Year 10: Language
Analysis CAT Assessment
"Stop messing around with marriage. You'll miss it
when it's gone."
Due to the increase of gay marriage equality issues that were recently discussed in Australian media, a
concern within society about whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to
marry legally has risen. Addressing their opinion on the matter, writer
of Daily Telegraph article, 'Stop messing around with marriage. We will miss it
when it's gone.", which was published on the 22nd of March 2015, Miranda
Devine argues that gay marriage being legislated, in addition to the problems
of unfaithfulness in
marriages, could 'destroy the pillar of society'. Devine uses a pleading and
exaggerated tone to encourage parents to 'step back' and become aware of the
negative impacts that allowing gays to legally marry may bring to their
children and to society. An image accompanying Devine's article features a
smiling family with two young boys and a mother and father who seem to be
happily married, lying down in, what seems to be, a sunny park. Associating the
traditional family portrait with the popular gay marriage issue, the picture
depicts that possible legislation of gay marriage can threaten the stable
existence of a traditional family, which Devine believes is the only way for a
'happy family' to exist. The image draws deeper into her pleading tone, which
is used to appeal to family to help stop the legislation of gay marriage. This assists Devine's opinion as it may invoke feelings panic which
could cause her audience to feel
Devine
believes that the consequences of allowing gay marriage to occur in Australia,
is that children's lives shall be broken and damaged, as well as an underclass
of dysfunction, and a yawning equality in society. Devine starts her first
supporting argument with her use of statistics from the recent governmental
vote for whether gay marriage should be legal or not, stating that '49 percent'
is now a minority of people that are accepting gay marriage, which Devine
believes is a threat to a happy traditional family. Devine also includes a
rhetorical question in her argument, as she uses a arrogant and insulting tone,
which aimed towards homosexuals, when she asks the audience whether they are to
"let same-sex advocators thin our values even more?" This would
affect the intended audience, the parents of children, as Devine is appealing
to their family and their values, causing them to reflect on their desire to
protect their family values from what they deem is improper or a risk that may
harm their children. Devine continues to assert that gay marriage should not be
legislated as it could decrease the chances of children being able to achieve
higher results in every measure of life. By using generalisation to identify this problem within their children,
Devine strikes a worried feeling in the parents, causing them to possibly take
action against the allowance of gay marriage in Australia.
Miranda
Devine goes on to emphasise that society had given up their will to fight for a
traditional, no gay-marriage environment. Devine opens her second supporting
argument by employing an attack on society's will to fight for a better
environment for their children, as explains that the 'battle' for keeping
same-sex marriage illegal in Australia is difficult to 'win for conservatives'
only because the 'battle for marriage was given up long ago.' With her use of
an accusatory and disappointed tone, Devine triggers an emotional guilt trip
within the audience, for the reason as to why they had 'given up' the fight for
a future without homosexual marriage. Devine also applies an appeal to society's logic, as she reveals that a member of higher ranks,
may be 'targeted' if they do not support the 'so-called gay marriage equality'
that the majority have voted for. This triggers another feeling of guilt within
the audience, as it presents them as a 'bully' that targets anyone that doesn't
voice-out and agree with the gay-marriage equality legislation.
Devine introduces her final argument by using examples to display the
fact that she believes that gay people are more courageous to stand for what
they believe in. She uses an example of a protest in France, against homosexual
marriage, where homosexuals actually led the way, using 'The right of children
trump the right to children' as their catchphrase. By using this in her
article, Devine persuades her audience to believe that even the homosexuals
that she is writing about, agree to her point of view. This possibly causes her
intended audience, to feel as if they are being left out if they do not agree
to Devine's arguments against homosexual marriage. The image being used as
accompaniment to her article, assists her perspective of the issue as she uses
it to display the family traditions that 'many people' like herself, are trying
to protect and persuade others to do the same.
Devine concludes her piece by describing what she believes is in the
'best interests' of society, that a man and a woman should just focus on
raising healthy and responsible children, whether they be gay or straight. This
also contrasts with her original statement, that gay marriage could be
'destroying the pillars of society', as well as the unfaithfulness of partners
with each other. This could possibly leave the audience confused and
overwhelmed with how much of a repetitive problem the legislation of gay
marriage is.
No comments:
Post a Comment