Critique Exercise: Against Gay Marriage

In the article “Against Gay Marriage,” the author, William J. Bennett, attempts to sway his readers against the legalization of gay marriage. After presenting the issue, he makes it palpable that he is against it, and his negative tone toward this topic is apparent in his opening sentence: “We are engaged in a debate which, in a less confused time, would be considered pointless and even oxymoronic: the question of same-sex marriage,” (409). Bennett is assuming that we live in a morally confused time. This assumption is the first of many fallacies found in Bennett’s article. These fallacies invalidate his argument against the legalization of gay marriage. The first few paragraphs of Bennett’s article include background information of the topic, bringing to attention the fact that Hawaii is the first state that considered the legalization of the union of same-sex couples. The author carries on in the following paragraph, saying that although some homosexuals do experience pain and a sense of exclusion because of their inability to marry, he feels that “overall, allowing same-sex marriages would do significant, long-term social damage,” (409). This assumption is also Bennett’s thesis statement. One can immediately question the validity of an author’s argument if their thesis itself is an assumption.

After presenting his thesis, Bennett outlines what kind of consequences would follow the legalization of gay marriage. To reinforce his opinion and make it more believable to the reader, Bennett refers to his definition of marriage as simply between a man and woman, nothing more, nothing less. His assumption of marriage is about the heterosexual partners “completing” one another. Bennett states: “Recognizing the legal union of gay and lesbian couples would represent a profound change in the meaning and definition of marriage.” Soon after in paragraph six, Bennett again refers to the heterosexual definition of marriage. This strategy is used to give marriage a concrete meaning. The legalization of gay marriage would not follow this meaning, thus making it completely incorrect. More arguments are made by Bennett, but they are based on assumptions, making them ineffective. His thesis itself is an assumption. Bennett has no facts or statistics to support that the legalization of gay marriage would in fact do social damage, nor does he give a reason as to why he believes this.

Another fallacy found in “Against Gay Marriage” is the link between incestuous marriage cases and homosexual marriage cases: a faulty cause and effect. In paragraph five, the link is found through this statement by Bennett: “On what principled grounds could the advocates of same-sex marriage oppose the marriage of consenting brothers?” Using this as a cause and effect of gay marriage and incestuous marriage is like saying that heterosexual marriage would allow a consenting brother and sister to marry. Incestuous marriage and homosexual marriage are two very different concepts, and Bennett should have explained further his reasoning as to why he made this connection between the two concepts. The validity of Bennett’s argument is further challenged by his use of another faulty cause and effect, which could partly be identified as an assumption. The author relates to the legalization of gay marriage as the cause. The effect of this cause is pointed out on page 410: “How could they explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to a bisexual who wants to marry two people?” Again, the problem here is similar to the problem associated with the assumptions.

This cause and effect cannot be effective because Bennett does not validate it. He does not explain why the bisexual would want to marry two people. The topic of homosexual marriage comes into play here, but the quote also introduces a new topic: polygamy. If the author wants to use this detail to enforce his opinion, he should elaborate on the idea of why the bisexual would want to marry two people. Bennett develops an unfair use of information to try to enhance his argument’s validation. This unfair use of information is found on page 410: “In insisting that marriage accommodate the less restrained sexual practices of homosexuals, Sullivan and his allies destroy the very thing that supposedly has drawn them to marriage in the first place.” Bennett obviously sees Sullivan as his opponent, because he is defending the opposite side of the argument. It is an unfair use because Bennett does not accurately represent Sullivan’s argument.

Sullivan’s simply defended gay marriage in his article; he does not destroy any aspect of marriage in his argument. By attacking Sullivan’s argument, Bennett believes he is invalidating it, while at the same time validating his own argument. This is not the case; just because Bennett belittles his opponent’s argument does not mean that his becomes any more valid. The author tries to use these assumptions to enforce the validity of his argument, but they backfire on him because they are fallacies. Bennett’s argument is not valid as a whole. In “Against Gay Marriage,” he brings up seemingly impressive subjects on the matter, but he can not validate any of them.

The article consists of assumptions that are not supported, faulty cause and effects, and an unfair use of information that only belittles Bennett’s opponent and does nothing for the validation of his article. Despite these fallacies, Bennett does use one effective strategy, which is referring back to his definition of heterosexual marriage throughout the piece. William J. Bennett wrote the article “For Gay Marriage” to express his negative feelings toward the legalization of gay marriage and persuade the reader to feel negatively toward it too. His argument proves invalid based on the many logical fallacies found in the article.