The practice of marriage between two men and two women. Although same sex marriage has been regulated through law, religion and custom in most countries are the legal and social responses have fluctuated from celebration on one hand to criminalization on the other. The author of the article ‘Same-Sex Marriage Weakens the Institution of Marriage’ is Ryan T. Anderson. The main idea of this article is that, mainly, marriage exists to bring a man and woman together as husband and wife, to be father and mother to any children their union produces, and that same-sex marriage can interfere with this and are therefore wrong.
In his article, Ryan argues that redefining marriage would spoil the children’s future and education. He states that “decades of social science, including the latest studies using large samples and robust research methods, show that children tend to do best when raised by a mother and a father”. Ryan quotes many stories from the information he gets to illustrate his basic arguments. On the other hand, a redefining marriage would undermine marriage in ways that may hurts children. From the author’s information, E. J. Graff celebrates the fact that redefining marriage would change the “institution message” so that it would “ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers”. A simple romantic companionship may motivate a couple to not divorce and have a better understanding among themselves. Perhaps because of systems of religion and systems of civil authority often reflect and support each other. Same-sex couples are benefits and they are encouraging to support for same-sex marriage because almost all troublesome action lesbians and gay men can undertake. Moreover, the union of a marriage couples of a man and woman to keep away from legal penalties. Public institution acknowledges traditionally married couples where they can perform a good future marriage life in society.
The issue of same-sex marriage frequently sparked emotional and political clashes between supporters and adversary. The author builds up a twisted version of an opposing argument in order to clear it. It aims to misrepresent, misquoting, misconstruing and oversimplifying the original argument to make it easier to attack. He states that “41 states with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman”. But the fact is 50 states each have separate laws which must cling to rulings. Furthermore, confusing necessary and sufficient conditions states that a condition is something which has to be necessary if a conclusion is to hold. “Marriage cannot do the work that society needs it to do if these norms are further weakened”.
Arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy sometimes may be practiced as a cultural tradition. He describes that “traditional marriage laws reinforce the idea that a married mother and father is the most appropriate environment for rearing children, as the best available social science suggests”. It is a generalization fallacy which is drawing a general conclusion from specific evidence. Ryan says that redefining marriage would spoil the society’s behavior and diminish the before married couple’s children.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Happily married couples with a long history together have managed to preserve some of the elements that were present while they were in the early stages of courtship. A romantic-emotional union destabilize unusual marriage fitting for family. It is appeal to popularity, also known as the bandwagon fallacy, where is constructed based on the belief that more people support a proposition.
However, there are some problems with Ryan’s argument. One of these concerns the evidence he uses to support his case. Appeal to authority is an attempt to establish a conclusion by citing a figure with expertise and authority. Therefore, Thomas Messner, Visiting Fellow for Religion and Civil Society, has taken a close look at many of consequences. Instead, Ryan states: “Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Thomas Messner has documented multiples instances in which redefining marriage has already become a nightmare for religious liberty”.
One has the impression that Ryan is only interested in the negatives of the effective world, and in this sense the study seems a biased one. Marriage benefits some couples only, but the author describes it benefits everyone because separating significance of children from marriage burdens innocent observers generally. It also appeals to history, where the person arguing that something has happened in the past will happen in the future. The authors explain “some might appeal to historical inevitability as a reason to avoid answering the question of what marriage is as if it were an already moot question”.
In conclusion, I generally I support Ryan T. Anderson and believe that same-sex marriage is wrong and should not be allowed the same opportunity as other couples of the opposite sex to get married. Besides, many argues that same-sex couples would spoil the society’s reputation. I would say it can affect a children’s future when there is a difficulty in growing up a child without a mother and a father. Therefore, I believe that same-sex marriage will affect anyone else. The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman, uniquely involving the reproduction and rearing of children within a family. Meanwhile, children need both a mother and a father. Legalizing same-sex marriage could lead down a ‘slippery slope’, giving people other non-traditional relationships the rights to marry.
References
- Cherlin. A. 2018. ‘Marriage Has Become a Trophy’. The Atlantic, viewed 21st January, 2020.
- ‘Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It’. 2013. The Foundation Heritage, viewed 22nd January, 2020.
Stuck on your essay?
