Analysis Of Andrew Sullivan's Arguments For Legalizing Homosexual Marriage

431 Words2 Pages
Andrew Sullivan believes that denying homosexuals legal marriage is an insult to their equality. Sullivan feels that preconceptions of marital relationships that refuse homosexual marriage are ignorant, attempting to show that homosexuals are more than capable of such a commitment. He claims that legalizing homosexual marriage will help society, providing LGBT children with a healthy model for relationships and recovering the dignity of homosexual adults. Sullivan, despite his overwhelming knowledge on the subject, fails to demonstrate how domestic partnership serves as one of the best arguments for legalizing homosexual marriage. The author attempts to show the similarities between heterosexual marriage and domestic partnership by listing the various legal benefits shared between the two (31). It seems apparent that he hoped to show that a form of homosexual relationship already legally exists; however, he fails to do more than summarize these similarities, lacking…show more content…
The author explains how a marital contract should not be given to those who cannot fulfill it, such as children and family (30). He then claims that homosexuals can fulfill said license, but unwittingly contradicts himself by saying, “But it isn’t necessary to prove that homosexuals or lesbians are less--or more--able to form long-term relationships than straights for it to be clear that at least some are.” (30). This clearly shows how disconnected the author is from his audience. This is a persuasive article, attempting to sway people into believing that homosexual marriage should be legal, yet he assumes his audience feels it apparent that some homosexuals are capable of the commitment of marriage. He fails to acknowledge his own argument’s importance in favor of believing that his audience does not need
Open Document