn between siding with Hagrid or Hermione. Because of this, readers will not make their choice based on which characters think what, it is based on the arguments that they bring to the table in order to support their idea.

         In conclusion, the perspective of the elves is very unclear and overall missing. This may have been done in order to have the reader make their own opinion or to further represent how slavery was dealt with in the United States. But without this point of view, it beefs up the perspectives of the other characters and forces readers to pick a side. As can be seen, there is much more to the book than what is in the blurb.