On the 26 June 2015 the world witnessed one of the most powerful global powers shift its attitudes towards same-sex marriage. The United States of America’s Supreme Court ruled, in the now infamous court case Obergefell v. Hodges, that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The significance of this event is paramount; the United States is often deemed to be one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world. While the implications of same-sex marriages for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community are favourable, there is great consternation among many Christians over the impact of this decision on the traditional definition of marriage. The Family Research Council (FRC), a conservative Christian lobby
…show more content…
Ironically, the title chosen for the pamphlet contains the term ‘slippery slope’, one of the forms of fallacy, a rhetorical device. The website “AP Glossary” defines a slippery slope fallacy is an “assumption that once started, a situation will continue to its most extreme possible outcome”. The title foreshadows the direction of the FRC’s ensuing message. The pamphlet’s copy begins with a section called “A Man and His Horse”, in which the writer—Timothy J. Dailey, PhD—describes how an un-named man from Missouri has been denied “the holy bonds of wedlock” to his “22-year-old mare named Pixel”. This absurd comparison equates bestiality with same-sex marriage, and thusly draws the conclusion that same-sex marriage threatens the traditional definition of marriage and family values. Dailey claims that if marriage is redefined, it will be “impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex—even non-human ‘partners’”. He egregiously claims “redefining marriage logically leads to the Missouri man and his mare”. In the absence of supporting evidence, Dailey’s claim cannot be considered …show more content…
His editorial article provides all four of the heuristics required in stasis theory. Boteach provides conjecture by confirming that the “decision by the Supreme Court” did occur and that it “has triggered deep division in [the] nation”. Boteach’s editorial provides the second heuristic by defining the issue as “distinction between moral law versus religious law”. While he acknowledges the religiously fundamental point of view supported by “the Bible’s use of the word ‘abomination’ to describe homosexuality”, Boteach distinguishes this from moral law outlined the second half of the Ten Commandments that “govern the relationship between man and his fellow man”, stating that one should “safeguard the rights of human beings and adjure individuals to respect one another and refrain from infringing on each other’s rights or acting deceptively”. Boteach further defines homosexuality as “a religious, rather than a moral prohibition” and identifies “heterosexual divorce” as the true threat to the American Family. Boteach addresses the third heuristic of quality when he states that he has “seen way too much homophobia in [his] life not to welcome a decision that affords gay men and women equal rights”. Boteach praises the State of Israel “for the dignity and equality it accords its gay citizens”. Finally, the fourth heuristic of policy is
Ironically, the title chosen for the pamphlet contains the term ‘slippery slope’, one of the forms of fallacy, a rhetorical device. The website “AP Glossary” defines a slippery slope fallacy is an “assumption that once started, a situation will continue to its most extreme possible outcome”. The title foreshadows the direction of the FRC’s ensuing message. The pamphlet’s copy begins with a section called “A Man and His Horse”, in which the writer—Timothy J. Dailey, PhD—describes how an un-named man from Missouri has been denied “the holy bonds of wedlock” to his “22-year-old mare named Pixel”. This absurd comparison equates bestiality with same-sex marriage, and thusly draws the conclusion that same-sex marriage threatens the traditional definition of marriage and family values. Dailey claims that if marriage is redefined, it will be “impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex—even non-human ‘partners’”. He egregiously claims “redefining marriage logically leads to the Missouri man and his mare”. In the absence of supporting evidence, Dailey’s claim cannot be considered …show more content…
His editorial article provides all four of the heuristics required in stasis theory. Boteach provides conjecture by confirming that the “decision by the Supreme Court” did occur and that it “has triggered deep division in [the] nation”. Boteach’s editorial provides the second heuristic by defining the issue as “distinction between moral law versus religious law”. While he acknowledges the religiously fundamental point of view supported by “the Bible’s use of the word ‘abomination’ to describe homosexuality”, Boteach distinguishes this from moral law outlined the second half of the Ten Commandments that “govern the relationship between man and his fellow man”, stating that one should “safeguard the rights of human beings and adjure individuals to respect one another and refrain from infringing on each other’s rights or acting deceptively”. Boteach further defines homosexuality as “a religious, rather than a moral prohibition” and identifies “heterosexual divorce” as the true threat to the American Family. Boteach addresses the third heuristic of quality when he states that he has “seen way too much homophobia in [his] life not to welcome a decision that affords gay men and women equal rights”. Boteach praises the State of Israel “for the dignity and equality it accords its gay citizens”. Finally, the fourth heuristic of policy is