Critique on Against Gay Marriage
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
…show more content…
His points are strong, but for almost every point he doesn’t have proof that what he is saying is true. For the rare points that do have support leave the question of “how accurate is the source?” For an example he argues that counselors are reporting that teens are thinking its “cool” to be homosexual, but what are counselors saying this? The statement “counselors report” is an absolute statement and all counselors aren’t agreeing to the statement. Even how he concludes this section on schools isn’t supported; he says schools are to be blamed. He should bring out statistics on the number of homosexual students to the change of sexual education. Statistics would make his point more believable and improve his effectiveness greatly. William leaves his readers with another question, “is what he’s saying fact or just his opinion?” Most of this article is just the opinion of William Bennett. His opinion brings forth some interesting points, but this all means nothing without support. Even with the poor flow and his lacking to understand the opponent, the article could have been effective if he supported all his statements. The support is the most important piece of an argument. William’s failure to support his points is the biggest reason why his debate was
Stoddard uses many successful techniques to support his major claim that gay marriage should be made legal. He misuses a few techniques, but overall his paper was a success. He keeps his argument strong through emotional appeal, strong evidence, use of authority, and great warrants.
In the article, “More Equal than Others,” Rebecca Solnit describes the point of view of the conservatives about the same-sex marriage which they see as a threat for the traditional marriage. She also give the reader a little bit of history behind the laws of the traditional marriage, in which she quotes William Blackstone, a British judge, “By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the women is suspended during the marriage, or at least is
... to agree on the fact that the issue at hand is one of religion. Religion seems to be the deciding factor right now when it comes to the question of what is right and what is wrong. Both authors see religion as the main concern when the question of homosexual marriage is brought up. So as each has very different ideals for society as a whole, both Bennett and Sullivan try to represent the happiness of the people as a whole, in their own ways. The two authors present very different points of view and each has well thought out reasoning behind what he has to say. Although the authors feel very different about how marriage should exist and how it should be regulated, there is some common ground between the authors.
Despite having been published in Newsweek, this argument is biased when in the first sentence Sullivan identifies himself as a homosexual. ?For the first time in Supreme Court history, gay men and women were seen not as some powerful lobby trying to subvert America, but as the people we truly are?? When Sullivan uses the term we, he is identifying that he himself is a homosexual, and therefore I must assume that he is arguing from a homosexual point of view, and not an unbiased point of view.
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 conclusion his article is highly ineffective due to his illogical arguments. While many of his hypotheses may be readily accepted by the audience, his attempt to reason others his approach is faulty. While his goal of empowering others with his same beliefs might be effective, he still misses with persuasion. Schulman's argument could be strengthened if he removes the statements regarding female sexuality in marriage as well as contraceptives. Finally he should actually discuss the view points of those who support homosexual marriage, not simply the views of those who are against it.
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
Same-sex marriage has been one of the most controversial topics in the United States, and gay couples have been facing harsh judges by others. Gay marriage is very important because it challenges our values on freedom, and this will affect the next generation’s understanding of marriage. In “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,” the author uses historical facts trying to convince his audience that same-sex marriage should be protected under laws and granted respect by people. On the other hand, the author of “Prop 8 Hurts My Family-ask Me How” uses incidences of how homosexual couples are being harassed and discriminated by others to show how they were unequally treated after prop 8 was passed. They both use the rhetorical strategies effectively
Beginning with the topic on gay marriage and the controversial battle between authors, Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett, Sullivan is the gay supporter. In Sullivan’s piece, “Let Gays Marry,” he opens with a statement by the Supreme Court, “A state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” He feels that this simple sentence has so much meaning, saying that whatever type of person, male or female, black or white, everyone deserves the same legal protection and equal rights. Therefore, gay marriage should not be excluded from the legal system. He tells that some churches practice different beliefs and may oppose gay marriage but religion has nothing to do with the state appeals. Sullivan explains how the definition of marriage has changed in the past and that it can be done again. Sullivan ends his piece by saying that changing the law would not affect straight couples, so why are they against gay marriage? He believes the change would allow gay couples to experience what straight couples already have.
Bennett’s essay is clear, concise and to the point. He talks about the key issues from the first sentence in the first paragraph. The structure of his essay is deductive, beginning with “the two key issues that divide proponents and opponents of same sex marriage. The first is weather legally recognizing same-sex unions would strengthen or weaken the instition. The second has to do with the basic understanding of mar...
However, he does not approach this in an unbiased manner, he leaves out arguments that oppose his point of view, which are critical for him to view in order for his argument to be more powerful. At no point does he speak of religious standpoint. He fails to acknowledge why the family did not want one woman to see the other. Until you have all of the facts, you do not know if the author is just trying to manipulate and simply push his opinion onto you. I agree that people should be able to chose who they marry. I also feel everyone has the right to marry, whether they are straight or gay. Yet making this into an
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
Queer theory is applicable because when Duncan asked Phoebe for a divorce because he was not gay and he wanted to marry another women, Phoebe could not believe that he wasn’t gay, because according to her “he is smart, funny, and throws the greatest Academy Award parties” (Junge, 2004) which are according to her and society is the traits of a gay man. Duncan faked being gay because he thought that if he acted gay he would be able to “fit in” because “he is an ice dancer, and all of his friends are gay” (Junge, 2004). It can be assumed that Duncan acted gay because according to society when you are an ice dancer you have to be gay, because no straight man would be a dancer. Society believes that dancing is an activity that is performed by girls
Why isn’t gay marriage legal yet? How does gay marriage affect people that aren’t gay? Why does it matter to those people? Why can’t gay people have the same rights as straight people? Gay marriage should be legal worldwide. Gay marriage or same-sex marriage is when a man and man or women and a woman get married. Same-sex marriage impacts society in different types of ways, some people are affected by it because they think it is against the bible, others seem to have no impact or problem with same-sex marriage. However for the gay community it affects them, because in some states they are not allowed to marry the one they are in love with it. Also it impacts them because there are groups of people against same-sex marriage and the gay community is constantly being judged by people opposed to same-sex marriage. Seventeen states have legalized same-sex marriage; Thirty-three states banned same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage provides a more stable environment for children of gay couples. Legalizing same-sex marriage does not affect or harm heterosexual marriages. Marriage is a union of love, not a union of genders.
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.