Gay Marriage: Not a Very Good Idea by William J.Bennett - Essay Example

 Logics - Analysis of a chosen article: Gay Marriage: Not a Very Good Idea by WILLIAM J. BENNETT Gay Marriage: Not a Very Good Idea The article, Gay Marriage: Not a Very Good Idea was written by William J. Bennett and published in catholic education resource center website. The author, William J. Bennett was Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Secretary of Education under President Reagan, and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Bush. He was also the author of The Book of Virtues several other best sellers. His latest work is The Educated Child: A Parent's Guide from Preschool Through Eighth Grade. The major theme of this article is against gay marriage culture which is getting popular in many of the countries. In this article, the author argues that gay marriage may change the meaning of marriage. In his opinion, “The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough. Broadening its definition to include same-sex marriages would stretch it almost beyond recognition” (Bennet, 1996). He also point out that marriage is not an arbitrary construct, but it is natural. He has pointed out the opinions of many of the prominent scholars in order to substantiate his argument against gay marriage in this article. The author also warns the people that the institution of marriage is already reeling because of the revolutionary concepts in sex activities. He has also expressed his concerns in legalizing gay marriage and homosexuality because of his anxiety over enormous repercussions gay marriages can bring in many areas(Bennet, 1996). Approach The author used both analytical and instinctive methods judiciously in this article to catch the attention of the readers. For example he used the opinions of others many times for the in depth analysis of the topic. Moreover, he has analyzed the arguments both in favor and against gay marriage in order to make conclusions. He evaluated the opinions of supporters of gay marriage and draws conclusions from that. See the excerpts from the article given below. Even Andrew Sullivan, among the most intelligent advocates of same-sex marriage, has admitted that a homosexual marriage contract will entail a greater understanding of the need for “extramarital outlets.” He argues that gay male relationships are served by the “openness of the contract,” and he has written that homosexuals should resist allowing their “varied and complicated lives” to be flattened into a “single, moralistic model” (Bennet, 1996). In the next paragraph of the article, the author criticizes the arguments of Andrew Sullivan and draws the attention of the readers towards the baselessness and “single, moralistic model” proposed by Sullivan. Thus, the author succeeded in evaluating the topic in depth with the help of the arguments of even the supporters of gay marriage. At the same time, he was not hesitant in providing instinctive opinions about the topic in this article. In fact majority of the opinions expressed in this article are instinctive in nature. For example, the arguments like; The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough, Marriage is not an arbitrary construct; it is an “honorable estate” based on the different, complementary nature of men and women, Recognizing the legal union of gay and lesbian couples would represent a profound change in the meaning and definition of marriage etc are his personal opinions expressed in this article which lacks supports from other sources. Examples of different kinds of reasoning Inductive and deductive reasoning are used judiciously in this article in order to persuade the readers to think against gay marriages. An example of inductive reasoning in this article can be observed in the following sentences; Recognizing the legal union of gay and lesbian couples would represent a profound change in the meaning and definition of marriage. Indeed, it would be the most radical step ever taken in the deconstruction of society's most important institution. It is not a step we ought to take (Bennet, 1996). Inductive arguments do not guarantee the truth; however, it can provide strong support to the conclusions drawn. The author argues that gay marriage may change the meaning of marriage. It is not necessary that the above argument may become true always. It is quite possible that marriage may get an additional definition rather than changing the meaning of it as a result of gay marriage. Moreover, the arguments of the author that gay marriage may destroy the traditional concept of marriage can also become wrong. It is possible that both traditional marriage and gay marriage exists in harmony rather than one destroys the other. At the same time, the above arguments strongly support the conclusions of this article and that is why the author used it in this article. Another inductive reasoning example used in this article by the author to criticize same sex marriage or gay marriage is given below. In his opinion, same sex marriage should be prohibited because of the wrong signals gay marriage would send, and the impact of such signals on the shaping of human sexuality, particularly among the young (Bennet, 1996). It is a fact that the changes happening in the society may affect the younger generation much faster than other generations. At the same time, it should be noted that there are lot of young people who value traditions and customs more than anything else. In other words, the