ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Literature Text
Marriage. It is a way for two people to make their bonds of love known to the world; the formal exchange of rings and vows in front of God and their respective families allows couples to publically acknowledge their feelings for each other. This oldest of institutions is also a jealously-guarded tool used by backwards-thinking traditionalist organizations and governments to continue their campaign of discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities.
As defined by Australian federal law, marriage is described as "the union of a man and a woman," and a union solemnised in a foreign country between two members of the same sex "must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia." Let me give you an example of just how archaic this ruling is: this law came from an era when the Beatles were only just making their debut, America was still employing chimpanzees and dogs as astronauts, the Berlin Wall was still being built, Monash University had just opened its doors and the Vietnam War was only starting up. This bigoted, backwards law was made in NINETEEN-SIXTY-ONE!!
I am talking about a time when such discriminatory policies as apartheid were still in effect, and the effects of Nazi Germany's Holocaust were still being felt; it was a time for discrimination, and surely isn't it time for that attitude to be changed? The Australian public seem to believe so. Multiple surveys conducted since June 2004 have revealed an increasing trend of voters in support of legalising same-sex marriage; indeed, a survey conducted by the House of Representatives in early 2012, which collected approximately 276,000 votes, found that 64.3% of the people who voted were in favour of legalising same-sex marriages.
Opponents to same-sex marriages argue that allowing same-sex marriages will somehow diminish the institution of marriage, that it will lessen a person's pride at being able to say "I'm married" and that it goes against the Bible and God and what-have-you. I'm sure that such people are closely related to the imbeciles who condemned the brief cameo of a transgender character on Glee, solely because of its potential to inspire children to experiment with their sexuality, and who believe that the Harry Potter novels contain occult and Satanic subtexts that are converting entire generations into a legion of Antichrists.
Public support for same-sex marriages has consistently been higher than 55% since June 2007! It has taken eight polls over the span of five years for the government to even begin to consider the legalisation of same-sex marriages. And even then, despite Tony Abbott's sister coming out as a lesbian, the opposition is still being denied the right of a conscience vote, which Julia Gillard allowed to her party despite her own backwards views against same-sex marriage. And what happened when Labor was given the chance to vote for or against same-sex marriage? Two-hundred and eight votes to one-hundred and eight-four, with the former being in favour of same-sex marriage.
The Australian public have spoken. The Labor party has spoken. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have been calling for this most basic right for years. Why should anyone think they have the right to allow this blatant discrimination to go on? There's an obvious answer to that question: they shouldn't.
As defined by Australian federal law, marriage is described as "the union of a man and a woman," and a union solemnised in a foreign country between two members of the same sex "must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia." Let me give you an example of just how archaic this ruling is: this law came from an era when the Beatles were only just making their debut, America was still employing chimpanzees and dogs as astronauts, the Berlin Wall was still being built, Monash University had just opened its doors and the Vietnam War was only starting up. This bigoted, backwards law was made in NINETEEN-SIXTY-ONE!!
I am talking about a time when such discriminatory policies as apartheid were still in effect, and the effects of Nazi Germany's Holocaust were still being felt; it was a time for discrimination, and surely isn't it time for that attitude to be changed? The Australian public seem to believe so. Multiple surveys conducted since June 2004 have revealed an increasing trend of voters in support of legalising same-sex marriage; indeed, a survey conducted by the House of Representatives in early 2012, which collected approximately 276,000 votes, found that 64.3% of the people who voted were in favour of legalising same-sex marriages.
Opponents to same-sex marriages argue that allowing same-sex marriages will somehow diminish the institution of marriage, that it will lessen a person's pride at being able to say "I'm married" and that it goes against the Bible and God and what-have-you. I'm sure that such people are closely related to the imbeciles who condemned the brief cameo of a transgender character on Glee, solely because of its potential to inspire children to experiment with their sexuality, and who believe that the Harry Potter novels contain occult and Satanic subtexts that are converting entire generations into a legion of Antichrists.
Public support for same-sex marriages has consistently been higher than 55% since June 2007! It has taken eight polls over the span of five years for the government to even begin to consider the legalisation of same-sex marriages. And even then, despite Tony Abbott's sister coming out as a lesbian, the opposition is still being denied the right of a conscience vote, which Julia Gillard allowed to her party despite her own backwards views against same-sex marriage. And what happened when Labor was given the chance to vote for or against same-sex marriage? Two-hundred and eight votes to one-hundred and eight-four, with the former being in favour of same-sex marriage.
The Australian public have spoken. The Labor party has spoken. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have been calling for this most basic right for years. Why should anyone think they have the right to allow this blatant discrimination to go on? There's an obvious answer to that question: they shouldn't.
A few weeks ago, Year 12 students at my school (who do English as a subject) had to present a persuasive oral presentation related to a subject that had been in the news since September 2011.
I chose to do my oral in support of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Australia. The teachers examining my oral gave me a mark in the high-20s out of 30. What would you have given me?
I chose to do my oral in support of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Australia. The teachers examining my oral gave me a mark in the high-20s out of 30. What would you have given me?
© 2012 - 2024 EmeraldCage
Comments27
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Overall Vision Originality
Technique ImpactWonderful points were made in this essay (: I think that the part where you said the thing about the law being made in a time of discrimination was a great point with much impact in the paper. The reasoning for the 4/5 on technique was simply a few awkwardly phrased sentences, but other than that, it was excellent and I really wholeheartedly enjoyed reading it. I would definitely go twenty eight out of thirty, by the way. Good paper, great topic, and awesome points made. This sentence is here because I still had 15 words I have to use up.