By starting the passage with an extended definition of marriage, Wolfson is able to make himself credible and show how much power a marriage between people can hold. He starts his definition with discussing how even though people speak many different languages, there is a word for marriage, and it always describes someone’s love and dedication to another person. This shows how marriage is a universal term, and is represented the same way no matter what culture or background someone comes from. Wolfson then describes how marriage is a personal commitment, a social statement, and a relationship with the government. He also describes the legal and economic responsibilities, and the spiritual significance marriage has for many of us. Wolfson does this to show that a marriage is a big step, and requires a lot of commitment for two people. He uses the definition to primarily represent that the union between to people should symbolize their love for one another.
I think that Wolfson’s definition is fair and sensible because it describes an accurate meaning of marriage. However, since Wolfson is a gay man it is possible that in his definition he placed a higher value to the benefits he believes marriage entails as opposed to someone else who carries the same ideas, but does have the actual benefits of marriage.
1 comment:
While I generally agree with your analysis of Wolfon's piece, I think that his main point of defining marriage is not to enhance his credibility, but rather to show how marriage of homosexuals fits into the definition. By starting out with a definition that makes no mention of homosexuality, he is able to keep the issue away from one of gay marriage, and turn it to one of marriage as a whole.
<(")
Post a Comment