Get Full Essay Get access to this section to get all help you need with your essay and educational issues. He appears to be so fully committed to democratic values that he seeks to extend equal rights in marriage to homosexuals. And he makes an admirable case for equality and dignity for all people, including homosexuals. However, he could make an even stronger case by citing more studies and expert opinions.
Andrew Sullivanone of the most prolific and frequently interesting political writers of the day, here sets the stage for a reasoned discussion of how we, as a society, should handle the reality of homosexuality and of how we should treat homosexuals.
Though I disagree with his final conclusions, I appreciate the way in which he treats differing viewpoints respectfully and I think he makes a serious moral argument for his own position.
As we go forward and wrestle with the issues he raises, it seems likely that we will continue to utilize the framework that he has erected for analyzing them.
This in itself makes the book eminently worthwhile. Sullivan begins his discussion of homosexuality by asking the question, What is a homosexual? He does, however, present a portrait of homosexual as somewhat bifurcated beings: The homosexual learns to make distinctions between his sexual desire and his emotional longing--not because he is particularly prone to objectifications of the flesh, but because he needs to survive as a social and sexual being.
The society separates these two entities, and for a long time the homosexual has no option but to keep them separate. He learns certain rules; and, as with a child learning grammar, they are hard, later on in life, to unlearn.
No homosexual child, surrounded overwhelmingly by heterosexuals, will feel at home in his sexual and emotional world, even in the most tolerant of cultures. And every homosexual child will learn the rituals of deceit, impersonation, and appearance.
Anyone who believes political, social, or even cultural revolution will change this fundamentally is denying reality. This isolation will always hold. It is definitional of homosexual development. This fundamental split between the private and the social realms provides the axes along which he locates what he defines as the four prevailing political stances towards homosexuality.
The first "politics of homosexuality" that he examines is prohibitionism: The most common view about homosexuality--both now and, to an even greater extent, in the past--has an appealing simplicity to it.
It is that homosexuality is an aberration and that homosexual acts are an abomination. It is that homosexuality is an illness that requires a cure, and that homosexual acts--meaning sexual acts between two people of the same gender--are transgressions which require legal punishment and social deterrence.
-REVIEW: of Same Sex Marriage: Pro and Con edited by Andrew Sullivan (Daniel Harris, International Gay & Lesbian Review) -REVIEW: of Same Sex Marriage: Pro and Con edited by Andrew Sullivan (Corey Scholibo, International Gay & Lesbian Review)Author: Andrew Sullivan. May 03, · Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan - On gay marriage and Christianity . I will summarize some of the key points from the essay, Let Gays Marry, by Andrew Sullivan, and the essay, Leave Marriage Alone, by William Bennett. Some of these main points are taken from mutual beliefs of both authors and others are derived from the opposing opinions of the two.
All human beings, in this view, are essentially heterosexual; and the attempt to undermine this fundamental identity is a crime against nature itself. In fact, to legitimize homosexuality is to strike at the core of the possibility of civilization--and to pervert the natural design of male and female as the essential complementary parts of the universe.
Perhaps the most depressing and fruitless feature of the current debate about homosexuality is to treat all versions of this argument as the equivalent of bigotry.
For the liberationists, homosexuality as a defining condition does not properly exist because it is a construct of human thought, not an inherent or natural state of being.
It reflects not the true state of human affairs, but a crude and arbitrary ordering imposed upon them. As with many prohibitionists, there are no homosexuals, merely same-sex acts; only unlike the prohibitionists, even these acts are dependent on their social context for their meaning.
This at least is the liberationist analysis. The liberationist prescription is more inspiring. For all liberationists, the full end of human fruition is to be free of all social constructs, to be liberated from the condition of homosexuality into a fully chosen form of identity, which is a repository of individual acts of freedom.
Refusing even to acknowledge the existence of morality, the liberationists would not bar any behavior, anywhere, at any time.
The third politics of homosexuality is conservatism: Most conservatives are well aware that many of the most distinguished members of society are homosexual; and that the existence of homosexuality seems to be a constant throughout all cultures and times.
These conservatives are not alarmed to meet a homosexual at a dinner party indeed, they may find it fashionable to invite one or two and regard some level of comfort with homosexuals as a mark of civilized conduct.
Moreover, these conservatives find it abhorrent that homosexuals--especially homosexuals they know--might be subject to harassment, violence, ill treatment, discrimination, or illness, for no fault of their own. The sensibility that privately tolerates homosexuality is often also the sensibility that finds it uncomfortable to talk about.
Conservatives combine a private tolerance of homosexuals with public disapproval of homosexuality.The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue.
It is the entire issue. It is the most profound statement our society can make that homosexual love is simply not as good as heterosexual love; that gay lives and .
I will summarize some of the key points from the essay, Let Gays Marry, by Andrew Sullivan, and the essay, Leave Marriage Alone, by William Bennett. Some of these main points are taken from mutual beliefs of both authors and others are derived from the opposing opinions of the two.
Jun 08, · Andrew Sullivan argues that gay marriage should be a human right.
Sullivan here takes a sober look at the public debate over homosexuality and offers a moving, often lyrical, plea for the legalization of same-sex marriage. -Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal.
|A Critique of "For Gay Marriage," by Andrew Sullivan | Essay Example||Homosexuality and Andrew Sullivan Critique:|
|Critique: Homosexuality and Andrew Sullivan||June 26 2: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.|
|As Gandhi never quite said, First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.|
|Andrew Sullivan: Why Gay Marriage is Good for America||Andrew Sullivan - The homosexual experience may be deemed an illness, a disorder, a privilege, or a curse; it may be deemed worthy of a 'cure,' rectified, embraced, or endured.|
Even if you don't agree with another word in the book, I think we have to grant the validity of this premise: homosexuality exists and we, all of us, need to reckon with it. Case For Gay Marriage (Andrew Sullivan, New Republic, August 28, ) -Controversy: Marriage and the Gay Agenda (Andrew Sullivan Author: Andrew Sullivan.
Here's the lead of Andrew Sullivan's article making the case for same-sex marriage for the first time in a prominent American journal. It argued for a . Jun 26, · In , most Americans had never even heard of gay marriage, and certainly couldn’t conceive that it would one day be legalized by popular vote.
That year, Andrew Sullivan wrote a landmark.