Free A Debate On Gay Marriage: Andrew Sullivan Essay Example

A Debate on Gay Marriage portrays the opinions and explications of Andrew Sullivan regarding the matter of gay marriage. In the contextual essay, Andrew Sullivan goes on to opine that it is truly unfair to stigmatize gay marriage.
He delves into the traditional notion of marriage and shows logically why it is wrong to have an opinion against gay marriage. The essay explicates that emotions and trust are the basic ingredients of the marital bond. It should not be constricted by sexual identity of the two people. Also, if a gay couple raises a child, the child would have as good a parental guidance as in a heterosexual marriage. As such, the society cannot hold a view against gay marriage. The taboo has to be broken, and the author emphatically provides explanation of his stand. Every person should have the right to choose the partner for marriage. The society cannot illegitimatize gay marriage at all.
If there is stigmatization and constrictions by the code of law in a state, it would be the hegemony of the people against gay marriage in the society. Now, that can definitely not be the best practice in the world society. Rather, one should understand that a gay relationship is also based on the emotion of love. People should be sensible enough to understand the emotional bond shared by two homosexual people. Their emotions and bond with one another should not be gauged by the societal norm of heterosexuality in marriage.
Moreover, no one has the right to ascribe gender or sexual heterogeneity to the bond of love. It is one of the primary duties of the world society to take a firm stand to legitimize gay marriages. It should be seen as a personal choice for the homosexuals. As such, no other person has the right to infringe into their personal space to judge them based on their sexual orientation. There are a lot many other dimensions to life, indeed. Constricting one’s view with a firm stand against homosexuality and gay marriage shows the bias of the mind.
The essay is truly convincing in its description of the matter. It surely makes one rethink about this major societal issue. The societal institutions cannot be put to use to curb the individual freedom and choice of homosexual individuals. No one has the right to do moral policing and judge the people on the basis of their sexual identity. In a world society that aims to get better with time, no regressive outlook toward gay marriage should be entertained.
Gay marriage is as normal as a marriage between a man and a woman. No one should take the liberty to critique or judge people who wish to or already have engaged in homosexual marriages in the society. Sexuality is not the only dimension of marriage. Marriage is a personal affair, and no imposition should be made in the personal matter of any individual. The sexual orientation of an individual is not the society’s prerogative. Hence, there should be no bar to gay marriages.
If personal opinion is to be given an outlet, it needs to be commented that gay marriage is a matter of two individuals’ consensual choice. There is no scope for any person to judge two homosexual people who get married. Rather, by getting married the homosexual people are treading on the path of supporting the societal institution of marriage that is seen as a bond between two people in love.
It would be correct to conclude by saying that the article in context emphatically supports gay marriage. Indeed, one needs to widen the horizon of acceptability and constrict the bias. One should have a free mind so as to view gay marriage as a bond of love and affection, instead of stigmatizing gay marriage in the society.