You are on page 1of 9

Richard 1

Janelle Richard
ENG 112-78
Instructor Connie Douglas
Rhetorical Analysis Draft
16 September 2014
Same Sex, Same Rights
When reflecting on the most talked about and controversial issues that are argued about
in the United States today, what comes to mind? Many of you might consider the ever-sopopular conflict about whether the decision of abortion should be left in the hands of the mother
or in the hands of the government. Others may contemplate whether or not the medicinal and/or
recreational use of Marijuana should be legalized in America. One extremely debatable matter of
contention that is heavily talked about in todays society provokes the question: should gay
marriage be legalized? Gay marriage, or same-sex marriage, is marriage shared by two people of
the same gender. Two articles were released in 2012, one in favor of the legalization of same-sex
marriage, titled "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal", and one in disfavor, entitled "Gay Marriage
Should Not Be Legal". James Kellard, who is in favor of the legalization of gay marriage, is a
"writer of news articles, political analyses, and book and travel reviews" (Kellard). While Peter
Sprigg, an individual who is not for the legalization of homosexuals marrying, is "Senior Fellow
for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, a non-profit organization that advocates for
faith, family, and freedom in public policy and public opinion" (Sprigg). Each author provides
his personal beliefs and reasoning on the issue, which seems to be intended for an audience who
may be on the fence with their own conclusions relating to this controversial subject.

Richard 2
The content of the article written in favor of the issue, "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal",
addresses various ideas and issues on the basis of protecting the institution of marriage, religion
in relation to same-sex marriage, and the absence of a constitutional basis for banning gay
marriage. Rather than appealing to logos, or logic, James Kellard chooses to appeal to pathos, the
emotions of the reader. Although the inclusion of statistics or "hard" facts is lacking, Kellard
practices the successful approach of answering questions with other logical and appropriate
questions which are extremely thought provoking. An example in Kellard's article is when he is
discussing religion in relation to gay marriage. The author states, "Some will say that since gay
marriage is against their religious beliefs it is a violation of their freedom of religion. The same
argument can be made for the homosexual though. Since the beliefs of religious conservatives
(generally) are not their [homosexuals'] beliefs, doesn't that violate homosexuals' freedom of
religion?" (Kellard) There are many other instances where Kellard uses this same rhetorical
question approach, and each question he asks is both appropriate and sensible in response to the
counter arguments he is opposing.
James Kellard organizes his article in an appropriate and successful manner. He includes
subtitles that provide the gist of each argument he will be refuting. Several of these subtitles
include: Protecting the institution of marriage, protecting children, and the people versus the
courts. Kellard addresses several of the arguments made against the legalization of same-sex
marriage and fires back with powerful and rhetorical questions and comments which ultimately
prove each point he is trying to make. For example, James Kellard brings light to the belief of
those in disfavor of gay marriage which states we need to protect the institution of marriage. He
uses a great counter-argument by claiming, "There are people who marry for money, non-sexual
companionship, and even health insurance, do these reasons also threaten the institution of

Richard 3
marriage? ... Of course what makes the 'protecting the institution of marriage' argument so
ridiculous is that the divorce rate in the US is now over 50 percent. If we really want to protect
marriage shouldn't we outlaw divorce?" (Kellard) Although James Kellard's emotional approach
is his strength in the article, it could also be considered his weakness. For those who appreciate
emotional reasoning in contrast to logical reasons, Kellard's essay is very strong. The reader
could even argue for an appeal to pathos to be the most beneficial when arguing for such an
emotional topic such as marriage. However, individuals who prefer solid facts and statistics to
opinions and reasoning might not find this article to be as powerful.
Nonetheless, there still remain the individuals who would be considered adversaries to
James Kellard, one being Peter Sprigg. His article, "Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal", has the
completely opposite viewpoint on same-sex marriage. Despite Sprigg's somewhat logical appeal
to the matter that provides some facts and statistics, his article does not appear to be as strong as
James Kellard's. Peter heavily uses logical fallacies to "aid" him in his arguments, mainly the
"slippery slope" fallacy, which "occurs when a person argues that one thing will inevitably result
from another" (Kirszner, Mandell). To illustrate, while discussing the idea he has that birth rates
will fall if we allow for gay marriage (a "slippery slope" logical fallacy in itself), Sprigg states,
"Extending the benefits and status of 'marriage' to couples who are intrinsically incapable of
natural procreation (i.e. , two men or two women) would dramatically change the social meaning
of the institution... The likely long-term result would be that fewer such relationships would be
formed, fewer such couples would choose to procreate, and fewer babies would be born"
(Kellard). The author seems to have a "what if..?" mentality throughout his argument, which
does not make for a very compelling opposition.

