Phillips1

Casandra Phillips
03/17/2016
WP2 Final Draft
Zack De Piero
Psychologist, Anthropologist, and Boxing Champs Come Out To Speak About Their Views On
Gay Marriage
Gay marriage has been one of the most talked about subjects within our society for
decades now and there are so many views about it. Today I will be looking at the way
psychologist, anthropologist, and the athletic world look at gay marriage and what they think
about it. While some people strongly believe that gay marriage is a biological attribute others
might consider it to be a personal choice or preference. Regardless of how the marriage came to
be, homosexual, gay, lesbian, and the queer communities are very much judged and talked about
frequently. I will be using an article called Answers to Your Questions about Same-Sex
Marriage published by a psychological website called (American Psychological Association) ,
an anthropologist point of view through an article called Cultural Anthropology/ Marriage,
Reproduction and Kinship published by (Wiki Books), and finally looking at how gay marriage
is viewed in the sporting world by looking at an article by the (Los Angeles Times) called
Manny Pacquiao apologizes for comparing gay people to animals. I will use these three
articles to dissect the similarities and difference between each article and show the readers the
different ways society approaches their thoughts on gay marriage. All three articles focus on gay
marriage by presenting us with what research has told us or what they think as an individual on
gay marriage today. While some articles have a more scholarly, challenging tone to it, others
have a more unapologetic/ apologetic tone to what they are trying to say about gay marriage. I
will be focusing on some rhetorical features like; audience, tone, conventions, authors moves,
style of the paper (word choice and structure), as well as certain language used in general and

Phillips2

how that comes across to get the different views on gay marriage from all three articles and how
each author approaches the situation differently. I also want to focus on how the way each author
speaks about the situation kind of lets the readers know where the author stands with their
opinion on gay marriage and how certain moves can present this.
Gay marriage, legalizing gay marriage, and what people think about gay marriage has
been a constant debate since our ancestors were around and there is still no one answer for this
situation. In the article Answer To Your Questions about Same-Sex Marriage by American
Psychological Association we learn about the psychological aspects of things and what a few
psychologist think about the queer community. According to this article, Like heterosexuals,
many lesbian, gay and bisexual people want to form stable, long-lasting relationships and many
of them do(APA). This evidence automatically allows the readers to know that this article will
be looking at gay marriage in a more positive way and that studies have been bringing positivity
into light with this debate.
In regards to some research being done, results have shown that the majority of lesbian,
and gay, adults are in committed relationships and many couples have been together 10 or more
years (APA). These results are allowing the readers to be challenged because of unexpected
facts being thrown at them as soon as they open the readings. This author express these facts in a
very challenging yet calm voice.
The writer knows that this is a very sensitive topic that is not yet very openly talked about
but they also wants to challenge the readers by challenging the norms of society and the
stereotypes we all seem to follow. By the author challenging a few norms and stereotypes, I
notice that a couple of moves and rhetorical features used by American Psychological
Association in their article Answer To Your Questions about Same-Sex Marriage to speak

Phillips3

upon these norms and stereotypes were subtitles and word choice. The author uses subtitles
throughout this article to allow the reader to focus on each point individually and for the author
to have clear thoughts in their piece. This article will attract audience from both sides of the
spectrum, some people who are all for gay marriage and some people who are highly against it.
The subtitles allows each person to go directly to the evidence they are looking for and directly
connect with it without having to read the entire article. Some subtitles are, do same sex couples
make good parents, or are same sex marriages different from heterosexual marriages, this
makes it easier for the audience to find exactly what the focus will be in each section of the
reading. The audience might expect them to have a lot to say about gay marriage since it is a
broad subject and there are various ways you can feel about different subjects within the queer
community and gay community so it is very easy to follow the authors thoughts with guidance
through subtitles. The author also uses vivid/concrete words to prove their point and make a
mark on what side they stand on since they are providing evidence for both audiences. The
author states, Like heterosexuals, many lesbian, gay and bisexual people want to form stable,
long-lasting relationships and many of them do. In fact, researchers have found that the majority
of lesbian, and gay, adults are in committed relationships and many couples have been together
10 or more years(APA). This observation allows the readers to see how the author is taking a
more positive turn on the evidence they provide so that we can get a feel of where they are
coming from.
The author uses hedged language and a sarcastic type of tone to point out the different
ideologies on gay marriage depending on who is speaking upon it. In the anthropology article,
Cultural Anthropology/ Marriage, Reproduction and Kinship by Wikibooks the author seems
to express their findings through a more culturally based awareness. The authors findings prove

