Critique Of The Gay Marriage Is Good For America

The United States of America was founded as a secular sanctuary for ideals like freedom, equality, and tolerance – few will argue against that. Over its history American culture has radically evolved as it strived to meet the ideals its nation was based upon, making changes like ending slavery and providing legal equality for women and minorities, changes that at the time seemed absurd but today are unquestionable merits that define what an “American” is. The quest to reach the ultimate utopian society continues today as true Americans fight the evils of ignorance, stubborn bigotry and the fear to change that still manifest themselves in a large portion of U.S. citizens, preventing this nation from moving forward. One of the outstanding minorities still left to be granted the ideals of freedom, equality, and tolerance are homosexuals trying to obtain the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, regardless of gender. Same-sex marriages should be recognized in the eyes of the U.S. government in accordance with its responsibility to provide all American citizens equal freedoms.

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).

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.

political debate over the decisive issue of gay marriage forces us to rethink our commitment to

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.

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.

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)

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

The political aspects of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to federal and government recognized marriages are a very complex issue. There are basically two sides to the political argument of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. On one side are the liberals who feel that marriage is a civil right that should be denied based on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. On the other side you have conservatives who feel that marriage is an institution in which should only constitute one man and one woman. In this report we are going to examine how the issue of same-sex marriages are affecting our current political environment, how politics is affecting the movement for

As we know, same-sex marriage has been discussed and argued for a long time. Within the controversial topic of gay rights, there’s no area more controversial than same-sex marriage. And all of us ask ourselves if same-sex marriage should be legal or not. But the fact is that we have to start thinking about it as a moral and religious topic. The government shouldn’t legalize the same-sex marriage because the

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

Social conservatives blame divorce, cohabitation, illegitimacy, and the demise of the traditional family for society's ills, from poverty, crime, and juvenile delinquency to the moral decay and destruction of the American way of life. In the 1970s, marriage was at its lowest but by the late 1990s there was a reappearance of marriage, seen in the leveling off of the divorce rate. Although the claims for the value of marriage by conservatives and gay-rights proponents "were from two ends of the spectrum, they came together — at least at the rhetorical level — for what marriage...accomplishes and how crucial it is as a social institution." (Gallagher, 2002)

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.