Rights Versus Wrong
In the article, “Against Gay Marriage,” author William Bennett asserts that permitting same-sex marriages would result in extensive social damage. He states that marriage serves as the cornerstone of societal structure. He envisions that societal indifference on marriages will leave future generations in a state of identity confusion. Representing a different perspective, the article “American Marriage in Transition,” composed by Andrew J. Cherlin suggests that as the practical necessity of marriage diminishes, its symbolic importance may be increasing. He asserts that marriage evolution has arisen alongside many social issues pertaining to expression of personal choice. He connects the expanding role of individualism
…show more content…
During the fight against slavery and segregation, America realized that public opinion can be wrong. The movement for women’s rights brought about the knowledge that the government has had more control over civil rights than previously believed. Both historical movements arose from a common belief: despite public opinion, the government should protect the freedoms outlined in the constitution. Current societal issues related to marriage reflect this principle; however, authors Cherlin and Bennett would disagree on the connection being made. Cherlin acknowledges that momentum in the fight for homosexual equality has been attained by the degradation of the marital structure. As family structure among heterosexual couples is more often dysfunctional and more commonly broken down, a question arises of whether or not homosexual marriages radically affect society any more than this. Cherlin makes the implication that, if no compelling state interest can be found against gay marriage legalization, keeping it illegal would be a civil inequity. Bennett would contend that with this momentum, society may be blindly crossing a line. Divorce rates and out of wedlock births have skyrocketed due to legal changes in the availability of marriage and divorce documents. He points out that these negative effects will only increase with further law changes. “Indeed, …show more content…
While the authors disagree about the possible effects of this change in marriage, neither can accurately predict how it will affect issues unrelated to marriage. Opening the doors for marriage equality will either bring about greater freedom in many aspects of Americans’ lives or unlock the gates to a complete separation of morality and law
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.
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
Lisa Miller uses the Bible as a basis for her argument for gay marriage in her essay "Our Mutual Joy: The Religious Case for Gay Marriage". She first begins her argument by saying that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament show model examples for marriage. Therefore, neither a homosexual or heterosexual couple would want to look to the Bible for marriage advice. Instead, the Bible should be read for its universal truths. Miller goes onto say that there is no real definition of marriage in the Bible, and the laws and guidelines in the Bible were put in place for a culture that no longer exists. If Christians no longer subscribe to animal sacrifice, then why would they condemn homosexuality? She ends by discussing the fact that Jesus ' message was one of inclusion. So, all those who claim to follow the Bible 's teachings should love others regardless of their sexual orientation.
The constitutional right of gay marriage is a hot topic for debate in the United States. Currently, 37 states have legal gay marriage, while 13 states have banned gay marriage. The two essays, "What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt and "Gay "Marriage": Societal Suicide" by Charles Colson provide a compare and contrast view of why gay marriage should be legal or not. Pollitt argues that gay marriage is a constitutional human right and that it should be legal, while Colson believes that gay marriage is sacrilegious act that should not be legal in the United States and that “it provides a backdrop for broken families and increases crime rates” (Colson, pg535). Both authors provide examples to support their thesis. Katha Pollitt provides more relevant data to support that gay marriage is a constitutional right and should be enacted as law in our entire country, she has a true libertarian mindset.
Is marriage strictly between male and female, or should it also be open for homosexuals? William Bennett, a well known politician believes in the traditional marriage, being between a male and female. His thesis reads “We are engaged in a debate which, in a less confused time, would be considered pointless and even oxymoronic: the question of the same-sex marriage” (409). Not only is this statement bias, but other elements of his work held problems. The way his case was defended was ineffective to his case. The debate held good statements; it just failed to support the statements. His writing also holds other unacceptable elements, giving his work more reasons to be ineffective. William Bennett’s debate “Against
What is marriage? For thousands years, marriage has been a combination between a man and a woman. When they love each other, they decide to live together. That is marriage. But what will love happen between two same sex persons? Will they marry? Is their marriage acceptable? It is the argument between two authors: William J. Bennett and Andrew Sullivan. The two authors come from different countries and have different opinion about same sex marriage. Sullivan agrees with the gay marriage because of human right, on the other hand, Bennett contradicts his idea because he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Even though their theories are totally different, their opinions are very well established.
