Analysis Of A Mothers Day Kiss-Off By William Bennett

Recently, people have been arguing with respect to the definition of marriage. To get married is a very important event for almost everyone. Particularly for women, marriage and giving a birth could be the two major events of their lives. Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett are authors who are arguing about homosexual marriage. Sullivan believes in same-sex marriage because he thinks everyone has a right to marry. On the other hand, Bennett speaks out against Sullivan’s opinion. Bennett makes a claim that marriage is between a man and a woman structuring their entire life together. Both authors’ opinions differ on same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, their ideas are well recognized.

In Caitlin Flanagan’s Is There Hope for the American Marriage, she establishes the foundation for what the American Marriage means in today’s world by arguing that marriages are likely to collapse over time. With this being said, Flanagan goes on to depict the fragility of marriage during times of adversity, and how susceptible the couples can be when searching for alternative bonds from people other than their own partner, even if it means making moral sacrifices. Through a series of anecdotes from sources like herself to politicians, she further expands on this idea that the ideal marriage is nothing but a hoax for the likelihood of publicity. Flanagan includes sources from sociologists, such as Andrew J. Cherlin and Maria Kefalas, both whom

One of the author’s main reasons to support his view is that legalization of gay marriage can combat the promiscuous dating and hook-up culture we see so much of in today’s society. By legalizing gay marriage, people who identify as homosexual can actually strive for a monogamous marriage and a healthy family. Sullivan also argues that legalizing gay marriage places more responsibilities on gay individuals, as the spousal title can contribute to more gay people being held to the same standards as straight people, whether it is in culture or in the legal system. Legalization of marriage can

Andrew Sullivan is the author of an article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for Straight America.” He is an experienced publicist, and he is homosexual. Sullivan argues that every person has the right to get married disregarding his or her orientation. Richard Rodriguez who is also a famous publicist composed “Family Values.” Like Sullivan, he is homosexual and he discusses it in his work. Rodriguez and Sullivan share many viewpoints related to homosexuality, but they disagree about the appropriateness of homosexual marriage – Sullivan is for it, and Rodriguez views it as an imitation of heterosexuality.

In his essay titled “Gay Marriage: Societal Suicide,” Charles Colson talks about his reasons for opposing same-sex marriage. The essays’ main argument is built around Colson’s belief that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to the decoupling of marriage, and ultimately result in what he describes as: “an explosive increase in family collapse, out of wedlock births - and crime.” Colson shares his personal experiences as a prison minister, various studies, statistics, and real world examples to elucidate the reasons behind his controversial stance on marital rights.

Katha Pollitt’s, “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage,” is an article about why Gay Marriage should be accepted without question. Pollitt views what “social conservatives” (530) have to say about marriage, and how their belief that marriage is all about procreation isn’t persuasive to those outside of the “right-wing think tank, Catholic marriage tribunal, or ultra-Orthodox rabbi court.” (Pollitt 530). Pollitt tells her readers to scratch procreation and then examines the theory that, “marriage is the way women domesticate men.” Continuing with well known right-winger George Gilder’s theory, she uses his statistical support that married men are much less likely than single men to take drugs, steal a car, murder someone, etc against

Miller, Lisa. “Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy.” Wake Tech English 111 Reader, edited by Julie Fenton- Glass, Leslie Graybeal, et al. Mason: Cengage, 2015, pp. 177-182.

Debates about gay marriage continue to simmer within American public discourse, though much of the more heated rhetoric has calmed since the earliest efforts to legalize same-sex marriage succeeded in numerous states. These debates have spanned many topics, ranging from religion to politics and beyond. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay and self-described conservative political commentator, addressed one angle of the issue in his July 19, 2011 Newsweek Magazine article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for America.” Through a mixture of personal reflection, social commentary, and political argumentation, Sullivan’s article is less a defense of gay marriage than it is a defense of the idea that gay marriage is compatible with conservative political values. Although Sullivan makes a good case for his position in the article, his argument is ultimately under-developed; the lengthy personal reflections serve to reinforce a relatively minor point in the context of the larger argument, shifting focus away from the more relevant portions of the argument.