Richard 4
Sprigg's article also has a very serious and pessimistic tone. When the word "marriage" or
any other language pertaining to the relationships of same-sex couples is used, Peter makes it a
point to use quotations around the term. This simple action gives the reader a feeling that Sprigg
does not take the idea of marriage as a serious thing when it relates to homosexual couples,
which can definitely be taken offensively. Peter uses the same organization that James Kellard
used in his article, in which he provides subtopics relating to the main issue at hand along with
arguments supporting them. A few examples of subtopics that Sprigg provides are: Fewer people
would marry, fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful, and fewer children
would be raised by a married mother and father. Nonetheless, the essence of each point made is
based solely on predictions.
For instance, Sprigg proclaims that freedom of conscience and religious liberty will be
threatened if same-sex marriage is legalized, and he goes on to say, "Organizations might be
denied government grants or aid otherwise available to faith-based groups, they might be denied
access to public facilities for events, and they might even have their tax-exempt status removed"
(Kellard). The key word here is might. Sprigg is merely assuming when he makes these claims,
and we all know what they say about people who assume. This same mindset was most likely
prevalent in the times when issues like the desegregation of schools were being argued. There
were probably people just like Peter on the opposing side who kept asking and wondering,
"What if this happens, or what if that happens?" The question that should be asked is how do we
know if we do not try? This prediction-based approach to the issue at hand does not stand for a
strong argument, which is a great weakness in the writer's article. The use of statistics and facts
does add some back bone and is a strength to Peter's argument, however they are overshadowed
by his ignorant predictions.

Richard 5
Janelle Richard
ENG 112-78
Instructor Connie Douglas
Rhetorical Analysis Final
17 September 2014
Same Sex, Same Rights
When reflecting on the most talked about and controversial issues argued about in the
United States today, what comes to mind? Many of you might consider the ever-so-popular
conflict about whether the decision of abortion should be left in the hands of the mother or in the
hands of the government. Others may contemplate whether or not the medicinal and/or
recreational use of Marijuana should be legalized in America. One extremely debatable matter of
contention heavily talked about in todays society provokes the question: should gay marriage be
legalized? Gay marriage, or same-sex marriage, is marriage shared by two people of the same
gender. Two articles were released in 2012, one in favor of the legalization of same-sex
marriage, titled "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal", and one in disfavor, entitled "Gay Marriage
Should Not Be Legal". James Kellard, who is a supporter of the legalization of gay marriage, is a
"writer of news articles, political analyses, and book and travel reviews" (Kellard). While Peter
Sprigg, an individual who is not for the legalization of homosexuals marrying, is "Senior Fellow
for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, a non-profit organization that advocates for
faith, family, and freedom in public policy and public opinion" (Sprigg). Both authors provide
their personal beliefs and ideas pertaining to the issue, leaving the reader to decide who has the
better argument.

Richard 6
The content of the article written in favor of the issue, "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal",
addresses various ideas and issues on the basis of protecting the institution of marriage, religion
in relation to same-sex marriage, and the absence of constitutional grounds for banning gay
marriage. Rather than appealing to logos, or logic, James Kellard chooses to appeal to pathos, the
emotions of the reader. Although the inclusion of statistics or "hard" facts is lacking, Kellard
embraces the approach of answering antagonistic questions with other logical and appropriate
questions which the audience found to be both attention grabbing and thought provoking. An
example in Kellard's article where he demonstrates this approach is when he discusses religion in
relation to gay marriage. The author states, "Some will say that since gay marriage is against
their religious beliefs it is a violation of their freedom of religion. The same argument can be
made for the homosexual though. Since the beliefs of religious conservatives (generally) are not
their [homosexuals'] beliefs, doesn't that violate homosexuals' freedom of religion?" (Kellard)
The author exhibits this rhetorical questioning aspect throughout his article, and each question he
challenges is both appropriate and sensible in response to the counter arguments he is opposing.
James Kellard organizes his article in an appropriate and successful manner. He includes
subtitles providing the gist of each argument he will be refuting. Several of these subtitles
include: Protecting the institution of marriage, protecting children, and the people versus the
courts. Kellard addresses several of the arguments made against the legalization of same-sex
marriage and fires back with powerful and rhetorical questions and comments which ultimately
prove each point he is attempting to make. For example, James Kellard brings light to the belief
of those in disfavor of gay marriage which declares we need to protect the institution of
marriage. The author poses a strong counter-argument by claiming, "There are people who marry
for money, non-sexual companionship, and even health insurance, do these reasons also threaten

