Critique of “Against Gay Marriage” Essay

In his essay Against Gay Marriage, William Bennett, a great spokes manhood for butt mavend-ups and former Secretary of education under President Reagan, maintains his conservative stance that each(prenominal)owing uniform- shake couples to marry would gestate a harmful and lasting topic on our societys intrinsic values and, in his view, would open the fragile institution of wedding ceremony beyond recognition (409). Bennett, as the agnomen indicates, presents a decently program line Against Gay Marriage. He argues that allowing sunny conjugation would change the conveying of trade union, the ideal of marriage ceremony as being an square estate, and would take over a large role in molding sex activity (409). One does not have to agree with Bennett to appreciate the strength and silver dollar of his mind. Still, although he raises thoughtful objections to similar-sex marriage, his claims overall read more like an forbiddenline, missing specifics and keen opinions, referring to one organized, careful study, and committing a number of logical fallacies that dingy and diminish the effectiveness of his argument.Throughout his essay, Bennett makes many underlying assumptions near same sex couples and the legalization of transvestite marriage. From the beginning, Bennett states that notwithstanding entertaining such a debate would be pointless, were it not for the confused beat we find ourselves in (409). Bennett does concede, how ever so, that arguments made by homosexual advocates such as Andrew Sullivan are legal ones, and even conservative, and politically shrewd (409), when touching on the idea that allowing gay marriage would actually promote healthy long term relationships. Sullivan does an handsome job of arguing his point that legalization of gay marriage would in fact,help promote healthy relationships and monogamous tendencies, which in his essay he states that the legalization of gay marriage would in fact as well as gain ho mosexuals to make a deeper commitment to one another and to society (409).From here(predicate) though, for William Bennett the views expressed in his editorial piece are clear cut, simple, and largely dismissive in their tone. Besides this claim, to Bennett there are no reasons in his mind why gay marriage should be legal. Bennett admits, though Sullivans argument is shrewd, Sullivan is not right. In fact, Bennett would insist and has an underlying assumption in his essay that gay marriages allow weaken the institution of marriage even more and leave behind not be truly monogamous and pull to each other because of the openness of gay relationships and that homosexuals have less hold back sexual practices (410). Bennetts continuous assumptions that gays cannot be truly monogamous and perpetrate shows that to him there exists no room for compromise on the matter, and weakens the strength of his argument.Bennett also throughout his essay makes many fallacious arguments for show case, in his opening, Bennett makes a truly absolute assertion if not an outright overstatement, when he says that recognizing homosexual marriage would symbolize the potent change in the interpretation and characterization of marriage, and would be the most radical step ever taken in the deconstruction of societys most important institution (409). Of course, Bennett is respected for his personalized opinions, but the reader may wonder if any studies or expert opinions exist to support Bennetts view, to which he has none. This yet again takes international from the strength of his argument because, unlike in Ryan Andersons Marriage What It Is, wherefore It Matters and the Consequences of Redefining It where claim after claim Anderson presents the reader with numerous statistics and expert proof on why marriage should not be changed and the repercussions and dangers of gay marriage being legalized.Anderson presents the argument that marriage exists to bring a man and a woman t ogether as husband and wife, to be father and make to any children they create. Anderson states that marriage profits the chances that the man will be devoted to twain the children that he helps produce, and to the woman with whom he does so. Anderson then backs this up with testimony from Maggie Gallagher, a popular social conservativecommentator, that joining sex, babies, and moms and dads, is the role of marriage and helps beg off why the government rightly respects and addresses this feature of our social dwells. In the next paragraph, Bennett wanting to suppress the movement toward the redefinition of marriage, cites the alternatively peculiar example of two brothers On what principled grounds could the advocates of same-sex marriage oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers? (409). By citing two homosexual brothers, Bennett commits the straw man fallacy.That is, he reasons from an exceptional case that defies logic and, once recognized, does little for his argument. Who else has ever seen such an extreme