The issue of same sex marriage has been circulating in the Australian media frequently in the past few years with many people pushing for, or against, it’s progression. Nick Jensen wrote an opinion piece online ‘Gay law change may force us to divorce’ (10/06/15) about why he believes gay marriage should not be legalised and how it will “force” himself and his wife to divorce. Before the audience even reads the piece they are drawn in by Jensen’s wording in the title. By saying that the gay law change will “force” himself and his wife to divorce it causes the audience to be curious about why exactly that may be.
Jensen opens his piece with an explanation of the title stating that “after [his] divorce, [he and his wife] will continue to live …show more content…
He tells that he and his wife “refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples.” In saying that he and his wife “refuse to recognise” marriage as an advanced definition he is offering no alternatives and tries to compel the audience to respect and support his marriage to his wife who he shares is “[his] perfect match”. In hearing about Jensen’s relationship with his wife as his “high school sweetheart” and love of his life he urges the audience to feel compassionate at the destruction of his …show more content…
Later, a woman named Mia Freedman wrote an online feature article “I support marriage equality. And I vote.” (12/08/15) on her blog site ‘Mamamia’ about why she believes the government should support marriage equality and also why she believes that many opposing it have no real grounds to stand on. This is a completely different view to Jensen. She uses a critical and confrontational tone to share her views.
Freedman begins her piece with a recount of a historical event that saw the legalisation of inter-racial marriage, an issue that we today in 2015 would think should have never been illegal. When she tells us the story of Richard and Mildred Loving and how their marriage was thought to
Jensen opens his piece with an explanation of the title stating that “after [his] divorce, [he and his wife] will continue to live …show more content…
He tells that he and his wife “refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples.” In saying that he and his wife “refuse to recognise” marriage as an advanced definition he is offering no alternatives and tries to compel the audience to respect and support his marriage to his wife who he shares is “[his] perfect match”. In hearing about Jensen’s relationship with his wife as his “high school sweetheart” and love of his life he urges the audience to feel compassionate at the destruction of his …show more content…
Later, a woman named Mia Freedman wrote an online feature article “I support marriage equality. And I vote.” (12/08/15) on her blog site ‘Mamamia’ about why she believes the government should support marriage equality and also why she believes that many opposing it have no real grounds to stand on. This is a completely different view to Jensen. She uses a critical and confrontational tone to share her views.
Freedman begins her piece with a recount of a historical event that saw the legalisation of inter-racial marriage, an issue that we today in 2015 would think should have never been illegal. When she tells us the story of Richard and Mildred Loving and how their marriage was thought to