The findings demonstrated that main thesis for the introductory statement, chosen by the AAEs chief speaker Scott Lively, was the building of confidence in the Ugandan audience on the subject of homosexuality. It is important to analyze why particular words, statements and expressions were chosen to be part of the opening statements by Scott Lively. The opening statements of Scott Lively’s address situate him as a speaker who employs the art of rhetoric in an attempt to gain the confidence of his listeners. For instance, in his opening statement Scott Lively stated:
“Am going to be speaking to you as a pastor with a degree in theology, and someone who has been studying the sacred scriptures regarding all these issues. Am also going to be talking to you as an Attorney who has been trained in secular reasoning”
“I have spoken on this topic (homosexuality) in almost 40 countries now. I have written several books, I have a doctor of theology degree. I hold a certificate in human rights
from the International Institute of Human Rights” (PRA 2009a).
These statements seemed to have been specially chosen to authenticate and legitimize the speaker’s authority on the subject. Further, they seem to have been specially chosen to lure the audience as to why the speaker ought to be trusted as informed on the subject. According to Miyawaki, “rhetoric is a form of communication that includes both the art and practice of effective speaking and writing, often with the intent of persuasion” (2017:1477). Leach, on the other hand, suggests three ways how rhetoric can be understood as commonly used in peoples’ daily experiences. It is “[t]he act of persuasion; [t]he analysis of acts of persuasion; [a] worldview about the persuasive power of discourse” (2000:207).
A common rhetorical theme that runs across Lively’s opening statements is that of justifying or appealing to his character or reputation. Appealing to one’s reputation before the audience is one of the classical modes of persuasion. Joan Leach observes that “one form of persuasive argument relies on the establishment of the credibility of the author or speaker” (2000:214). It could be suggested that Scott Lively’s Audience had approached his meeting with an interest to hear what had been advertised as a conference to “expose the homosexual agenda”. Secondly, the subject of homosexuality was already a contentious issue within the public domain. It is therefore possible that the AAEs were aware of the prevailing environment and
attitudes on the subject of homosexuality especially from the public domain within Uganda.
The findings have shown that Scott Lively appealed to a religious and theological background which seems to inform his character. He petitioned to aspects such as the title ‘pastor’, the concept ‘Theology’, ‘Sacred Scriptures’, and ‘Holy Spirit’, to claim how his message is inspired and based on Christian principles. In using these aspects, he establishes himself as a reputable religious leader who ought to be believed, and trusted as he represents God. By referring to the Holy Spirit, the speaker attempts to develop in his listeners a conviction that he speaks under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It is to indirectly call upon his listeners not to exercise suspicion in his message since they may find themselves casting doubt in both God’s messenger and in God’s message. Likewise, Scotts Lively’s statements make multiple references to his education status.
As both a theologian, and lawyer Lively succeeded in presenting himself as one with adequate knowledge with regard to theological teachings on the subject of homosexuality. He also succeeded in presenting himself as one who knew statutory law and one who could advise on policy making on the aspect of homosexuality. In appealing to both his theological status as an academic and as well as an attorney, he appeared to be well placed to engage on a variety of discussions; such discussions could involve issues such as, ‘how statutory law could converse with theological and religious positions on the aspect of homosexuality’. To this end, he appeared with legitimacy to offer advice to both the illiterate and literate public whom he presumably perceived to know either less or nothing about in terms of the theological teachings on homosexuality. Further, he seemed dependable to offer advice to local religious leaders on how homosexuality could be handled by Pastors even in places outside the dominion of pulpits. Further, as both a theologian and a lawyer, he appeared to be a competent authority to offer advice not only to religious leaders but also to law makers, especially those who would wish to either advocate for, or against the aspect of homosexuality using religious based tools.
Scott Lively made several appeals to cases of experience on the subject of homosexuality. He referred to his family experiences and how some members of his family had themselves been agonized by consequences related to homosexuality. By referring to his personal experience, the speaker attempted to create a feeling within his audience that he was knowledgeable with regard to the experiences of homosexuality. This helped to depict him as an insider to the discussions on homosexuality
The overall rhetoric that characterized the Chief speaker’s address succeeded in influencing some members of the Ugandan public to see AAEs as much more informed than their listeners.
This can explain why the findings have shown that the local people during the follow up meeting described the AAEs as “our friends who were better informed than us” (PRA 2009b). Therefore we can conclude that the rhetorical tool employed by the AAEs neutralized possible doubts that would have dominantly emerged within the Ugandan society over their anti- homosexuality message. Further, the findings indicated that while the AAEs were delivering their message, the audience did not show signs of disapproval, for instance, public demonstrations or engaging the AAEs in oppositional debate. On the contrary, the audience, remained silent, and some of the audience expressed signs of amusement and approval of the issues discussed by the Chief Speaker. This mode of acceptance was further shown in subsequent discussions on the topic after the departure of the AAEs from Uganda.33 The AAEs presentation and their shared experiences on homosexuality were, therefore, an authoritative and motivational resource for further discussions that guided the legislation of the 2014 AHL.