This essay is titled “Same-Sex Marriage Weakens the Institution of Marriage. It is written by an American author, Ryan T. Anderson. This article is published on the date of 1 Jan 2015. The author is one of the members of William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. It is a conservative group based in Washington, DC. The author has been writing and researching about marriage and religious liberty for his religious group. This article mainly debates and argues about the reasons why same-sex marriage should not be legalize on the aspect of its bad influence on family and children, existing marriage norm and system, religious liberty issues and so on.
Marriage is how men and women are connected together to become husbands and wives and eligible to become parents for their children. Redefine marriage would ruin the current family system and cut off the relationship between marriage and childbearing. As it would change the formation of one family which is one mother and one father. Besides that, it would decrease the husband’s desire to stay with their family and the desire of men and women to get married before having a baby because the social pressure and incentives has decreased. Marriage norms is weakened by the same-sex marriage. It would stimulate the number of irresponsible marriage because it is redefined as simply romantic companionship, weakening the norm of permanency. The norm of monogamy is rejected because this denies the combination of men and women is a fundamental of the marriage. Not only that, norm of exclusivity is not a common practise in same-sex marriage as according to The New York Times, as seek sex outside of marriage do not have negative connotations for gay couples. Redefining marriage leads to the erosion of religious liberty. The religion believers that have their belief in traditional marriage will be seen by others as “infidels”. Other than that, people that do not recognize the same-sex marriage are likely to trigger anti-discrimination provision as there are over 350 provisions is about the recognition of same-sex marriage. Laws that established to redefine marriage meanwhile protecting religious liberty are proved useless. According to the Catholic bishop of Springfield, Illinois, laws does not helps at all, as it not stop gay people form entering into Catholic institutions. Moreover, religionists are deemed as bigotry and extreme by society judgement and the laws are marginalizing them. It is not possible to those who still believe traditional marriage to avoid lawsuits and penalties while being treated discriminatingly. No one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else. Hence, gay marriage bill should not be approved.
1.3 Critical Review
Strawman fallacies is deliberately misinterpret someone else’s argument, making its argumentation easier to confront by making own opinions appear to be more reasonable (Your logical fallacy is 2020).
The first fallacy is ‘Redefining marriage would further disconnect childbearing from marriage. That would hurt children, especially the most vulnerable. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that children need a mother and a father. ’ (Anderson 2015). This is saying that including same-sex marriage will affect other people to have the thoughts of less tendancy of having a baby. But, by simply redefining marriage does not damage the ability of any family to raise children nor the willingness of them to have children. It also does not deny the formation of traditional marriage. Author should not be exaggerated as redefining marriage does not necessarily relevant to disconnection of childbearing.
The second fallacy is ‘Increasing number of citizens think that marriage is simply an intense emotional union. This will cause the the adult into thinking marriage is whatever sort of interpersonal relationship consenting adults, whether two or 10 in number, want it to be—sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or open, temporary or permanent. This leaves marriage with no essential features, no fixed core as a social reality. ’ (Anderson 2015). This paragraph implies that same-sex marriage or other minority marriage will influece the value of marriage. Yet, everyone can define marriage as they like, but the ‘term’ marriage will not be altered by people’s will. Marriage is the legalizing of a relationship and couple’s mutually agreement of commitment to each other and no one can deny its legal effect. Author should avoid this fallacy by stop making conclusions by personal perspectives and stop being emotional and extreme.
1.3.2 The Texas sharpshooter
Texas sharpshooter is picking suitable data to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption. The data which was picked does not always fit the reality situation (Your logical fallacy is 2020).
The first fallacy is, ‘ the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely. A federal judge in Utah allowed a legal challenge to anti-bigamy laws. A bill that would allow a child to have three legal parents passed both houses of the California state legislature in 2012. The impetus for the bill was a lesbian same-sex relationship in which one partner was impregnated by a man. The child possessed a biological mother and father, but the law recognized the biological mother and her same-sex spouse, a 'presumed mother,' as the child's parents. ’(Anderson 2015). It says that gays and lesbians have the capability to change one’s concept towards a family. However, gays or lesbians should not be presumed having bad influence to the formation of traditional families as the case mentioned in this paragraph is only one extreme case out of many same-sex couples. To avoid this fallacy, author should look at the overall statistics before placing judgements.
