Comparison Of Marriage And Andrew Sullivan's Against Gay Marriage

In Andrew Sullivan’s “For Gay Marriage” and William J. Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage”, the two authors speak about the topic of marriage and what validates one. Sullivan is a former editor of the New Republic Magazine and is well versed in the topic of gay marriage. Bennett was a chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and has multiple writings over cultural issues. While both Sullivan and Bennett write about marriage and what constitutes a valid marriage, Sullivan appears to favor the idea that any two people can be married, while Bennett says that gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage.

Both authors discuss the concept of marriage and who should be allowed to enter into a marriage. For example, both authors

Both authors make connections to how the youth will have to grow up dealing with this modern issue. Sullivan brings up the point that kids or teenagers who identify as homosexual would now have role models to look up to (406). Kids or teenagers would now have “references” instead of being in a world where their feelings are ostracized. Bennett discusses how gay marriage would affect children, but in a negative way. Bennett makes the assertion that education and adoption would be two huge areas which would be negatively changed (411). Bennett states adoption would put the child in a position to be improperly raised by a homosexual couple. The education system would also be changed because the educator would have to teach that both types of marriages, homosexual and heterosexual, are equal; parents who want their kid taught exclusively about the privilege status of a heterosexual marriage would be seen as narrow-minded (411). Bennett and Sullivan see two different ways gay marriage will affect the youth, but they both mention the youth and give evidence to why there should or should not be gay marriage for the sake of the future of the

Bennett conveys the point that marriage is already in a bad place with divorces and people having children outside of marriage. He believes that allowing homosexuals to marry would ruin the traditional marriage because it would be an unnecessary, flawed social experiment (411). Sullivan indirectly tries to debunk this statement by stating that ninety percent of lesbian and gay political equality problems would be solved if same-sex union was legalized (407). Sullivan continually points towards the idea that any two people should be able to enter into a marriage while Bennett asserts the idea that marriage does not need the flawed social experiment that is gay marriage. In spite of the fact that both authors disagree on what gay marriage would do to society, they both bring up the topic. It could be reasoned that both authors find the significance of societal effects advantageous to their