Argument Against Marriage Equality | Online Assignment Help
Short writing assignments must be no less than two hundred (200) of your own words. This means that quotations do not count against the two hundred words. I will not even read assignments shorter than the required minimum of 200 words (I use a program to monitor word-count) and you will automatically receive zero (0) points for any such assignments. I expect a professionally written essay that is well formulated, without spelling and grammatical errors. I will deduct points for sloppily written essays (see the rubric below). In your essay you should address the question posed directly and thoroughly. You do not need to waste too much space on background unless the question of the essay specifically demands such background. Do not place a title for your essay nor is there a need to copy the essay question: I know it since I composed it. Only the narrative that directly answers the essay question will count toward the 200 word count; everything else is extraneous material that you need not enter and I prefer you do not.
Assignment:
Read Carefully this question and answer all parts clearly.
Corvino claims that same-sex opponents rely on the following argument:
Argument Against Marriage Equality:
Premise 1. On average, children do better with their biological parents;
Premise 2. ???
Premise 3. ???
etc.,
————————————
Therefore,
Conclusion: We should not legally permit same-sex couples to marry.
Corvino maintains that the above argument is not cogent (i.e., valid). Corvino challenges same-sex marriage opponents to “fill in the steps” which will make the above argument valid: i.e., to add the needed premises so that the conclusion follows from Premise 1 together with the added premises.
Your task: Do you think that Gallagher’s essay succeeds to meet Corvino’s challenge? If you do think that Gallagher’s essays succeeds to meet Corvino’s challenge, then state which premises Gallagher mentions in her essay that do so. If you do not think so, then state why Gallagher’s essay fails to meet Corvino’s challenge.
I expect a professionally written essay which follows the steps outlined in this essay question.
Example of a good essay per teacher: please do not use this information just an example
Gallagher focused on marriage being about protecting children. Children are said to be protected because married men cannot have children outside of wedlock or abandon them. Gallagher implies that since the father is married, the child is guaranteed to be raised by both their biological mother and father. She also argues that being married means the parents of the child will be forced to stick around and raise the child, therefore fulfilling the child’s need to have both biological parents present. But, Corvino brought up very good arguments against the her choppy logic. One argument points out that step parents who take on the role of a parent in a heterosexual relationship are not questioned about their competency to raise and protect said child. Gallagher never mentions or elaborates why step-parent marriages seem to be exempt from her views on traditional marriage despite biological parents being the best thing for the child and anything less is unacceptable.
Corvino brings up multiple arguments that discredit the logic where children doing better with biological parents automatically means same sex marriage is wrong. Corvino mentions that Gallagher’s argument stating biological parents being best for children, does not consider the idea that children being adopted by same sex couples no longer have the option to be protected by biological parents. Those children are not wanted by their biological parents or they have been taken away from them because the biological parents are not protecting their child. Corvino says that in same sex couples, very rarely are there children who are unwanted. Gallagher fails to acknowledge that the ability of heterosexual couples to procreate is not synonymous to a couple’s ability to protect a child despite the child’s protection being her central argument.
Gallagher also fails to include artificial insemination. In same sex marriages, it is not enough to have one biological parent and a second parent who is stable. Which, again, brings the question as to why step parenting is exempt from her rationale on what marriage means in terms of procreation and the protection of a child.
Gallagher never gives clear, sound reasoning why same sex marriage should not be allowed. Her main argument about biological parents does not consider step parents, artificial insemination, or why children need to find other parents through adoption when they have biological parents.
