He also believes that homosexuality is not wrong. The acknowledgement of homosexuality is no longer debated, but due to the recent laws to recognize gay unions, the question is not if society should accept it, but how far our acceptance can go. Societal acceptance and respect for a person no matter who they are is something our society has strived for, however, legal acceptance of who person in this situation does not come as easily. Bennett successfully argues that legal acceptance for gay marriage should not be recognized due to our nation’s weak institution of marriage. Marriage solely being between a man and a women is something we have had for centuries, however, due to divorces and newer ways to have a family, our prestigious and “honorable estate” (Bennett 34) of marriage is weakened.
Boies makes some strong points about supporting same-sex marriage. Marriage is a civil right. A civil right is suppose to protect against discrimination, but discrimination occurs
Therefore, between two male homosexuals, there can be a father and a mother. Bennett, fails to conviceus as to why we should not allow same sex marriages, because he does not state facts but only his own views. Furthermore, marriage is a bond between two people who love and cherish each other. Not only a man and a woman have the ablility to do that, but alsosame sex unions have the ability to accomplish the standards of a successful marriage. Both man and woman have equal rights and the rights of the other party cannot be limited because it defies the “traditional” meaning of marriage.
Prop 8 Jennifer Raback Morse argues that “gay rights activists misunderstand the motives of proposition 8 supporters: The proposition is not an expression of hatred toward gays, but a way of restraining an overzealous state Supreme Court which had attempted to redefine marriage.” She views marriage as a “gender-based institution that attaches mothers and fathers to each other and to their children.” (pg. 83) I agree with Morse. She has a good point that the proposition is not an expression of hatred toward gays, but an attempt to redefine marriage, and children should have at least the chance to have a relationship with a mom and dad. I agree with Morse because the proposition was never to show hatred towards homosexuals, but it was to protect marriage. Personally I have gone through arguments with many people about the proposition and what I stood for as a person.
To analyse their ‘post-queer’ basis for the politics of marriage, the authors use the work of Anthony Giddens and Cheshire Calhoun to establish that “same-sex marriage contributes to the trend toward increased reflexivity and expanded autonomy in intimate and sexual life” (138). Meeks and Stein highlight Michael Warner’s article which critiques the normalizing politics of activists and note that when entered into, marriage lends greater dignity to couples, but from the outside, the relationships are less worthy. The authors emphasize that same-sex marriage would not change marriage as much as it would re-define moral boundaries, thus making same-sex relationships
Opponents of homosexual marriage feel that by allowing gay and lesbians the right to marriage undermines the traditional definition of marriage. However, as society changes and the demands of the American citizens change, there needs to be changes that comply with not only the traditional society but also with modern needs of the United States people. Not only are homosexual couples being denied marriage rights but also adoption rights in several states. There would be no harm to society by allowing homosexuals the right to marriage or to legally adopt; the positive impacts it would have on society are far greater then the negative effects. Homosexuals should get the same rights as any other United States citizen.
However, the debate still rages throughout the world on the legitimacy of gay marriage, particularly in the United States of America where there is a large conservative and religiously fundamental community. In his essay, “For Gay Marriage,” Andrew Sullivan believes that marriage is a “public contract between...two people,” (266) no matter what each person’s sexual orientation happens to be. He considers legalizing gay marriage a step towards equality among all people. Conversely, William J. Bennett, in “Against Gay Marriage”, argues that sanctioning gay marriage would harm the tradition of marriage, and bring chaos to humanity. This essay will attempt to establish that, compared to Bennett, Sullivan provides the reader with the more complete and sincere argument backed with valid assumptions and an effective use of literary devices.
In his own words it is “uncommonly silly” why punish someone because of what they choose to be sexually? He also stated that it was not in the Bill of Rights and not in the Constitution. So why waste valuable law enforcement resources to prevent and punish someone because of his or her sexual preference. In Justice Scalia dissection she announces that the court described petitioners conduct as an exercise of their liberty which it is. “Before the Medieval period early Romans tolerated alternative sexual practices, such as masturbation in males and females and homosexuality.
To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint" (J.A Kennedy,2009) The truth is, I think it is sick that here in the United States, gay marriage is not a federally protected right. This is bigotry, pure and simple, and it needs to stop. Denying two women or two men the right to marry is as cruel and absurd as it was to deny two straight people of different races the right to marry. Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the Constitution of the United States guarantee everyone the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Personally, I believe that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. As someone said, “marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love.” While he said this in reference to marriage between races, the same can be said about homosexuals. Who are we to allow some people to get married, and tell others they cannot. As a nation, we have no right to take