Sarah Reyner

October 4, 2012
Critical Response to Kristen Deterdings Critical Response
Gay marriage is looked in an unorthodox manner as the original author Maggie
Gallager argues the negative impacts that will be produced on children of this nation if
legal unisex companionship were to be eradicated. In response to this argument,
Kristen Deterding: the analyzer, believes that Gallager contradicts herself numerous
times throughout the essay and does not provide enough evidence to support her points
as she makes arguments against unisex marriage. Though Deterding, for the most part,
agrees with Gallagers statements, she believes that her tactics were not appropriate for
the argument.
Gallager provides every angle of the argument of gay marriage, in respect to
children, in order to eliminate any counter arguments. She does not contradict herself,
she merely states what the opposing argument is. After giving full detail of all sides of
the issue, she gives her opinion in a blunt, straight-forward manner. The idea that
children need both a mother and father figure is the driving force behind the argument.
This opinion is never concealed within her essay, she only provides opposite opinions of
other people, which is what Deterding could have confused for contradiction.
As Deterding quotes Gallagers statement Marriage is the fundamental, crosscultural institution for bridging the male-female divide so that children have loving,
committed mothers and fathers, she believes that there is not enough supporting
evidence to prove this point. However, this is the driving idea behind the essay.
Gallager numerously backs the idea of children having the mothers and fathers as the
purpose behind marriage up throughout the entire text. Some examples include Samesex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for
families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers, Marriage is
the place where having children is not only tolerated but welcomed and encouraged,
because it gives children mothers and fathers, and The marriage idea is that children
need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an obligation
to shape their sexual behavior so as to give their children stable families in which to
grow up. Evidently, there is a surplus of evidence to back Gallagers intentions.
What Deterding failed to mention was that Gallager only provided one argument
against the idea of same-sex marriage. The entire essay revolved around the
importance of providing a mother and father to children. Though this is a valid point, her
argument was one dimensional. She did not mention the tradition and value that
marriage has, and with the legalization of gay marriage, this sanction would be lost.

She additionally does not mention that the ideas endorsed by the government will be
taught to children (future generations) as a perfectly legal and normal thing to do. Yes,
the mental instability that children receive when not having both sexes of parents is
significant, but the ideas that will be installed in their minds if gay marriage is enacted
will most definitely be disastrous.