Through both analyzing of the anecdotes and his neutral view of what was morally wrong with these emotionally straining situations his legal expertise emerged. Between that and the outright list of legal disadvantages to not being formally and civilly bound to another being. The title itself carries the tone of defining a term’s definition and legal implication. By this, it is easy to dissect points without the implication and weight of attaching it to any particular sexuality or group. This black and white view is a base for the author to build off of by breaking a claim down to the most basic level (much like a legal case). It is here where the emphasis is placed to rebuild a new image that supports Wolfon’s views. At this point it’s just hoping the jury, the readers, will not allow their own views into their judgement. It’s really it’s most effective and strongest against those who who are impartial or don’t have an opinion. Building up a case will not dissuade someone who already has decided to be against it as they’re too opinionated and will see every point as a broken point and might just ignore the valid ones altogether. Those who have a pro stance don’t really matter as they shouldn’t need much convincing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree, I think that he thinks of marriage very mathematically and statistically, and supports his case much like a lawyer would in court. I also agree that this would be a very good piece for undecided people, but not for decided people.
Post a Comment