Dr. cites inconclusive research on its negative

Dr. Greg Luthi
Comp-II, Sec-003
If only God had made Adam & Steve, instead of Adam & Eve…

In “Let Gays Marry,” Andrew Sullivan responds to conservative
objections to same-sex marriages, by arguing that allowing such unions
would actually promote traditional values, such as fidelity, monogamy, and
love. It should logically appeal to straight conservatives, who deplore gay
male promiscuity, that the declaration of Supreme Court: “A state cannot
deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,” now assigns equal rights
to gays and lesbians. Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at The New
Republic, a magazine he edited from 1991 to 1996, and the U.S. columnist
for the Sunday Times of London. He has a B.A. in modern history and modern
languages from Oxford University and a Ph.D. in political science from
Harvard University. He lives in Washington, D.C. The real problem is that
there are really only three arguments against gay marriage: One is rooted
in entirely God’s preferences, the second cites inconclusive research on
its negative effects on children, and third, the integrity of a marriage as
a legal document.

Sullivan effectively presents his case in a very logical fashion,
calmly displaying his points, and using a statement declared by the United
States Supreme Court, under which no gay men or lesbians will be considered
strangers in America. They (Gays) are human beings just like you and I,
“the sons and daughters of countless mothers and
fathers,” and should have the same opportunities to pursue happiness by
marrying the one that they love. A natural process, where two people fall
in love and decide to get married, is not any different for gay people.

Therefore legalizing gay marriages does not provide gays with any special
rights or place in America, but instead people will consider them to be an
equal part of the society.The main idea is homosexuals should have the
right to get married legally.

Sullivan does not want churches to make any change in their practice,
but to allow everyone to be who he/she is, a principle that the United
States was created on. Plus, the concept of marriage has changed within the
past one hundred years. The inter-caste and the inter-religion marriages
which were once prohibited or forbidden between couples, has now become
socially acceptable. Gay marriages do not change anyone else’s rights or
marriages in any way. Marriage is not just about raising children because
the fact that many notable “childless heterosexual couples” exist in
today’s society, such as Bob Dole and his wife Elizabeth Dole, etc.

Sullivan concludes by telling the general public to accept homosexual
marriages and the fact that they will not be the turning point for the
downfall of all society.

Although I agree with Sullivan when he says, legalizing gay unions
would not change anyone’s right to marriage, I find Bennett’s view more
powerful, that it would weaken the institution of marriage, and contradict
natural, moral, religious, and sexual realities. After reading Sullivan’s
article, I question his credibility, as he didn’t provide enough evidence
to get his point through. His approach toward his readers is with a lot of
pathos, rather than logos. For example, when he states “And what we
seek is not a special place in America… to give back to our society,” it
is not clear as to what he means by giving back. When he argues about the
definition of marriage, Sullivan fails to see the change, which was brought
about for the welfare of the people (inter-caste marriages, inter-religion
marriages, etc.), consisted of a “man” and a “woman”, not two men, or two
women. I would have agreed to the assertion, “the most simple, the most
natural, and the most human instinct,” if it was used to prove the
relationship between a male and a female. But using it to persuade about
the same sex marriage doesn’t cheer me up.

To answer the question of whether gay and lesbian couples should have
the right to marry, the question of why the institution of marriage is
valued so dearly in society today must be answered. To do this, the meaning
of the word marriage must be found, remembering that there are different
levels in which marriage can be interpreted and/or evaluated. As with many
other issues, when one tries to define the word marriage and its
repercussions in society, several fundamental questions arise that must be
answered in order to get a better understanding of the issue in question.

Questions like: What is marriage defined as? In Webster’s Dictionary,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out