Akada1

Ajisa Akada
Chapter 7 Respond
English 102
6 February 2015
Controversial topic: Gay marriage
Position: I am in favor of gay marriage.
Working Thesis: In order to overcome the obstacles to gay marriage in America, citizens must
dispel false beliefs that have led to injustices in law, prejudicial social norms, and religious
intolerance.
1. Exordium
A. Are homosexual people inferior to heterosexual individuals?
Absolutely not. There are ample examples of high achieving homosexuals.
ex) Chris Hughes (co-founder of Facebook), Tim Cook (Apple Inc., CEO), Cynthia
Nixon (actress), Amber Heard (bisexual (actress/model)), Frank Ocean (singersongwriter and rapper)
2. Narratio
A. Homosexual people are insulted, scorned, discriminated against, and suffer violence.
B. Once people figured out the person is gay, they start to look at him/her in a different
way.
C. Homosexuals often feel as if they are being looked at as a different category of living
creature.
3. Partitio
A. Prejudice exists based on sexual orientation.
B. Systemic/legal barriers to full acceptance
C. Social norms create barriers
D. Religious intolerance
E. People need to gain a better understanding of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender).
4. Confirmatio
A. Individual sexuality consists of
a. Physical sexuality: appearance
b. Psychological sexuality
B. Authorities
a. President Barack Obama in his second inaugural address
Our Journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like
anyone else under the law for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love
we commit to one another must be equal as well.
C. Personal/Societal emotions
a. Assume you like goods of Dolce & Gabbana. However, you found out the
founders Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana are gay. Do you change your
mind and hate them even if you love their goods for a long time?

Akada2

5. Peroratio: conclusion
Rogerian and Invitational perspective
1. Introduction
A. Working thesis: Pro and anti-gay marriage American citizens agree when it comes to
strengthening the nation, maintaining order, and avoiding conflict with Christian
beliefs.
B. Individual sexuality consists of
a. Physical sexuality: appearance
b. Psychological sexuality
2. Contexts The merits of suppressing homosexuality (argument against own
beliefs)/common ground beliefs
A. Purpose of systemic/legal barriers to full acceptance: Gay marriage, workplace
discrimination, housing and purchasing discrimination
a. Strengthening society (Common Ground)
B. Anti-gay societal views- how they came about and justifications
a. Maintaining order in Society (Common Ground)
C. Religious beliefs about the morality of heterosexuality
a. Understanding Gods position (Common Ground)
3. Writers position Gay marriage brings America closer to its ideal
A. Cannot judge whether it is unproductive or productive
a. Is a couple who decide that they do not have babies unproductive? No.
b. You realized your girlfriend cannot get pregnant. Do you break up with her saying
because she is unproductive? No.
B. President Barack Obama in his second inaugural address
Our Journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone
else under the law for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit
to one another must be equal as well.
C. Gay marriage does not have any impact on traditional marriage
D. For every biblical passage that can be interpreted as condemning homosexuality there
are passages about God as the ultimate judge and love being the greatest of all
principles.
4. Benefit to opponent
A. Society only becomes stronger and more stable when citizens are able to pursue
happiness, and diverse populations add new perspectives to old ones.
Compared to Classical Oration, in Rogerians argument structure the opposing viewpoint
becomes bulk of the structure. I need to stand in the oppositions shoes, understand, and state the
opposite viewpoint accurately and fully. If I have the intention of finding points of compromise
or common ground, instead of the intent of winning the opposition over to my viewpoint
completely, Rogerian argument would be the obvious choice. If the audience opposes my

Akada3

viewpoint, but is willing to compromise, Rogerians argument structure will work because I
show respect for the opposing view. However, if my intent is to win my audience over to my idea
completely, classical orations constructed from six parts will work better. I would need to use
inductive and deductive reasoning to dismantle the counterargument and to build and support my
own position.