Critique of Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage” Gay marriage is repeatedly under the magnifying glass in the media, the papers, and constantly opposed by adamant conservative politicians. In his piece “Against Gay Marriage,” Bennett demonstrates this issue. William Bennett himself is a married conservative politician. Due to this, we can better understand the flailing urgency of his argument against homosexual marriage. Bennett takes a very strong and adamant approach to what is a particularly sensitive subject at this moment in time, and leaps into act of persuading his audience to turn away from the idea of legalizing gay marriage, or even to reject it.

The two texts examined within, present the opposing extremes of views regarding gay and lesbian marriage. The first text entitled Let Gays Marry by Andrew Sullivan examines the intricacies of same sex relationships and why homosexual couples should be allowed to publicly show affection for one another. The second text that will be examined is titled Leave Marriage Alone written by William Bennett. Bennett gives his views on why couples of same sex nature should not be allowed to engage in marital relations. These two authors, although very different, each has a view of the ideals of marriage, and how it should be presented to the public.

The concept of a traditional American family has been profoundly changed over the last 100 years. Fewer marriages are forming, divorce rates are higher than ever, and childlessness is much more common. The decline of marriage and family life seems to be the inevitable product of progressive ideas and modern socio-political conditions. Feminist and contemporary liberal critics of marriage and family life appeal to individual rights, liberty, consent, equality, and love as they seek to dismantle and undermine commitment to marriage and family life. However, some scholars would propose that the actions and words of America’s Founders show how to reconcile marriage and family life with the same modern ideas of equality, individual rights, and

This idea of the average American family, does not accurately depict our society. With the image of this ideal household, this sets a standard that may be impossible for some, due to their race, gender, class, sexuality, etc. Heterosexuality is never questioned or threaten within society because it is normal. Not only is it a political institution, but it is contributing to the constructions of the gender binary. In Compulsory Heterosexuality, the concept of becoming a mother is brought the reader’s attention. Women are emotionally available and caring towards others so, they make for great mothers. There are plenty of women who choose not to be mothers, does this make them any less of a women because they do not fall under the definition of the female binary. On page 637 of Compulsory Heterosexuality the author writes, “I am suggesting that heterosexuality, like motherhood, needs to be recognized and studied as a political institution-even, or especially by those individuals who feel they are, in their personal experience, the precursors of a new relation between the sexes.” Now, the gender binary, family gives society the impression that the men have to be hard working and to provide for his family. While the women are expected to take care of everything else and take care of the

Rejection against previous ways of living, or fight for modernity are often heard about when on the topic of marriage. Meghan Murphy author of “Marriage will never be a feminist choice,” and Ashton Blackwell author of “A rebellion against modernity” both go in depth about their views on marriage as a whole and the subliminal effects it has. These messages certainly play dividen in the area of marriage truly being worth it or not in the long-run. “Marriage will never be a feminine choice” demonstrates a newly carefree, modern day, spirited woman in today’s society whose main focus is to have fun, and avoid getting married at all costs. Murphy gravitates her ideology around the simple fact that everything you can do married you can do while single and committed. Inverse to that, “A rebellion against modernity” stretches the implication that only when married can you imply you’re truly loved and happy in every way. Blackwell also touches on weddings slowly becoming fragments of the long begotten past with the anticipation that we can bring them back in the cycle once again. Although disagreements in ideals are present, both authors are undoubtedly in line with one another when it comes to feminism.

This essay attempts to analyze the idea of gay marriage and how this type of union can be seen or not as an illustration of social diversity, which can tend to the elimination of negative stereotypes to a point that they become irrelevant.

Who are we to dictate who someone loves? The definition of love is the action that two people share. The definition does not say love only occurs between a man and a woman. The article, “Gay marriage proposals destructive to society, Vatican official says,” is an argument against gay marriage. The author, John Thavis, claims that homosexuals are just struggling to find themselves and that same-sex marriage disrupts the normal sexuality and fertility of a couple. In “Support for Homosexuals’ Civil Liberties”, Kristin Kenneavy discusses how religious outlooks influence a family’s beliefs on same sex marriage. The two articles show the different views on gay marriage by