“Gay ‘Marriage’: Societal Suicide” is an article written by Charles Colson and Anne Morse for Christianity Today (June 1, 2004). The chosen article stands in powerful opposition to gay marriage and strives to prove that a family must be a strong “traditional building block” that exists in human society. In the article, the authors develop the opinion that modern society is challenged by the necessity to accept gay marriage as an ordinary part of human life and by an inability to avoid the consequences of the broken moral order. There are several supporting and opposing ideas used to argue that the legalization of gay marriage is essentially societal suicide. While Colson and Morse cannot neglect the need to oppose gay marriage because it destroys human society, the tone, references to the law, and the language chosen for the article help the reader understand the depth of the problem and think about marriage and family not as a private institution but rather as a part of society and an example that has to be followed.
The purpose of the article is to answer one simple question: What will happen if America continues witnessing the end of traditional heterosexual marriage because of the many attempts to legalize gay marriage? The article begins with this question and makes the readers think about the situation and develop independent thoughts by relying on such evidence as to the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the current debates in California and New York, and the announcement of President Bush to support a new idea of American life. Moreover, the evidence presented in the article also includes examples taken from Christianity and social statistics taken from prison ministries and single-parent families.
The authors have successfully chosen the tone and language of this article. For example, Colson underlines the position to support the amendment that questions the necessity of gay marriage legalization in modern American society. There are no rude or offensive words in the article. Still, it is clear that Colson cannot understand people who support gay marriage. He believes that this kind of marriage is out of the natural moral order. The authors call upon the reader to remember history and traditions and consider the teachings developed by both Muslims and Christians, who believe that a family should be led by a mother and a father.
There are no attempts to offend gay people in the text. At the same time, there is no support for the idea of gay marriage because the authors’ audience includes all people who are interested in this topic, as well as Katha Pollitt in particular. The contrast between the support of and opposition to gay marriage is evident in the article. The authors are biased about the need to promote the Christian belief that one man and one woman should be united in marriage with the intention to live together, have children, nurture them, and develop each other wellbeing. Even those people who have not read Pollitt’s article about gay marriage, which served as the basis for writing the article under analysis or those who have a neutral attitude toward gay marriage legalization, should find this work interesting and educative due to its confident tone, its presentation of evidence, and its clear argument why American society should not legalize gay marriage at this time.
The author of the article pays much attention to evidence. In all cases, the given evidence seems to be sufficient, relevant, and accurate, with examples taken from real life, the Bible, and even statistical data. Its relevance may be observed in everyday life when boys who have been deprived of the chance to be raised by a mother and a father at the same time face certain life challenges and eventually find themselves imprisoned. Many rapists admit that their childhoods were without a father figure or the result of some other type of broken family. Such evidence is made of facts and reasoned judgments about the importance of having a mother and a father in a family. There are many strong opinions in the article about the possible impact of gay parents in a family and the potential consequences of gay marriage legalization, such as the creation of a judicial fiat that may fall on all Americans at once. The legalization of gay marriage would likely involve all people in this topic even if they do not embrace it.
As for the use of logic in the article, the authors seem to be clear and informative indeed. Each argument has a point, and each idea has a certain impact on the reader. The only failure that can be observed in the use of logic in the article is that it may overgeneralize the opinions of many people at the same time and conclude that all people would be influenced by the legalization of gay marriage. However, even the most skilled researchers would be unable to deal with such a task as identifying the opinion of everyone in the country about gay marriage and its impact on each person’s future.
In general, despite some weaknesses, the opinion develops by Colson and Morse is thoughtful and properly evidenced. A number of relevant examples; the consideration of legal, religious, and social aspects; and a properly chosen tone and language attract readers and help them recognize the truth about gay marriage and the authors’ frustration about the possible future of American society. Overall, “Gay ‘Marriage’: Societal Suicide” teaches people how to analyze a situation and not rush to conclusions but rather investigate the case and be ready to support their chosen positions.