In his essay “Against Gay Marriage. ” William Bennett. a great spokesman for conservativists and former Secretary of instruction under President Reagan. maintains his conservative stance that leting same-sex twosomes to get married would hold a harmful and permanent consequence on our society’s intrinsic values and. in his position. would stretch the “fragile” establishment of matrimony beyond acknowledgment ( 409 ) . Bennett. as the rubric indicates. nowadayss a powerful statement “Against Gay Marriage. ” He argues that leting cheery matrimony would alter the significance of matrimony. the ideal of matrimony as being an “honorable estate. ” and would hold a big function in modeling gender ( 409 ) . One does non hold to hold with Bennett to appreciate the strength and honestness of his head. Still. although he raises thoughtful expostulations to same-sex matrimony. his claims overall read more like an lineation. missing particulars and adept sentiments. mentioning to one organized. careful survey. and perpetrating a figure of logical false beliefs that muddy and diminish the effectivity of his statement.

Throughout his essay. Bennett makes many implicit in premises about same sex twosomes and the legalisation of homosexual matrimony. From the beginning. Bennett states that even entertaining such a argument “would be unpointed. ” were it non for the “confused time” we find ourselves in ( 409 ) . Bennett does profess. nevertheless. that statements made by homosexual advocators such as Andrew Sullivan are “intelligent” 1s. and even “conservative. ” and “politically shrewd” ( 409 ) . when touching on the thought that leting cheery matrimony would really advance healthy long term relationships. Sullivan does an first-class occupation of reasoning his point that legalisation of cheery matrimony would in fact. assist advance healthy relationships and monogamous inclinations. which in his essay he states that the legalisation of cheery matrimony would in fact besides encourage homophiles to “make a deeper committedness to one another and to society” ( 409 ) .

From here though. for William Bennett the positions expressed in his column piece are clear cut. simple. and mostly dismissive in their tone. Besides this claim. to Bennett there are no grounds in his head why cheery matrimony should be legal. Bennett admits. though Sullivan’s statement is astute. Sullivan is non right. In fact. Bennett would take a firm stand and has an implicit in premise in his essay that homosexual matrimonies will weaken the establishment of matrimony even more and will non be genuinely monogamous and committed to each other because of the “openness” of cheery relationships and that homophiles have “less restrained sexual practices” ( 410 ) . Bennett’s uninterrupted premises that homosexuals can non be genuinely monogamous and committed shows that to him there exists no room for via media on the affair. and weakens the strength of his statement.

Bennett besides throughout his essay makes many unsound statements for illustration. in his gap. Bennett makes a really strong averment if non an straight-out exaggeration. when he says that acknowledging homosexual matrimony would typify the powerful alteration in the reading and word picture of matrimony. and “would be the most extremist measure of all time taken in the deconstruction of society’s most of import institution” ( 409 ) . Of class. Bennett is respected for his personal sentiments. but the reader may inquire if any surveies or adept sentiments exist to back up Bennett’s position. to which he has none. This yet once more takes off from the strength of his statement because. unlike in Ryan Anderson’s “Marriage: What It Is. Why It Matters and the Consequences of Redefining It” where claim after claim Anderson presents the reader with legion statistics and adept testimony on why matrimony should non be changed and the reverberations and “dangers” of cheery matrimony being legalized.

Anderson presents the statement that matrimony exists to convey a adult male and a adult female together as hubby and married woman. to be father and mother to any kids they create. Anderson states that matrimony increases the opportunities that the adult male will be devoted to both the kids that he helps bring forth. and to the adult female with whom he does so. Anderson so backs this up with testimony from Maggie Gallagher. a popular societal conservative observer. that fall ining sex. babes. and mas and pas. is the function of matrimony and helps explicate why the authorities justly respects and addresses this characteristic of our societal lives. In the following paragraph. Bennett desiring to stamp down the motion toward the redefinition of matrimony. cites the instead curious illustration of two brothers: “On what principled evidences could the advocators of same-sex matrimony oppose the matrimony of two accepting brothers? ” ( 409 ) . By mentioning two homosexual brothers. Bennett commits the “straw man” false belief.

