Essay on The meaning of marriage in the modern American society

Essay on The meaning of marriage in the modern American society Essay on The meaning of marriage in the modern American society Essay on The meaning of marriage in the modern American societyThe modern society is changing and transforming. One aspect of such change is the transformation of the meaning and the role of marriage in American culture. The considered argument written by Ryan Anderson is named In defense of traditional marriage. In this essay, the author focuses on the issue of redefinition of the role of marriage in the modern society and the shift of the focus of marriage as a union of a man and a woman aimed at rearing children to the understanding of marriage as an emotional union of people. The purpose of this paper is to perform a critical analysis of Andersons arguments and to consider counter-arguments. The key thesis of this paper is the following: the concept of marriage in the American society is evolving, and it will be fair to legalize same-sex marriages to account for these changes and to improve the well-being of the members of nontraditional unions.The main argument of Anderson (2013 ) is the following: the notion of marriage should be rightly understood by the American legal system and the importance of family as a procreative union should be recognized. The premises of Andersons argument include historical role and meaning of family. Anderson (2013) also mentions that the concept of marriage related to the union of a man and a woman even in those societies where same-sex relationships were perceived as normal, acceptable and were not stigmatized. The author points out that such historical facts illustrate the perception of family as a procreative union of a man and a woman in the history of the mankind. The author further concludes that the current legal definition of marriage correctly reflects the meaning of family and the government rightly recognizes, protects and promotes marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing and childrearing (Anderson, 2013).The considered argument primarily relies on inductive rea soning as the author uses separate historical facts and definitions to make conclusions on the role of marriage in the society in general. On one hand, the author rightfully uses inductive arguments since he is willing to arrive to a more holistic and integral understanding of marriage. However, his reasoning is weak because he only cites examples that support his argument and ignores historical examples of marriage perception which are against his argument. For example, there existed marriage rituals and practices of same-sex relationships in Mesopotamia; however, the author either does not consider this counter-example or omits mentioning such historical examples which might weaken his argument. In any case, such omissions weaken his argument and make it very questionable.The author also uses some deductive steps in his reasoning: for example, he argues that marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes (Anderson, 2013) and further uses this statement to itemize the most common public purposes such as child-rearing. Furthermore, he also uses reasoning which resembles deductive when arguing that one need not appeal to distinctively religious arguments to explain why marriage is a natural union of a man and a woman: Anderson (2013) uses this statement to conclude that many nonreligious thinkers in different cultures supported such view on marriage. However, Andersons deductive reasoning is in fact unjustified because his abstract statements are not linked to the following specific statements using logic; instead, Anderson uses various examples to make his abstract arguments seem stronger, therefore applying hidden inductive reasoning (which is also not justified by evidence in this case). Overall, Andersons argument has a lot of weak points and questionable statements, and therefore cannot be accepted as valid.Furthermore, it is possible to construct a counterargument to Andersons argument basing on peer-reviewed research and analysis of the institution of marriage and the role of marriage in the modern American society. First of all, as the society is changing and evolving, the functions of different social institutions and the meaning of these social institutions change. The role and functions of family in the society are changing as well. According to Cherlin (2004), the concept of marriage experienced significant changes during several recent decades.Cherlin (2004) explores two transitions of the role and meaning of marriage that took place in American society during the 20th century; the first transition was from institutional to companionate marriage, and the second transition was from compassionate to individualized marriage with greater emphasis on self-development and personal choice. At the same time, Cherlin (2004) finds that symbolic meaning of marriage has increased, while its practical and procreative meaning has somewhat declined. In the context of the evolving notion of marriage, same-sex families shoul d be recognized as legal and equal to the traditional families because these unions equally represent the choice of the partners and activate their self-development. In the modern understanding of marriage, there are no factors requiring the presence of strictly a man and a woman in the family union, and therefore the legalization of same-sex marriages is the rightful legal response to the social change.One of key Andersons premises refers to the idea that the major meaning of family recognized by the state is responsible procreation. This is true, and the presence of various social programs and family/child assistance options offered by the state illustrates the truthfulness of this premise. However, Anderson (2013) further assumes that procreative role of family is only possible for families including a man and a woman. He does not present any relevant evidence for such conclusion and merely links this idea to the biological conditions of procreation. At the same time, modern achi evements of medically assisted reproduction create opportunities for same-sex partners or other non-typical unions to gain procreative meaning as well. Due to these changes, it is not reasonable to limit the vision of family as procreative union to the union of a man and a woman only.One more premise that Anderson uses is that a family consisting of a man and a woman is the best place to rear children and is optimal for their development from biological and social points of view. Andersons arguments are refuted by many researchers; for example, the study of Joslin (2013) shows that two largest state social benefits programs – benefits for the members of the U.S. military and Social Security benefits – do not link family benefits to biological relationships. Instead, these programs extend the benefits to the families in which children might be biologically unrelated to one or both parents or carers (Joslin, 2013). Furthermore, the research of Pennings (2011) shows that the welfare of children in same-sex families is not affected by the biological fact of having two parents of the same gender; instead, the well-being of such children is largely affected by the presence of social discrimination, stigmatization and by the lack of recognition of same-sex families as families in the society. Hence, legal recognition of same-sex unions as families will improve the well-being of children in these families.Overall, the arguments in defense of the traditional perception of marriage presented by Anderson are weak and can be refuted using relevant research evidence. It is essential to recognize that marriage and family as social institutions experience transformations and certain deinstitutionalization nowadays. It is also important to recognize these changes at the federal level and to create the appropriate legislation. Furthermore, as it is shown by Pennings (2011), both adult members of nontraditional family unions and children reared in such families wi ll benefit from such recognition due to the reduction of discrimination and social stigmatization.