Ojomo Minott
English: 101-LS4
Professor: Edwin Garcia
March 15, 2014
My Response To The Essay “Why The M Word Matters To Me”
By Edward Sullivan
In the essay “Why The M Word Matters To Me” by Andrew Sullivan, he states “This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about marriage. It’s about family. It’s about love” (159). A student’s response to this statement made by Sullivan prompted him to claim that Sullivan was not speaking about marriage itself - as a concept, more rather weddings in particular within his essay. I fully agree with this student’s response and as a result, I shall be thoroughly analyzing the validity of his claim outright.
One instance which fully supports the student’s claim that Sullivan’s thesis is referring to weddings directly rather than marriage throughout his essay can clearly be seen in the first paragraph when he states “The most important day . . .” (158). If Sullivan’s true, original, overall intent of his essay was to express both his opinion and belief that gay marriage should be held in the same context, manner and view as heterosexual marriage, then I believe that he should have evidenced this more by talking about the very concept itself in further detail rather than speaking of specific occurrences which typically take place during a wedding.
A second example which completely supports the student’s response that Sullivan is referring to a wedding directly in his essay can also be seen within the second paragraph in which he states “I would never be a part of my family . . .” (158). Within this very solemn statement, I can almost see Sullivan himself staring at one of two places - or perhaps even a combination of the two. Either at the lifeless ground belo...
... middle of paper ...
...onflict as well because the subject matter discussed within this essay clashed greatly with me personally on many levels. I, for one, am neutral towards the concept and subject matter of homosexuality. I have no stance towards it nor do I seek to attain one anytime in the [near] future. Objectively speaking though, I fully agree with both the student’s response that claims that this essay was primarily about weddings specifically rather than the concept of marriage itself and Sullivan’s heartfelt belief that weddings are a very special occasion that many [worldwide] seek the unfolding of - that day, at some point in their lives; to fully experience and behold for themselves firsthand, all of its wonderful glory and joyful bliss that it has to offer all those who wish it so.
Works Cited
Sullivan, Andrew. “Why The M Word Matters To Me.” TIME 16 Feb. 2004
Gay marriage further damages the connection between marriage and parenthood by causing people to not consider marriagement just to be a parent. He later on argues that marriage has been a tradition since the beginning of time and everything supports it. “The family, led by a married mother and father, is the best available structure for both child rearing and cultural health. This is why, although some people will always pair off in unorthodox ways, society as a whole must never legitimize any form of marriage other than that of one man and one woman, united with the intention of permanency and the nurturing of children” (Colson
He also discusses how love and the desire for commitment play a big part in the argument for and against gay marriage. Stoddard begins his argument successfully with pathos, or emotional appeal, to attain the reader’s empathy for those who have been deprived of a loved one. The story tells of a woman named Karen Thompson, who was basically married, but not legally, to her female partner; when Thompson’s partner was in a critical car accident, her partner’s parents completely cut Thompson off from all contact with their daughter. Had the two women been married, they would not have had to deal with such heart-throbbing pain. This example is effective in presenting how marriage “can be the key to survival, emotional and financial” (Stoddard, 1988, p. 551).
In the end, readers are unsure whether to laugh or cry at the union of Carol and Howard, two people most undoubtedly not in love. Detailed character developments of the confused young adults combined with the brisk, businesslike tone used to describe this disastrous marriage effectively highlight the gap between marrying for love and marrying for ?reason.? As a piece written in the 1950s, when women still belonged to their husbands? households and marriages remained arranged for class and money?s sake, Gallant?s short story excerpt successfully utilizes fictional characters to point out a bigger picture: no human being ought to repress his or her own desires for love in exchange for just an adequate home and a tolerable spouse. May everyone find their own wild passions instead of merely settling for the security and banality of that ?Other Paris.?
In his play “On Tidy Endings, a lover and ex-wife have gathered to sign documents and tie up loose ends after the death of a man. It was during the conception of this play that most Americans mandated being homosexual was a crime against god. These actions came because of a belief that god created man for woman, and woman for man. I believe Mr. Fierstein’s theme is to show people same sex marriage does not differ from any other, but it is the judgment by those who do not unde...
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.
