Compare and Contrast Two Views of Gay Marriage Essay

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

However Bennett he brings up two points which divide opinions about same-sex marriage. One is whether homosexual marriage strengthens or weakens the institution of marriage. The other is what the definition of marriage is. If the definition of marriage were changed too much to include same-sex union, the tradition of marriage would be changed. However, there are many people who want alternatives to traditional marriage or want marriage to more than two people. Bennett asks how we can consider these people if we are changing the rules for same-sex couples. It is difficult to say what the right answer is. Marriage also means to decide your best partner. Everyone desires a beautiful life with a partner, but most marriage is not as the ideal as we think. He mentions that many supporters of same-sex couples do not share this ideal (Bennett p.30). Another different opinion from proponents to opponents of same-sex marriage is “the very heart of marriage itself” (Bennett p.30). Marriage tradionally is that of a man and a woman who love, respect, and help each other. Olson says the marriage case is about “rights and happiness and equal treatment” that is what people have learned in this society. The definition cannot be changed easily by anyone. In addition, this thought has been taught for a long time in history. Therefore, we should

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights

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.

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.

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

“Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person’s core identity, and goes right to the very center of his being. It’s like being black in s society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black Asians” (Tamara L. Roleff). Although marriage, cohabitation and parenting styles of homosexual families pose no threats to the heterosexual society; many still believe same-sex marriage goes against its true purpose. “At the national level, American public opinion on the issue remains split (44 percent support legalizing same-sex marriage; 53 percent oppose same-sex marriage in a May 2010 Gallup Poll) even as opposition toward legalizing same-sex marriage is at its lowest point in decades

29) Allowing these marriages would change everything from behavior to the way the youth is raised. (Bennett p. 29) The intent of same sex marriages would be to strengthen and celebrate marriage, however, Bennett feels that this would not be reality. Bennett says that the religious issues will be brought up along with the ideas of what is a 4,000 year old tradition and that there is a fine line that needs to be addressed and watched. If one group of people were to marry, what would stop any other groups or any other strange arrangements from being made? (Bennett p. 30) What would stop a father form marrying his daughter or a bisexual marrying one of each sex? (Bennett p.30) Bennett feels that according to what Sullivan has stated, these marriages would have to be allowed otherwise these people would be excluded. If these others are not allowed then the homosexuals are receiving special treatment. Morality issues will be brought out and that fine line will be crossed and there will be nothing to uphold moral standards. This is a great country in which family and marriage are elevated and revered. (Bennett p. 30) “We should keep them so.” (Bennett p.30)

In his paper “Against Gay Marriage”, William J. Bennett uses quotes from a multitude of sources to support the argument that he is making, such as when he is commenting on the effects of the recent Hawaii Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. Bennett uses outside evidence to support major points such as his opposition to schools accepting homosexuals and teaching that homosexuality is equal. While most prolific in the second half of the argument, William J. Bennett uses both minor quotes and more important quotations of outside evidence to support his argument; however, Bennet does so in an unskilled manner. In several circumstances he uses uncited evidence from unnamed people, and he also quotes minor words with an unknown motive for doing so. The unclear motive for quoting minor words could be considered

Gay marriage is a very talked about topic in are country that shouldn’t be ignored. I believe men and women should be able to love freely and not be shamed by it. Marriage is a great factor in the United States. To some people it’s what we live for; is to get married and start a family. To not give everyone the same opportunity to have a happy marriage and family is unlike us. This problem is bringing a lot of hate, the same hate that was used in racial discrimination so why not give gays equal rights like everyone else. Andrew Sullivan wrote a article that shares his experiences of coming out and being accepted. When puberty hit he started to realize he wasn’t the same. He knew that his marriage is not going to be the same as his

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

Gay marriage should be legal because as woman and man, all individuals have the same right in society; because same-sex couples can constitute a good based family; because it is just a way to make official a common union nowadays, even with the religious issue; because it is not related to polygamy; and because love matters and it does not differ in nature according to the sex of its object or the person who experiences it.

Bennett’s article is a response to Sullivan’s and states that gay marriages should not be allowed. Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is done in the sight of God and thus should be treated with high regards and also believes gay marriages to be corrupting today’s society. He believes that, “…marriage is not an arbitrary construct which can be redefined simply by those who and human realities. It is an honorable estate, instituted of God and built on moral, religious, sexual and human realities.”(2002:30) He goes on to explain how America’s most important institutions such as neighborhoods and schools are fine just the way they are without gay marriages. (2002:30)

By deconstructing the common comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage, she intends to defend her view that interracial marriage is not a slippery slope decision that will roll down hill in an out of control manner and head for the worst like, she claims, same-sex marriage will. Opposing Barber’s views, Quindlen wrote an essay in 2008 entitled: “The Loving Decision” where she sets forth her support for same-sex marriage by constructing a comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. She uses this comparison to suggest that same-sex marriage will, too, be validated by the courts because “the world only spins forward” (258). Even though Barber and Quindlen stand on opposite sides of the debate with views clashing on fundamental concepts like the meaning of marriage, the nature of homosexuality, and the applicability of the Loving v. Virginia court case to the issue, in various areas the two authors have common ground.