Marriage rights MARY BROCKER-OPPENHEIMER PHI 103 INFORMAL LOGIC INSTRUCTOR: KURT MOSSER OCTOBER 27, 2014

Argument Outline;  Anderson, R. (2013, March 20) In defense of traditional marriage, retrieved from: marriage/ marriage/  The above listed article is discussing the issue of marriage. It appears to me that the writer is arguing whether the government should redefine the term “marriage” to include any other relationship other than the union between a man and a woman.

The issue: Should the word “marriage” be used to recognize any union other than the traditional definition? The conclution:  Only American citizens involved in a marriage of a man and a woman, which produce and raise children together, can be a part of a civil society. If you are not married as man and woman, then you are an unnecessary building block to human civilization.

THE PREMISES (REASONS):  Americans respect marriage, not only as a crucial institution of civil society but the fundamental building block of all human civilization.  If the government recognizes any union as a marriage, then everyone will be forced to see it that way.  Being created equal doesn’t entail or require redefining marriage.  There is nothing equal about redefining marriage to eliminate sexual complementarity, which has been the foundation of marriage throughout history.  Marriage exists to bring a man and woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

THE PREMISES (REASONS(Continued)):  Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father.  Marriage has public purpose that transcends its private purpose.  Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits the public good.  Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens.  State recognition of marriage protects children by incentivizing adults to commit permanently and exclusively to each other and their children.  Redefining marriage to exclude the idea that it is fundamentally related to the union of a man and a woman would make emotional intensity the only thing left to set marriage apart from other kinds of relationships.

THE PREMISES (REASONS(Continued)):  Redefining marriage would put new principle into law.  Marriage simply can’t do the work that society needs it to do for generations to come if we weaken the norms further.  We can craft policies that benefit all Americans without redefining marriage.  Concern for the common good requires protecting and strengthening the marriage culture, by promoting the truth about marriage.  Recognizing that we are all created equal doesn’t challenge this historical understanding of the word marriage.

EVALUATION:  I find this argument to be utterly ridiculous. This article, to me says, if you are in any type of a relationship other than a married man and woman with children, then you are not a productive part of society and you should go live elsewhere. The author says it’s alright for people to be gay and live together, but we should not alter the word “marriage” to include these type of unions. He says it would be alright if a particular church wants to recognize the unions and have ceremonies, but again the government should not recognize the unions. My question is why not? If I chose to never marry or have children does that mean that I contribute to the chaos of the world? “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. This is what is stated in the first article in the declaration of universal human rights, so why is it that one group, though be it the majority, gets to decide how everyone else should live? It does not. This is a group afraid of change. Maybe a group unwilling to share in the advantages that our government affords heterosexual married couples.

EVALUATION (Continued):  The only source to support the ideas in this article comes from history and tradition. The author of this article has used many informal logical fallacies. He uses appealing to tradition by referencing historical religious traditions related to marriages. He uses the appeal to popularity by referencing what has been the foundation of marriage throughout history. Begging the question is another technique which is used. “Every marriage policy draws lines, leaving out some types of relationships. It’s true that “marriage equality” makes a good slogan for activists and politicians, but true equality forbids arbitrary line-drawing”’ is evident circular reasoning.

EVALUATION (Continued):  After reading this article several times, is it my conclusion that various informal logical fallacies take place in the premises. This article presents itself as valid and is inductive. The evidence, which is used to support the position, that the definition of marriage should only include a man and a woman, is based on fallacies. This article fails to present any factual statics to support their reasoning. No scholarly sources are identified to support the conclusion or premises.

Counterargument ; The issue: Should the word “marriage” be used to recognize any union other than the traditional definition? The conclution:  Statistics show that any marriage can end. Evidence supports untraditional unions are as healthy as traditional unions when raising children. Heterosexual marriages enjoy benefits that other members of society are denied. The word marriage should include all types of unions.

THE PREMISES (REASONS):  Statistics say there is a 50% chance for all marriages to end in divorce.  Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners, largely resembles those of heterosexual partnerships.  Psychologists find that living in a state where same-sex marriage is outlawed, can lead to chronic social stress and mental health problems.  Studies have shown that same-sex couples are as fit and capable parents as heterosexual couples.  There are over 1,100 protections and responsibilities conferred on married couples by the federal government.

THE PREMISES (REASONS(Continued)):  Nearly two-thirds of same-sex couples in the United States will soon live in states where they can marry.  38 states have banned gay marriage through law, constitutional amendments, or both.  An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.  Marriage does not make someone a more productive member of society.  Changes in meanings of words is all around us, influenced by social, political, religious, economic and technological forces.  Many words we use every day meant something quite different 10, 100 or 1,000 years ago.

Evaluation:  What is in a word? Over history, the meaning associated with words have changed, including the word marriage. As equals, we should all be afforded the same rights, including the rights and benefits that are given to married couples. Whether people decide to marry, heterosexual or homosexual, stay single, have children, or no children, any benefits our government offers should be equal across the board. Our personal choices should not affect our rights to be free and equal which includes the rights afforded to those who are married.

References  Anderson, R. (2013, March 20) In defense of traditional marriage, retrieved from:  Clark, R., (2011, March 4) Change in the Meaning of Words Demand care in the Use of Language retrieved from: storytelling/writing-tools/99499/change-in-the-meaning-of-words-demand-care-in-the- use-of-language/ storytelling/writing-tools/99499/change-in-the-meaning-of-words-demand-care-in-the- use-of-language/  Collected from the web site of Freedom to Marry Inc., (2014, October 27).Marriage 101   Liptik, A. (2014, October 6) Supreme Court Delivers Tacit Win to Gay Marriage, The New York Times  marriage-in-5-states.html?_r= marriage-in-5-states.html?_r