Essay on Compare and Contrast Two Views of Gay Marriage

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

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

In recent years, the debate over same-sex marriage has grown into a nationwide controversy, reverberating into the halls of congress, at the white house, in dozens of state and legislature and courtrooms, and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at both the national and state levels. As the debate rages on, the American religious community remains deeply divided over the issue, and over the morality of homosexuality. The debate has grown from an issue that occasionally arose in a few states to a national and even worldwide controversy.

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.

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.

Gay marriage is not the only issue that is being discussed throughout America involving the gay community. In a particular study done by USA Today, results showed that when Americans were asked if they think homosexual relationships between consenting adults should be legal, 46% answered yes (“USA Today” 6). However, when asked if they would then favor a law that would allow homosexuals to get married, only 24% were in favor (6). This survey also showed the differences of peoples’ ideas based on if they attended church or not (6). The results showed that 73% of Americans who attend church weekly oppose the legalization of gay marriage and only 38% of those who don’t attend church oppose legalization (6). These results show that for many Americans, marriage is a religious agreement, but for many others, marriage is a right that should be given to all who want to partake in it.

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)

The article “Gay Marriage and Religious Rights: Say Nada to FADA” was written by Walter Olson in 2015. Olson is known for his writings about the American legal system and his liberitarian thinking. The passage presents the controversy between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court announced the legalization of homosexual marriage. In September 2015, a bill that presented the conflict declared the importance of preventing any gouvernmental interference which emphasizses the convictions related to marriage and religious beliefs.

It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation’s multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But with the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals. One’s sexuality is not a preference, it is immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us all against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences. Not only is not allowing same-sex couples to marry discriminatory, it also makes gays second class citizens. When we as a nation refuse to accord the same marital status to gays and lesbians, we discourage same-sex couples from forming the same relationships we encourage for others, and we are essentially telling gays, those of who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent and less valued. By not legalizing same-sex marriages the US demeans their relationships and demeans gays as individuals. Same-sex marriages must be legalized.

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.

What is marriage? For thousands years, marriage has been a combination between a man and a woman. When they love each other, they decide to live together. That is marriage. But what will love happen between two same sex persons? Will they marry? Is their marriage acceptable? It is the argument between two authors: William J. Bennett and Andrew Sullivan. The two authors come from different countries and have different opinion about same sex marriage. Sullivan agrees with the gay marriage because of human right, on the other hand, Bennett contradicts his idea because he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Even though their theories are totally different, their opinions are very well established.

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.

Firstly, is the notion of fidelity, and who seeks infidelity. The conservativeness of Bennett’s ideals of marriage are simple, completely faithful something he claims gay couples cannot commit to. A claim from Bennett is that, “[marriage’s] essential idea is fidelity”(272) and with “a homosexual marriage…[there is] a greater need for ‘extramarital outlets’”(272). He is not wrong that an essential factor in marriage is the fidelity of partners, but Bennett suggests only homosexual couples seek relationships outside of their marriages; however he seems to be uneducated or unaware of the fact that heterosexual couples do not always fit in nice little

In my personal opinion, I believe that the argument Sullivan presents outweighs the opposing arguments discussed in Kurtz article. My belief derives from the fact that Sullivan’s article shows the perspective of how a homosexual person might feel when concerning the issues on allowing the LGBTQ+ community to participate in committing marriages. Sullivan makes a variety of fine points on why homosexuals should be allowed to marry, just as heterosexuals are given the privilege, when he states the it isn’t even about gay marriage but about marriage as a whole. Marriage should signify only for what people perceive as the “norm” but for the allowance of letting two people who have fallen in love come together in a beautiful ceremony that showcases