Analysis Of Andrew Sullivan 's Article ' Why Gay Marriage Is Good For Straight America '

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 a very real sense, it is reasonable to argue that the government should have no say at all in the processes of marriage, or decide which adults may or may not legally marry. State and federal governments play a role, of course, in that marriage is a civil union, and provides benefits and legal protections for the couple. Historically, marriage serves the interests of the society by promoting stability and future generations of citizens, and governments usually act in ways to promote this very vital element. At the same time, it is highly questionable whether this governmental authority should have any voice in who chooses to marry, provided those involved are adults and wish to do so. This is in fact, at the heart of the same-sex

After consciously reading both pieces of writing, “Why Gay Marriage is Good for Straight America” by Andrew Sullivan and Family Values by Richard Rodriguez, the first author has more compelling language than Rodriguez, which helps people fully understand the different processes of being accepted.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

He contradicted the argument that homosexual behaviour is related to genetic, hormonal or biological disorder. To abolish these views, the author mentions that ‘no school of medicine, medical journal or professional organization has ever recognized such claims (p. 2) - at least at the time he wrote the article in 1994.

After reading "Our Mutual Joy: The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" by Lisa Miller and "Why Gay Marriage Is Good for Straight America" by Andrew Sullivan, it is important to know that same-sex relationships are NOT marriage. The original definition of the word itself tells you so. However, homosexuals should not be shamed by society for their love but instead create a new word for their love; if we allow the change of the definition it may lead to discrepancies between polygamy and bestiality.

For the past 3 decades the views surrounding marriage has undergone a great deal of change (Lennox, 2015, p. 1101). This shift is due to the continual discussion of gay marriage. The interplay of religion and politics has led for much controversy. In the United States, the use of Christian and Jewish biblical texts are the main sources drawn upon for opposition, but have also been used as a supportive means of equality. Beyond the religious there are also psychological and physical health arguments, as well as civil rights arguments. Same sex marriage is examined through different paradigms, thus giving rise to religious, political/legal, and religious arguments surrounding the legalization of this institution for gay and lesbian couples.

Regarding the controversial issue of same sex marriage. It seems that Pollit is trying to justify same sex marriage by comparing it to a legal substandard marriage (A man can marry a woman no matter how ill acquainted). And in the essay of gay “Marriage” societal suicide by Charles Colson, he takes the same approach by disregarding all the issues of traditional marriage. Both of these essays are guilty of distorting the readers perception of what is a good marriage by vastly exaggerating the

Marriage is universally understood to be the legal union between a man and a woman. This acknowledgement, however, has recently generated dispute and controversy in certain individuals, primarily homosexuals and supporters of homosexual marriages. This opposition, due to this mainstream view, exists because certain states such as Minnesota deny same-sex marriages.

In their works “Let Gays Marry,” by Andrew Sullivan and “Leave Marriage Alone,” by William Bennett, they both talk about the subject of same sex marriages. They both believe that marriage is based off of tradition. However, they debate on if these marriages should be allowed and if they are proper. Sullivan goes on to prove he believes same sex marriages are proper because traditionally it is based off of the principle of love. Bennett proves his point by saying that the conventional ways are the tradition.

Over the years, the issue of family values has evolved from the conservative view of distinct gender roles to the prevailing situation where men and women have equal rights. The most notable change from the traditional to the modern values of the family has been the issue of gay marriages. Whereas it was a taboo for gay couples to declare their relationship status openly in public, today the situation is different as is evident with the two texts under discussions. The story titled An American Childhood by Annie Dillard depicts gender roles in the 1950s America while the article by Andrew Sullivan titled “Why Gay Marriages are Good for Straight America” expounds on the issue of gay rights and freedom of modern day America.

The M-Word: Why It Matters to Me 1. As teenager, how was Andrew Sullivan isolated from his friends? When Andrew Sullivan was a teenager, he began to feel different from his friends because he did not like girls. So, this situation became a barrier in his relationships with friends and other people. He isolated himself from the world because he thought he was not part of it, and he felt like an "ugly duckling" in the face of the differences between him and his friends.

Under circumstances, such as same-sex marriage, Jeff Jordan claims it is morally wrong. In his essay “Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality”, Jordan analysis how such rights would go against others views and public policy ramifications. To make it apparent that his claims about same-sex marriages are correct Jordan states what the two conflicting sides argue.

There are many controversies surrounding today's world, such as abortion, animal testing, and social reform issues. It seems that no one can come to a common agreement on the legitimacy of these topics. Personal characteristics, such as upbringing, culture, religion and ethnicity, all play a role in determining one's feelings on a given controversial issue. However, one of the most protested and discussed issues in current political debate is same-sex marriage. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, only hard pressed arguments expressing speculation regarding supposed outcomes, benefits and possible tribulations that would come along with the endorsement of gay marriage. Such ideas are shown

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and