“For Gay Marriage” is a snippet from Andrew Sullivan’s book Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality (1995). Sullivan, a former editor of the New Republic magazine who writes on a wide range of political and social topics, in this excerpt, he argues for the legalization of gay marriage. The first claim that Sullivan gives is that by the definition of marriage, gay marriage should be legalized. Sullivan then uses his opposition’s argument, by the conservatives, against domestic partnership that leans towards the legalization for gay marriage. Sullivans also claims that the legalization of gay marriage would bring families closer because it would make homosexuality closer to traditional marriage. Sullivan believed that, “As a classic
…show more content…
Sullivan then goes on to say that marriage licenses are not granted on the condition that the couple is going to or is bearing children. The emotional commitment between two people is the contemporary West’s way for a state to define marriage. If a state were to deny two people marriage because of their homosexaul tendency, then they therefore are infringing the law by denying the equal right to marriage. By stripping the right of marriage, Sullivan has a strong argument that the homosexual people are being denied the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment of the United State’s Constitution. From there, the comparison could be drawn to african-americans. It would not be a race issue, but still a case of discrimination among sexual tendencies. By saying no to a gay couple, the state is abridging the couple’s constitutional rights. A heterosexaul couple does not need to bear children to be a married couple, and neither should homosexuals in …show more content…
Sullivan then stated that legalizing gay marriage would bring the nature of gay marriage into the traditional family in a way that families, parents, and offsprings of gay marriages could acknowledge easiest. There is evidence that a two parent structure is better than a single parent or no parent at all. A two parent structure can add more support, and there is no evidence to show homosexual parents have a negative effect on the child they brought up. This is strong argument for gay marriage because if it is not legalized, then there would be no easily, familiar way to acknowledge a gay couple in a family. However, there are a few flaws in this claim. How can it be proven that there is no negative effect by a child being brought up by homosexuals parents compared to heterosexual parents? In addition, how is a gay married couple easier to acknowledge? Either way, the child would have two fathers or two mothers, and it would be far from the traditional marriage. Even though it would be a step closer to the traditional family, it is still far from traditional. Even with a strong argument, Sullivan had flaws in his claims and
Sullivan then goes on to say that marriage licenses are not granted on the condition that the couple is going to or is bearing children. The emotional commitment between two people is the contemporary West’s way for a state to define marriage. If a state were to deny two people marriage because of their homosexaul tendency, then they therefore are infringing the law by denying the equal right to marriage. By stripping the right of marriage, Sullivan has a strong argument that the homosexual people are being denied the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment of the United State’s Constitution. From there, the comparison could be drawn to african-americans. It would not be a race issue, but still a case of discrimination among sexual tendencies. By saying no to a gay couple, the state is abridging the couple’s constitutional rights. A heterosexaul couple does not need to bear children to be a married couple, and neither should homosexuals in …show more content…
Sullivan then stated that legalizing gay marriage would bring the nature of gay marriage into the traditional family in a way that families, parents, and offsprings of gay marriages could acknowledge easiest. There is evidence that a two parent structure is better than a single parent or no parent at all. A two parent structure can add more support, and there is no evidence to show homosexual parents have a negative effect on the child they brought up. This is strong argument for gay marriage because if it is not legalized, then there would be no easily, familiar way to acknowledge a gay couple in a family. However, there are a few flaws in this claim. How can it be proven that there is no negative effect by a child being brought up by homosexuals parents compared to heterosexual parents? In addition, how is a gay married couple easier to acknowledge? Either way, the child would have two fathers or two mothers, and it would be far from the traditional marriage. Even though it would be a step closer to the traditional family, it is still far from traditional. Even with a strong argument, Sullivan had flaws in his claims and