Minority Rule: A Critical Review and Analysis of Katha Pollitt’, “Gay Marriage”
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
- Author Katha Pollitt argues for the acceptance of homosexual marriage and concludes “gay marriage is not about sex, it’s about separation of church and state.”
- Thesis: In reality, gay marriage is about minority rule and the attempt to force a value and belief system upon the vast majority of people unwilling to change or abandon deeply held moral and cultural beliefs.
- Review and Analysis
- Topic Sentence: Pollitt’s first issue is her belief that “(t)here’s something creepily authoritarian and insulting about reducing marriage to procreation”.
i.. Marriage cannot be reduced to one single part of the whole.
- Marriage carries significant legal rights for children as well as adults.
- Topic Sentence: Her analysis that her opponents believe marriage is somehow “the way women domesticate men” is clever but misleading
- This theory is not widely held and is disputable.
- Pollitt is refuting a poor position to support her position.
- Topic Sentence: Pollitt refers to the argument that history and “the test of time” is contrary to gay marriage is also rather devious.
- Marriage is anything but “a pretty recent “phenomenon”.
- Polygamy versus marriage is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.
iii.There is no historical support for the idea of gay marriage
- Topic Sentence: Pollitt directs several classic, if tired “in your face” charges against opponents of gay marriage.
- Problems within heterosexual marriage do not support gay marriage.
- Her attack on religious beliefs is hypocritical.
- Topic Sentence: Gay marriage is not about “separation of church and state”.
- Homosexuality is very rare.
- Homosexuality is not biologically or statistically “normal”.
iii. The negative opinion of gay marriage is not based on religion.
- Gay marriage is about the shrill intolerance of the tiny minority to the majority’s beliefs and instincts and their desire to force acceptance of homosexuality as “no different” on an unwilling heterosexual population.