Gallagher recognizes other’s view, that same sex marriage has no bearing on traditional marriage. She says that some people believe that marriage simply grants gay couples recognition and legitimacy in the eyes of the law and the public. Gallagher however, refutes the idea of marriage as a way to legitimize love. She believes that marriage is a way of holding up a certain kind of relationship as a social ideal so that children have “loving and committed mothers an

Gallagher again tries to use logic when connecting unsuccessful marriages to lawlessness and depravity. She states, “We have seen what has happened in our communities where marriage norms have failed. […] a breakdown of social and civic order” (2). This argument may have worked had she clearly stated the relationship between failed marriage norms and “a breakdown of social and civic order” (2). It seems unlikely that this breakdown can be attributed to the failure of marriage norms without considering the socio-economic or educational background of the people of these communities. Also, she gives no examples of such communities so one might view the community and draw their own conclusions.

The core of her argument however, is that allowing gay marriage will “erode” the central meaning of marriage and family (1). Certainly, in this context erode is not the right word; revitalize maybe, expand certainly. Gallagher seems unwilling to even consider gay couples as a possible context for raising children. She believes that simply because a couple is not of composed of two people of the opposite sex, there is no way they could set a good example of a strong, loving, com

Some topics in this essay:
Maggie Gallagher, Mothers Fathers”, marriage norms, emotional appeals, mothers fathers”, , context raising children, social civic order”, mothers fathers” 2, breakdown social civic, civic order”, loving committed, highly offensive, civic order” 2, gay couples, opposing viewpoint, context raising, 2 argument,