Understanding Rhetorical Structures, Essay Example

Rhetorical Analysis: Same sex Marriages in America article

Same sex marriage has recently become law across United States of America meaning that it is legal for a man to marry a man and a woman a woman. Arguments coming from the audience of gays and lesbians are that there should be marriage equality in the country whereby same sex unions or couples should be given the equal legal privileges as persons of the opposite sex unions. After the announcement was made a New York Times reporter captioned the news in an article entitled, ‘Texas County will issue same-sex marriage reversing earlier stance.’ Further, this article outlined the position expected to be adopted by clerk of Hood Count, southwest of Fort Worth clerk, Katie Lang (not to conduct any same-sex marriages since it was her constitutional right and against her Christian belief (Reuters, 2015)

However, within the portfolio of county clerk is ensuring that staff issue licenses in accordance with the law. The rhetoric structure in context of this reporting lies within the reporters impacting audiences with the new development of Texas complying with the laws, but the country clerk while engaging staff in the compliance process is distancing herself from executing the action. This action influences how the argument of same sex marriage acceptance will filter through institutions within the society. Some churches do not accommodate gays and lesbians no less to marry them.

Nonetheless as the rhetoric of the issue continues to spread through communities and audiences react to the phenomenon, there are Christian churches such as Unity on the Bay in Miami Florida that have undertaken mass marriage ceremonies to celebrate the breakthrough in human civilization, as they perceive it. Rhetoric structures observed in texts  are usually  interpreted by first evaluating perceptions of the writer and audience that are being communicated. Secondly, identifying ambiguity thirdly is making sure that there are no confused ideas being transmitted and fourth applying strategies, which exposes whether the content is profound knowledge, propaganda or mere fabrication.

Clearly, the perception being highlighted as it relates to same sex marriages in the Dallas, Texas is an apprehension to the legislation due to religious reasons. The author begins the argument by projecting the rejection issue as being a state decision, but as the matter is further explained it is the county court clerk’s religious convictions that were responsible for an initial rejection, which has now been reversed. Incidentally with the recent ruling there was no alternative, but to reverse a decision that has now become legal. Therefore, the ambiguity of this rhetoric pertains to the writer making an insinuation that the decision to reverse the decision was based on good faith of court clerk, Katie Lang which is not quite a true representation of the reason for this reversal.The reader at first would think that she was the one responsible for the decision reversal when in fact it is the rule of law.

Here is where the text seems to enter into a phase of trying to confuse the reader as to whose religious conviction was responsible for the reversal. The truth is that there was no change in the clerk’s conviction regarding same-sex marriages; it was maintained by her not participating in the process. The confusion became pronounced when the caption, ‘Texas County will issue same-sex marriage reversing earlier stance,’ is read. In concluding it must be clarified if this text just propaganda a representation of the truth concerning Texas acceptance of same sex marriages while issuing licenses to do so. This is exactly how audience purpose and context affects the argument.

References

Reuters (2015).Texas County will issue same-sex marriage reversing earlier stance. New York Times