In a list of pros and cons, the majority of the cons arguments include the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate....
Even though this is an exceedingly controversial topic, Legalizing same-sex marriage will have a positive effect on society because it won’t harm the institution of marriage, it will uphold the constitution, and it will inevitably happen either way.
When the Supreme Court ruled for the right for couples to marry interracially in 1967, they called the laws preventing interracial marriage nothing more than an attempt "to maintain white supremacy" (Stoddard 413).
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.
The conclusion of the United States Supreme court was that because laws against interracial marriage served no purpose other than discrimination, they should be eliminated....
Ultimately, Abbott’s claims interrelates with Durkheim’s theory mentioned earlier that the notion of same sex marriage should be kept separate from and not included within the sacredness of the actual term of what society considers marriage to be.
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).
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).
However, it is not that Abbott is against gay people, he goes onto further discussing that “the Australian government is now seeking to overturn nearly all discrimination against gay relationships but will still not allow same-sex marriage” (News Website, 2011).
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.
To put into perspective a case study in order to evaluate the above discussion ‘against’ gay marriage, we can look at Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s thoughts towards not legalising same sex marriage in Australia and Overseas.
Throughout the judgments made from both politicians, it becomes evident that the notion of same sex relationship are allowed in society, however the idea of same sex couples marrying one another goes against societies claims on the term ‘marriage’ and its sacredness.
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.
The de-facto system provides homosexual couples the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual married couple as this type of system becomes the end solution for homosexual couples.
However a recent debate over same-sex marriage has stirred a nationwide debate reverberating in the halls of Congress, at the White House, in dozens of state courtrooms and legislatures, and is also becoming a speech-making topic for election campaigns at both the national and state levels.