Traditional Marriage

Traditional Marriage or Non-Traditional Marriage, That is the Question
Teresa Brasaemle
PHI 103
Instructor Bence
May 18, 2014

The argument that will be assessed is “In Defense of Traditional Marriage”, Anderson presents the question: “Should the government recognize same-sex relationships as legal marriages?” (Anderson, R.T., 2013). However, the author does offer numerous premises in relation to the argument that do help in the support of the conclusion that the marriage laws should remain the same so that the order of a good society remains intact. The discussion within will go over several premises that are used in contrast to same-sex marriages, along with a counter argument in relation to the matter. The chosen argument is presented in an inductive manner; the issue does not have any certain consequence in the immediate future, and thereby the premises bring into light a controversial social matter. Premise one in the argument is that same-sex marriage is, in point of fact, not illegal. What does Anderson mean? SSM is illegal in a number of states. With this discussion, the main focus will be in relation to the United States, and there are no statements within the 50 states that declare that same-sex couples cannot live together, raise children, or have religious rituals that bless their relationships. For spiritual commitments, same-sex partners do have all the same civil rights as if they are heterosexual partners. Also, there are many work places that allow same-sex partners to name their significant other as an inheritor in relation to their assets (Anderson, R.T., 2013). In premise two, Anderson states, “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). However, there is actually no reason as to why same-sex couples cannot be wedded, even if they cannot produce their own biological children. This article states that it is more beneficial that a man and a woman should raise children. It further argues that it is a healthier atmosphere which is supplementarily advantageous for the public morality? because it “ensures the well-being of future citizens” (Anderson, R.T., 2013). Premise three argues that the institution of matrimony is by now deteriorated with adults’ yearnings that overcome their children's needs. Countless individuals have decided that the institution of matrimony can be whatever thing they desire it to be, whether “it is between two or ten, sexual, platonic, temporary or permanent” (Anderson, R.T., 2013). However, what if same-sex marriage is lawful, would this really stop polygamy or adultery being acknowledged and considered the norm and made legal? To redefine marriage is to weaken the fundamental purpose of people getting married in the first place, which, first and foremost, is to produce children and promise to be loyal to the same individual for the rest of their lives. My TB's or RA's? conclusion is that we do not need to do any refinement on marriage; what we need to do is stay with what is normal and traditional and not weaken the sacrament of marriage. “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). In other words, this is just a fancy pomp-and-circumstance way of speaking: our government honestly does not need to interfere with whomever its people choose to adore; it is just not going to legally approve of all loves by permitting all loving adults to marry. Now to present the devil’s advocate, the counter argument with the issue of same-sex marriage versus traditional marriage will present opposing interpretations. The counter argument is going to prove that the original statement, that same-sex marriages should not even be legalized, is a weak argument and leaves a large amount up for debate. However, the premises of which argument? do support the conclusion, but they will, without a doubt, encourage the reader to have the same code of belief. In this particular case, the sword is dual-edged. Premise one states that same-sex partner marriages are not illegal, and same-sex partners do meet the requirements for certain benefits that any heterosexual couples have. Now, according to Cynthia M. Planita, who wrote “For Better or 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 partners legitimately joined in matrimony will be considered married for federal tax purposes. It is fortunate for these couples because it does not matter if they currently reside in a state that essentially recognizes same–sex marriage, only if they were legally married in a state that does. The new tax benefits are particularly helpful in a household that only has one employed taxpayer. For the couples that only share civil unions or domestic partnerships, they will not get any of these federal assistances (Planita, C.M., 2014). Therefore, with these relationships not being legal, they are restrained from any of the legal assistance that married couples take entirely for granted. Many people question why it is important if the IRS recognizes same-sex marriage. If the couple happens to live in a state that does not acknowledge same-sex marriage, and they are not to be able to benefit from a place that does, they are not going to reap any of the benefits. However, if same-sex marriages are legal in every state of the union and they are recognized by the federal government, every one of the couples would be able to have the same advantages and disadvantages. To what extent should financial considerations determine decisions in ethical scenarios? Responding to premise two, which states that matrimony is joining a male and a female for the purpose of procreation of children, this argument is completely out of date and very perverse--word choice?. There are thousands of heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce or simply choose not to, yet they are completely free and are able to become legally bound in marriage. If the foundation of this argument is that it is so important for the stability of children, what is the reason that adopted adolescents of same–sex couples would not receive the equal benefits if their parents were legally married? The social and psychological benefits in a child’s well-being is going to be the same whether the couple is heterosexual or same-sex. Ms. 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 are not married legally, it could leave an adolescent defenseless in the event of an emergency or demise. “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., 2013). Therefore, with the needs of children being the same whether the parents are same-sex or a man and a woman, any child will need to feel the same security and commitment with their families, so the stress-free way to accomplish this is to allow the parents to be legally married. The third and final premise is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a slippery slope of debauchery, so that any kind of a relationship, such as polygamy, will be entirely acknowledged and legalized. This is a preposterous hypothesis because there is really no way of verifying whether it would or would not happen. To even suggest that legalizing same-sex marriage would be held responsible for any other relationship would be discriminating and ill-advised. However, some proponents for same-sex marriage disagree that with the legalization of the union, monogamy and safe sex would inevitably be by-products.--Clarify the meaning of this sentence. “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). Any reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted disease would be a benefit to the community, not a slippery slope toward debauchery. In conclusion, as stated earlier, both of the arguments are inductive, [Rather than merely refuting Anderson's argument point by point, I would like to have seen you write an argument whose premises actively supported the conclusion that SS marriages should be legalized.] both are still up for debate, and there are various logical fallacies that originate in either. Whichever side of the debate one chooses, the resilient position will not always be clever to govern the facts within the argument; [Clarify the meaning of these words.] everyone’s opinions and principles will be maintained. Individuals are entitled to feel the way they are going to feel. In order to change their emotional state, they are going to need to see both sides of the road. But the larger question here is not what people feel; the larger question is "what is the right answer to the question of SS marriage."

References
Anderson, R.T. (2013, March 20). In defense of traditional marriage. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2013/03/20/in-defense-of-traditional- Marriage. Chamie, J., & Mirkin, B. (2011). Same-sex marriage: a new social phenomenon. Population And Development Review, 37(3), 529-551.
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), 10-11.
You should list dates with your periodical articles.