Analysis of “Dearly Beloved”

Analysis of “A Lot Beloved”

Analysis of “Dearly Precious” In “Dearly Cherished” (2006 ), Cal Thomas argues that gay marital relationship should be prohibited for the “betterment of society.” He supports his argument by asserting that same-sex couples utilize the political system to their own advantage and sue those that victimize them, such as spiritual groups and companies. Thomas states, “If same-sex ‘marriage’ is permitted, no one will ever be able to say ‘no’ to anything again.” His purpose is to not legalize gay marital relationship in order to protect the standard ways of marriage and not “lose our moral sense. He employs a selection of language strategies such as metaphor, juxtaposition, and reverse to enhance his argument. He attempts to encourage those who protest gay marriage or want to be notified with an exaggerated tone. Thomas begins his essay with a quote from the conventional Christian Bible for marriage ceremony. He uses the quote to state that tradition marriage is being damaged since of same-sex marriage. Then he asserts that gay-marriage is a brand-new pattern that will pass which in every new pattern that comes we “lose our moral sense. In addition, he thinks that same-sex couples have been utilizing the political system to their advantage to attain their objective although their cry for legal marital relationship has been defeated in court various times. He indicates that religious groups would be demanded “discrimination.” To supports his argument, he uses a lawsuit case in which a an adaptation company, Catholic Charities, was sued for refusing to permit “foster kids with same-sex couples. In addition, he utilizes another case in which a polygamist in Utah submitted a suit to enable him to marry more than one better half, to assert the assumption that “if same-sex marital relationship is allowed, nobody will ever be able to say ‘no’ to anything again.” Throughout the essay, Thomas uses an exaggerated tone and interest authority, emotion, and reasoning to encourage his readers. He attract tradition and tries to develop a connection with his starting statement: “A lot precious, we are gathered together in the sight of God and before these witnesses to join this male and this female in holy marriage. He tries to invoke a sense of outrage as he specifies that “now we are told such exclusivity of maintaining marriage for men and women ‘discriminates’ versus individuals of the same-sex who wish to ‘marry’ each other.” He uses an ironical tone as he says that he “might too have mentioned the equally obvious that the sun rises on the east.” Furthermore, he appeals to reasoning as he mentions that viewpoint polls show that the nation is split between those who protest or for gay marriage.

He also appeals to feeling of infuriation when he explains that “people whose thinks about marriage are established on spiritual doctrine can anticipate claims implicating them of ‘discrimination’ must they refuse to work with somebody who is ‘married’ to an individual of the same-sex.” Thomas invokes a sensation of surprise and anger as he provides information of ministers in other countries being restricted from voicing their opinion on same-sex practice and the Catholic Charities, an adaptation agency, being threatened to “lose their state license to run the company if they did not abide by the law” of putting foster kids with same-sex couples.

In the end, he tries to instill fear with his bleak and exaggerated tone that “no one will ever be able to state ‘no’ to anything again” if gay marriage is legislated. Through his use of language techniques, Thomas establishes an argument that endeavors to define marital relationship and that undertakings to discriminate against gay marriage on the bases that it ruins the organization of marital relationship, society, and faith. Thomas uses a series of examples through similes and metaphors to communicate his function.

For example, he deduces that “we lose our ethical sense, which, like a body immune system, was developed to secure us from cultural, as well as biological viruses.” By establishing this connection, he is making the argument that our moral sense will protect us from “biological viruses” meaning HELP and impurities. He uses metaphor when he specifies that same-sex couples “would melt the glue of marriage.” He does not suggest actually melt anything, but that it would shatter the institution of marital relationship.

In addition, he employs juxtaposition and antithesis to install worry in those who are against gay marriage. For instance, he uses a short-long sentence juxtaposition as he specifies, “It won’t stop there. People whose thinks about marital relationship are established on religious doctrine can expect claims accusing them of ‘discrimination’ ought to they refuse to work with somebody who is ‘married’ to an individual of the same-sex.” His claim of claims has the impact of setting up worry. He ends with an antithesis which also has the impact of frightening the reader in addition to audience. When there is no ‘no’ to any habits, then there must be ‘yes’ to every habits.” Thomas utilizes a range of methods to boost his argument against gay marriage in order for the audience to understand that “some forms of discrimination are excellent, since they send a signal and offer an example that specific habits are to be chosen over other behaviors for the improvement of society.” At times, he overemphasizes his beliefs and potential and he likewise makes claims and forecasts. Nevertheless, he supports his argument with suits.

You Might Also Like