Grant-Davie's article was a lot like the one we had to read for Monday's class. Exigence is something not the way it should be. There is a change waiting to be made. With my visual argument it is between church and state. The law specifically states there should be a separation between church and state, however there is not when it comes to gay marriage.
I really like how Bitzer defines the audience as being able to settle the exigence: "those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change" (105). He also describes constraints as "persons, events, objects, and relations which are parts of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence" (105).
The discourse in my visual argument is the fact of the law stating church and state are separate institutions but that is not the case with gay marriage. This discourse is needed because in society we have been growing over the years to accept different ways of life. Being homosexual used to be ridiculed very highly, when today we are much more accepting of different view points. The goal of the discourse is to possibly legalize gay marriage, and for the audience to realize we may have opposing ideas and beliefs but as we live our lives we should let others live theirs. The rhetor(s) of the situation would be the federal government and the law passed. I would say the audience is the people of America and the constraints would be some Americans don't believe in homosexuality. They do not want to tarnish the sacred act of marriage by letting two men get married. This is a big constraint within the issue of church and state.
You state the rhetor(s) of the situation are the federal government and the law passed. The purpose is to try to sway citizens to feel they do not have the right to tell lesbians and gays they should not be able to marry. This doesn't quite make sense to me. Federal government lawmakers are representatives of the people. They don't put out ads like this to sway the people who voted them into office. They go with what the people want to make each individual's voice heard and so they get reelected.
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you got the picture from, but my initial thought was the rhetor was an organization comprised of homosexuals promoting the right to marry whomever one chooses. Their purpose is to stress the idea that state and church are separate, so people and lawmakers need to take their personal views of marriage out of government. I feel like the ad could also be reinforcing the idea the direction of church and state really are going their separate ways, especially with more states beginning to legalize gay marriage. It could almost be a little bit a celebratory ad. The audience with this would be people and the state/federal governments to remind them they should be thinking of the rights of the individual, not their personal beliefs. Constraints would be, are the people willing to listen to the ad and keep an open mind. Are people willing to change.