Richard 7
the institution of marriage? ... Of course what makes the 'protecting the institution of marriage'
argument so ridiculous is that the divorce rate in the US is now over 50 percent. If we really want
to protect marriage shouldn't we outlaw divorce?" (Kellard) Although a weakness present in
Kellard's article is the absence of statistics which can greatly aid in proving one's point, the
strength which makes Kellard's point of view so powerful is his strategy of addressing the
opposition with captivating questions and counter-arguments seeking the stimulation of the
audience's mind so they can truly reflect on their own thoughts and understanding of the
controversy in discussion.
Nonetheless, the opposing stance of constituting gay marriage must also be considered
when determining what is and is not just. As the title portrays, "Gay Marriage Should Not Be
Legal" is an article written by Peter Sprigg in disapproval of same-sex marriage. Despite Sprigg's
somewhat logical appeal to the matter by providing some facts and statistics to support his
points, there also exists ignorance and close-mindedness amidst the outlook he has on the issue.
For instance, Peter heavily uses logical fallacies to aid him in is arguments, mainly the "slippery
slope" fallacy, which "occurs when a person argues that one thing will inevitably result from
another" (Kirszner, Mandell). To illustrate, while discussing the belief stating birth rates will fall
if we allow for gay marriage (a "slippery slope" logical fallacy in itself), Sprigg claims,
"Extending the benefits and status of 'marriage' to couples who are intrinsically incapable of
natural procreation (i.e. , two men or two women) would dramatically change the social meaning
of the institution... The likely long-term result would be that fewer such relationships would be
formed, fewer such couples would choose to procreate, and fewer babies would be born"
(Kellard). The author appears to have this same "what if..?" mentality all throughout his
argument, which does not make for a very compelling opposition.

Richard 8
Peter uses the same organization that James Kellard used in his article, in which he
provides a flow of subtopics relating to the main issue at hand along with arguments supporting
them. A few examples of subtopics/opinions that Sprigg discusses on the basis of allowing for
same-sex marriage are: Fewer people would marry, fewer people would remain monogamous
and sexually faithful, and fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
Nonetheless, the essence of each point made is based solely on predictions. As an example,
Sprigg proclaims freedom of conscience and religious liberty will be threatened if same-sex
marriage is legalized and goes on to say, "Organizations might be denied government grants or
aid otherwise available to faith-based groups, they might be denied access to public facilities for
events, and they might even have their tax-exempt status removed" (Kellard). The key word here
is might. Sprigg is merely assuming when he makes these claims, and this prediction-based
approach to the issue at hand does not stand for a very strong argument. Sprigg's article does
include the strength that Kellard's article does not: statistics. However, the present yet minimal
amount of statistics provided are overshadowed by claims that are only backed up by mere
assumptions of potential outcomes, and we have all heard what is to be said about those who
assume.
In the end, the audience feels that it is more than safe to say that James Kellard provides a
much more effective and powerful argument than that which is given by Peter Sprigg. The
rhetorical questioning dynamic that is evident throughout Kellard's article forms to make for a
much more effective argument than the substance-lacking predictions of Peter Sprigg. Kellard's
article is not made up of his own personal opinions and beliefs stated as facts, rather he infuses
his values into questions for the reader that allows the audience to truly think about and decide
for themselves whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized in the United States. After

Richard 9
reading and comparing each article to one another there is no doubt that James Kellard's
argument is significantly more persuasive and effective than the weak assumptions presented in
Peter Sprigg's article. In summation, the argument in favor of the legalization of same-sex
marriage has greatly persuaded the reader in contrast to the fragile dispute presented against the
constitution of gay marriage.

You might also like