In Andrew Sullivan 's "For Gay Marriage" (29-33) and William J. Bennett 's "Against Gay Marriage" (33-36), both authors address the issue of legalizing gay marriage, and more specifically the implications it would have on various aspects of society. Sullivan 's article focuses on how the legalization of gay marriage would not drastically change society as it is now, only provide validation and equality in all aspects of life. Bennett 's article focuses on the same specifics of society, such as fidelity and the definition of marriage, as his is written as a rebuttal to Sullivan 's, explaining how legalizing gay marriage would greatly impact society for the worse. Each author 's argument is influenced by either the inclusion or omission of the
The U.S. has recognized marriage as a basic human right by many court cases including Loving v Virginia. Since protecting the marriage of a black-Cherokee woman and a white man, the case has also helped support the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states. This is important because it creates a more united America by knocking down social constraints that disallowed the 5-10% of America identified as homosexual from being married. In the same way as blacks were not allowed to vote, gay couples were not allowed to marry. The legalization of same-sex marriage is helping bridge the split in social order of America by not outlawing same-sex couples for being “immoral” and implying the couples are less-deserving of marriage than a heterosexual relationship. The change of expanding the 14th amendment’s meaning of equal protection of rights for all citizens, in this case for marriage, is helping people treat each other as equivalent and allowing the country to take another step towards liberty and justice for
Marriage is the legal or formally recognized union of a man and a woman, or two people or the same sex as partners in a relationship. Marriage rates in the United States have changed drastically since the last 90’s and early 2000 years (Cherlin 2004). Marital decline perspective and marital resilience perspective are the two primary perspectives and which we believe are the results from the decline. The marital decline perspective is the view that the American culture has become increasingly individualistic and preoccupied with personal happiness (Amato, 2004). The change in attitudes has changed the meaning of marriage as a whole, from a formal institution
AFTER GAY MARRIAGE, what will become of marriage itself? Will same-sex matrimony extend marriage's stabilizing effects to homosexuals? Will gay marriage undermine family life? A lot is riding on the answers to these questions. But the media's reflexive labeling of doubts about gay marriage as homophobia has made it almost impossible to debate the social effects of this reform. Now with the Supreme Court's ringing affirmation of sexual liberty in Lawrence v. Texas, that debate is unavoidable.
While the gay rights movement has been around for some time, the things that they fight for is forever changing. Currently it is fighting for the right to marry, and receive all the rights straight people get when they marry. Married privilege is like white privilege; married people have more rights then non-married people, no matter what sex a person is married to. These benefits include insurance coverage’s under a spouse policy, social security benefit inheritance, receiving pension and personal assets without taxation, visitation rights at the hospital without question and making health care decisions (LaSala, 2007). In addition to all that, there is a social benefit to being married; it represents a healthy, developed and normal relationship (LaSala, 2007). Before reading this article, I never thought about why married people are given all of these rights. I never thought about where they came from, who made them up, or why they were even made. Why are we fighting for legalizing same-sex marriage a...
What is wrong with gay marriage? That is the question writer Katha Pollit asks in her essay “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?”. The essay is clearly intended for people who are against gay marriage. The title alone shows that she does not understand why people think gay marriage is wrong. Pollitt’s audience must have different reasons for being against gay marriage. This is why she addresses the main reasons why people may think gay marriage is wrong. Pollitt talks about how people believe marriage is about procreation and tries to convince them they are wrong. Pollit says “As many have pointed out, the law permits marriage to the infertile.” She also talks about marriage being a way for women to domesticate men. Pollit says “although it overlooks
Marriage, for years has been argued that the rights to it or strictly only between a man and a women. Both sexes are assumed to marry someone of the opposite sex. What if, however, an individual wanted to marry someone of the same sex? Why is this debate so heavily heated amongst individuals? Is it that religion is a large structure base that those in society are guided by? Or is it that individuals do not understand that marriage is a union between two individuals who are in love? Whatever the case may be, there is always someone who has to argue that homosexual marriage is “wrong.”
Thesis: Gay marriage is a very sensitivity subject that strikes a cord with many people which causes the three levels of government to step in a provide guidance; the President standing publicly in support of gay marriages, the United States Congress has passed several laws concerning gay marriages and the Supreme Court has ruled making it unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage. President Obama has been commended for his support of gay rights including gay marriage by gay rights advocates. The president has stated his public support for the rights for gay couples to get married during several interviews like the one USA News. President Obama claims that after discussing the issue with his family, he took a stand in support of gay marriage
... the past several years is the same-sex family. Since the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, changing attitudes have brought more tolerance to the gay and lesbian community. This has somewhat loosened the stigma previously associated with this segment of the population. Along with evolving public attitudes, economic and legal changes in the United States have also reduced barriers previously facing same-sex couples making it more likely for them to form families (Butler, 2004). On the other hand, continued strong institutional ties to marriage between one man and one woman continue to pose problem for this group and shape social agendas (Glenn, 2004; Lind, 2004). While several states and many employers have given recognition and benefits to homosexual partners, there is still no uniform policy in place which addresses their familial rights in the United States.