Maggie Van Ostrand
Maggie Van Ostrand is a columnist who thinks there is only one right way to do things, her way. She is very sarcastic and that is how she grabs your attention. After reading her columns it is clear that she is a very odd lady. In the first column I read by her called “Why Stop at Same Sex Marriage?” Maggie explains why she thinks it would be okay to marry her dog named Cejas. She states “Marriage with human males didn’t work out too well, but a marriage with my dog, this particular dog, would.”. In this column it was hard for me to understand if she was against gay marriage or for it. But by saying that she should be able to marry her dog it makes the entire situation seem like a joke to her. What do you think? Is Maggie for or against gay marriage? Does having a sarcastic attitude towards things change a person’s view of a situation?
It seems that Maggie Van Ostrand is against gay marriage. The title of her column makes me believe so. In my opinion it is totally uncalled for and rude to compare gay marriage to marrying a dog. Her attitude is very sarcastic. If you love someone why should it matter what gender they are? But more importantly why would you ever compare marrying a human being to marrying a dog. Maggie having a sarcastic tone does change the readers point of view in this situation. To me, it shows the reader that she does not support gay marriage.
I think that Maggie is against gay marriage. I agree with you when you said that it seemed she was making a joke of it. It seems like she’s saying that if people could marry the same gender, they’ll want to marry animals, too. Having a sarcastic attitude can change a person’s view, but too much of it could pose a problem.
I think she is against gay marriage. She reminds me of my columnist, Fred Reed. In one column he says that if same gender marriage is allowed, so shouldn’t polyamorous relationships. I believe this is both these columnists taking the situation at hand as a joke, and just using sarcasm to try and show the reader that what they think is right and it shouldn’t be any other way.
I think sarcasm has very little potential to change a person’s view. Especially if the reader originally has opposing views, and they read the sarcasm, they may just become insulted.
Maggie Van Ostrand seems very opinionated. I think she is against gay marriage because it seems like she was trying to make a point that gay marriage is as ridiculous as a human marrying a dog. The title of her column doesn’t necessarily show that she thinks if gay marriage was allowed, people would start wanting to marry their pets. Ostrand just wants to voice her opinion by making an exaggerated comparison. Her sarcastic tone has probably offended many people who have read this column. However, it has most likely gotten the column a lot more attention. She has created another reason against gay marriage by trying to convince people how crazy things would be if gay couples could get married.
It seems like Maggie Van Ostrand is against gay marriage. I believe she is against gay marriage because she is using sarcasm and exaggeration to try to make the people on the other side of the argument think that their ideas are completely ridiculous. Like when she says people will want to marry animals if they want to have gay marriage she is making gay marriage seem like a completely ridiculous idea like marry animals when to some people it is completely normal to marry the same gender. Having a sarcastic tone like hers may offend some people who support the gay marriage rights because she makes it sound worse than it really is. Maggie is very opinionated in the article.
I think that Maggie is against gay marriage. She made a joke about it saying males marrying males is like the same thing as someone marrying their dog…but it’s not. I don’t believe that people pick to be gay, I think that you are born like that and it’s not the persons fault if they like the same gender as themselves. I don’t think it’s right, at all, for her to compare her marrying her dog to two human beings that really love each other. I also don’t think that having a sarcastic attitude can change a person’s point of view. I think that you should stick by what you believe and if you do that, sarcasm probably won’t change how you feel.
I thinks that Maggie is against gay marriage and uses sarcasm to back up her point. She uses sarcasm in saying if a guy can marry a guy why can’t she marry her dog. I believe Maggie is wrong in this opinion because if the couple is happy together does it matter if they are gay or straight it shouldn’t effect you if the person next to you is gay with his partner they are happy and you should be happy for them. I think having a sarcastic attitude can get your point across but it can also make you seem like a bad person.
Maggie Van Ostrand is extremely opinionated. I think that Maggie is against gay marriage because of the way she compares it to marrying her dog. She talks about it as if gay marriage is completely unheard of. Having a sarcastic attitude toward things does change a persons view of a situation especially in this case. Her sarcasm probably made many people that read this column angry, but it was definitely an attention grabber. Maggie’s sarcasm can be good in other situations, but sarcasm in this situation shows just how much of a joke this is to her and probably offended some people.
Van Ostrand appears to be an extremely critical and opinionated columnist through the use of sarcasm. I believe that Van Ostrand is against gay marriage, which is shown though her sarcastic commentary. She uses the comparison of marrying a dog to a male marrying another male, which in turn proves her disapproval of gay marriage. When authors write with a sarcastic tone, the message they are trying to portray can be taken in several different directions. Also, this sarcasm can sometimes offend people in certain situations.
Unless Maggie really likes her dog, she seems to be against gay marriage. The fact that she is typically sarcastic adds to this. However, sarcasm does not necessarily mean the topic is a joke. Sarcasm can be a way to put emphasis on how good or bad the writer thinks of the topic. Comparing same gender marriages to cross-species marriages is a good example of this. Cross-species marriages is considered bad, so comparing it to anything will make said topic seem even worse, though it also depends on the readers interpretation as to whether or not they are two things that can be seen as related. Sarcasm can affect how a person thinks about a particular topic. It gives a person a different way of thinking, and can lead to further thought on the matter.
I think that your columnist is completely against gay marriage. To me, she is basically saying that marrying someone of the same gender would be the equivalent of her marrying her dog. I think that being sarcastic and making a joke of this makes her come across as very insensitive and in this situation, she could offend many people. Being sarcastic in some cases makes sense and allows a reader to see how ignorant someone sounds when they say certain things. In the example of this article, she could actually be for gay marriage and could be saying that it is similar to marrying her dog in order to make others who have said things like this feel stupid. However, in this case, it doesn’t seem like that is what she is trying to do. She doesn’t make very much sense and seems to be uneducated and ignorant.