Comparing William Bennett's Leave Marriage Alone and Andrew Sullivan's Let Gays Marry

Sheldon claims that ‘homosexual marriage is neither culturally nor physiologically possible’ (p. 1). He sustains that ‘without the cooperation of a third party, the homosexual marriage is a dead-end street - referring to the reproductive aspect of marriage (p. 1).

In their works “Let Gays Marry,” by Andrew Sullivan and “Leave Marriage Alone,” by William Bennett, they both talk about the subject of same sex marriages. They both believe that marriage is based off of tradition. However, they debate on if these marriages should be allowed and if they are proper. Sullivan goes on to prove he believes same sex marriages are proper because traditionally it is based off of the principle of love. Bennett proves his point by saying that the conventional ways are the tradition.

In the article “For Gay Marriage,” author Andrew Sullivan declares the conservative denial of marriage to gay couples infringes on their equality as citizens. He explains love endures through commitment between two people, no matter the gender, race, or social background; therefore, any two citizens with a well-developed relationship should qualify for the marital bond which solidifies and epitomizes a long-lasting promise. Without homosexual weddings, LGBT youth have no outlet into society to hope for, domestic partnerships devalue relationships, and gay individuals remain second-class citizens with the inability to express the extent of their affection and fidelity toward one another. Andrew Sullivan’s vernacular both inhibits and stimulates the reader’s immersion into the debate on marital equality. Throughout the article, he uses the word conservative eleven times and homosexual twenty-two times.

Bennett is trying to conclude that children are better off with heterosexual parents than homosexual parents. He is using the logical fallacy of begging the question. By using so many different logical fallacies throughout his academic

In the article “For Gay Marriage” Andrew Sullivan claims that withholding marriage from homosexuals is perhaps the most social attack concerning their social likeness. Sullivan reasons that regardless of one’s sexual preference, one has the entitlement to marry a significant other. Likewise, Sullivan reinforces the idea of marriage by claiming that a contract such as marriage is, “...an emotional, financial, and psychological bond between two people; in this respect heterosexuals and homosexuals are identical” (30). In addition to discussing the definition of marriage in our society today, Sullivan enlightens the conservative idea that domestic partnerships diminish the idea of marriage (31). If a person

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.

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

The two texts examined within, present the opposing extremes of views regarding gay and lesbian marriage. The first text entitled Let Gays Marry by Andrew Sullivan examines the intricacies of same sex relationships and why homosexual couples should be allowed to publicly show affection for one another. The second text that will be examined is titled Leave Marriage Alone written by William Bennett. Bennett gives his views on why couples of same sex nature should not be allowed to engage in marital relations. These two authors, although very different, each has a view of the ideals of marriage, and how it should be presented to the public.

Bennett argues, rhetorically, that recognizing gay marriage would open the door to every other possible marriage, such as between two brothers who desire to marry and in situations where groups of individuals desire polygamous marriages. According to Bennett, if the basis of recognizing gay marriage is the notion of not denying a person's sexuality, all of those types of relationships are also entitled to legal recognition. Of course, that is a flawed argument because it presumes that proponents of gay marriage oppose any restriction on who may marry based on the single criteria of sexuality. In fact, the exact same argument was once used by opponents of interracial marriage. Proponents of gay marriage do not support incest, or polygamy, or bestiality; nor do they suggest that sexual desire is the only purpose of marriage or a justification for all marital choices.

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.

The definition of marriage has changed over time. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the United States defined marriage as a union between a consenting man and woman, of non-African decent (Stahlberg, 2008, p. 443). This, however, changed after the civil war. In 1868 two consenting adults of opposite gender could marry someone of the same race, but this was also restructured in 1967 to allow marriage of all consenting adults of opposite genders regardless of race (Stahlberg, 2008, p. 443). Today, the law looks very different. Recently, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marriage (gay marriage, 2015).

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

As we know, same-sex marriage has been a prominent issue that has so many arguments not just in the United States, but around the world over many years now. There is absolutely nothing more controversial than same-sex marriage in gay rights topic. Everyone has different opinions about same-sex marriage whether it should be legal or not. We now have to consider two aspects that are moral and religious. These two form a fundamental belief that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are different. Based on the definition of marriage, the view of religion, bad effects to children, and the lifestyle that should not be encouraged; therefore, the government should not legalize the same-sex marriage.

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman. It is the institution that establishes kinship and relations in the family. Marriage is mostly recognized by a state, organization, religious authority, local community, or peers. Marriage is for procreation, education, the unity, and well-being of the couple. Some say marriage is for two people who love each other and ready for commitment. Nevertheless, in the bible times, couples were not allowed to choose the one him or her married. Therefore, the person he or she married was not the person him or her loved. Divorce was not an option; the couples had to learn to love the person they married. Stating this, marriage is not all about love and emotions, but the purpose of marriage. Marriage is unique and universal. (Rauch) Marriage of homosexual couples would not provide the same benefits of a heterosexual couple. Homosexual are not allowed to produce children. They must have vitro-fertilization or surrogacy. Same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, because marriage is for a man and a woman, all religion is against gay marriages, and gay marriages are the slippery slope for other marriages. (Ferguson)

Furthermore, one of the biggest problems for society and probably the most important for new generations is that same-sex marriage would be that those couples will be able to adopt children if they are given the right to marry. “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as