Battle Over Gay Marriage

Language Analysis- Practice SAC

“Gay marriage must get nod”- Susie O’Brien
“Let us not forget the entire point of what marriage is for”- Miranda Devine
And
Mark Knight’s cartoon
The recently re-sparked debate of the legalisation of homosexual marriage has once again come under mass furore which has resulted in many debaters aiming to empower their own perspectives upon the matter. While some support gay marriage, others attempt to come to its defence. In Susie O’Brien’s article, “Gay marriage must get nod”, featured in the Herald Sun, on the 16th of November, 2010, the writer employs a sensible tone towards her potential audiences of gay communities and its supporters while also, ridicules the standards of the opposition. Drawing references from historical context and fiercely attacking the opposition, the writer aims to also voice her opinion to the neutral groups of the issue. On the contrary, article “Let us not forget the entire point of what marriage is for”, by Miranda Devine, published in The Sunday Telegraph, on November 21st, 2010, the writer uses a condescending tone, as she endorses her stance on being against gay marriage legalisations, and states that current actions of homosexuals, undermine the gay rights movement. The nature of such article, predictably aims to attract an audience from both sides of the argument. Mark Knights cartoon, displays a satirical perspective upon the matter as with this outlandish depiction, he aims to create a negative view on the opponents, rather than supporters of the legalisation. Knight’s cartoon, would potentially attract audiences of both sides of the argument, much like articles by Miranda Devine and Susie O’Brien.
In Susie O’Brien’s article, she employs a critical tone towards her opponents who are against legalisation of homosexual marriage while sympathises with the supporters and gays themselves. In the opening of the article, the writer directs her attention towards the supporters. This is done by using inclusive language, especially noted in the words “persuade us”, this inevitably gels her audience with the writer and the issue she is discussing becomes more personal to the supporters of gay marriage. At the same time, O’Brien excludes the opponents- “It’s time for those who disagree”, when commenting on their timid nature that stops them from expressing and “persuading” their views of the matter. The writer continues fierce use of attacks and strong, emotive language to comment on the “bigoted, homophobic opponents” of gay marriage at the opening paragraph of the article, which positions her readers of this side of the argument, feeling neglected and possibly enraged. O’Brien’s uses appeal to modern values as she further pushes her contention and predicts that the opposition expresses their views “…in the name of outdated tradition”. Stating this, the writer urges readers to hope that they are ‘in with it’ or ‘up-to-date’ rather than be rejected and left out of social trends.
As the article progresses, the writer draws evidence from historical events, that enlighten her readers, and builds on her contention. Analogies of the civil right movements, and women’s rights, this gives support to her argument that a human right such as marriage should not be denied to anyone. Using these analogies to describe major events in history that shifted societies for the better, the writer aims to position the readers to appeal to wanting a change. Since also, many readers endorse fairness and equal rights as opposed to inflicting injustice upon others, they are invited to advocate for the writer’s position. O’Brien also supports her argument by using statistics- “65 per cent”, of the majority of Australians that believe that same-sex marriage should be indorsed. This gives positions the reader to be reliant upon and favour the writer’s contention as statistics can be a one of the predominant means of persuasion. The writer also reflects upon analogies of equal rights once again, mentioning the “accept[ance of] the end of apartheid”, and women’s right to vote- this technique acts as repetition which allows the O’Brien to reinforce her argument and drive home the message to her audience, that is ending discrimination.
O’Brien builds on her argument by including hyperbolic language laced with sarcasm. “Allowing gays to marry…could destroy the institution for everyone else”, such emotive wording as “destroy” ridicules the opposition and blows their perspective out of proportion. This effectively sites the reader to feel as though the writer’s position of the argument is far more convincing. The writer then follows this hyperbole, by utilizing sarcastic language as she creates a near comical, hypothetical scenario involving “presence of Bob and his husband Ben living a few doors down the road” and how it could possibly “destroy” sanctity of marriage. Inevitably, such imagery, conjures hilarity within the reader, yet the writer convinces them that is merely unreasonable to put adjectives as these to describe such normal people. The evidence of the commonly used names in our society; Bob and Ben, also give the impression of familiarity. The sarcastic remarks then flow into another array of statistics, which counter argues how same sex marriage would “normalize” heterosexuality”. The writer suggests that the normalization is inevitable as per “10 per cent men and 5 per cent women” already believe it is. These add to the credibility of the piece, as statistics make readers trust the writer’s opinion. O’Brien concludes the piece with a rather neutral tone, providing the readers with a rebuttal, directly addressing the readers with a repeated “you”, this personalizes the issue and incorporates parental figures who do not desire such reforms as same sex marriage. The writer however, then restates her argument by instilling a message of how marriage is a “basic human right” and further stretches credibility, once again referring to statistics, “10 percent”.
Miranda Devine immediately constructs her contention by employing a sarcastic, condescending tone to discriminate same sex marriage and its supporters, in her piece “Let us not forget the entire point of what marriage is for”. Devine attack on “poster girl for equality and tolerance”, Portia de Rossi, who recently visited Australia refused to be “interviewed by men”. The writer provides an evidence of this, when discussing de Rossi’s appearance on Sunrise and Hamish and Andy show. This give the writer a firm stance upon the issue as this reference not only backs her opinion, but also attacks the opposition of her view, by criticizing their intolerance and comments that “such flagrant sexism” on de Rossi’s behalf, goes “out the window”. This cliché, or an overused phrase as such, gives Devine an opportunity to abruptly express an idea to her readers.

