The same-sex marriage, as well as homosexuality itself, is one of the biggest controversial topics in today’s society. Many people appear to support gay marriages, while others are strongly against them. American lawmakers are going through this issue at the moment. It could be a huge decision in history if same-sex marriages are approved because the results, whether positive or negative, can extremely affect society. That is why the topic legalizing same-sex marriage for many people is a debate to start.
This paper is going to compare and contrast two different opinions concerning gay marriage. It is going to discuss two articles: “Leave Marriage Alone” by W. Bennett and “Let Gays Marry” by A. Sullivan. They are about the same topic: whether or not to allow same-sex marriages. Each author has different opinions about it, providing arguments to support their point of view.
Andrew Sullivan believes that homosexuals cannot have identical rights until the same-sex marriage is legal. However, William J. Bennett says that “this topic is absolutely pointless”. Bennett thinks that legalizing gay marriage will destroy the word “marriage” itself. He names it an “honorable estate” because of the differences between men and women offset it and make it complete. Marriage is a tradition, and not an offense to people who cannot get married. According to Bennett, heterosexual marriages are social acts and instructed by all main religions all over the world. It is a general reorganization of male and female (Bennett). Sullivan talks about the main needs of a marriage instead of looking at it religiously. He proves that there is no law that expects a married couple to have children. It is a financial, emotional and psychological responsibility of two people. Also, Sullivan says that heterosexual marriages do not give guaranties that they will always work.
According to Sullivan, the law of home partnership does not extend to marriages of homosexuals. Under this law, a married couple has right to most of the privileges, such as veteran benefits and federal tax. The two people who live together can get ready for domestic partnership; that is why most of the heterosexual couples opt for it. So, to save this dwindling act of marriage, homosexuals should be allowed to get married. However, Bennett proves that it would be a social damage.
Also, Sullivan recalls the law that keeps the juveniles from getting married because they do not understand the consequences of it. The notion of single parenting cannot be better than two men raising a child together. Homosexuals do not pertain to any of these categories, so they should not be denied the right to get married (Sullivan). Bennett, in his turn, says that it is always better when an adopted child raises by a mother and father.
According to Sullivan, the more people become open to homosexuality, the more homosexuals appear and accept their love in public. He also thinks that it would be a good example to follow for young gay generation. Friends and families can accept them openly. Gay children will be able to have a safe future instead of getting discriminated for being related to homosexuality. It could lead to appearance of more happy families and people. Bennett, on the other hand, thinks it would influence young generation in a totally different way. As for Bennett, implementing this idea would mean giving the children an option to be gay because young children can think that it is very cool to be gay. Schools will have different sex education for young generation. Parents who will not want their kids to learn about all this would be considered odd.
Limited time Offer
In the end, Sullivan speaks about emotional needs. Homosexuals’ dreams are the same as heterosexuals’ and merit equal treatment. Bennett, however, does not want to ruin the notion of marriage, which is already being influenced by sexual revolution.
At the same time, the ideas of Sullivan and Bennett have some similarities despite the conflicting viewpoints of the topic. Both authors agree on that people do not like homosexuality due to religious aspects. They discuss expanding of the definition of marriage to include gay individuals. Also, Sullivan and Bennett discuss their understanding of what marriage is, which is the union between a woman and a man.
In conclusion, Sullivan and Bennett have different vision of the matter of gay marriage. The authors provide different arguments of why same-sex marriages should or should not be legalized.
Related Comparison essays