Colin Garlock
English 191
Section 17
Jack Hennes
October 15, 2012
Social Warfare
Sexual orientation and marital bias
is the most recent form of social warfare. It is in the forefront of debate and
conversation even though some say that it is an uncomfortable subject. Although
an uncomfortable subject there are those out there who fight for and against
this topic day after day regardless of how uncomfortable it makes some people.
The subject is gay marriage. One man on the frontline of this battle is David
Blankenhorn, a writer for the New York Times and author of the book “The Future
of Marriage” and was an active member in the proposition 8 court hearings. David
says that marriage between same sex couples is not to be condemned, instead to
be recognized as a different form of union with similar intentions.
The article starts out simply enough
with the author saying that he once opposed gay marriage on simple principles
such as lack of biological ability to create a child, and that the child has a
right to be raised by those individuals that committed to each other. Once this
is explained David goes on to say that he is a marriage advocate and that it
was time for him to switch his views on gay marriage. This ability two realize
the facts, think about what he believes and alter his opinion based on those
facts speaks wonders on his deduction abilities. Not only was this impressive
because its hard to believe that anybody would switch on a topic they were so
sure about it speaks wonders to his ethos or credibility in his topic. David
was speaking against gay marriage in the courts while proposition 8 was
becoming a law to vote over, soon after his opinions changed, as a writer for
the New York Times he is aware to how far his words travel in the hearts and
minds of her readers. Besides being a writer for the most famous magazine he is
a published author on the topic of gay marriage. Aristotle teaches that to
believe peoples influential words we have to look at three things one of them
being the credibility, whether or not this individual should be trusted and
recognized as a person with valid ideas and thoughts. David obviously meets
those guidelines as a credible source for people to follow.
Credibility or Ethos is just one of
the three rhetoric devices, another one of these is Logos or the logic behind
the arguments. The most interesting aspect to this genre of argument is that it
is difficult to misconstrue the intension of the rhetoric. The only problem is
that with social situations it hard to be very logical with opinions and
feeling because people are so sensitive. This is were David really shines with
his arguments they are easy to follow and logically sound even though it is a
subject that is heavy on opinion. The first of the three big points David makes
is that “the time for denigrating and stigmatizing same sex marriage is over,
that recognizing that same sex marriage and their children is a win for basic
fairness.” (Blankenhorn 1) After analyzing this statement it is apparent that
his point is that those who are different should not be put down for only that
reason. The point is that in our society does not put down on people on the
basis for who they are or what they believe, so on that point he is asking why
is it ok to put down on them were it has never been ok to do so before. With
every other social issue it takes time for the issues to settle and for those
who oppose eventually give way to what is right, and David is sitting and
waiting for those people to finally realize and switch like he himself has
already done. His second point was equally thought provoking and persuading. In
one word describes a reason for this Idea to be understood and that word is
comity. Mutual courtesy; civility is the meaning behind this simple word.
David’s point here is that we must all live together side by side with some
level of respect for one another’s lifestyles and choices. No one has the right
to limit each other to what we want and believe in, “taking a firm stand and
never changing is admirable but bending the knee in the name of comity is not
the same as weakness.” (Blankenhorn 1) Some would even say that’s admirable. In
any situation compromise and understanding is the only way to get to the bottom
of any difficult situation. David’s third point is the only one he prefaces by
saying and my third point, which lets the reader, know as to the importance and
profundity to the statement. Reading this it is clear that he holds his punches
and sets up this article relying heavily on this point as both a persuasive
point, and as a defensive wall to battle even the most stubborn on this
subject. The third point that he is most happy to employ is the emerging
consensus, the bubbling up of harmony in this subject. The point here being
that people are already coming around to realize that gay marriage is an
acceptable idea and practice. This point relies heavily on the fact that people
are generally conformist and want to go with the group and that so far more and
more support for gay marriage has been appearing. The younger generations have
been in favor for gay marriage although some might say they are wrong on their
merits but surely it matters.
The most surprising aspect of this
article was surely the fact that a social issue like gay marriage was lacking
in the appeal to emotion. Logos was very prevalent in this paper. Were Pathos
or appeal to emotion is very lacking although there are some strong points in
this department it is quite surprising how overwhelming the logic is and how
lacking the emotion is. The authors point may have been that emotion is over
used in this instance and was trying to use his incredible deduction skills in
a new way to approach this subject, by shining different light on the subject
maybe it would be seen or perceived just as different. The author is however
very clear when making a claim on emotion, this is very obvious because his
first real explanation using emotion says that the debate should be mostly on
the fact that marriage is to promote healthy relationships for children, so in
short marriage makes good parents. He goes on to say that the debate is not
about this at all that it is about the ludacris idea of accepting gay people as
equals, this point is very hard to swallow instantly the ideas of suppressing
people for how they feel and the way they are is fundamentally wrong as history
has shown. This point was the first example of emotion used so obviously he
knew how powerful point this was to use it at the end to make sure people
understand how emotional a topic this is. He does not use this for shock value
he says this is the case because he himself once argued this same point, and he
realized why this was not a logical fight he was fighting with emotion that was
fundamentally wrong and eventually switched. This was not his only point in the
emotion category this was just the most persuasive. Another strong appeal to
this point is that the debate over this subject was to show that the
institution of marriage is not as stable as everyone may think, but this has
not happened. This shows that people are not even recognizing this concept all
they see is to fight the people based solely on the animus and not the issues
facts and ideas. Marriage is not so stable each year more and more children are
born out of marriage so limiting this based on the fact of children is a weak
argument. Arguing that fighting gay marriage will somehow help marriage is not
a sturdy argument because if that statement were true then we would have seen
the benefits by now. His final appeal to amend this whole situation is by
saying that, the fight for gay marriage is a waste of time not only will it
eventually become acceptable but that there should be a new coalition of gay
people who want to strengthen the institution of marriage and straight people
who want to accomplish the same goal, this idea of coming together to solve the
problem instead of playing tug of war is the only way to find common ground.
When people come together to solve problems has usually resulted in mutual
benefit between both parties. And a world were everybody is happy is a utopian
idea that is appealing too most.
The analysis of this article by
using Aristotle three examples of rhetoric Logos, Pathos, and Ethos has been
very eye opening and has provokes many good ideas for gay marriage. This New
York Times writer not always in support for gay marriage but has realized that
gay people have every write to marry is obviously a well spoken, and written
advocate for this subject and is respected. He evokes emotion by playing at the
fact that we are all equal and that if it were up to you as an individual would
want the same respect they are asking for. He also made very logical arguments
about the implications and intentions of marriage and how that gay people can
be every bit as deserving of marriage as anybody else. With any form of social
issues eventually those who oppose realize why they are wrong and kick
themselves for believing what they did.
Works Cited
Blankenhorn,
David. "OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; How My View on Gay Marriage Changed." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 23 June 2012. Web. Oct. 14,
2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment