. .) are the pieces of support. They are your proof, evidence,
There are even more who fall somewhere in between these two extremes and who are not quite sure of what their stance is on this issue, and between all of these opinions, no one is being heard. This point could be strengthened by providing specific examples, such as actual Facebook and Twitter posts/responses on each side of the issue. He also claims that there has been severe damage done in the Mormon community by these differing opinions on gay marriage. He provides evidence to this claim by listing examples of stories he has heard from many who have been shunned by their families because they support same-sex marriage. This has caused many people to be very sad, leave their church, and sometimes attempt or commit suicide.
For Gay Marriage Andrew Sullivan’s article “For Gay Marriage” is an excerpted from Sullivan’s 1995 book, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, and reprinted by Behrens and Rosen (404 – 407). This paper provides a summary of Sullivan’s controversial article on this timely and long-fought civil rights issue. “For Gay Marriage” highlights the moral, philosophical and legal arguments surrounding the issue of denying marriage to homosexual and lesbian Americans. More importantly, it highlights the moral, philosophical and legal arguments in favor of gay marriage, which Sullivan clearly supports. Although Sullivan clearly supports gay marriage, his article is an insightful piece that provides a respectful look at various views of this philosophically and emotionally-charged subject, while providing a sound intellectual argument in favor of gay marriage.
“Ron Snider, president of the Evangelicals for Social Action and Professor at Palmer Seminary claims that repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) and legalizing gay marriage threatens religious freedom because religious organizations will be pressured to abandon their religious beliefs and accept or condone same-sex marriage” (Sider, Ron). This could mean that people will begin to interpret their own religious beliefs and apply them to their lives according. Most religious institutions believe that they will be sanctioned on what they can say about sexuality and marriage if this law is approved. However; when dealing with religious belief, it is up to the gay couple to decide what they want to believe and how to apply his or her beliefs to their current situation. Each person will have to answer to God in their own way.
One of the most used arguments about the issue is that God says that same-sex interactions (marriage, sex, lesbian, homosexual acts) are abominations. How could it be an abomination if people are being themselves? Why would God only hate homosexuals if it says that he loves everyone? The fact that homosexuals will threaten religion is wrong. Religions has always been supported as the fundamental reliable source of truth which was supported and promoted by the Roman Catholic church, René Descartes the French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician challenged the churches authority to provide these truths, this created an era when the roman catholic church was challenged by many philosophers as the sole interpreter and providers of truths and findings from philosophers like Aristotle.
Milk, Gus Van Sant 1a) The film Milk portrays an important political history in America against the homosexuals in the 1970’s, seeing this film and the struggles that homosexuals had to fight for their human rights and political equality makes myself, who’s not sensitive about the issue, change my political sensibilities. 2a) -1 The ignorance about homosexuality has become more exposed as they described that being gay could get them fired, beaten up, or even killed. -2 To plan on having to root out every homosexual, simply describes a person who is insecure and cannot accept homosexuality. -3 A debate regarding the Proposition 6 between Supervisor Harvey Milk and Senator John Briggs indicates that Proposition 6 is more on hating the gays, rather than the concern for the children they are “trying” to protect. 3a) -1 When the homosexuals along with the heterosexuals were rioting for their social and political view.
How would you feel if someone randomly approached to you and tell you “you’re gay”? Yes, you, like me or everyone else in this classroom, would definitely be angry and baffled because you take that comment as condescending. It generally means stupid or weird, but as you all may know, the word “gay” stands up for something else as well – a homosexual person. Homosexuality, (or bisexuality inclusive), has been the key word for ethical, religious, social, or any kinds of debate in the United States in the recent years. Despite such rapid development of human beings and extensive globalization, our view towards people who are different from us still remains narrow and conservative.
Everyone should be treated the same whether or not they are homosexual or heterosexual.” Pondering her answer makes it clear that not everyone is equal. The United States is about being equal no matter whether someone, as an American citizen, male or female, black or white, or even have disabilities. Yet, what the United States did not realize is that the judgment it held against homosexuals would come, in a sense, to bite them in the butt. Equality is about putting everyone on the same playing field. As of today, interracial marriages are equal to same race marriages thanks to Mr. and Mrs. Richard Loving in the case Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S (1967), interracial couples are able to marry.
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.