The second fallacy is ‘ Nondiscrimination law may make even private actors with no legal or financial ties to the government—including businesses and religious organizations—liable to civil suits for refusing to treat same-sex relationships as marriages.The New Mexico Human Rights Commission prosecuted a photographer for declining to photograph a same-sex 'commitment ceremony.' Doctors in California were successfully sued for declining to perform an artificial insemination on a woman in a same-sex relationship. Owners of a bed and breakfast in Illinois who declined to rent their facility for a same-sex civil union ceremony and reception were sued for violating the state nondiscrimination law. ’ (Anderson 2015). What the paragraph is trying to say is people that express their negative feelings and disagreements towards homosexuals is apt to being sued. In fact, not everyone that refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriage is liable to civil suits. Those who are being sued are very small proportions of people. Author should try to avoid the fallacy by comparing the number of mentioned cases with actual populations of gays and lesbians.
1.3.3 Appeal to authority
Appeal to authority is defined as always assuming whatever an authority said is always right, regardless of whether it is correct or not (Your logical fallacy is 2020).
The first fallacy is ‘ ‘‘[American Prospect contributing editor] E. J. Graff celebrates the fact that redefining marriage would change the 'institution's message' so that it would 'ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers.' Enacting same-sex marriage, she argues, 'does more than just fit; it announces that marriage has changed shape.' ’ (Anderson 2015). The author has quoted sentences from an editor to support this article, saying that redefining marriage would change the institution of marriage, which it is not true at all. Without linking childbering to marriage, it is still a marriage. To avoid this fallacy, the author should have his or her own perspective rather than blindly believing an authority as no one could be correct all the time.
The second fallacy is ‘ A radio talk host, Michelangelo Signorile urges same-sex couples to 'demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.' Same-sex couples should 'fight for same sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely.' ’ (Anderson 2015). Again, author quoted words from a radio talk-show host, claiming that gay and lesbian has the probability of transforming people’s perspective of ‘family’. This is not correct as there are countries that allows same-sex marriage, but none of these countries reported to have raising in numbers of homosexuals and also does not affect their heterosexual families to build a family. Author should first collect actual data to prove that it is a fact before believing the authorities.
1.3.4 Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to emotion is the attempting of control rival’s and audience’s emotion and create emotional resonance in order to conceal arguments that is not logical. (Your logical fallacy is 2020).
The first fallacy is ‘Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. Yet the resulting arrangements—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. Redefining marriage would destabilize marriage in ways that are known to hurt children.’(Anderson 2015). The author stated that redefining of marriage will cause damage to children because it will separate the parents from the obligation to raise children. Author was trying to justify his stand by describing a children is hurt by the situation so that the audience would think redefining marriage would cause this. In fact, the damage does not logically connected with redefining of marriage. Author should prove that redefining of marriage is actually hurting children rather than just describe the consequences.
The second fallacy is ‘If marriage is redefined to include same-sex relationships, then those who continue to believe the truth about marriage—that it is by nature a union of a man and a woman—would face threats to their religious liberty. ’ (Anderson 2015). The author is stating that redefining marriage would threaten those who believes in their religion losing their religious liberty. The author implies that the approval of the gay marriage may persecute Christians so the readers will think it is not right to support this. This is not correct because there are homosexuals with Christian parents and this does not affect the parents to continue believing in Christ and Catholic. There are homosexuals who are Christians too. The author should
1.3.5 Slippery Slope
The slippery slope is defined as asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happened too, therefore A should not happen (Your logical fallacy is 2020).
The first fallacy is ‘ There is no possible way for those who believe that marriage is exclusively the union of husband and wife to avoid legal penalties and harsh discriminatory treatment if the bill becomes law. Why should we expect it be otherwise? After all, we would be people who, according to the thinking behind the bill, hold onto an 'unfair' view of marriage. The state would have equated our view with bigotry—which it uses the law to marginalize in every way short of criminal punishment.’ (Anderson 2015). What the author is trying to say is if the country allows same-sex marriage, the traditional marriage believer is going to be discriminated by the society. Therefore country should not allow gays and lesbians couple to marry. What the establishment of same-sex marriage law really does is this allows same-sex couples to be legally bound to each other by marriage, just like heterosexual couples and thats it. Author should avoid this fallacy by stop imagining the future that is not happening and look at what is the current situation, which gay and lesbian is still minority and still treated biasly eventhough in country that allows gay arriage.
The second fallacy is ‘Redefining marriage will make complementary of both sexual becomes optional, which also make other essential characteristic of marriage such as monogamy, exclusivity and permanency optional.’ (Anderson 2015). The author is assuming that allowing same-sex marriage is denying the marriage is the matter between women and men, also it brings in other issues as well and destroy the norm of marriage. The premise does not stand the author’s conclusion because all of the situation that the author mention can be happening in common hetero-marriage as well. The author should also taking notes to the heterosexual couples as well to avoid biased conclusions.
1.4 Disagreement with author on various points
First of all, the author mentioned that , ‘marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.’ marriage is certainly not limited to bring a man and a woman together. The core value of marriage is the willingness of the couples to be bound by the law and accept the commitment into looking after the family members and this core value is not affected by the gender of the couples.