above argument cannot be accepted as a universal truth; it can be correct or incorrect based on the way in which younger generation respond to social issues like gay marriages. Apart from inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning was also used extensively in this article. “Among worldwide cultures, where there are so few common threads, it is not a coincidence that marriage is almost universally recognized as an act meant to unite a man and a woman” (Bennet, 1996). It is a universal fact that no religion or cultures advocate gay marriage and only the heterosexual marriage custom prevailed in almost the entire cultures or religion historically. Moreover, sex activity is performed between a male and a female among all living things including animals, birds etc. No living thing in this world is interested in homosexual activities except human which means that the nature favors the sexual activities only between a male and female. In short, from the above example, the author put forward a universal truth from which an argument in favor of his opinion can be deducted. Homosexual couples will also have equal claim with heterosexual couples in adopting children, forcing us (in law at least) to deny what we know to be true: that it is far better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father than by, say, two male homosexuals (Bennet, 1996). The above argument can also be considered as a deductive argument. It is already proved by science that the care of father and mother are necessary for the children. Same sex parents cannot offer such things to their children. The love of two fathers or two mothers is not equivalent to the love of a mother or a father. Moreover, it is impossible for the same sex parents to have one child which can claim the pedigree of both of them. Same sex couples can think about adoption alone when they decide to have a child. Adopted child may not receive the same love and care from his parents as the normal children do. In short, the author substantiates his arguments with the help of a universal truth that both fatherly and motherly love is entirely different. Apart from inductive and deductive reasoning, the author also used causal and analogical reasoning methods in this article. “The institution of marriage is already reeling because of the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock births” (Bennet, 1996). In this example the author explains the cause of reeling of current marriages with the help of the revolutions taking place in sexual activities. In other words, he points out that whenever the concepts of sex changes, the existence of the concept of traditional marriages will be questioned. “If the law recognizes homosexual marriages as the legal equivalent of heterosexual marriages, it will have enormous repercussions in many areas. Consider just two: sex education in the schools and adoption” (Bennet, 1996). The above argument is an example for analogical reasoning. It says that legalization of homosexual marriage may affect other areas such as sex education and adoption. It is difficult to teach sex in the classes citing homosexuality as an example. Moreover, adoption rights are normally granted to impotent couples. Legalization of same sex marriages may force the authorities to grant adoption rights to homosexuals because of their inability to conceive in a natural manner. An assumption present in an argument of the text “The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough. Broadening its definition to include same-sex marriages would stretch it almost beyond recognition and new attempts to broaden the definition still further would surely follow (Bennet, 1996). This is an example of assumption present in the arguments of the text. Once, the definition of marriage was elaborated by accommodating same sex marriage concepts, the scope for further elaboration of the definition of marriage will be disappeared, since all the possible combinations were already tried. In other words the author’s concern about further expansion of definition of marriage is meaningless. It should be noted that staying together like new life principles may arise in the society; however, such concepts cannot be accommodated under the definition of marriage since married life is more than a shared life. One principal strength and one important weakness in the text The major strength of this article is its consistency in arguments. The author never derailed from the main themes of his topic and focused on the subject throughout the paper. He never tried to put forward complex issues; but tried to educate the readers about the consequences of same sex marriage through concise and well thought out arguments. Even a layman can understand the language of the author and he never used any fancied or colorful words in this article. His arguments were well structured and logically arranged. In short, simplicity is the major strength of this article. At the same time, the author never investigated the findings of other researchers in this article. He has not used any references and all the major arguments were his own opinions. References from previous studies could have improved the credibility of this paper. The author approached this issue as a sociological issue; He failed to analyze moral, ethical and religious dimensions of this issue. References 1. William J. B. (1996). Gay Marriage: Not a Very Good Idea. Retrieved from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0013.html Read More