Critique the article of Gay Marrige-by Sullivan - Essay Example

He argues that homosexual people are equally capable of demonstrating such commitment as heterosexual people. Hence, the state should not discriminate between the two by failing to legalize gay marriage. I agree with the opinions of the author because his argument promotes the equality of all citizens and opens the doors to a healthier emotional, social and psychological life for homosexuals. Sullivan argues that in addition to a private agreement, marriage confers a special social status and recognition on the married couple, which entitles them to certain social privileges and respect.

No citizen who can commit to a lifelong emotional, sexual and psychological relationship with another should be denied this social acceptance because of his or her sexuality. The notion that marriage is an institution for childbearing is no longer valid. Homosexual people are capable of being committed and responsible towards their partners. Hence, their relationships should not be denied the social and legal recognition awarded to similar relationships between heterosexuals. Conservatives should support gay marriage because the alternative would be more disastrous to the institution of marriage and family.

Domestic partnerships, recognized in several states, would make it much easier for individuals to enjoy the benefits and privileges of marriage without entering being married to each other. Liberals should support gay marriage because it would encourage equality in society. Recognizing gay marriage would also help gay people, children and their families lead well-rounded public and family lives. They would learn to see themselves beyond their sexuality and develop as individuals with healthy personalities.

The scope of the article is limited to the role of the state; hence, many of the arguments made in that regard are logical. However, it appears that the article oversimplifies the values and principles of liberals and conservatives. Sullivan assumes that all liberals blindly advocate equal opportunities for all citizens (Sullivan, 407) while other factors such as social norms and religious values may also influence their decisions. Similarly, the conservative view is presented as a stereotyped fear of social change.

Given the assumptions, the arguments are made logically and are thus sound. The author does not remain fair to the conservatives, for example, when he assumes that they only have two alternatives to gay marriage open to them (Sullivan, 406). The parallel drawn between the opportunities for homosexuals in the military and in the institution of marriage (Sullivan, 405) is also weak because the two institutions operate in very different environments. I agree with the author on the importance of recognizing gay marriage legally.

The most striking arguments are those made with respect to the impact of such legal recognition on the emotional and psychological well-being of homosexual people. The anxiety about the future of homosexual relationships will be reduced to a great extent when these relationships are given a legal and social status. Instead of adversely affecting the institution of heterosexual marriage, recognizing homosexual marriage will encourage long-term relationships. It will also be beneficial for the socialization and adjustment of gay children and young adults.

It will give them the confidence to