We’re Here . . . We’re uh . . . Straight?”

I decided to write my paper on this article because I think it brings up a good argument. I was suprised to find that it was written in 1998. Some of the stragedies the auther uses are counterexamples, irony, logic, and most of all sarcasm. She uses examples of a group of people claiming to save people from homosexuality, then informing you of the failed results. She also uses irony when presenting the gay communities stand that you cannot be bisexual. You can only be confused and must choose. Logic is also used to simplify the overall dilemma of whether you are gay or straight. A description does not define a person. A person defines themselves creating the definition. There's no logic in trying to fit someone in a box that was defined by someone other then themselves. The auther uses sarcasm throughout the entire article, partly to keep it from getting too harsh, and also to show how funny our societies ethical presumptions can be.