Gay Marriages

For or Against?

When you read an article, you often wonder what the author is trying to communicate to the world and if it makes a difference in the mind of the public. Authors use writing as a way of talking to the world about present issues and their thoughts on why you should be on a particular side of a debate. Certain tactics are used in every article to try to gain the reader's support, but not all are successful. David Orland, the author of The Deceit of Gay Marriage, and Eddie Thompson, author of The Argument Against Gay Marriage, are opposing viewpoints dealing with the issue of gays and lesbians being able to legally marry. Orland contradicts himself throughout the article by using personal experiences to express his views to his audience, while Thompson uses aggression, popular opinion, and questions as his method of persuasion.

David Orland's article starts off by recognizing how he came to his opinion on the subject, which might be a little misleading to the reader. As he begins the article, it is easy to believe that he is against same-sex marriages, but it is exactly the opposite. He uses a personal experience he had with his girlfriend (a supporter of gay marriages), to explain how he came about supporting gays' rights to marry. In the article, Orland states, "Observing these developments from the sidelines- perhaps remembering that very unpleasant Sunday two years ago- I seem to find myself defending the unpopular side of the issue more and more frequently" (Orland 3). His opinion seems too easily influenced by his girlfriend. He contradicts himself throughout the entire article because he gives legitimate arguments for both sides of the issue causing the audience to have mixed feelings. Also, Orland uses a weak sympathetic tone to try to capture the audience, which causes further confusion.

In the article, Arguments Against Gay Marriages, Eddie Thompson speaks with a "matter of factly" tone that instantly draws the reader in. Even though he conveys his arguments in a condescending tone, the audience does not feel threatened or attacked. Given his arguments are logical and his wordplay initiates a feeling of trust, there are some hints of sarcasm that may cause a negative reaction within the reader. When he quotes, "They already have the right to participate in aberrant behavior, but that isn't enough" (Thompson 3), gives the impression of him being narrow-minded and ignorant on the subject. When authors bring emotion into their writings, it automatically makes it biased. Another tactic he used was justifying his point through questions and using "what ifs". The answers to all the questions asked by Thompson are extremely obvious, as if he puts them there to further prove his point. He also stretches to make reference to the Christian faith to strengthen his argument by using religion as his ally as he claims the obvious, "the truth of the matter is marriage is a sacred union ordained by God," (Thompson 3). He uses cold hard facts in this article, but it still leaves room for debating. There are many techniques used to grab your attention, and maybe change your mind.

There are many differences in the way that these two articles were written. Orland starts his off by telling an anecdote involving how he came about his views, which consists