Homosexual Indifference :: Free Essays Online

Homosexual Indifference The times seem to be changing in acceptance of homosexual relationships for the better, but many laws as considerably as society still prohibit homophile marriage and adoption. on that point argon two sources which I will use to show different view points on gay marriage and adoption. The first is an article written by Andrew Sullivan, titled Let Gays Marry. This is written as an informal wear round to argue that gay people should be allowed to marry one another. The close is also on gay marriage, but in this article, Leave man and wife Alone, author William Bennett writes that it is wrong for gays to marry. These two authors show separate feelings on the bit of gay marriage, while attempting to persuade the readers to agree with them. Each of these articles have worth(predicate) arguments, but will they be enough to change peoples views, to benefit their beliefs? Beginning with the topic on gay marriage and the arguab le battle between authors, Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett, Sullivan is the gay supporter. In Sullivans piece, Let Gays Marry, he opens with a statement by the Supreme Court, A state cannot keep back a class of persons a stranger to its laws. He feels that this simple convict has so much meaning, saying that whatever type of person, male or female, black or white, everyone deserves the same legal protection and equal rights. Therefore, gay marriage should not be excluded from the legal system. He tells that some churches convention different beliefs and may oppose gay marriage but righteousness has nothing to do with the state appeals. Sullivan explains how the definition of marriage has changed in the bypast and that it can be done again. Sullivan ends his piece by saying that changing the law would not affect straight couples, so why are they against gay marriage? He believes the change would allow gay couples to eff what straight couples already have. On the oth er hand, William Bennett, author of Leave labor union Alone, feels that the right for gays to marry should not come into effect. He begins by intercommunicate if gay marriage will benefit the institution. He fears that if this law was passed the unfeigned meaning of marriage would be altered and destroyed.