LANGUAGE ANALYSIS ESSAY – Analysis of 3 pieces
Recently a controversial issue has been circling around our nation and that is whether or not
Australia should change the marriage laws allowing same sex couples to be married and viewed as
‘bride and groom’. As this has been a nation-wide issue, the media have been battling back and forth
about whether or not is should be legalised. Two opinionative writers, Sue O’Brien and Paul Lowe,
and one cartoonist, ‘Leunig’, have just been some o the few that have expressed and argued their
point of view in relation to this issue. O’Brien is for same-sex marriage, expressing in an emotional,
didactic tone that Australia should legalise gay marriages. Howe is also for gay marriage, and argues
it is an issue that has been blown out of proportion. Howe shows logical progression throughout his
piece that has a rational and reasonable tone, with a hint of sarcasm and light humour. Leunig has
taken a different approach to the two writers, instead illustrating a political cartoon which mocks
same-sex marriage and highlights the perceived problems associated with it.
Susie O’Brien’s opinion piece ‘Time for Gay Marriage to Get the Nod in Australia’ published in the
Herald Sun on November 16th 2010 clearly explains why Australia should give same sex marriage ‘the
okay’. O’Brien wastes no time with her headline broadcasting her contention with a photograph
prominently placed and framed at the beginning of the article. The photo of two young brides kissing
shows the happiness and love that could come from a same sex marriage as the author seems to ask
why this is looked upon as such a confronting issue, if such happiness comes from it. Some readers
may look at it as an attractive perspective on the situation. Readers may be positioned to ask
themselves why gay marriage cannot be legalised, and why same sex lovers cannot pursue such
happiness and fulfilment if they aren’t hurting anyone.
By placing the image at the beginning, O’Brien’s piece is enticing readers to read on and become
engaged with her piece. The first word O’Brien begins with is “we”, which addresses the reader
personally and forms a positive and strong relationship with them. O’Brien then leads on to say “we
need to step back from arguing why gay men and women should be granted the right to marry”. This
positions the readers to want to do something to make this happen as they want to continue this
strong relationship with the author. O’Brien then goes on to call the members of the opposition
“bigoted” and “homophobic”, which is an attack on opposing views, positioning the reader to see
the opposition as flawed, therefore implying that there message is. O’Brien then goes on to say
“marriage is a human right” as compared to “race, creed, religion or sexuality”, making marriage
seem as important as food, shelter and life. Further down the article O’Brien discusses the
opponent’s argument being that legalising gay marriage will ‘normalise’ homosexuality, following
with a rhetorical question being “isn’t that precisely the point?”, which weakens the opposition’s
argument and invites or challenges readers to disagree with the statement. Here, O’Brien is subtly
asking readers how they could agree with this. O’Brien then uses statistical evidence such as “10 per
cent of men and 5 per cent of women” are homosexual. This evidence justifies that homosexuality is
among the population and we as a whole must learn to accept it. Readers are led to believe that
homosexuality is normal and in changing times, it is implied that they must be open to it. Overall,
O’Brien uses an effective emotional tone, which is somewhat moralising for readers that don’t agree
with her.
Howe’s opinion piece, ‘Gay marriage is hardly a pressing issue’, published in the Herald Sun on
December 5th 2010 states that the issue of gay marriage has been completely blown out of
proportion and the most rational solution is to legalise it. Paul Howe uses light humour and sarcasm
to gain readers’ interest and to express how silly the attention towards same sex marriage is. For
example, Howe says he is “going to stay in” his “heterosexual marriage”, emphasising that this issue
really doesn’t bother him and nor should it bother readers. Howe also appeals to readers’ common
sense by listing other issues Australia is having which are far more important, such as “poverty,
education and the list goes on”. By doing so, he is positioning readers to agree with same sex
marriage so other issues may be looked at instead. As well as this, Howe appeals to his audience’s
sense of rationality when discussing that “the Labor Party should act to end all forms of
discrimination”. Readers will find it hard to disagree with this statement, strengthening Howe’s
argument. As Paul Howe is the national secretary for the Australians Worker’s Union, he as an expert
opinion and it seems that he has a right to express his opinion on the issue. Readers will accept his
opinion as he was elected by the public to represent the majority of Australian citizens, verifying his
opinion.
The cartoonist referred to as ‘Leunig’ takes a political approach to same sex marriage whilst
somewhat mocking the idea of it, his contention being to convince readers that the idea of legalising
gay marriage is ridiculous. Leunig uses humour in the form of contrasting gay marriage with
unrealistic, impossible marriages such as “the sacred spiritual union between man and beast” and
“the bisexual triangular marriage”. By doing so, Leunig is positioning readers to think if gay marriage
is to be legalised, what’s next? Leanig also appeals to the readers’ sense of tradition by stretching
the boundaries. Most readers may tend to agree that marriage has always been between man and
wife, therefore it should not change. Leunig’s cartoon is very dramatic and over exaggerated which
could be its downfall in convincing intelligent readers.
All three pieces use different techniques in different ways in order to pressure readers into believing
their particular contentions regarding same sex marriage. Both Howe and O’Brien’s articles show
logical progression which would manipulate readers to ask why gay marriage has not already been
legalised. However, Howe shows evidence of being emotionally detached from the issue with his
‘who cares?’ attitude, While O’Brien is emotionally attached and wishes to share this with her
readers when using inclusive language. Leunig’s cartoon conveys humour, similar to Howe’s article.
However, Leunig mocks gay marriage and Howe mocks the uproar that has been generated as a
result of the issue of same sex marriage. All three manage to quickly establish their main contentions
and waste no time in persuading readers to agree.
O’Brien, Howe and Leunig use numerous persuasive techniques to overcome the issue of same sex
marriage, some in similar ways, and others not so much. There are times when their arguments are
strong and effective in manipulating readers and some where weakness shines through. Susie
O’Brien effectively frames her image and headline, which is effective in gaining readers’ attention
and interest; however, there are some points in which O’Brien relies on emotion to persuade, pulling
on readers’ heart strings which worked at first, but then developed into an over-reliance. Howe’s
emotional detachment and logical approach was effective, in showing that same sex marriage
should be allowed as Australian society has larger issues to worry about. However, he was let down
with generalising the public’s opinion instead of backing it up with facts. Leunig’s mocking approach
could convince some readers through humour; however it is very weak and could be offensive. All in
all, due to these three pieces, readers will be made to think and confront their personal views on
same sex marriage.