He also presents a variety of shaky arguments with the general point that gay marriage does not and can’t have “the authority and majesty of the kinship system”(383). Since he sees gay marriage as entirely rooted in the relationship between two people, and he dismisses that as a minor part of the institution of marriage, he predicts this kind of marriage will disappear and will only be remembered with a laugh. This paper does not consider for a second that any marriage apart from one that fulfills these principles can be satisfying. There is a very strong implication that this is the proper form of marriage, and anything else is some sort of uninspiring deviancy. This is almost completely unsupported.
These individuals would rather just be closed-minded in this situation and reticent to really think about what this means to the gay community and the country. Same sex couples are not asking for any special rights; they are just asking to be treated equal with opposite sex couples. The explanations given by many Americans against gay marriages are based on false assumptions and unsubstantiated arguments. However, the real and unspoken reasons many heterosexuals have against same-sex marriages are based on religious beliefs. There are a number of false assumptions the straight community has regarding same sex marriages.
Does this go against the law if we do not allow gay marriages and allow straight marriages? Still, a third reason Sandel’s idea makes sense is the basis of a marriage. The basis of marriage is two adults being united and having public recognition and approval. The disagreement for being against same-sex marriage comes from it being a sin in some point of views and dishonors the true meaning of marriage. These kind of people that worry about what others are into and try to manipulate others are just irritating.
But there are some people who fight the idea that it should be legal. If marriage is defined as the union between two people, why is it considered morally wrong for two people of the same sex to get married? That’s when the question is proposed, what makes gay marriage different from heterosexual marriages? Why can’t they have the rights to love, honor and commit like heterosexual couples? Some may argue in the bible it states it is wrong to be involved in a gay marriage.
Sullivan vs. Bennett 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.
The individuals in each of these states are also conflicted. Some people believe in the traditional definition that marriage is between man and woman. If all of the states decided to legalize same-sex marriage, or ban it, there will always be individuals with different thoughts on same-sex marriage. It is apparent that having a relationship with another person is legal. Why then is it only legal for a man and a woman to marry?
Such legal moves, as well as the efforts by lesbian and gay couples to be recognized as such, face denunciation from some conservative voices who assert that by nature and divine will only relationships between men and women can be considered "natural". And, to be honest, there is also an unease expressed by some lesbian and gay activists who, recalling the critique of patriarchy made by 1970's feminism, see "marriage" as an irretrievably heterosexual institution. Same-sex marriages should be legal everywhere in the United States of America. According to the Constitution, marriage is a civil right that all Americans are born with. Our country has decided by passing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 that two people of the same gender cannot get married.
Andrew Sullivan will be discussing why gays should be allowed to be married. In contrast to Sullivan, William Bennett wrote a response to give a heterosexual perspective. Throughout this paper there will be numerous summarizing and synthesizing for the two arguments. Because there is two such different points of views this helps the contrast of both. In my synthesis there are topics that relate to Bennett and how he doesn’t have a strong enough back up to say who should and shouldn’t get married.
Homosexual people and couples are treated as inferior to that of heterosexuals. The values that homosexual couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, and are devoted partners. Many of the reasons offered for opposing homosexual marriage are based on the assumption that homosexuals have a choice in which they can feel attracted to, and the reality is quite different. Many people actually believe that homosexuals could simply choose to be heterosexual if they wished.
He says that gay’s intentions to strengthen it will not be reality. Broadening the definition of marriage any farther would make it so that there is no end. What is to stop bisexuals to marry, or a father and a daughter, etc.? He goes into how “forsaking ... ... middle of paper ... ...legal right? He also uses Bob and Elizabeth Dole, and Pat and Shelly Buchanan as examples of heterosexual couples that are married, yet have no children.