Dan Savage Takes on Tony Perkins over Proposition 8 essay

Dan Savage Takes on Tony Perkins over Prop 8 2

DanSavage Takes on Tony Perkins over Proposition 8

DanSavage Takes on Tony Perkins over Proposition 8

Thetelevision debate between Dan Savage and Tony Perkins outline thechallenges faced in an argument. The debate was fixed on the topicof same sex marriages with Dan Savage being a supporter of the topicand Tony Perkins in the opposing. Dan Savage uses more inductivereasoning than the deduction type in his presentation. He challengesvarious scenarios in the Bible and uses them to qualify his ideologyfor gay marriages. He cites the case of a woman’s punishment forfornication as stoning to death. He induces that the same ‘rough’or terminal conclusions are held by Christians about gay marriages.To qualify his stance and ‘win’ the argument, Dan Savage employsabductive reasoning. Instead of portraying the goals/reasons foracceptance of gay marriages, he presents the reasons for notaccepting the Christians’ views on gay marriages. This changes thescenario to the bullying of Christian ideologies and even changes theconcern for the debate. The words and scenarios used areenthymematic. Though not directly said/conveyed, Dan Savage’sconclusion on the Christian’s ideologies is shown. The inductivereasoning shown in his exposition clearly depicts Dan’s Savage’sconclusion on the Christian beliefs-they have no right in determiningthe right/wrongs of same sex marriages.

Theissue of the minority rights and the courts presented a contentiousperspective to the debate. Dan Savage tried to depict the equality inrights between the same sex marriages and interracial marriages. Thiswas a literal approach employed by Dan Savage. With the society’sadopting of the interracial marriages (in the constitution), the sameshould be said of same sex marriages. Tony Perkins labels this as adiversion from the moral stance of the debate. The analogy by DanySavage is a red herring. Inclusion of the minority rights and thecourts broadens the subject as this will have to consider the viewsof other religions and the atheists. Dan’s analogy is probative. Itjustifies the existence of minority groups by law and the society’sacceptance of such groups. The analogy pressures the Christians’accommodation of irregular morals as they have previously acceptedother minority groups (with controversial opinions, for example, theatheists). It also forces Tony Perkins to redefine marriageconsidering the accepted and unaccepted marriage practices (accordingto both the religion and the constitution).

DanSavage and Tony Perkins were somewhat effective at using reason inthe television debate. Dan depicted inductive reasoning in hisdefense by presenting the flaws and double standards of the Bible.The citation of the punishments for fornication as one of the toughstandards presented by religion could well induce the negativereaction and views of Christians to the same-sex marriages. Literalpresentation of the courts and minority groups depict Tony Perkinsdeduction of Dan’s proposition. The development and comparison ofsame-sex marriages to interracial marriages was a good proposition,but irrelevant to the subject of the debate. Both stances hadsimilarity which justified the use of the courts and minority groups’perspective in the debate. Tony Perkins presents his deductivereasoning to this perspective. Each law/practice had constraints.Tony Perkins alludes the same law preventing marriage between bloodrelatives or underage person(s) therefore, the same sex marriagesfell among the constraints of the law. This presents effectivereasoning instances between Dan Savage and Tony Perkins in thedebate.