Secondly, I do not agree with the author’s view of marriage is one of the means to protect children. I do agree that parents have an obligation to their children, but marriage is not the only solution. Sometimes, enforcing marriage is not the best way as toxic marriage could be more harmful to a child’s growth, for example, a rapist and its victim. If the parents are unwilling to take the obligations of looking after their children, marriage are not going to help the children anyway.
Thirdly, marriage does not always connects with procreation and childbearing. This may be applied over a few decades ago but things have changed. Nowadays, there are many couples choose to get married but not bearing any children for the rest of their lives. Having children or not should be based on personal choices and not by norms or values of society.
Last but not least, the author mentioned that nobody should redefine marriage for anyone else. The sentences itself is true and I do agree on that sentence. But doesn’t the author define marriage for everyone else as well? There is no evidence showing that allowing same-sex couples married is the ‘redefining’ of marriage. The idea of marriage is define by humans and we can always decide what marriage means to us. Nobody should redefine marriage for everyone else, but everyone should have the right to get married with anyone, and define their own marriage freely.
In overall, this article that is written regarding to the effect of approving homosexual wedding in many aspects. The author stated clearly that he is not support of approving homosexual marriage due to many reasons, including how the same-sex marriage wekened marriage norm, what is the effect to the religious and so on . I totally not agree with the author’s view because the article itself has many mistakes and seemingly attempt to mislead readers. People should be clearly-minded when dealing with this kind of content with so many fallacies and traps to avoid being misled by the author.
In this article, we can notice that the author often quoted from authority figures but only very little statistic report can be found in the article. His stands is basically based on authority quotes and random news, and sometimes, is just his own perception, which is not really persuasive and logical for me. In order for the author to strengthen his article, he needs more statistics to support his stands as authority could be misleading sometimes.
Meanwhile, this article is quite exaggerated. Most of the situations that the author describe about is extreme cases or situations that rarely occurred in reality but the author seems to be quite sure that it is going to happen soon if we do not take advice from him. With exaggerated words, this could sometimes incite reader’s emotions, even though the content itself is not abundant or hs a lot of mistakes. As a reader, I find it very unrealistic because the situation that the author is talking about is very unlikely to occur in real life. He should describe situation that people think it would be closer to reality and has a higher chance to occur.
Last but not least, this article is misleading. It seems to distort facts quite often. The author elaborate terms and situations wrongly quite a few times. What the author write seems to be to justify his own thoughts and not for the reality because the author already has his own prejudice when he was writing this article. The author should not have prejudice when writing this article and try to be impartial as possible in order to convey correct message to the audince. The author should at least done research thoroughly before started to compositing an article, especially when article is publised to the public as it would cause public’s misunderstanding.
- P1: It would change the formation of a family which is one mother and one father.
- P2: It would decrease the husband’s desire to stay with their spouse and children, also the desire of men and women to get married before having a baby because the social pressure and incentives has decreased.
- IC1: If the marriage was redefined, it would ruin the current marriage system and cut off the relationship between marriage and childbearing.
- P3:It would stimulate the number of irresponsible marriage because it is redefined as simply romantic companionship, weakening the norm of permanency.
- P4: The norm of monogamy is rejected because this denies the combination of men and women is a fundamental of the marriage.Not only that,
- P5: Norm of exclusivity is not a common practise in same-sex marriage as according to The New York Times, as seek sex outside of marriage do not have negative connotations for gay couples.
- IC2: Marriage norms is weakened by same-sex marriage.
- P6: The religious believers that have their belief in traditional marriage will be seen by others as “infidels”.
- P7: People that do not recognize the same-sex marriage are likely to trigger anti-discrimination provision as there are over 350 provisions is about the recognition of same-sex marriage.
- IC3: Redefining marriage leads to the erosion of religious liberty.
- P8: According to the Catholic bishop of Springfield, Illinois, laws does not helps at all, as it not stop gay people form entering into Catholic institutions.
- P9: Religionists are deemed as bigotry and extreme by society judgement and the laws are actually marginalizing them.
- P10: It is not possible to those who still believe in traditional marriage to avoid lawsuits and penalties while being treated discriminatingly.
- IC4: Laws that were established to redefine marriage meanwhile protecting religious liberty are proved useless.
- P11: No one should redefine marriage for everyone else.
- MC: Hence, gay marriage bill should not be approved.
- Anderson, R 2015, Defending Same-Sex Marriage | Download [Pdf]/[ePub] eBook, in , Freebooksget.com, viewed 29 January 2020, Your logical fallacy is 2020, viewed 29 January 2020, .