In the past recent months, Americans have been faced with the issue of legalizing gay marriage. The Supreme Court eventually legalized gay marriage on June 26th 2015. Although, there were many against the legalization of gay marriage, there were also many supporters who spoke in support of the issue. Two supporters who stood out among the crowd were Kerry Washington and Reverend Dr. Phil Snider.
Kerry Washington, known for her role as Olivia Pope in the television series Scandal, delivered a powerful speech after being honored for her contributions to the LGBT community at the 2015 GLAAD Media Awards. Among the primary audience were fellow supporters and members of the LGBT community, such as Channing Tatum and Ellen Degenerous. The secondary …show more content…
Phil Snider approached the delivery of his message in support of gay rights in a similar structure to Washington’s, but contrasting in his content and delivery. Snider’s speech is structured into three parts: Attention, Problem, and Action. For the purpose of analyzing his speech and it’s impacting message, I will analyze his literal statements in chronological order, disregarding the irony he identifies in the conclusion of his speech. His attention step introduced himself a reverend who was born and raised in Springfield, Missouri, which establishes his credibility as a religious individual and a fellow member of the Springfield community. He states that he is “in support of this [LGBT] ordinance” and follows to say that he is “worr[ied] about the future of the city” which relates his worries to the audience because they also live in the same city. He then continues to say “Any accurate reading of the bible goes against the plain truth of the word of god” which discredits any opposing interpretation of The Bible. Snider states “The step of gay rights is but another stepping stone toward the immorality and lawlessness…” to persuade that promoting gay rights should go against their values. Snider then presents a fallacy in his argument by addressing that “It’s not that we don’t care about homosexuals. But it’s that our rights will be taken away, and unchristian views will be forced on us and our children.” The fallacy is categorized under a red herring because he does not address the claim but rather changes the subject of caring about homosexuals to unchristian views being forced on the children. Snider then states that ‘every good substantial, bible believing, intelligent, orthodox Christian can read the word of god and know what is happening is not god.” The statement seeks to persuade anyone that falls into anyone of those categories to adopt his values or else they are considered the opposite of those categories. This statement is very effective
Kerry Washington, known for her role as Olivia Pope in the television series Scandal, delivered a powerful speech after being honored for her contributions to the LGBT community at the 2015 GLAAD Media Awards. Among the primary audience were fellow supporters and members of the LGBT community, such as Channing Tatum and Ellen Degenerous. The secondary …show more content…
Phil Snider approached the delivery of his message in support of gay rights in a similar structure to Washington’s, but contrasting in his content and delivery. Snider’s speech is structured into three parts: Attention, Problem, and Action. For the purpose of analyzing his speech and it’s impacting message, I will analyze his literal statements in chronological order, disregarding the irony he identifies in the conclusion of his speech. His attention step introduced himself a reverend who was born and raised in Springfield, Missouri, which establishes his credibility as a religious individual and a fellow member of the Springfield community. He states that he is “in support of this [LGBT] ordinance” and follows to say that he is “worr[ied] about the future of the city” which relates his worries to the audience because they also live in the same city. He then continues to say “Any accurate reading of the bible goes against the plain truth of the word of god” which discredits any opposing interpretation of The Bible. Snider states “The step of gay rights is but another stepping stone toward the immorality and lawlessness…” to persuade that promoting gay rights should go against their values. Snider then presents a fallacy in his argument by addressing that “It’s not that we don’t care about homosexuals. But it’s that our rights will be taken away, and unchristian views will be forced on us and our children.” The fallacy is categorized under a red herring because he does not address the claim but rather changes the subject of caring about homosexuals to unchristian views being forced on the children. Snider then states that ‘every good substantial, bible believing, intelligent, orthodox Christian can read the word of god and know what is happening is not god.” The statement seeks to persuade anyone that falls into anyone of those categories to adopt his values or else they are considered the opposite of those categories. This statement is very effective