example? Is this a real pair of brothers, or are they merely made up and cited for the sake of argument? Whether or not these brothers are fictitious is never stated, but as Andrew Sullivan puts it in his essay For Gay Marriage, the right to marry has been appropriately denied by the state to close family members and relatives because familial emotional ties are too powerful to permit a marriage contract to be entered freely by two independent adults (404). In this regard, Sullivan believes homosexuals do not fit into the same category. To believe that the realization of allowing same sex marriage would lead to the kick upstairs breakdown of laws governing familial misconduct, such as incest or polygamy, is outlandish. It appears that one logical fallacy breeds another, as in the very next paragraph, Bennett commits what seems to be a glower over-generalization.He states Nor is this view arbitrary or idiosyncratic (409), to say marriages, es pecially in todays society, cannot be odd or happen by chance because thats what has gone on for thousands of years or what the major trusts state is ridiculous. Even though at one point marriage was seen as a way to increase survival chances and secure your livelihood, it is no longer viewed that way. We no longer live in the middle ages or the 1800s. People today marry for distinguish and their emotional bonds with people, and loves intrinsic value is to be stochastic and can happen to anyone. Nor should religious traditions dictate whether gay marriage should be legalized or not, as today there are numerous homosexuals in all branches of major religions there are gay bishops and preachers, this shows that both religion and homosexuals can coexist and be beneficial to society.Bennetts final strong claim about gay marriage is that the legalization ofsame-sex marriage will lead to teens being confused about their sexuality, conservative parents will be denied their rights to ins till their values about sexuality to their children, and that straight persons are better parents than their homosexual counterparts. Bennett makes many over generalizations about the impact the signals of legalizing gay marriage would propagate to teens. Bennett almost contradicts himself with the inclusion of the quote from Harvard professor E.L. Patullo, a very veridical number of people are born(p) with the potential to live each straight or gay lives (410). Many people are born with the potential to lead gay or straight lives, it is a choice, and the legalization of gay marriage would not cause societal indifference, but would rather foster a welcoming environment for young gays to come out into rather than living in fear or shame because of the abhor and repercussions of being homosexual.Bennett also over generalizes the findings of an article about teenagers and adults being interviewed about being gay and bisexual. Fifty kids and dozens of parents and counselors does n ot speak for the unanimous population of a country, but also shows the weakness of Bennetts argument as it shows the lack of actual education there is in very much of the country on the progeny of homosexuality. Bennett also makes assumptions about how conservative parents will lose the right to teach their kids their views on sexuality if same sex marriage were legalized. Just because gay marriage would be legal and the subject of homosexuality would be taught in school more does not mean at home parents could not teach their children their values.If parents did however, cause an uproar and withhold their children from being exposed to certain views on homosexuality just because they didnt want that to happen, they would be viewed as intolerant bigots (411). Finally Bennett makes a glaring assumption and overgeneralization stating that it is far better for a child to be elevated by a heterosexual couple rather than by, say, two homosexual males (411). In the Film Daddy & Papa it shows four separate families, all homosexual males, and how they all care, love, and are just as capable of altitude children as heterosexual couples. They want nothing more for their children than what any heterosexual couple would want for their kids, the best possible life.Bennett may believe that the legalization of gay marriage will destroy theinstitution of marriage, but time after time homosexuals have proven they are just as capable of fulfilling the duties of marriage as heterosexuals, and it is a part of our society today. To have equality for all citizens, it is a right that will soon have to occur.Work CitedSullivan, Andrew. For Gay Marriage. Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 11 ed. Ed. Suzanne Phelps Chambers. Boston Longman, 2011. 404-407. Print.Anderson, Ryan T. Marriage What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It. _The Heritage Foundation_. The Heritage Foundation, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 25 Sept. 2014_Daddy & Papa A Documentary Film_. P rod. Johnny. Symons. Dir. Johnny. Symons. By Johnny. Symons. 2002.