Phillips4

that, Both sexes are open about their homosexual relationships, and it is considered normal
( Wikibooks). The author uses hedged language (considered) to show the readers that their entire
work can be taken both ways. It is considered normal in their cultural but that does not mean it is
normal everywhere. This is then followed by the author arguing, No one, unlike in Western
culture, would think that homosexual relationships would damage a person's piety or moral
fiber(WikiBooks). This may come across as a more sarcastic tone or passive aggressive
statement since they are trying to prove the point of how only the Western culture finds anything
wrong in something so normal. The author also uses this tone repetitively, when talking about
this research done in another country, the state, There are no hate crimes against homosexual
men, unlike in the U.S., probably because homosexual tendencies are seen as
normal(WikiBooks). Again, the author strikes by using the sarcastic tone to prove that these
practices are very normal elsewhere besides our American culture.
With that being said, some moves and conventions that the anthropology article presented
were subtitles, repetition and examples of different scenarios in her research. This is very
common to the psychological article that I read which was very scholarly structured and had
subtitles to allow the readers to follow thoroughly. I believe that since both of these article are
very much findings and research based they both feel like subtitles allow the reader to follow the
entire article more efficiently. Many points are thrown at us all at once but with breaks in
between the article, it is read more with an open-mind and easier for research. She also repeats
herself various times by using the same sarcastic tone to establish her/ his voice in the article.
In the article, Manny Pacquiao Apologizes for Comparing Gay People to Animals
written about the famous boxer Manny in the Los Angeles Times by Chuck Schilken, the author
comes across very differently from the other two articles. This article reflects more on the social

Phillips5

aspect of gay marriage and how people in a hierarchy think and say things about gay people
without punishment. The boxer stated, I'm sorry for hurting people by comparing homosexuals
to animals(Manny Pacquiao). This right away gives us the information on which this article will
revolve around and what the base of the argument is, kind of like the thesis statement of the
article. The author of the article then debunks Pacquiaos statement with a comment he got on
twitter from Jose Marie Viceral that reads, The LGBT is a group of people. We are humans. But
not animals. Though we're no saints we will pray for Manny Pacquiao(Jose Marie Viceral). The
reader does this to show the audience both arguments and how each individual is going about it.
This article is based on textual evidence solely so the author has no opinion in the matter. This is
dissimilar to the scholarly articles because for the most part we knew were the other two authors
stood. Their opinion was not mentioned in the text but we can very much tell what their thoughts
were in regards to gay marriage by the way they spoke about the subject and the data they
presented in their article. After this we continue to see that Manny makes an apology which is
what the whole article is about and it says, Please forgive me for those I've hurt. I still stand on
my belief that I'm against same sex marriage because of what the Bible says, but I'm not
condemning LGBT. I love you all with the love of the Lord. God Bless you all and I'm praying
for you (Manny Pacquiao)". Some moves that were definitely present in this article by the author
were social media responses, evidence, the structure of the paper, and highlighting of keys
words. This is all very important because it allows us to see how each author took a different
approach surrounding the same subject, but with different opinions from individuals. This piece
in particular was different than all the rest because the authors opinion was completely left out
and this article in particular gave the readers a bit more evidence on the negative opinions of gay
marriage rather than the positive evidence that both scholarly articles presented. This is

Phillips6

interesting in my opinion because the article revolves around sports which is considered to be a
machisto aka manly topic, so this might explain why exactly this article is a bit more
negative than the rest. The author has a few words highlighted like Manny Pacquiao and
Instagram throughout the article that just point out who exactly is talking and where this
information is being distributed through. He also makes sure that he has the actual evidence like
screen shoot of the comment or post so that readers see the background history of what occurred
and let up to the entire article. The structure of the article also caught my eye because it is just
very casual, like a conversation or argument occurring about believes on gay marriage which is
nothing like the other two articles I read.
I believe that non-academic pieces can very much cover things that scholarly texts cannot
and vice-versa. In this situation the scholarly pieces gave us information that the non-academic
one gave us. The psychology article told us, Researchers have found that living in a state where
same-sex marriage is outlawed can lead to chronic social stress and mental health problems.
Psychologists are particularly concerned that such stigma may undermine the healthy
development of adolescents and young adults(APA). This gave us an insight in the
psychological perspective of this issue and how laws about anti-gay marriage can lead to more
critical damages. On the other hand, the anthropologist article gave us a perspective of different
views in different cultures. It spoke about gay, lesbian, queer sexuality in Mombasa, Nicaragua,
Greece, Sambia, and Brazil. This gave readers different perspective of one subject and how
cultural influence has a lot to do with it. Finally, the non-academic piece gave readers an inside
on how religion can very much effect the situation. Manny kept mentioning praying for them
because religion would not allow it to occur. In the reading How to Read Like a Writer by
Mike Bunn, the author states most of the time we read for information(83) which is exactly

Phillips7

what all three of these articles entitled. Although very differently, they all had the information I
needed to learn about gay marriage.

Phillips8

Bibliography
Bunn, Mike. How to Read Like a Writer. Pg. 80-95.
< http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-manny-pacquiao-apologizeshomosexuals-20160216-story.html>.
< http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/same-sex-marriage.aspx>.
<
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cultural_Anthropology/Marriage,_Reproduction_and_Kinship>.