By logically explaining his point of view, Robert Sokolowski is attempting to persuade us by giving us reasons for accepting the conclusion that the same sex marriage should not be legalized. He wants us to accept his conclusion by following the general structure of an argument in the form of propositions and statements in support of a claim.
Sokolowski’s arguments are valid because he based them on true premises. His final conclusion is therefore true because a valid argument cannot be based on true premises and have a false conclusion. He talks about the threat of same sex marriages and about the effects of gay marriages when legalized. He develops four premises in his argument about the dangers of the same sex marriages. The first argument says that if same-sex marriage is allowed, it will ruin the traditional perception that marriage is defined by procreation (Sokolowski, 2004). Without this traditional perception, marriage will only be defined as just the exchange of sex. This is not the case since, traditionally, the end of marriage is said to be procreation. He supports his argument of the ‘end’ by stating that it is obtained apart from our intentions and thoughts. ‘End’ is how things function when working according to the definitions of nature and thus, when procreation occurs, it became the end product of sex. Sex itself is not the ‘end’ because it is in our thoughts.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
His second argument is that if marriage happens only because of friendship and love which are in our thoughts, then any group of people can come together and marry just to reap the benefits that marriage might offer including same-sex individuals. With this idea of friendship, people of any sex might come together to reap financial benefits, or a couple of two or more people may be married because they are friends. In this case, Sokolowski states that marriage has been separated from reproduction (Sokolowski, 2004). He further asserts that if this is the point, then marriage can be separated from sex in totality. Thus any two people can get married as long as they are staying together. His conclusion at this point is that if homosexuals are allowed to live together as couples, then people already related by familial bonds i.e. nephews, uncles, and aunts should not be discriminated against when they live as married couples.
The third proposition is that if we are against the idea that marriage and procreation should go hand in hand, then we will be going against the idea that nature determines the good in order to function properly. People are now involved in sex thus making this perception wrong because sex is the power to procreate. Procreation will be the essential issue in defining marriage.
Sokolowski’s final idea is that the characteristic of marriage is not mutual love but the procreation of life. He therefore claims that the state does not establish legal categories for different forms of friendships but it does so for marriage. He explains this by explaining the interests states have in a family. The state is interested in continuation of a population for the survival of body politics (Sokolowski, 2004). The state has an interest in a society’s next generation. By generating laws governing marriages, the state itself has already recognized that the end of marriage is reproduction. According to Sokolowski, by allowing same-sex marriages, the society will have taken away the actual meaning of marriage and what it stands for. His arguments are therefore valid because he bases them on true premises. His statement forms were logically valid and thus true under all interpretations.