Gay Marriage Argumentative Analysis

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.

Stoddard uses another great method of supporting a minor claim by using an authoritative testimony. Stoddard includes a quotation from the Supreme Court, an authority, to make the grounds for his minor claim stronger (Barnet & Bedau, 2005, p. 84). With this support he argues the government should not control gay marriage by giving an example of a court case ruled in favor of interracial marriages. The Supreme Court ruled in this 1967 case that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were simply being used “to maintain white supremacy” (Stoddard, 1988, p. 552). Through this judgment from an authority, Stoddard is trying to appeal to our need for the law to require equal treatment among all. He wants us to realize that people opposing gay marriage are letting their prejudices get in the way of the law and rights of others.

Robert George is a Princeton professor, an adamant dissenter of same-sex marriage, and was a strong supporter of Proposition 8. One of the most prevalent arguments used by Robert George to combat same-sex marriage was the “’common procreation’ rationale” which was the idea that marriage should strictly be heterosexual due to the ability to procreate (401). On December 13, 2010, Slate.com published an article called “The Best Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why It Fails.” This article was a counterargument made by Kenji Yoshino, a New York University Law professor. In this article, Yoshino states that Robert George and his co-authors’ argument that gay marriage should be banned due to same-sex couples’ inability to procreate is invalid because it is statistically flawed and it makes unintentional attacks on certain groups of opposite-sex couples.

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.

She argues that “framing gay marriage as a religious right suggests that the parties who are harmed by marriage laws discriminating against same-sex couples include not only the individual men and women in these relationships but also the churches who support gay marriage and their members, regardless of their sexual orientation”. Even though DeLaet wrote this before the Supreme Court ruling, her argument can still be applied to the rights that gays and lesbians face in society today. The LGTB community is still striving to find acceptance among business owners who discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation. These business owners cite the First Amendment and their right to express their religion freely and use it as a scapegoat to refuse service to homosexuals. However, with DeLaet’s argument, gays are also protected under the First Amendment because there are many religions that sanctify their union. The concept of freedom of religion cannot be used to grant right to one group of people while discriminating against

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.

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.

Sullivan starts by quoting the Supreme Court’s declaration that “[a] state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws” (83), demonstrating that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal rights with other people. He is absolutely right. Gays and lesbians, as citizens, should have equal rights. They do have equal rights. But Sullivan makes a “radical proposal” (Sullivan 83) on the issue. He concludes that, because gays are equal in the view of the law, they should be allowed to marry. True, gays and non-gays are equal under the law. However, individual freedoms are very different from the proposition of gay marriage. When looked at objectively, gays have no less rights then non-gays. Moreover, the equality we have is judicial, not biological. Homosexual relationships lack the biological conditions required by nature for marriage,

In a remarkable article that appeared in the Washington Post, William J. Bennett argued that recognizing same-sex marriage would be detrimental to the concept of marriage and to the nation. The only thing more remarkable than the logical fallacies relied upon in the article was the fact that the author was the former Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the George H. W. Bush administration.

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 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

People are born homosexual. If you are homosexual you cannot get married. That idea is ridiculous. On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Marriage is defined as a sacred bond of love between two people. Gay people also feel love therefore, they should be allowed the same rights as everyone else in this country. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love and denying them this is a violation of religious freedom.

Imagine if you had a child love someone who has same sex and wanted you to accept their love for each other by being at their wedding. Would you attend the wedding? Some would say yes; however, others would say no. Why would they say “No”? Because marriage has been traditionally defined as a religious and legal commitment between a man and a woman.