The issue of same-sex marriage is very controversial, to the point that it has been widely debated. As is usual in many debates, there are two sides to this issue. The first holds the orthodox point of view that marriages are only for men and women, while the other holds the liberal point of view that marriages should not be denied to gays and lesbians since all humans are created equal in the eyes of God.
In this regard, an analysis of one debate revolving around this issue is required. Two articles which tackle the issue of same-sex marriage will be analyzed in this paper: The USCCB’s Between Man And Woman: Questions And Answers About Marriage And Same-Sex Unions” and Professor Daniel C. Maguire’s article “A Catholic Defense Of Same-Sex Marriage.”
To begin, both articles aim to argue their point of view regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. Although they use almost the same instruments of argumentation and aim to get sympathy and understanding from those concerned with the issue, they differ in their concluding statements, use of rhetorical devices, and points of argumentation. Professor Maguire’s article shows how unjustifiable it is to ban same-sex marriage, as the title implies. On the other hand, the USCCB’s article argues on the opposite side and justifies why same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Thus, an overview of their argumentation is necessary in order to better analyze both sides’ presented arguments.
As mentioned earlier, both articles present differing beliefs regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. The first article, written by the USCCB, depicts the conventional stance of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, Professor Maguire’s second article presents the viewpoint of those who see same-sex marriage as a right that should not be denied to homosexuals.
Both articles aim to persuade their readers to either strengthen their current beliefs or consider accepting new perspectives.
Both articles presented their sides and tried to convince their audience by first giving a definition of what marriage is all about. It should be noted that both sides made use of the Bible as a reference in order to justify their claims. The USCCB stands firm on their belief that everything written in the Bible is right and thus must be advocated. Professor Maguire, on the other hand, has not been so rigid even though he used the same source as the USCCB.
The orthodox view argues that marriage has been established by God as a union between a man and woman who love each other and thus must be married in order to fulfill God’s will of procreation. Marriage of the same sex should not be allowed on the basis that it does not fit the description stated within the Bible. They further argue by saying that same-sex marriages go against what is stated in the Bible, and since couples of the same sex cannot engage in terms of procreation, their marriage would have no basis and thus must not be permitted.
The liberal side argues that marriage is a special union of committed friendship and does not necessitate that couples who undergo matrimony are of different sexes.
Professor Maguire argued that the Bible is simply a historical account of the lives led by people from a long time ago. Therefore, it could be a biased source for argumentation if one is not careful or open-minded enough to accept these facts. He also emphasized how different ideologies can be found in the Bible, and thus one must be wise enough to see the distinction and know which contradictory point of view to believe. To further justify his claims, he used slavery as an example.
In ancient times, slavery was considered acceptable and fathers had no qualms about selling their daughters into slave markets. However, as cultures evolved over time, people began to see the immorality in using other humans as objects. As a result, earlier presuppositions regarding slavery held by previous popes were eliminated by their contemporaries.
Professor Maguire used women as an example to further illustrate his point. He claimed that the Bible stated that women ought to be docile to their husbands and must abide by all their wishes, making the distinction between slaves and women very minimal. However, nowadays, women do not have to be treated as slaves by their husbands since rules about equality have been implemented in contrast to the rules made by our predecessors.
Using the same line of argumentation, Professor Maguire claimed that same-sex marriages should be treated in the same way as slavery. Although same-sex marriage is not yet accepted during this time by the Vatican, there will come a time when a new pope would be more open to the idea of same-sex marriage compared to the current one.
However, he still pursued his belief that same-sex marriages should be treated at the same level as other issues discussed within Catholic Religion. For instance, there are pacifist Catholics who believe war should be avoided at all costs while others believe some wars are justifiable.
Professor Maguire argued that we should regard issues such as same-sex marriage in a similar manner. There are now Protestants and Jewish theologians who believe that prohibiting same-sex marriages is unnecessary.
He suggested letting those who believe it is a sin pursue their beliefs but allow those who think otherwise pursue theirs.
It is evident from the overview presented earlier in this paper that both article writers utilized almost identical methods to support their beliefs. However, there is a significant difference in the rhetorical strategies employed by these writers. Firstly, their target audience and subject matter were similar. Nevertheless, the techniques used by each writer in composing their articles differed.
We should all focus on the choice of words made by Professor Maguire in contrast to that of the USCCB. While the USCCB used denotative language, Professor Maguire employed connotative language. This claim is based on the fact that the USCCB wrote their article in a straightforward manner, targeting their audience’s knowledge directly. One can also deduce from reading the article that they did not use emotional appeals to support their arguments. Instead, they appealed to logic and reason.
On the contrary, Professor Maguire’s article goes against logic as it utilizes emotions to appeal to its audience. It is important to note that connotative language is a rhetorical device that writers can use to appeal directly to their readers’ emotions. Additionally, the article reflects religious stereotypes, which falls under the use of connotative language. Therefore, Professor Maguire not only aimed to convey his own prejudices but also assumed that his audience shared them.
Both articles utilized different tones to communicate with their audiences. The USCCB adopted a formal tone in conveying their message, avoiding the use of delicate pronouns such as I” and “you.” (Haslam) This tone created a distance between the USCCB and their readers, portraying an expectation that the readers would be serious and well-educated.
In contrast to the formal tone used by the USCCB, Professor Maguire employed an informal tone using personal pronouns such as I” and “you”. He also indicated things he assumed his readers would readily accept. The point of view used by both writers is also contrasting. As mentioned earlier, the article written by the USCCB did not aim to appeal to emotions but instead used a formal tone to convey their message. Therefore, it can be deduced that they employed an objective point of view in writing the article while being careful not to appeal emotionally. This contrasts with what Professor Maguire did since his article aimed to appeal emotionally. It can also be inferred from his article that he employed a subjective point of view and included some of his own analysis and comments.
In terms of support for their arguments, the USCCB relied solely on the Bible. This means that they based their article on facts from this source alone. It is important to note that Professor Maguire also referenced the Bible to convey his beliefs, but he did not rely solely on it for support. Instead, he used other forms of support such as examples, descriptions, and expert opinions. For example, he used slavery and the treatment of women as examples to further his belief that same-sex marriage should not be prohibited. He also compared different popes using descriptions to make his point. Additionally, he included quotations from experts in his article.
Lastly, the USCCB used a deductive method to pursue their argument, while Professor Maguire employed an inductive method. We can see that Professor Maguire used an inductive method by reading the objections he presented in the article, where he gave specific examples to support his conclusion. On the other hand, the USCCB began with generalized instances before moving on to specific instances.
Thus, in conclusion, both writers had similarities in their subject matter and references used to support their arguments. However, their rhetorical devices differed greatly. While there are many rhetorical devices available for argumentation, this paper only analyzes the choice of words, tone, point of view, types of support and argumentation used by the writers (Harris, 2005). By examining these devices it is clear that both writers employed different strategies with one appealing more to pathos than logos. From this analysis it is evident that the article produced by the USCCB is more logical and preferable compared to Maguire’s use of emotional appeals. Relying on emotions to persuade people is fallacious and therefore the USCCB’s use of rhetorical devices is superior. The USCCB assumed their audience was serious and well-educated while Professor Maguire assumed his audience shared his biases.
Reference:
Harris, Robert A. published A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices” in 2005.
Haslam, Jill. Rhetorical Devices.
Jan.ucc.nau.edu offers a comprehensive guide on Rhetorical Analysis.
Maguire, Professor Daniel C. wrote A Catholic Defense of Same Sex Marriage” in 2006.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a document in 2003 titled Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions.