That is. he grounds from an exceeding instance that defies logic and. one time recognized. does small for his statement. Who else has of all time seen such an utmost illustration? Is this a existent brace of brothers. or are they simply made up and cited for the interest of statement? Whether or non these brothers are fabricated is ne’er stated. but as Andrew Sullivan puts it in his essay “For Gay Marriage” . the right to get married has been suitably denied by the province to shut household members and relations because “familial emotional ties” are excessively powerful to allow a matrimony contract to be entered freely by two independent grownups ( 404 ) . In this respect. Sullivan believes homophiles do non suit into the same class. To believe that the realisation of leting same sex matrimony would take to the farther dislocation of Torahs regulating familial misconduct. such as incest or polygamy. is bizarre. It appears that one logical false belief breeds another. as in the really following paragraph. Bennett commits what seems to be a blazing over-generalization.

He states “Nor is this position arbitrary or idiosyncratic” ( 409 ) . to state matrimonies. particularly in today’s society. can non be capricious or happen by opportunity because that’s what has gone on for 1000s of old ages or what the major faiths province is pathetic. Even though at one point matrimony was seen as a manner to increase survival opportunities and procure your support. it is no longer viewed that manner. We no longer live in the in-between ages or the 1800’s. Peoples today marry for love and their emotional bonds with people. and love’s intrinsic value is to be random and can go on to anyone. Nor should religious traditions dictate whether cheery matrimony should be legalized or non. as today there are legion homophiles in all subdivisions of major faiths ; there are cheery bishops and sermonizers. this shows that both faith and homophiles can coexist and be good to society.

Bennett’s concluding strong claim about cheery matrimony is that the legalisation of same-sex matrimony will take to teens being confused about their gender. conservative parents will be denied their rights to transfuse their values about gender to their kids. and that straight persons are better parents than their homosexual opposite numbers. Bennett makes many over generalisations about the impact the signals of legalising cheery matrimony would direct to teens. Bennett about contradicts himself with the inclusion of the quotation mark from Harvard professor E. L. Patullo. “a really significant figure of people are born with the possible to populate either consecutive or cheery lives” ( 410 ) . Many people are born with the possible to take homosexual or consecutive lives. it is a pick. and the legalisation of cheery matrimony would non do social indifference. but would instead further a welcoming environment for immature homosexuals to come out into instead than life in fright or shame because of the hatred and reverberations of being homosexual.

Bennett besides over generalizes the findings of an article about adolescents and grownups being interviewed about being homosexual and bisexual. Fifty childs and tonss of parents and counsellors does non talk for the whole population of a state. but besides shows the failing of Bennett’s statement as it shows the deficiency of existent instruction there is in much of the state on the topic of homosexualism. Bennett besides makes premises about how conservative parents will lose the right to learn their childs their positions on gender if same sex matrimony were legalized. Just because cheery matrimony would be legal and the topic of homosexualism would be taught in school more does non intend at place parents could non learn their kids their values.

If parents did nevertheless. do an tumult and maintain their kids from being exposed to certain positions on homosexualism merely because they didn’t want that to go on. they would be viewed as “intolerant bigots” ( 411 ) . Finally Bennett makes a blazing premise and overgeneralization saying that it is far better for a kid to be raised by a heterosexual twosome instead “than by. state. two homosexual males” ( 411 ) . In the Film “Daddy & A ; Papa” it shows four separate households. all homosexual males. and how they all attention. love. and are merely as capable of raising kids as heterosexual twosomes. They want nil more for their kids than what any heterosexual twosome would desire for their childs. the best possible life.

Bennett may believe that the legalisation of cheery matrimony will destruct the establishment of matrimony. but clip after clip homophiles have proven they are merely as capable of carry throughing the responsibilities of matrimony as straight persons. and it is a portion of our society today. To hold equality for all citizens. it is a right that will shortly hold to happen.

Work Cited

Sullivan. Andrew. “For Gay Marriage” . Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 11 erectile dysfunction. 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 & A ; Papa: A Documentary Film_ . Prod. Johnny. Symons. Dir. Johnny. Symons. By Johnny. Symons. 2002.