Evaluation of the Argument in Support of the Traditional Marriages (Essay Sample)

Philosophy: Informal logic
Name
University
Course
Tutor
Date
Philosophy: Informal Logic
Introduction
The institution of marriage has been in existence since the existence of mankind and in recent times there has been a debate on whether the government should define marriage. Traditionally, this institution has been defined as a union involving two consenting adults of the opposite sex. However, in recent times, there has been a campaign to redefine the institution of marriage in the sense of leaving it liberal in terms of the gender of the consenting adults. In other words, marriage should no longer be a union of consenting adults of the opposite sex but a union of consenting adults regardless of their gender.
Thesis Statement
Though there has not been a ban on same sex marriage in the US, it has not been recognized by the government. It is on this basis that the government should redefine the institution of marriage and in the process legalize same sex marriage. Society evolves and so does cultural practices, the American society should not be restricted to adopt new culture and values simply because a section of the society feels that doing so, is against the American traditional practices. Additionally, recognition of same sex marriage does not pose any threat to the society in terms of procreation and religious liberties. This essay will evaluate the arguments fronted in support of traditional marriages and also offer counter arguments to the reasons given in support of traditional marriage.
Evaluation of the Argument in Support of the Traditional Marriages
Anderson (2013) addresses the issues of the institution of marriage as has traditionally existed. Traditionally, marriage has been defined as the union of two consenting adults of the opposite sex. He fears that this traditional view of marriage is under threat as the Supreme Court is about to determine the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8. In his view, it is up to the citizens and their elected officials to formulate marriage policy and not either t he government or the courts. He states that allowing the government and private citizens to redefine the institution of marriage is tantamount to introducing a new “civil right.” Anderson believes that there is no need to change the status quo since there has not been any existing ban on same sex marriage in the US and what has been in contention is whether same sex marriage should be recognized by the government. He argues that recognition by the government of same sex marriages has the potential of coercing or compelling other citizens and religious bodies to also recognize same sex marriages which is against the constitution.
According to history, the foundation of marriage has been sexual complementarities and as such “marriage equality” does not apply. He further argues that marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction can only exist through union of people of the opposite sex. Furthermore, he states that children need a mother and a father and that social science has proved that children perform better when raised by their mother and father. He also states that marriage institution benefits public good by ensuring well-being of future citizens and continuity of the human race. Traditional marriage has been supported by various religious doctrines as well as various Greek and Roman thinkers of whom most were philosophers. In recent times, marriage has been weakened by the perception that marriage is all about adult desires rather than children’s needs and interests. Redefining marriage by the government would reduce it to an emotional bond rather than an institution. He concludes by stating that institutions exist to limit the state and its power and thus marriage as an institution exists to limit the state’s interference with procreative love, childbearing and childrearing (Anderson, 2013).
The argument has an inductive component where the author uses historical philosophies and religious beliefs to support his argument of supporting traditional marriage. He states that since society has always perceived the institution of marriage as involving a man and a woman, the status quo should remain as such. He also states that marriage exists with sole intention of procreation and for that requires consenting adults of opposite sex. This component is weak since it ignores the fact that society has been changing over the years and marriage is one of those practices that continues to evolve. He even contradicts himself when he states that the government should not dictate to consenting adults on who to love. When one uses this argument, then the government has no business in dictating that marriage should only be a union between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. In addition, marriage is not all about procreation as a matter of fact there are even married heterosexual couples who have no intention of getting children.
Counter-Argument
According to Friedman (2013), couples in the same sex marriage have used alternative methods to bear and raise children. Some have chosen to adopt children; others have used surrogate mothers to get children. Therefore, humanity is not under threat as argued by Anderson since even in the same marriage, procreation is still happening albeit not as ‘traditional’ as has been in the past. Denying gay couples the recognition of marriage on the basis of reproduction is not convincing since as shown above, the same can still happen in a same sex arrangement, furthermore, even in the heterosexual marriages, there are couples who cannot biologically reproduce and therefore using the strict meaning of reproduction, they ought not to be formally recognized as married according to Anderson’s argument.
There should not be there any fear by the religious bodies on being compelled to recognize same sex marriages against their will as argued by Anderson. According to Severino (2011), religious institutions are protected by the First Amendment in the Free Exercise Clause which prohibits the government to target religious institutions for their stands agains...