The writer forcefully attacks the opposition and continues with intended sarcastic remarks, to heighten her contention. Emotive words fuelled with sarcasm, such as “evil homophobe or religious extremist”, intentionally contradict her argument to cynically degrade the opponent’s debate. She also argues that the oppositional argument is the predominant trigger to “youngster...suicide” implanting a sense of “guilt” into the supporters of gay marriage. However, this is not supported by evidence, therefore readers may feel skeptical of her opinion. She continues to forcefully attack the opposition, by criticizing that the gay rights movement is “forcing a change…through fear”, which implies that the gay lobby is utilizing fear as a tactic. This once again, degrades the opponent argument, and makes the readers fear for the safety of the “youngsters”, by using emotive, strong language. The writer then argues the inferiority of the newly proposed poll, attacking its question which incorporates a “preamble” that positions its voters to agree with same-sex marriage because as the writer indicates, “to disagree would be perverse”. Devine uses sarcasm once again, to mock this incident and the ‘for’ voters of the pol, having fallen into its supposed trap. A use of a metaphor is also included in the following paragraph, indicating that the opposition of gay marriage, as the writer herself, are namely “dinosaurs” (with inverted commas) who will “die out” if opposed, again addressing this in Devine’s profound sarcastic tone, which mocks the supporting readers of the issue. Following the discontent of the recent poll, Devine reflects upon the violent actions engaged by the homosexual community, who have taken out their rage upon the society. The writers backs up her argument for criticizing these “frightening” actions, by including a 2008 incident of gays behaving in such a way- “churches and houses were vandalized...people bashed” and so forth. This not only evokes a sense of fear from the reader but also are positioned to feel fear and anger towards these actions.
Devine heightens her contention further, by using a comparison of gay marriage as a human rights issue versus indigenous Australians being treated unequally or when homosexuality is punished with death. Using a rational tone, the writer belittles the gay marriage argument as she states that there are far more “real human rights issue[s]” in the world. She also argues the focusing on gay marriage is an “insult to homosexuals in the less enlightened parts of the world”. This enhances appeals to morality within the readers. The writer then utilizes an expert opinion quote by Professor Dennis Altman, which add weight to the author’s point of view by including a voice that is homosexual, yet opposes gay marriage. It is evident, that Devine selectively interprets Dennis’ quote, which can lead to a dispute about whether this is fact or fiction. However, this nevertheless gives support to the article, and positions the gay marriage supporters to decide whether this marriage is as Altman states “self-indulgent crap”. The writer includes a rebuttal which discuses “valuing gay people” and gives a reasonable balance to the article and provides her readers with knowledge of both sides of the argument. In her concluding statement, Devine degrades the appeal to modernity as she states that sanctity of gay marriage will be transformed to “self-fulfillment of adults” rather than centered on the “wellbeing of children”. On the contrary she concludes by alluring to sense of traditional values stating that “marriage will become just another lifestyle choice rather than bedrock institution” which positions the readers to feel committed to the tradition of marriage, and support Devine since it is something that has always been done. The writer returns to “wellbeing of children” and conjures emotions of fear within the reader as she states the notion of “abuse” which could be a major case in gay homes.

Mark Knight’s cartoon, published in the Herald Sun, provides a satirical visual approach which is a mockery of the same-sex oppositional arguments. Knight creates a scenario of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Greens leader Bob Brown, both lying on a heart shaped bed in a romantic setting. A “Just married” sash draping across the front of the bed, implies that the couple are on a honeymoon. The caricature styled artwork depicts Julia Gillard turned away from her new husband, denoting a sense of disinterest in each other. This is also notable, in the placement of the their suitcases, both separated away from each other labelled in each of the couples parties, that are “labour” and “greens”. Such political reference and the underlying message of the artwork, would perhaps appeal to audiences familiar with the issue of same-sex marriage. The couple are picture reading different material further implying disinterest. Gillard’s reading material that is a newspaper, is especially important in this cartoon as it reads “Gay marriage debate”. This simply suggests the Knight’s purpose of the cartoon. The symmetrical balance of the artwork, indicates the two different sides of the debate- with Julia Gillard being opposed the issue as labour and on the contrary, her “husband” Bob Brown, being pro same sex marriage as the Greens party leader. Gillard’s speech bubble reading “Geez there are some bloody weird relationships these days”, clearly this quote is purely hypocritical of the relationship of the newlyweds in the cartoon rather than criticizing of a relationship of a gay couple. The small, animal-like figure on the right corner of the page, is also depicted with a speech bubble, quoting “It’s just not natural”. This is a pun, again, commenting on the relationship of the unnatural newlyweds rather than homosexuals- as per Australian politics, the Greens and Labour do not go together. The focal point of the cartoon, is notably the champagne bottle in the middle of the couple. It is angled towards Bob Brown, indicating that the cartoonist agrees with the Greens statement of promoting gay marriage rather than opposing it. The rather complex nature of such conveyances upon the issue, nevertheless generates an atmosphere of assertiveness and provides no other consideration of the opposing argument. This suggests that the issue is blatant and straight forward in the solution, to the viewers.
In order to convey her viewpoints, Susie O’Brien uses emotive language and attack to gain interest and appeal from the supporting side of the argument “Gay marriage must get nod”. She positions both sides of the debaters to stand up to their beliefs and declare their arguments; notably, the oppositional side, which she declares as “bigoted, homophobic opponents”. Devine employs a similar approach to appeal to her audience, that are the oppositional side of the same argument. She profoundly, utilises a sarcastic tone, which echoes throughout her proposal. In contrast to O’Brien’s piece, biased opinions were used in Devine’s argument to subjectively influence the reader by intentionally presenting one side of the argument throughout the majority of the piece. Mark Knights cartoon similarly exhibits a one sided argument to the issue much like Devine, yet uses satirical, mocking imagery to convey such views.