In Defense of Traditional Marriage - Report Example

In Defense of Traditional Marriage In a civil society, marriage cannot transform to be whatever emotional bond the government proclaims. The union of a man and a woman is the best setting to define marriage. The institution of marriage, fundamentally, connects a man and a woman to one another as well as to their children (Anderson, 2013). This is the biological fact that transcends private purposes. In these views, there is the contentment that traditional marriage would go deeper to further the state’s interests. This may involve accommodating religious freedom and the preservation of social harmony within that state. Protecting the institution of traditional marriage has been the key issue for every other person, despite the activists’ propositions, continues to affirm the reasonable conclusion that marriage is the union of one man and one woman (Anderson, 2013). In defence of the traditional marriage, its core principle emphasizes that redefining marriage, as genderless and adult-centric institution would hurt the fundamental meaning and purpose of marriage. This context, the aspect of same sex marriage, is tentative (Girgis, Anderson & George, 2012). On the other side, marriage would not lose its grip and roll down to be whatever sort of relationship consenting adults. One would refute this as just revisionists’ views. The basic concept here highlights that marriage, of one man and one woman, came to be, in cultures that had no concept of sexual orientations. Its itinerary stretches back to many centuries, when same sex marriage was nowhere on the radar. Contrary to the respect that marriage brings, the revisionists’ opinions would like to conceal from the obvious that marriage is not a crucial institution (Anderson, 2013). These types of extension are void of the primary building block that marriage brings of all human civilization. Questioning this alliance or putting them on the line does not hide the truth in them. Therefore, it is important for one to be in defence of the Traditional marriage act. The society ought to understand the concept of marriage, as a uniquely man-woman institution, failure to that it is not. A lot of argument would arise as to why one would be in defiance of Traditional Marriage. Precisely, it is the most important Act, to our society. The Defence of the Marriage Act became legislation back in 1996. This law, thus makes it illegal for the federal government to recognize the same sex (Anderson, 2013). There is more into this constitutional reasoning than meets the eye. For one, the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman deserves this protection since it is not an emotional union. Between the two, there is proliferation, an aspect that a society needs. Same sex marriage would not justify this. The land of America is a free state, hence revisionist view would want to justify their claim. A close look into whatever argument one would bring into the board, no principal reason might stand to justify the legalization of emotional unions (Girgis, Anderson & George, 2012). In an event where this emotional union happens, the resultant effect, thus would be a weakened norm of the traditional marriage. The truth of the matter is that, just a mere marriage may not do the work that society needs it to undertake for generation to come. This is because a civil society needs a traditional model of marriage (Anderson, 2013). Observations like, what type of society would people create, and where would children grow turns around the views of same sex marriage. Does it mean emotional joining in the name of marriage would nullify the religious procreation in the name of someone’s rights? Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife (Girgis, Anderson & George, 2012). This extends to the society expects them to carry the role of being father and mother to any children their union brings forth. Same sex marriage runs short of this social reality. There is the public purpose of a marriage. For example, the exclusive and the undeviating bond of a man and a woman, who have joined together in marriage, definitely offers couples and the larger society the pre-eminent value add this is not subject to redesigning by legal dictates. In saying this, the institution of marriage does not deny anyone his rights or dethrone the right to treat everyone with dignity. Nevertheless, the ideal truth is that marriage, and in particular marriage between a man and a woman, begets families. Out of this, families result in communities, which in turn give life to culture, societies, and nations (Anderson, 2013). Even with the aspect of genetic engineering and the technology applied to idolize same sex marriage ‘manufactured babies’, maintaining the man and woman designation add force to the child-centric view of traditional marriages. At this point, it is apparent that the concept of marriage is substantive, and it matters as a policy, especially traditional marriage. On another note, the concept of traditional marriage does not rise above human rights and freedom of conscience. Like every other human being, the American people are at liberty to raise an opinion and views of what marriage to them means (Anderson, 2013). The understanding here is that despite the legal structures not being clear on same sex marriage, the government is not at all in the arrangement of affirming people’s lives. On the contrary, it leaves consenting adults at will to choose, live and love as wish. No clause prohibits same sex marriage across the American constitution. Actually, all Americans stand equal before the law, and their civil rights protection is non-bias. However, the constitutional do not mandate for the elevation or the creation of same sex partnership as this redefines the concept of traditional marriage as they lay in the constitution (Girgis, Anderson & George, 2012). As much as it is the right of someone’s choice, the civil rights movement has no basis, not even a single premise can stand to change what traditional marriage is. The government should rather recognize this same sex as emotional relationships rather than drawing a red line in the institution that has beaten the country to that status it is (Anderson, 2013). As the definition of traditional marriage, the relationship of a man and a woman, as stipulated by the constitution, do not coerce anyone. How many people have matured enough, at the prime age of marrying, but no society can compel them to do so. The rights of each other person should have the same platform as the other and this policy of same sex marriage should not compel others to recognize and affirm them as marriages. This is because the fact that everyone is an equal creation to the other, this does not incline into redefining what marriage is. As their rights, the revisionist stance would love to work harder and shroud the idea of same sex marriage in the language of civil rights. For one, let it be, the law enforces their freedom of choice. On the contrary, it ought to be clear that not every benefit sought by civil unions’ legislation should have legal assimilation. In doing so, it would translate to extending to them, civil rights when it is supposed to be just a civil union (Anderson, 2013). On top of this, the revisionist movement on marriage redefinition is just denying the unique and the special role that families play in civilization. Families created through the marriage of a man and a woman form the very crucial basis of the nation. The nation provides all the legal rights for it. The figure father and the mother do not present as a distorted perception to these children what marriage is within the society they live. As a revisionist would argue, they too have the capability. The legal question at issue may be the fundamental right of same sex couples seeking the elite and stable relationship that the constitution recognizes (Anderson, 2013). This means that the same sex couples have the capability of beating children as technology eases that burden. On another level, traditional marriage provides a well-laid benefit of parenting that give them a strong foundation. The child would benefit from being brought up by his or her mother and father, who are in a permanent relationship. Due to this, these permanent relationships should therefore reserve the right of recognition as true marriages. Contrary to this conclusion, marriage definition has no right to interfere with adults’ ability to engage and commit to an outright, passionate relationship with people of the same sex. They also have the consent to bring children into that relationship, as long the law is not at fault (Anderson, 2013). Overall, the laws on the line here that outline the significance of traditional marriage is just familial structures that have existed and served in the society for millions of years. Traditional marriage was, and is still the ideal setting that the constitution should strengthen. In conclusion, traditional marriage advances legitimate and compelling state and family interests. It would work towards prevention of continual erosion of traditional concepts of marriage and still focus on the welfare of the family and the state. This would work at the expense of the emotional interest of adults (Anderson, 2013). There is also the likelihood that kids grow up under the care and observation of their biological parents and this reinforces the formation of intact families within a state. As a result, contrary to same sex marriages, there is an adequate reproduction in these traditional marriages at will and this raises children in stable families (Girgis, Anderson & George, 2012). This makes traditional marriages worthy of defence. References Anderson, R.T. (2013). In Defense of Traditional Marriage. Available from: http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2013/03/20/in-defense-of-traditional-marriage/21885 [accessed on 03 May 2014]. Girgis, S., Anderson, R. T., & George, R. P. (2012). What is marriage?: Man and woman : a defense. New York: Encounter Books. Read More