‘dear Mr Turnbull, Look to Your Heart This Father’s Day

In recent years, the idea of same sex marriage has been a topic of debate because the government is not handling the idea of legalising same sex marriage in a logical way. The article is titled ‘Dear Mr Turnbull, look to your hearth this Father’s Day’, it is published at the Sydney Morning Herald. The author Mick Kyriacou, comes from a background of struggle. He has faced discrimination or prejudice in his own life, and through his daughter, and so this makes him more credible to the issue. The audience is directed at anyone who is not sure about same sex marriage, but is specifically directed at PM Malcolm Turnbull. Kyriacou wants to create more unity within the community by encouraging PM Malcolm Turnbull to arrange a conscience vote instead of a divisive plebiscite.

To open up his piece, Mick Kyriacou depicts the idea that he (and others) have faced discrimination in the past, Kyriacou uses credibility to show that he has past experiences with discrimination and therefore makes him more credible for the topic of same sex marriage. Mick uses ethos to help him with his arguments, the tone that he has gone with is inspirational because he fights back against discrimination. With the use of anecdotes, Kyriacou shows us that he experienced discrimination when he was called a “wog” during his teen life, he was just a boy living in Wollongong, he fought “sometimes with my fists and sometimes with words”. Kyriacou also had to fight his parents, because he wanted to marry a woman of “different faith”. Kyriacou wanted to show us that a long time ago, everything that was slightest out of the ordinary would’ve been wrong and people would have been discriminated against. Not only did Kyriacou have to fight against his bullies, but also against his parents. Later on in his life, he was faced with the idea that divorce was “wrong”. Kyriacou’s experiences make him more credible and make us empathise with him because it shows that he knows how to deal with discrimination.  Kyriacou did not want to fight with his family that divorce was wrong. He uses a lot of anecdotes and this shows his emotions displayed in the article. This ties in with the tone of the article, it is quite emotive as he talks about his past.

Shifting to a more serious and cautious tone, Mike Kyriacou is against the fact that the government is using a plebiscite that is wasting money and resources, the plebiscite will also be divisive in the community. Kyriacou is against a plebiscite, because alone, the plebiscite costs the government $160 million. This is a waste of money and resources. The money could be spent on something more important. Kyriacou has been “listening to shameful political discussion on a marriage equality plebiscite”. Kyriacou does not want to listen to politicians arguing with each other to see if same sex marriage should be legalised or not. Kyriacou thinks that a plebiscite will be divisive due to the fact that some people may agree with same sex marriage whereas some people may not. Kyriacou doesn’t want to see his loved ones or anyone fight against the feelings that they have for someone else. People who disagree with same sex marriage will say “you are not one of us” or “you are not good enough or even “you are not equal”, Kyriacou does not want this to happen to anyone, however this is what the plebiscite will do to society. Everything that Kyriacou has said, he is outlining all the reasons why a plebiscite is a bad idea and it’s a waste of resources.