Greg LuthiComp-II, Sec-00306/17/04 If only God had made Adam & Steve, instead of Adam & Eve…
In “Let Gays Marry,” Andrew Sullivan responds to conservativeobjections to same-sex marriages, by arguing that allowing such unionswould actually promote traditional values, such as fidelity, monogamy, andlove. It should logically appeal to straight conservatives, who deplore gaymale promiscuity, that the declaration of Supreme Court: “A state cannotdeem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,” now assigns equal rightsto gays and lesbians. Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at The NewRepublic, a magazine he edited from 1991 to 1996, and the U.S. columnistfor the Sunday Times of London. He has a B.
A. in modern history and modernlanguages from Oxford University and a Ph.D. in political science fromHarvard University. He lives in Washington, D.C. The real problem is thatthere are really only three arguments against gay marriage: One is rootedin entirely God’s preferences, the second cites inconclusive research onits negative effects on children, and third, the integrity of a marriage asa legal document.
Sullivan effectively presents his case in a very logical fashion,calmly displaying his points, and using a statement declared by the UnitedStates Supreme Court, under which no gay men or lesbians will be consideredstrangers in America. They (Gays) are human beings just like you and I,”the sons and daughters of countless mothers and2fathers,” and should have the same opportunities to pursue happiness bymarrying the one that they love. A natural process, where two people fallin love and decide to get married, is not any different for gay people.Therefore legalizing gay marriages does not provide gays with any specialrights or place in America, but instead people will consider them to be anequal part of the society.The main idea is homosexuals should have theright 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 UnitedStates was created on.
Plus, the concept of marriage has changed within thepast one hundred years. The inter-caste and the inter-religion marriageswhich were once prohibited or forbidden between couples, has now becomesocially acceptable. Gay marriages do not change anyone else’s rights ormarriages in any way. Marriage is not just about raising children becausethe fact that many notable “childless heterosexual couples” exist intoday’s society, such as Bob Dole and his wife Elizabeth Dole, etc.
Sullivan concludes by telling the general public to accept homosexualmarriages and the fact that they will not be the turning point for thedownfall of all society.Although I agree with Sullivan when he says, legalizing gay unionswould not change anyone’s right to marriage, I find Bennett’s view morepowerful, that it would weaken the institution of marriage, and contradictnatural, moral, religious, and sexual realities. After reading Sullivan’sarticle, I question his credibility, as he didn’t provide enough evidenceto get his point through. His approach toward his readers is with a lot ofpathos, rather than logos. For example, when he states “And what we3seek is not a special place in America… to give back to our society,” itis not clear as to what he means by giving back.
When he argues about thedefinition of marriage, Sullivan fails to see the change, which was broughtabout for the welfare of the people (inter-caste marriages, inter-religionmarriages, etc.), consisted of a “man” and a “woman”, not two men, or twowomen. I would have agreed to the assertion, “the most simple, the mostnatural, and the most human instinct,” if it was used to prove therelationship between a male and a female. But using it to persuade aboutthe same sex marriage doesn’t cheer me up.To answer the question of whether gay and lesbian couples should havethe right to marry, the question of why the institution of marriage isvalued so dearly in society today must be answered. To do this, the meaningof the word marriage must be found, remembering that there are differentlevels in which marriage can be interpreted and/or evaluated.
As with manyother issues, when one tries to define the word marriage and itsrepercussions in society, several fundamental questions arise that must beanswered in order to get a better understanding of the issue in question.Questions like: What is marriage defined as? In Webster’s Dictionary,marriage