I will summarize some of the key points from the essay, Let Gays Marry, by Andrew Sullivan, and the essay, Leave Marriage Alone, by William Bennett. Some of these main points are taken from mutual beliefs of both authors and others are derived from the opposing opinions of the two.
The article by William Bennett, “Leave Marriage Alone,” is about how marriage is a sacred tradition. He believes that if you broaden the definition to include gays, that act will totally alter the purpose and meaning of marriage.
... It is obvious that there are many differences between the two articles. Sullivan is fighting for his rights as an American, and as a human being, to be able to legalize the love felt between two people of the same sex. Bennett believes that marriage is a crucial part of our society, and that it is so special and important that it should stay as it is. They differ in opinions simply because they are looking for different things.
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.
Sullivan, an editor of The New Republic, also wrote Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality (26). Andrew Sullivan, who is openly gay himself, is a devout Catholic who has spent his life researching subjects involving the gay community. His articles are simply ways for him to show his feelings to the general public. His audience for “Let Gays Marry” is the general public, but could be more specifically written for gays who are too scared to stand up for the rights for gays to marry. He may have written this essay to inform the public how gays feel about the issue of marriage, but also to encourage gays to stand up for their rights as Americans.
In Andrew Sullivan’s article, "For Gay Marriage,” he appears to be so fully committed to democratic values that he seeks to extend equal rights in marriage to homosexuals. And he makes an admirable case for equality and dignity for all people, including homosexuals. Instead of begging the question or avoiding the issue, which is seen in many politic debates, Sullivan tries to persuade conservatives about the emotional, financial, and psychological bond between two people (Sullivan 30). By doing this, Sullivan attempted to argue that heterosexuals and homosexuals are the same. However, his lack of specific evidence and use of the logical fallacy, oversimplification, muddy and weaken his argument. This article, probably meant to show a sympathetic side in the debate about gay marriage, showed the overarching components for any marriage debate. Which, oddly enough, made Sullivan’s claims contradict his argument.
The author of this article Here Comes the Groom by Andrew Sullivan, makes a good argument about same sex marriage and gay relationships .The author feels that gay people should have the same rights and privileges that straight couples have when it comes to being in a relationship or even when being married Sullivan’s has a very accurate argument on this topic and I like the way Sullivan differs his point respectfully. I think he makes a strong moral argument for his position, which has lead me to agree with him on this topic.
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.
Gallagher begins her argument by stating that gay marriage divides into two sides. One side is that gay marriage will only affect gay couples, the other is that gay marriage will affect the common and shared public meeting places of America. Gallagher states that marriage is an important part of society and shouldn’t be opened to gay marriage. She says that marriage is a universal human institution in society.
In the article, “Lawyers in Same-Sex Marriage Case Claim the Purpose of Marriage is Procreation”, written by Kristi Eaton, the Huffington Post reporter states that “Marriage exists for its procreative potential, not just as recognition of a loving relationship between two people...” (Eaton 1). The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with that Kristi Eaton. A case filed that week was based on a homosexual couple of seventeen years and a county clerk who denied them access to a marriage license. Lawyers of the county clerk argued that marriage is strictly about “potentially procreative sexual relationships into stable unions rather than recognizing the love and commitment of two people.”(Eaton 4). Baldwin and Bishop, the homosexual couple, believe that marriage between two people should be admitted to all citizens and “not a bastion of individual states to discriminate against people within their borders.”(Eaton 7). The couple states that LGBT, group that supports homosexuals, want a normal life.