Essay - Gay/lesbian Studies - Article Response Response to Article: Point of...

Gay/Lesbian Studies - Article Response

***** TO ARTICLE: POINT OF NO RETURN BY STANLEY KURTZ

Stanley Kurtz's article is built upon ten specific points of argument, each of which manages to trump the one that precedes it in its breathtaking degree ***** convoluted "logic." I will address them ***** at a time:

Marriage does indeed invoke public expectations of fidelity and mutual support through ritual gestures like weddings. But wedding or no, the public ***** not condemn a man who sleeps around on another man, or who fails to supp*****t his male partner financially. A wedding embodies and reinforces already existing public sentiments about a man's responsibilities to a woman; it cannot create such sentiments out of thin air. "Ritual gestures like weddings" are the least important aspect of marriage as a human cultural institution. Rituals are completely arbitrary, differing from culture to culture ***** religious group to religious group. "Ritual gestures like weddings" merely commemorate the event for celebratory purposes, and play absolutely no role in defining what married life entails or what values couples choose to embody. In certain *****s elsewhere in the world, "a wedd*****g embodies and reinforces" ***** sentiments that are diametrically opposite to some of the ***** concepts ***** marriage in this particular part of the world: those concepts include Middle Eastern cultures where "marriage" defines a rel*****tionship between one man and as many women as he can support; in certain African *****, "*****" defines a relationship ***** one woman and several husbands.

T***** only "public" who "will not condemn a m*****n ***** sleeps around on a*****her man" is ***** portion ***** the public who, like Kurtz, oppose gay marriage as a valid ***** in the first place. Anybody without preconceived objections would likely have the same reaction ***** a man ***** violated any element of the rules and expectations within his relationship ***** any other married person who ***** so.

In the old view, ***** vow existed prior to the couple, and *****refore embodied a set of public standards to which the couple could be held accountable. But in a world of self-cre*****ted **********, the couple is ***** to the promise, which can be made (or withdrawn) at will.

Married people are not "***** accountable" to anybody but each other for their marital conduct. If married people were "held accountable" for marital ***** by *****ciety, our main concern ***** ***** ***** ***** the three-quarters of ***** heterosexual men and nearly half of married heterosexual women ***** admit to in***** during the course of their marriages, not to mention married politically conserv*****ive elected ***** officials who violate their marriages "unconventionally" in airport bathrooms or those who prefer to do so more "traditionally" in Washington D.C. hotels every weekend. All couples are entitled to "self-created" marital vows, which is precisely why pas*****rs and rabbis always give them the option to write their own.

***** of ***** marriage keep telling us that the sky will ***** fall. What they do not understand is that, when it comes