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. Although the essay provides a variety of different types of evidence to illustrate Colson’s position on the subject, it is through sharing his personal experiences from …show more content…
To expatiate upon the latter part of his thesis, Colson enlightens the reader by sharing the events that took place in Norway following the legalization of same-sex marriage in 1993. Prior to the imposition of same-sex marriage, Colson states that, “Norwegians enjoyed low out of wedlock birth rate. After the imposition of same-sex marriage, Norway’s out of wedlock birth rate shot up as the link between marriage and child bearing was broken and cohabitation became the norm.” While indeed relevant to the argument, the out of wedlock birth rate statistic alone lacked the potency necessary to successfully persuade the reader of the threat imposed by legalizing same-sex marriage. The single specific statistic does not provide enough information to justify Colson’s claim that legalizing same sex marriage would result in family breakdown and criminal activity as suggested by his thesis. As a result, the statistic is largely inefficacious since it does not provide any additional background information to further illustrate that the spike in out of wedlock birth rates experienced by Norway was in fact, a direct result of the legalization of same-sex marriage. Consequently, this error in procedure leaves the premise of Colson’s argument vulnerable to scrutiny in addition to suggesting the presence of a post hoc fallacy, as he does not offer any reasons to rule out that the sequence of events detailed may be purely coincidental.
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
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
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
In an ever changing atmosphere where there are numerous definitions of family, why would it be important to have the right to have an official union? That civil right, to same sex couples, means that they are recognized equally to all other couples in this nation. In “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage”, Theodore Olson discusses California’s Proposition 8 and its ramifications on the value of marriage. Olson states, “Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation”. Same sex couples want to share in this value that having the right to marry gives them. Legalizing same-sex marriage according to Olson would, “represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights” (Olson, 76). Having all the aspects of a model family are just as important to all types of couples in today’s diverse
Gay marriage has been an issue for a very long time and since some states are legalizing it, many worry that it would soon be added as an amendment. The topic of gay marriage brings up religious, legal, and many other issues. In "What's wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt, the author supports gay marriage and wants it legalized. She states that there is no problem with gay marriage and it's all a matter of separating the church and state. But in “Gay ‘Marriage’: Societal Suicide,” by Charles Colson, the author opposes the idea of gay marriage and states that it will destroy society. Marriage is intended to unite a man and a woman together to bring children into the world, but due to the same-sex marriage,
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.
Learning family advocacy requires students to develop an understanding of contemporary cultural issues surrounding traditional marriage. The struggle over defining marriage was thought to be somewhat settled through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); however, as this law’s ramifications were realized, greater debate resulted about the moral, philosophical, and civic repercussions of this legal definition. This paper will provide a better understanding of the historical and worldview changes that occurred within the United States over homosexuality and same-sex marriage (SSM). After gaining a better understanding of these issues, the paper will also provide an exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of DOMA from these differing perspectives. In addition, recommendations will be offered for further changes of law and advocacy that would encourage the altering of current thought intent on stifling the defense of traditional marriage.
In the summer of 2015, history was made in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court had made, with a 5-4 majority, a controversial ruling decreeing that denying equal recognition to same-sex couples was in violation of the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those on the minority cited concerns of judicial restraint, the connection between marriage and procreation, and whether or not marriage is a Constitutional issue in the first place. Nevertheless, equal recognition for same-sex couples became the law of the land.
In the article “For Gay Marriage,” author Andrew Sullivan declares the conservative denial of marriage to gay couples infringes on their equality as citizens. He explains love endures through commitment between two people, no matter the gender, race, or social background; therefore, any two citizens with a well-developed relationship should qualify for the marital bond which solidifies and epitomizes a long-lasting promise. Without homosexual weddings, LGBT youth have no outlet into society to hope for, domestic partnerships devalue relationships, and gay individuals remain second-class citizens with the inability to express the extent of their affection and fidelity toward one another. Andrew Sullivan’s vernacular both inhibits and stimulates the reader’s immersion into the debate on marital equality. Throughout the article, he uses the word conservative eleven times and homosexual twenty-two times.
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 legalization of gay marriage has been a controversial issue in many state courts since the mid 1970s. Gay marriage scares many people because it strays from the norms of heterosexual relationships. Traditional American ideals have become a part of culture and society that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, or race, or gender, expect to have as a basic human rights. Several times in history these have been identified as inalienable rights. One of the expected rights of many American citizens is the right to choose who they love, who they marry, and how they live their day to day life. When heterosexual Americans were introduced to the idea of same sex marriage, they became afraid that it would “taint the minds of the young members of the community,” since homosexualty was and still is frowned upon in the community. Thus, the homosexual community’s opportunity to freely choose how to live their life is taken
Look back twenty-five years ago, on same sex marriage was a ?thought experiment? in our culture. The idea promoted primarily by those on the left and other cultures who?noticed?? amount of?boundaries to personal freedom and behavior. (April 6th, 2013 Dr.Jim Eckman).Just Seventeen years ago Congress pass a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which define a marriage, as a union between a man and women. In recent years, the debate has moved beyond questions of individual rights and proper family formation to include questions that pit religious liberty against non-discrimination policies. While all laws legalizing same-sex marriage contain some conscience protections allowing churches and other religious groups to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples,
The proposed legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. As a heavily campaigned development currently discussed in law assessment; these extremely confrontational and debatable political questions are facing present day American courts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, its affect on the parents, children, same sex couples, families, and the social and political world will be astronomical. The arguments surrounding the issue though confrontational nonetheless are easily seen from a wide array of perspectives. One of the perspectives states that marriage is a promise to a spouse to stay loyal and faithful in all
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