1.) I looked up "gay marriage" on the LA Times, Washington Post, and New York Times websites. I think each article I found creates kairos based on where the paper is located-that's what I figured would happen, anyway. The LA Times had an article on June 18th when gay marriage was first legalized. I would guess that they were writing to their California (and mostly liberal) audience with short stories of different couples who turned up for the event-it was actually a really cute article.
As for the Washington Post, I chose an article I found on gay inmates and how higher-ups were going to deal with the new ruling of same-sex marriage in California ( realize this was an article based in California, applied for an audience in a D.C. newspaper). They were saying how they would allow same-sex couples to visit each other or be married, because they had to give the same rights to them that they would to hetero couples. I don't know, I just found the whole idea of an article based around INMATES to say something in itself, even though the article was not negative (do connotations regarding skimming a search page count for anything?).
Finally, the New York Times article was basically a cut-and-dried of what has taken place thus far and which states have which laws concerning gay marriage. This also pantomimed into the "New York" state of mind-that New Yorkers don't care, they just want the facts, right?
I agree with all three articles that the issue is so pertinent that little needs to be done to establish the article's relevance. None of the writer's really deviated from their main topic, as no one was really trying to be overly persuasive..Unless you count the LAT and trying to persuade people to be ok with it?
4.) To The Church of South Hills Methodist: I realize that as a Christian organization, you are anti-gay marriage and in support of protecting marriage as a religious rite. However, you cannot simply expect this issue to go away any time soon. The world changes constantly and every day there are new discussions pertaining to this matter-you must find a way as a congregation to grow if you want to reach out into the community and help people on a personal level. The Church is viewed today as cold and hard-hearted, shunning anyone who is 'wrong'. If your main mission is to get people in the doors, I suggest looking at some more proactive measures before there comes a time when no one will want to hear what you have to say at all, simply because you are labeled as unchanging. I know you are caring, loving people and want to reach out - this is the only way you can.
FINAL Creative Gallery
16 years ago
1 comment:
You make a really good point in your first entry where you note that the LA Times article takes a "local angle" to the story. That certainly speaks to Crowley and Hawhee's explanation that issues/arguments are grounded in both time AND space.
In your letter to the congregation, you do make a good move to link the two concerns: support or opposition to gay marriage and the dwindling size of the congregation. I wonder, though, how members of the congregation might respond to some of the terms you use in the post ("anti-" "cold" "hard-hearted" "Shunning") so early in the text. A different tact might be to start with the problem that everyone can agree with -- the congregation needs to grow in size -- and then move on to address how the church's opposition to gay marriage might be affecting it. Also, as you move into the issue of gay marriage, start by speaking in the terms that the group itself would use to characterize itself ("we support the sacred institution of marriage") before moving toward a characterization it might find to be attacking its beliefs ("you're anti-gay marriage").
Post a Comment