Running head: ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY 1

ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY5

Argumentative Essay NameInstitution Name

Argumentative EssayThe 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 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 rThe 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. 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 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.

ReferencesAnderson, R. (2013, March 30). In defense of traditional marriage. Retrieved 2015, from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/in-defense-of-traditional-marriage/2013/03/20/d19a0c08-915a-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.htmlBuffie, 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/internationalGallup. (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/domaPappas, S. (2013). Legalizing Same Sex Marriages May Improve Public Health. Retrieved 2015, from LiveScience: http://www.livescience.com/27501-legalized-same-sex-marriage-health.html