Jane Edwards's Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

2734 Words 11 Pages
Register to read the introduction… Throughout this notion, a child needs the reassurance of both a mother and father figure. Once again, individuals who are ‘for’ gay marriage and parenting will possibly disagree and point out that a homosexual couples does not necessarily need to have children or the case that children will not be affected with same sex parents. As for the argument ‘against' this topic, that is not necessarily the case. In order to build upon this idea of children having both a mother and a father figure as apart of their lives, Jane Edwards’s article builds on Rod Benson’s claims in relation to arguments against same sex marriage laws. Rod Benson (2011, para 5) argues that “marriage has a place in the law because a relationship between a man and a woman is the kind of relationship that may produce children. Marriage is linked to children, for the sake of children, protecting their identity and their nurture by a mother and a father” (2011, para 5). Similarly, both Edward’s and Benson’s articles represent the importance of the existence of children who are situated in a family with homosexual parents. The life of the child is a significant aspect to consider, especially for the children’s upbringing and their future goals in life. Alternatively, Clarke justifies that the appropriate image for children is that they “are portrayed as innocent and vulnerable, and in need of the care and protection of “appropriate” adults” (2001, p. 565). Specifically, children are not brought up in what society sees as an acceptable relationship which could lead to bullying or mental problems in later life. For the sake of the children, as Clarke mentions if the parents are not appropriate then this situation of being involved with …show more content…
Primarily both Gillard’s and Abbott’s views show a distinct understanding of issues of legalising gay marriage, unlike Anna Bligh’s response who is ‘for’ the legalisation of same sex marriage in society and allowing same sex couples to have equal human rights. According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 30th June, 2010, Julia Gillard opposed her thoughts in relation to same sex marriage. In her article to the Sydney Morning Herald, she said that “we believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples” (SMH Website, 2011). Similarly, this links with the strong point that the National Marriage Coalition makes reference to in Edward’s article in relation to marriage being sacred. It is purely a commitment between a man and a woman and that is what becomes socially acceptable in today’s society in how they view the term marriage. Alternatively, comparison can be made between Prime Minister Julia Gillard and opposition leader, Tony Abbott’s judgment in relation to gay marriage. In an article on a news website, Toby Abbott gives his direct view in relation to the concept of gay marriages in society. He mentions that, “however deeply affectionate or long lasting it may be, the relationship between two people of the same sex cannot be a marriage because a marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman” (News Website, 2011). Similarly, both Gillard’s and Abbott’s thoughts on gay marriage intertwine with one another. Ultimately, they argue that marriage is sacred term and is purely not for same sex couples. However, it is not that Abbott is

Related Documents