Kandra Thydean Informal Logic Micheal Pelt February 10 th, 2014 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE EQUALITY

“IN DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE” BY R.T. ANDERSON The argument made against same-sex marriages in the article “In Defense of Traditional Marriage” by R. Anderson asks the question, “Should the government recognize same-sex relationships as legal marriages?” The author offers many premises on the matter, which help to support their conclusion that marriage laws need to stay the same in order for the good of society. This paper will discuss the various premises used against same-sex marriages, as well as offer a counter-argument on the matter. This topic and it’s arguments are all inductive, the issue has no certain outcome in the immediate future, all that can be gained by the premises is new insight into a contentious social matter.

PREMISE 1: The first premise offered by Anderson is that same-sex marriage is not actually illegal. For the purpose of this paper, we will focus on the United States, and nowhere within the 50 states, are same-sex couples banned from living together, raising children together, or performing a religious ceremony to bless their relationship. Therefore, for spiritual purposes only same-sex couples have all of the same rights as heterosexual couples. In fact in many workplaces, same-sex couples are permitted to name their significant other as beneficiary for benefits. (Anderson, R.T., 2013)

PREMISE 2: Another premise is 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.” (Anderson, R.T., 2013) For this purpose, there is no reason for same-sex couples to be wedded, since they cannot biologically create any children. The article states that it has been proven beneficial for children to be raised by a man and woman. And that this healthy environment is more beneficial for the social good, as it “ensures the well-being of future citizens.” (Anderson, R.T., 2013)

PREMISE 3: The third premise given is that the institution of marriage has already been weakened by adult’s desires preceding the needs of their children. Too many people have decided that marriage can be anything they want it to be, whether “it is between two or ten, sexual, platonic, temporary or permanent.” If same-sex marriage is legalized, what is stopping polygamy and adultery from being readily accepted and made legal? Redefining marriage only works to weaken the fundamental reason for people to get married in the first place, which is first and foremost to create offspring, and to commit yourself to another person for the remainder of your lives. (Anderson, R.T., 2013)

CONCLUSION The conclusion for these arguments is that there is no need to redefine marriage; we need to stick to the norms of tradition rather than weaken them. “The government isn’t in the business of affirming our loves. Rather it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose.” (Anderson, R. T., 2013) This is a pretty way of saying that we do not care who you love; we just do not want to have to recognize it legally.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT In order to create a counter-argument, each premise will be addressed with its opposing views. This counter-argument will prove that the original statement, that same- sex marriages should not be legalized, is a weak argument, which leaves much up for debate. While the premises support the conclusion, they do not undoubtedly convince the reader to share the same beliefs. In this particular case, there are two sides to the coin.

PREMISE 1: The first premise stated that same-sex marriage is not illegal, and that same-sex couples can qualify for certain benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. However, according to Cynthia M. Planita who authored “For Better of for Worse: Will the Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act Bring Couples Happiness?” the IRS has only just announced on August 29, 2013 that same-sex couples legally married will be considered married for federal tax purposes. Fortunately for these couples, it does not matter if they currently reside in a state, which recognizes same-sex marriage, as long as they were legally married within a state that does. These new tax benefits are especially helpful in a family with only one working taxpayer. However, for the couples that can only share a civil union or domestic partnership, they do not receive these federal benefits. (Planita, C.M., 2014) Therefore, while their relationship may not be illegal, they are restrained from enjoying certain legal benefits that married people take for granted. Of course, this is stating that the IRS recognizes same-sex marriage, so what is the problem? But if a couple lives in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, and they are unable to get to a place that does, they will not enjoy the benefits. If same-sex marriage was legal in every state and recognized by the federal government, every couple would have the same advantages and disadvantages.

PREMISE 2: In response to the second premise, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating offspring, the feeling is that this argument is outdated and unreasonable. There are thousands of heterosexual couples across the country that either cannot biologically reproduce or choose not to and yet they are free and able to become legally married. The main argument against this matter however, is that if marriage is so important for the stability of children, then it would reason out that adopted children of a same-sex couple would benefit from their parents being legally married. The social and psychological benefits to a child’s wellbeing would be the same for a child of a same-sex couple as from a heterosexual couple. As Charlene Gomes states in “The Need for Full Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage”, children can be legally adopted by a gay or lesbian couple, however, if the two parents are not legally married, it could leave the child unprotected in cases of emergencies or death. “Without a legal relationship, the non- biological partner has no right to seek custody or visitation, no right to consent to medical treatment of the child in an emergency, and no right to attend parent-teacher conferences or otherwise be involved in the child's day-to-day life and development.” (Gomes, C., 2003) Therefore, the needs of children are basically the same whether from a same-sex couple or a heterosexual couple, the children need to feel secure in their families commitment to each other, and the easiest way to show this is by allowing parents to be legally wed.

PREMISE 3: The final premise is that by legalizing same-sex marriage, there will be a slippery slope of debauchery and any kind of relationship, such as polygamy will be accepted and legalized. To this kind of ridiculous accusation there is no real way to prove that it wouldn’t happen, only that the two things are not mutually exclusive, and to suggest that legalizing same-sex marriage would be responsible for any other kind of relationship is unfair and unwise. In fact, some proponents for same-sex marriage argue that by legalizing their union, monogamy and safe sex would inevitably be a by-product. “Same-sex marriage would likely reinforce norms of sexual moderation and commitment to a partner or spouse, especially among gay males. Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to reducing the spread of STD’s such as HIV/AIDS.” (Chamie, J., & Mirkin, B., 2011)

CONCLUSION As stated earlier, both argument are inductive, they are still up for debate and as seen, there are many logical fallacies that can be found in either. However, as in any debate, a strong position is not always determined by the facts within the argument, but the convictions and beliefs upheld. People will feel the way they do, and in order to change their impressions, they need to see both sides of the coin.

REFERENCES Anderson, R.T. (2013, March 20). In defense of traditional marriage. The Washington Post. Retrieved from traditional-marriagehttp:// traditional-marriage Chamie, J., & Mirkin, B. (2011). Same-Sex Marriage: A New Social Phenomenon. Population And Development Review, 37 (3), Gomes, C. (2003). The Need for Full Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage. Humanist, 63 (5), 15. Planita, C.M. (2014). For Better or for Worse: Will the Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act Bring Couples Happiness?. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 68 (1),