NAME:_____________________ DATE DUE:___________
Year 10 Using
Language to Persuade
CAT
Assessment
Instructions
Ø You have 1 period in class to complete the plan and prepare the
following assessment.
Ø Essays will be completed at home and submitted a week after
distribution.
Ø You are required to address all of the assessment criteria to the
best of your ability.
Ø You are required to write a language analysis
essay that follows the format set out on pg.117 of the Pearson English text.
ENGLISH STUDENTS
Instructions
Read the article, ‘Stop
messing around with marriage. We will miss it when it’s gone.’ published in The
Daily Telegraph, then complete the task below. Your response should be 500
– 750 words in length.
Task
Write a language analysis essay of 4 to 5 paragraphs that presents your analysis
of the ways in which written and visual language is used to present a point of view.
Background information
In our society the institution of marriage is
being directly affected by the different relationships that people engage in
today. A specific case in point is the existence of same sex couples and how
certain sections of society are seeking the legal right for same sex couples to
marry and eliminate discrimination.
OR
ESL STUDENTS
Instructions
Read the article,
‘Stop messing around with marriage. We will miss it when it’s gone.’
published in The Daily Telegraph, then
complete both parts of the task.
Task
Part 1
Write a
note-form summary of, ‘Stop messing around with marriage. We will miss
it when it’s gone.’ published in The Daily Telegraph
Your
response must be in note form. Do
not use complete sentences.
Part 2
Construct a
piece of writing that explains how language has been used in , ‘Stop messing around with marriage. We will miss
it when it’s gone.’
published in The Daily Telegraph to
attempt to persuade readers about the
main points in the opinion piece.
Miranda DEVINE, Daily
Telegraph, 22nd march 2015
‘Stop messing around with marriage. We will miss it when
it’s gone.’
AS libertarian
crossbencher David Leyonhjelm launches the latest bid this week to legislate
same-sex marriage, you have to ask how much more can our most important
institution bear.
We already have
midlife crisis affairs becoming de rigueur for a certain class of middle-aged
women. Ubiquitous ads for the Ashley Madison adultery website are exhorting
women to sacrifice the sanctity of our most sacred institution. Rather than an
aberration frowned upon by society, breaking your marriage vows is now seen as a
rite of passage for the endlessly adolescent, the divorce party is just another
step in the journey of self-discovery. Further diluting the institution by
allowing gay marriage could just destroy this pillar of society.
The consequences of
the sexual revolution are broken lives and damaged children, an entire
underclass of dysfunction, and a yawning inequality. For the first time since
Federation the number of Australians in registered marriage is now a minority —
49 per cent, are we to let same-sex marriage advocators thin our values even
more and create an underclass of pervasive immorality?
As usual, it is those
at the bottom of the social pecking order who pay the highest price for the
moral fecklessness of those at the top.
Marriage is the
cornerstone of a strong, sustainable and healthy society. It builds strong
communities, forms good citizens, and brings parents together for the nurture
of their children. The incontrovertible evidence from social science studies is
that children do better on every measure when raised by their mother and father
in a stable marriage. Australia must do everything in its power to ensure that
every child can know and be loved by their biological mum and dad, this is a
non-negotiable and no legislation should be permitted to take this away.
The reason that the
battle against same-sex marriage is so hard to win for conservatives is because
the battle for marriage was given up long ago.
This is the backdrop
to Senator Leyonhjelm’s “freedom to marry” bill he plans to push in the Senate
on Thursday.
He and Greens Senator
Sarah Hanson-Young have been urging the Liberal Party to allow a conscience
vote on the issue.
But that’s just rank
sophistry. The reality is that, once unshackled from the party vote, a
politician who doesn’t voice support for so-called marriage equality will be
viciously targeted.
The intimidation and
silencing of contrary voices in the same sex marriage debate is despicable and
desperate.
The forced
resignation of Mozilla’s CEO Brendan Eich after he was discovered to have once
donated $1,000 to a political campaign against same-sex marriage is a case in
point.
So is the taxpayer
funded SBS’ refusal to run a gentle 30-second advertisement in favor of
traditional marriage during its Mardi Gras coverage.
And the compulsory
mediation Toowoomba physician David van Gend was forced to attend after he
wrote an article saying a baby deserves both a mother and a father.
The latest targets of
militant gay thought police are the Italian designers Domenico Dolce and
Stefano Gabbana, who told an Italian magazine this month: “The only family is
the traditional one.”
The condemnation was
immediate, with an outraged Sir Elton John calling for a boycott.
But Dolce &
Gabbana are gay so they can hardly be labelled bigots.
“I believe in the
traditional family,” said Gabbana.
“It is impossible to
change my culture for something different. I respect all the world, all the
culture … We love gay couples. We are gay.”
It takes gay people
to come out and say what straight people are too intimidated to say. In France,
when hundreds of thousands of protester took to the streets to oppose gay
marriage and same sex adoption legislation in 2013, prominent homosexuals led
the way.
“The rights of
children trump the right to children,” was their catchphrase.
Rather than shutting
down debate and forcing an outcome by intimidation and exhaustion, Australian
same-sex advocates need to make the case for why redefining marriage to
disconnect it from children would make society better and not worse.
It’s in everyone’s
best interests to strengthen marriage as the foundational institution of civil
society, in which a man and a woman raise solid citizens, gay or straight, to
replenish the moral capital of the future.
That’s where our
energies should be focused, rather than this relentless legislative “marriage
equality” merry-go-round that comes up every six months.
No comments:
Post a Comment