Rhetorical Analysis Assignment: Gay Marriage - Essay Example

Rhetorical Analysis Assignment: Gay Marriage This argument in favor of gay marriage appears to be rhetorically successful. It uses logic and appeals to reason to make its case. Its argument sets up a number of premises and explains how the premises are related to one another. It provides a fair amount of evidence to back up its claims. It does not appeal to emotion, which is often considered to be a rhetorical fallacy. Overall, it works well. This article appears in the Economist magazine, around seven years ago.

This magazine has a reputation of being sensible and deeply researched. It is considered credible. The reputation of the opinion is important. This is not some bloggers opinion. The article uses historical analogy to make its argument. It suggests that gays are comparable to blacks in that both have been discriminated against. In the past it was not legal for a black person to marry a white person. The author suggests that gays are similarly discriminated against. Homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.

Equality, a principle many people believe in, demands that gays be allowed to marry. The author attacks the rhetoric of opponents of gay marriage. The premise that gays will destroy the institution of marriage does not make sense, the author says. He looks at the evidence and uses logic to determine that most gays want to get married because the institution of marriage is meaningful to them, as it is to many other people. When gays are compared to people who get divorced easily or who cheat on their partners, they appear as though they will improve the institution rather than desecrate it.

Overall, this is a sensible, well-argued article. It is written to an appropriate standard and uses strong rhetorical devices to communicate its message. The word choice is at all time appropriate. One of the key elements of its argument is to stick to logic rather than to appeal to emotion.Article usedThe Economist. “The case for gay marriage.” Feb 26, 2004. http://www.economist.com/node/2459758