Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Running head: ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

Argumentative Essay
Name
Institution Name

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

2
Argumentative Essay

The Defense of Marriage Act has been frequently criticized and rightly so. Redefining it
to include homosexual marriages will remove any hindrances in the way of the United States
becoming a truly egalitarian society and enable it to gain greater public health. Any argument
presented by the opponents is inherently unsound and discriminatory. The issue at hand is a
debate about whether specific components of the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA)
should be challenged. The law, passed in 1996 by the United States Congress, defines marriage
as a legal relationship between a man and a woman. This definition implicitly disregards a same
sex union as a marriage, and consequently same sex couples cannot realize state or federal
benefits which are availed by heterosexual couples. These state benefits or protections include
health insurance, Social Security, retirement savings, veterans benefits and many more
(GLAAD, 2014). So the core of the issue boils down to whether DoMA should be adjusted to
redefine marriage to include homosexual couples, in order for them to gain federal recognition.
The stance taken by Ryan Anderson is that challenging the DoMA is unconstitutional and
the Supreme Courts decision to hear oral arguments against it is also unconstitutional
(Anderson, 2013). Simply stated, marriage should not be redefined to include same sex unions,
for the purposes of public policy. He establishes three distinct propositions to support his
argument. The first premise is that redefining marriage is a coercive process which entails the
government arbitrarily recognizing same sex couples as legally married in the Federal eye and
subsequently forcing other individuals and institutions to recognize them too. He goes on to
justify this premise by explaining if marriage was not to remain exclusively a legal relationship
between a man and a woman, the only thing differentiating marriage from other types of
relationships (example, a union between more than two people) would be the emotional intensity

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

of a bond and this would leave the government ultimately deciding what this emotional bond is.
This would increase the power of the State and limit the power of civil society; hence this
redefinition should not take place. The second premise is that heterosexual marriage has public
benefits since its an established scientific fact that child rearing is most productive when its
done by the biological mother and a father. State acknowledgement of marriage incentivizes
adults to partake in this socially beneficial process. This argument is essentially deductive
because if the premise is taken to be absolutely true that a heterosexual marriage, provides the
greatest social benefit; then the conclusion that DoMA should not be changed is entirely valid. It
is a strong deductive argument. The third proposition is that legal marriage between homosexual
couples is unnatural because only union between a man and a woman is natural. This is because
sexual complementarity has been observed throughout history. The conventional notion of
marriage is ever-present throughout history and same sex legal unions were never observed, even
though they might have been a cultural normality. To further support his argument, he states that
the point of view of heterosexual couples being natural is shared throughout all world religions
and also by those thinkers and philosophers (Greek and Roman) untouched by religious views.
This is clearly a weak inductive argument which draws on historical and religious
generalizations. Prominent Greek and Roman thinkers practiced and endorsed homosexual
relationships and advocated for their legalization; whether their views were accepted is another
matter. Also, eighteen countries constitutionally acknowledge marriages between heterosexuals
and provide state benefits (FreedomtoMarry.org, 2015).Drawing on anecdotal evidence for an
inductive argument makes it inherently unable to support its conclusion. D n r f r f r a w f s v g r
The counter argument to the one presented by Ryan Anderson is that the DoMA should
be challenged to redefine parameters of marriage. Any effort to hinder it is then unconstitutional.

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

His argument about coerciveness is intrinsically weak since it inherently contradicts itself. The
mere fact that he is opposing arguments against a law is evidence of limiting the power of civil
institutions and citizens to present their views. If citizens can not challenge a law in their courts
presided by their elected judges, then the State gets more power automatically. The first premise
of the counter argument would then be the egalitarian argument. All humans are equal and thus
should be afforded the same civil rights as the next person. The DoMA act discriminates against
same sex couples and violates it own fifth amendment right and the federal Equal Protection
Law. The issue then becomes about sex discrimination. By perpetuating the belief that a union is
between a male and a female, sex stereotypes are given space to flourish. A genderless
Constitution then requires homosexual marriages to be allowed or suffer from violating human
rights. The DoMA persecutes civilians on the basis of their orientation, and if there is no state
benefit arising from such discrimination then the DoMA should be challenged. Many counties of
the USA have human rights acts which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. For
instance the Human Rights Act of Columbia forbids discrimination on this basis and also any
policies which may lead to such discrimination (Eskridge Jr, 1993). The egalitarian argument is
primarily a deductive argument. If the DoMA is discriminatory, it should be revised. The second
proposition for the counter argument is that the realization of public benefits would largely and
vastly improve if same sex marriage was made legal in the Federal eye. One public benefit which
would stem from this is that public health would increase. Researches show that same sex
couples which cohabit have a significantly higher health issues than heterosexual married
couples (Pappas, 2013). These researches prove that legalizing homosexual marriage may prove
to eliminate these health disparities. Since the incidence of LGBTs (lesbians, gays and bisexuals)
is quite high, roughly 4% of the population, it follows that legalizing same sex marriage will lead

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

to a vastly improved figure for public health (Gallup, 2012). These health issues are commonly
attributed to the stress faced by the LGBT community due to not receiving state benefits and due
to minority stress (the societal stress of discrimination) (Buffie, 2011). This premise is
essentially inductive and as is the nature of inductive arguments, is flawed due to generalizations
arising from isolated researches. F g a d e g s g r s n f d s a d f
Hence it follows that the Defense of Marriage act should be repealed and challenged in
the highest decision making mechanisms of the system ; i.e. the courts of law. Failing to do
impeaches on the Fifth Amendment right of equality of every citizen and will lead to decreased
public health.

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

References
Anderson, R. (2013, March 30). In defense of traditional marriage. Retrieved 2015, from The
Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/in-defense-oftraditional-marriage/2013/03/20/d19a0c08-915a-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html
Buffie, W. (2011). Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage. American Journal of
Public Health , 986-990.
Eskridge Jr, W. (1993). A history of same-sex marriage. Virginia Law Review , 1419-1513.
FreedomtoMarry.org. (2015). The Freedom to Marry Internationally. Retrieved 2015, from
FreedomtoMarry.org: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/landscape/entry/c/international
Gallup. (2012). Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender? Gallup.
GLAAD. (2014). Frequently Asked Questions: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Retrieved
2015, from GLAAD.org: http://www.glaad.org/marriage/doma
Pappas, S. (2013). Legalizing Same Sex Marriages May Improve Public Health. Retrieved 2015,
from LiveScience: http://www.livescience.com/27501-legalized-same-sex-marriagehealth.html

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi