Susie O’Brien a journalist who divides her time between many publishers, including The Herald Sun and The Advertisers where she produces think-pieces and modern arguments covering politics, social culture, and sports. In late 2010 O’Brien launched an article titled ‘It’s time to honor gay couples and allow them to marry’ (The Advertiser, September 20, 2010, p. 27) in which O’Brien structures a relaxed argument to appeal to her readers reason (logos) and emotion (pathos). Despite some jarring use of some contractions O’Brien starts strong with a tone of authority (ethos) by stating ‘I didn’t ever choose to be straight.’ In doing this she constructs a bridge uniting herself to the gay community by identifying her sexual orientation as a trait
…show more content…
She touches on how it is a universal immoral practice to judge people based on race before chastising homophobia, essentially mirroring that of universal knowledge and acceptance that one wouldn’t or rather shouldn’t discriminate race and by example that discriminating sexual preference is equally as wrong. Both ethnicity and sexual orientation are not chosen traits and it is simple to follow O’Brien’s train of thought here as she structures an argument against homophobia interwoven with racism but it falls short. Following the end of paragraph three O’Brien flows through to paragraph four utilizing civil rights heroine Rosa Parks to continue her comparative argument as she discusses civil unions. Feasibly O’Brien is making use of Rosa Parks as a plea to ethos or authority. Rosa Parks was an African American civil rights activist who is more commonly known for refusing to give up her seat on a bus in accordance to the Alabama segregation laws in place at the time ultimately resulting to her arrest on December 1 1955. This act of defiance in the face of segregation and racism lead to Parks becoming an icon on of the freedom movement. While Parks is a strong figure, appealing to emotion and authority, to use her to compare civil union to marriage would seem irrelevant to an academic audience as the example in itself is weak. O’Brien appears to be relying on her readers and their perception of an immoral situation by placing two eggs in one basket, so that her audience has no choice but to agree with her
She touches on how it is a universal immoral practice to judge people based on race before chastising homophobia, essentially mirroring that of universal knowledge and acceptance that one wouldn’t or rather shouldn’t discriminate race and by example that discriminating sexual preference is equally as wrong. Both ethnicity and sexual orientation are not chosen traits and it is simple to follow O’Brien’s train of thought here as she structures an argument against homophobia interwoven with racism but it falls short. Following the end of paragraph three O’Brien flows through to paragraph four utilizing civil rights heroine Rosa Parks to continue her comparative argument as she discusses civil unions. Feasibly O’Brien is making use of Rosa Parks as a plea to ethos or authority. Rosa Parks was an African American civil rights activist who is more commonly known for refusing to give up her seat on a bus in accordance to the Alabama segregation laws in place at the time ultimately resulting to her arrest on December 1 1955. This act of defiance in the face of segregation and racism lead to Parks becoming an icon on of the freedom movement. While Parks is a strong figure, appealing to emotion and authority, to use her to compare civil union to marriage would seem irrelevant to an academic audience as the example in itself is weak. O’Brien appears to be relying on her readers and their perception of an immoral situation by placing two eggs in one basket, so that her audience has no choice but to agree with her