Andrew Sullivan For Gay Marriage Analysis

Across the world, marriage is a highly valued tradition that conjoins a man and a woman “till death do you part”. It's regarded as a contract that devotes two people to cherish and love each other. This tradition has dates back thousands of years, with the standing definition of marriage happening between a man and a woman. In this day and age though, people would like to alter this word’s definition by allowing it to include homosexuals. Much of the population agrees with this idea but there are also many who don't think it's correct to allow this. In the article For Gay Marriage, Andrew Sullivan Attempts to broadcast the acceptance of gay marriage rights, he does this by showing the similarities between the relationships of homosexuals and

He argues that the word marriage isn't only a private contract, but is public recognition of private commitment. He urges that he isn't challenging any church or religion, but he is only trying to bring equal rights to homosexuals. The definition of marriage could not be changed, Sullivan says, if the definition was that two individuals can have offspring. That is not the case, with that definition being outdated and now varied. He explains that in the respect that being married means being committed to each other emotionally, homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal. Sullivan argues that homosexuals have the same capability to maintain a commitment as compared to heterosexuals, therefore they should be able to apply for marriage. Some argue that a domestic partnership fits the demand for homosexuals, but Sullivan rebuts by explaining that anyone can get a domestic partnership without being sexually attracted to each other. This does not resemble the idea of marriage for gays and lesbians. With gay marriage, the value of marriage will still be immense, Sullivan assures. To children, Sullivan addresses, homosexual parents are preferred rather than single or no parents. Gay or lesbian relations will and have always existed everywhere but the law, so conservatives should accept it Sullivan notes. He claims that granting the right to gay marriage, will allow them to be role models to teens and others to open up without hiding their

He starts his argument by presenting that Hawaii granted the legalization of gay marriage, leading to other states siding with the idea. Bennett explains that allowing homosexuals to be married would bring social damage. This would change one of the most valuable institutions, and the definition of marriage, Bennett says. He adds that changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals would allow for more changes to be inevitable, and in this day in age it's in our best interest to conserve marriage. Bennett challenges Sullivan by explaining that he is ruining the ideals that encourage people to get married. He expresses the rising issue in teens, who think it is the new trend to follow. Bennett urges that this is leading to children being something that they are not at heart. With the legalization of gay marriage, Bennett declares, schools would have to incorporate homosexuality in the sex-ed programs, leading to gay people being a normality. This would also lead to equal rights for adopting children for homosexuals, Bennett adds. He addresses what everyone knows to be true, that a child has more chance of success with a mother and father, not two of one gender. Bennett concludes that with all the problems we face today with marriages, adding this to the list will lead things in the wrong direction. He adds that it would be of the countries best interest to