Equal Rights for All
Gay marriage has always been a subject of great controversy. Andrew Sullivan addresses this issue in his persuasive essay entitled “Let Gays Marry.” Sullivan’s essay appeared in Newsweek in June of 1996. Through his problem/solution structure of this essay, Sullivan uses rhetorical appeals to try and persuade the audience to accept gay marriage as a natural part of life.
Sullivan, an editor of The New Republic, also wrote Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality (26). Andrew Sullivan, who is openly gay himself, is a devout Catholic who has spent his life researching subjects involving the gay community. His articles are simply ways for him to show his feelings to the general
…show more content…
Sullivan then shows that modifying of the definition of marriage has only brought positive changes for the people of America so far (26). Changing the definition to include same-sex marriages would simply be another positive change that is necessary for the growth of our country. With each problem that is brought up, Sullivan comes up with a convincing way to resolve the issue.
Sullivan uses ethos as a strategy to appeal to his audience. Sullivan begins his essay by appealing to the audiences’ good sense by saying that everyone, including gays should have equal rights under the constitution. Sullivan states that, “[Gays and lesbians] are citizens, entitled, like everyone else, to equal protection-no special rights, but simple equality” (26). The author also appeals to the more religious members of the audience by using persuasion through ideas of high moral character. Sullivan explains that gay marriages would not interfere with the rights or beliefs of any religion (26). He makes his ideas clear that our country already has a problem with separating church and state and that gay marriage would not add to this issue of our country (26). Sullivan also states that supporting same sex marriages would promote monogamy and fidelity which our country strives to improve upon (26).
Another appeal used by Sullivan in his essay is pathos. Sullivan appeals to the emotions of the audience by showing that gays have the
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.
What could be more important than the equality of rights for all American citizens? Women have tried without success for 80 years to be acknowledged as equals in our Constitution through an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Currently there is nothing in the United States Constitution that guarantees a woman the same rights as a man. The only equality women have with men is the right to vote. In order to protect women’s rights on the same level as men, I am in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution today.
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.
Both authors make an attempt to remind the reader about the nature of homosexuality. For instance, Rodriguez states it in a rather direct way: “Homosexuality never felt like a choice to me” (257). The author does not explain what events in his life led to making such a conclusion. He also does not expand this statement anyhow. The reader may notice that the author emphasizes this idea because it has no context. As a result, the reader notices that this thought is stuck upon his or her memory. In contrast, Sullivan explains the same view in detail. He uses another technique for the reader to understand the point – he presents his own life story. The author describes the time in his life before he found out about his orientation. He treats this period as something dark and admits that not knowing how to build his personal life was the real psychological trauma for him. Therefore,
Roy Cohn and Joe Pitt represent the stereotypical gay man who refuses to publicly acknowledge his sexuality. They portray how gay men sometimes go to extreme lengths to deny their homosexuality. Both not only lie to others, but they lie to themselves. There is a certain sadness in the fact that some gay men desire the respect of strangers over being honest with themselves. Why do such a large number of gay men live lives in denial? The answer is simple. The answer is fear. Fear is the driving force behind many gay men's secrecy. The fear of how others may view them and the fear of how they will be received is overpowering.
The essay written by Katha Pollitt, titled, “What’s wrong with gay marriage” is an intriguing one. At first, the author, explains the notion that marriage and procreation do not necessarily go hand-in- hand. And later, she carefully interprets the true meaning of marriage; by stating that there is a separation of church and state. Most importantly, the author speaks to her audience in a clear and logical manner; without adding personal biases. Although the essay may seem to have deterministic view on social behavior. Nonetheless, I believe that does not disqualify the series of argument which she makes.
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
Democracy stresses the equality of all individuals and insists that all men are created equal. Democracy does not persist on an equality of condition for all people or argue that all persons have a right to an equal share of worldly goods. Rather, its concept of equality insists that all are entitled to equality of opportunity and equality before the law. The democratic concept of equality holds that no person should be held back for any such arbitrary reasons as those based on race, color, religion, or gender. This concept of equality holds that each person must be free to develop himself or herself as fully as he or she can or cares to and that each person should be treated as the equal of all other persons by the law. We have come
Sec. 3 Equal Rights is a civil liberty. The third section of the Texas Constitution is based on equal protection against government discrimination among men (sex, race, color, creed or national origin). In this case the government cannot take away citizens’ rights. The first amendment of the Bills of Rights gives people the right to practice any religion they chose to and government is prohibit to interfere in a person’s beliefs. In past court cases that freedom of religion was addressed dealing with the exclusion of prayers in public schools, the prohibition of polygamy, and the limitation of the use of drugs or snakes in religious rituals.
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
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
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