Monogamy is a cultural norm that dominates many modern societies, and when individuals engage in monogamous relationships, they are unconsciously conforming to historical and cultural legacies of what is perceived as love that predate their illusions of personal agency. Although anthropological records indicate that 85% of human societies have tended towards polygamy (Henrich, Boyd and Richerson 2012), the modern culture of monogamy has rapidly risen and spread in the past millennium (Senthilingam 2016). This demonstrates how an individual’s conception of a heterosexual relationship as normatively monogamous has been constructed by social forces. In addition, social forces in the form of state legislation also perpetuate and reinforce an individual’s conception of what a romantic relationship should entail. Monogamous heterosexual marriage remains to be the only form of marriage with legal recognition in many countries. An individual’s belief that a romantic relationship should culminate in marriage is hence not formed through independent thought, but rather through what is considered normative by law. Essentially, “marriage is not an instinct but an institution.” (Berger 1963, 88) because it is enabled and promoted by virtue of the law. In addition, many couples believe in
In an article titled, “I've Been Divorced Four Times, But Homosexuals Are the Ones Destroying Marriage,” published in February of 2014, blogger Matt Walsh intends to move anyone who advocates for “traditional marriage” to focus their attention on preventing divorce instead of opposing gay marriage. The title is mocking the hypocrisy of some “traditional marriage” advocates who are serial divorcee supposedly doing everything they can to preserve the sanctity of marriage. The author believes in what is commonly called “traditional marriage,” though the term is considered a historically misleading term by some. Steve Chapman declares in the Chicago Tribune,“What conservatives regard as traditional marriage is not very traditional at all. It's radically different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago.” Opponents of “traditional marriage” are not concerned with threats to the institution like Walsh is. In the Huffington Post, Carina Kolodny says that equality for gay marriage will, “fundamentally destroy 'traditional marriage,' and I, for one, will dance on its grave.” Other advocates for “traditional marriage” might also argue that the greatest threat to marriage is no-fault divorce laws or pre-marital cohabitation, and yes, gay marriage. Walsh's target audience is limited to conservative Christians; his appeals to God, the holiness of marriage, and church practices are only effective supporting material for this intended audience.
Marriage, as an institution, has evolved in the last few decades. As society progresses, the ideas and attitudes about marriage have shifted. Today, individuals are able to choose their partners and are more likely marry for love than convenience. While individuals are guaranteed the right to marry and the freedom to choose their own partners, it has not always been this way. Starting from colonial times up until the late 1960’s, the law in several states prohibited interracial marriages and unions. Fortunately, in 1967, a landmark case deemed such laws as unconstitutional. Currently, as society progresses, racism and social prejudice have decreased and interracial marriages have become, not only legal, but also widely accepted.
In his article “Sacred Rite or Civil Right?” Howard Moody tackles the controversial issue of the definition of marriage and inclusion of same-sex marriage into that definition. The real issue that takes center stage is the not so clear separation between the church and the state. Moody, an ordained Baptist minister, shares his belief that it’s only a matter of time that civil law is once again redefined and homosexual marriage is recognized just as much as heterosexual marriage. The gay marriage debate he suggests isn’t focused on the relationship between such couples and is more about how to define such unions as a “marriage”. (353)
...t a couple should not live together nor engage in sexual activity until they are wed. If I had to agree with one of the authors, I would agree with Coontz because society does not focus on marriage anymore. Most of the people I know do not put marriage as the main goal of their daily lives. Also, I agree with Solot and Coontz about gay marriage. I do not support that gay marriage is a correct way of living, but I do believe they should have the right to love who they please. Overall, these essays were enjoyable to read because they provoked emotion and opinions out of me.
Most people in our society have the dream of going on the perfect date and finding “the one.” When picturing marriage, some women imagine their husband having a great sense of humor, or some men can see themselves marrying a woman with a kind soul; most importantly, both men and women look for love and happiness with their future partner. In Mavis Gallant’s short story “The Other Paris”, these expectations our society has for marriage are non-existent. The main characters Carol and Howard future marriage involves everything but love. Through Carol and Howard and a disdainful, mocking narrative voice, Gallant portrays a society where love between husband and wife is unrealistic; this causes the society to treat marriage as something they have
She would not have grieved over someone she did not love. Even in the heat of her passion, she thinks about her lost love. She knew that she would weep again when she saw the kind, tender hands folded in death; the face that had never looked safe with love upon her, fixed and gray and dead. Her love may not have been the greatest love of all time, but it was still love. Marriage was not kind to Mrs. Mallard, her life was dull and not worth living, her face showed the years of repression.
In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen shows examples of how most marriages were not always for love but more as a formal agreement arranged by the two families. Marriage was seen a holy matrimony for two people but living happil...
Mrs. Mallard cared for and loved her husband; being married was the only way of life that she knew. Mrs. Mallard had heart trouble, which made it imperative to break the news of her husband’s death, gently. Thus is why Josephine, Mrs. Mallard’s sister, “told her in broken sentences, veiled hints that revealed in half concealing,” (Chopin, 1894, para. 2). The adage of the adage. Once she was told the horrible news, Mrs. Mallard was alone in front of her “open window.”
Marriage naturally creates families; it provides the conditions for a healthy environment that is beneficial to the upbringing of children. Opponents of same-sex marriage often ground their arguments on parental and religious concerns. Many argue that sa...