William Bennett Against Gay Marriage Summary

In this article, political implications are given emphasis. To begin with, the same-sex marriages lead to a democratic disrespect. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the point as he opposed the idea in the Supreme Court (Powell, 2015). Concerning the precedent round of litigation Hawaii, Rosenberg and Klarman’s source emphasis has been a significant negative legislative response in Congress and state capitols (Powell, 2015). Despite that, there were other bright electoral consequences as well. These electoral consequences were very but not entirely

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

In Pride and Prejudice Author Jane Austen claims that marriage should be between a man and women who love each other equally. Austen's disgust of Marriage and decorum in British culture is written through the eyes of main the main character in Pride and Prejudice, Miss Elizabeth Bennett. It is sad to think that marriage could be bought or in Elizabeth Bennett’s case not afforded. Marriage shouldn’t be the only measure of worth for women. Someone should not feel “repugnance” for a marriage due to situation.

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.

To facilitate exploring a specific anti-gay defense, I locate this statute within its homophobic political

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.

As the numbers of gay couples have risen exuberantly in the last two decades, they no doubt

Thomas B. Stoddard’s “Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal” is a successfully written argument with some minor flaws in technique. Stoddard uses this article to present his major claim, or central thesis, on the reasons gay marriage should be legalized. He presents his argument using minor claims. In a lecture on February 2, 2005, James McFadden stated a minor claim is the secondary claim in an argument. Stoddard uses minor claims in his discussion of homosexual people being denied their rights by the government and by others who discriminate against them. He also discusses how love and the desire for commitment play a big part in the argument for and against gay marriage.

At the time the article was first published, the push for legalizing gay unions was a controversial topic in the USA. The writer, ‘Rev. Louis P. Sheldon was at the time, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, a California-based organization of some 32,000 churches’ (p. 1). He was obviously against the idea of accepting gay marriage and sustained that gay relationships are simply ‘unnatural’. Moreover, he stated that nearly 80% of Americans were opposing the legalization of marriage among gay people. Along with the author many people opposed to the idea at that time of his article – But in despite of that, gay marriage was finally legalized in the United States in June 26, 2015 (Wikipedia 2001).

Thus, any premises involved in Warren’s essay should intend to support this conclusion. The necessity of a trial marriage is irrelevant and does not intend to support the conclusion of this essay. Warren commits a red herring by the deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue during an argument. After discussing the fallacies Warren used in his essay, I want to use four strategies to have a closed and detailed assessment of the “So Why Bother with Marriage?” part of his essay to espouse my conclusion that Warren’s essay is unbelievable.

Regarding the controversial issue of same sex marriage. It seems that Pollit is trying to justify same sex marriage by comparing it to a legal substandard marriage (A man can marry a woman no matter how ill acquainted). And in the essay of gay “Marriage” societal suicide by Charles Colson, he takes the same approach by disregarding all the issues of traditional marriage. Both of these essays are guilty of distorting the readers perception of what is a good marriage by vastly exaggerating the

In Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels between Race and Homosexuality, Mark Joslyn and Donald Haider-Markel (2005) writes that for

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

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.