Andrew Sullivan's For Gay Marriage

Gallagher is against legalization of gay marriages, in order to achieve the greater good. Furthermore, she questions if such a vast social change to gratify a small population, is the right thing to do. Gallagher says that “stopping gay marriage is not victory, it is only a necessary step to the ultimate victory: the strengthening of a culture of marriage that successfully connects sex, love, children, and

Senior fellow for policy studies, Peter Sprigg in a Question and Answer article titled “What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?” addresses this matter of controversy by stating-in his opinion- the ‘vast negative consequences’ concerning gay marriage equality. In order to answer these questions, Sprigg uses a cataloging of biased satire, as opposed to factual information in backing up his opinions. Thus, considering his audience consists of those who are for gay rights or, at the least, do not understand such a negative connotation regarding what could be an incredibly life-changing milestone for many, I am very much against his close-minded responses. Furthermore, although it is technically lnews learning that Peter Sprigg in particular thinks allowing gay couples to marry is wrong I can’t say that I’m definitively taken aback when I discover that yet another individual carries this mindset that, “Homosexual relationships are not marriage”(Sprigg P.2), though disappointing nonetheless. Thus, the author chose this ‘Question-Answer’

This aggressive heterosexual display is at odds with his reaction to her eventual acquiescence. Rather than taking advantage of the opportunity presented by her husband’s absence, and having sex with her immediately, Nicholas agrees to defer their encounter until such time as he can devise a plot to trick her husband. John becomes his object, and Alisoun is merely the means to achieve that object. His true desire is to have sexual domination over John, which he believes he can achieve through having sex with John’s wife. This sublimation of homosexual desire into heterosexual sex throws doubt on Nicholas’ gender identity.

The early 1900s was an era when homosexuality was denounced socially, as it was unlawful for majority of the world including the United States of America. Authors were cautious when discussing themes of homosexuality that did not conform with public opinion. Scott Fitzgerald’s wit and cleverness, were instrumental in showcasing the underlying theme of homosexuality without certifying it. In The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, protagonist Nick Carraway consistently possesses characteristics of a homosexual, through his adoration of Jay Gatsby, homosexual encounters and his apathy towards females. The Great Gatsby, is told in a first person perspective, through the persona of Nick Carraway.

Jesus even used Adam and Eve for his teaching in Matthew 19:9 about marriage that is applying to monogamy was the ideal for marriage and the verse goes like “I tell you, then for any cause other than her faithfulness, commit adultery, if he marries some other woman”. Judging from Old Testament you would swear that God condoned polygamy but I get to understand that God forbade the kings of Israel from taking more than one wife when he said “and he shall not multiply his wives for himself, lest his heart turn away again (Deuteronomy 17:17) polygamy is associated with worshiping false gods. Living with multiple wives always caused many problems in the household with jealousy and rivalry being two prime examples. Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Genesis 29:31). This caused problems with all the children of Jacob as there were 12 sons of different mothers.

In his argument, Balmer fails to respond to Matthew 5:31 where Jesus forbids divorce except in cases of abuse. Instead, he focuses on the fact that Christians now “accept” divorce. Does studying divorce rates among Christians truly refute the Biblical position on divorce? If it did, it would mean if a Christian lied or stole, the Bible would support lying and stealing. People cannot evaluate the character of Jesus by a person who claims to follow Jesus as many Christians fall susceptible to sin and deviate from the Bible.

In his 1994 paper, Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale, Steven F. Kruger begins with an intriguing reference to Allen Barnett's 1990 short-story Philostorgy, Now Obscure. Barnett, according to Kruger, understands the Pardoner to be "a voice that might angrily challenge or campily subvert the legacies of homophobia" (Barnett 118). Kruger, however, is skeptical of such an interpretation of the Pardoner, because of the homophobic way in which Chaucer wrote him. Thus, Kruger is concerned that if the Pardoner is "claimed", the modern gay community might involve themselves in this bigotry. In order to define the Pardoner's position in gay history and grasp Chaucer's intentions with this character, Kruger aims to understand medieval homophobia and homosexuality.

Consider the following phrases: homosexual community, homosexual activist, homosexual marriage. Substitute the word “gay” in any of those cases, and the terms suddenly become far less loaded, so that the ring of disapproval and judgment evaporates. Some gay rights advocates have declared the term off limits. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance against slander, or Glad, has put “homosexual” on its list of offensive terms and in 2006 persuaded The Associated Press, whose stylebook is the widely used by many news organizations, to restrict use of the word. Miss Suhashini a, lecturer of Phycology Department at UTAR who was currently doing research about LGBT has looked at the way the term is used by those who try to portray gays and lesbians as deviant.

Denying homosexual couples the right to adopt may be helpful to the children, however, by letting same-gender couples adopt, they receive a more stable, permanent home. Children in the adoption system or the foster care system are without parents to look up to and learn from, and that can essentially be more harmful to the child. Perhaps what children need is the love that homosexual couples have the potential to provide. They need a family. This is debated in the article titled “Adoption Bills Put Religion Ahead of Kids" when it states "I'm not approaching this from an equal protection or parental advocacy perspective.

Is this what they think we are? Sex Perverts? This is what we have been labeled. This is the stereotype we have to bring down. They believed that since homosexuality was a “mental illness” it was perceived to be a “security risk” to the nation as those who conduct “overt acts of pervasion” lacked “emotional stability of normal people”.

Some people think that acceptance already .“As far as the gay issue, I don’t give a damn one way or the other as long as they don’t bother me…… Laramie is live and lets live.” While this might work for the heterosexual community the homosexual community could not disagree more. 'Live and let live ' is, at best, a load of crap. It basically boils down to: 'If I don 't tell you I 'm a fag, you won 't beat the crap out of me '. What kind of philosophy is that? In the Laramie project, there is the difference between acceptance and tolerance is attention.

You can also determine consequences whether they are good consequences or bad consequences. Why is it that people who are gay are seen as not knowing morals? It does say in the bible that a man shall not lie with another man, but it also says that God is the only one who can judge. People whom are gay should not be seen as if they do not have morals because being gay is not wrong. Wanting to marry the person you love is not wrong.