Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What is Marriage? Question 2
Wolfson deliberately explains marriage in an extended fashion to show the great power it truly holds. He uses this time to demonstrate, not only the social bond marriage holds in that people automatically understand what marriage means and don’t question what marriage truly means, but also the extending government benefits that go with the idea of marriage. He uses the definition that it is primarily a union between two people symbolizing their love for each other and their hope that the love will last. I find that his definition and summary of its benefits its fairly accurate, but he doesn’t include the definition anti-gay groups have given. While I don’t agree with the religious argument anti-gay groups often present and I am relatively sure he doesn’t as well, it should still have been presented in the argument to make a more balanced passage. Overall, his definition of marriage greatly aided his argument and seemed to be a decently fair and balanced representation of marriage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that an alternative, opposing view is needed in his argument because it would balance his passage. But I also think that by proving aspects of this definition wrong, he would have the potential to crush opposition and make his argument stronger. Good blog. 5
Seth, when trying to define something like marriage in a context such as Wolfson presents, only one definition should be given. Of course his argument is going to be biased; that's the whole point of an argument—he's deliberately including and excluding certain information in order to convince the reader. If you were trying to argue that Bic pens are the best in the world, would you mention that they break 10% of the time?
Post a Comment