Language Analysis Gay Marriage Essay Example

on the ground symbolize the lesbian couple's defiance against God and societal norms. Adam's unhappiness is depicted through his body language and facial expression; he is hunched over and sitting on a dead log.

The snake, referred to as a "progressive," advises against taking offense at the matter of same-sex couples and encourages acceptance. Expressing support for gay marriage, the snake proposes that these couples will remain unchanged and suggests moving forward. The play on words, "For God's sake," ridicules God's intentions for Adam & Eve and emphasizes that the relationship between the women did not align with his creation of the world. The presence of other fruit trees in the background offers Adam a solution to his predicament - to move on and "find another apple tree".

Tuohy's article agrees with previous articles in recognizing the decline of religion and culture. However, Cohen's opinion piece titled "tsunami-sized backlash on same-sex marriage looms" (The Australian 12/12/11) takes a different stance by criticizing the Australian Labor Party for giving more importance to a federal conference on gay marriage instead of addressing Australia's potential global financial crisis.

In a critical tone, he ridicules the debate over whether "Bruce and Bob or Barbara and Betty could marry," dismissing it as trivial and pointless. The alliteration effectively grabs the reader's attention, enabling them to evaluate his arguments. He also argues that same-sex marriage should not be redefined since it has been regarded as a sacred and traditional practice for "thousands of years."

The author emphasizes the importance of traditional marriage as the foundation of family life and encourages readers to contemplate their own family values

and traditions. He argues that if same-sex marriage is legalized, it will have a significant impact on the sacredness of marriage and disrupt natural familial relationships. Additionally, Cohen acknowledges the necessity of granting specific rights to homosexuals, demonstrating his impartiality and reasonableness. His support for John Gorton's private member's bill and his advocacy for equal treatment for gays further illustrate his commitment to ensuring equal rights for all.

In this text, the writer opposes extending marriage rights to same-sex couples and draws comparisons with practices such as polygamy and engaging in sexual relations with minors. Through exaggeration, the writer seeks to elicit an emotional reaction from readers who typically reject the idea of polygamy and pedophilia being considered "rights." This analogy is meant to assert that gay marriage should not be regarded as a "right" either. Additionally, the writer mentions potential effects on children, suggesting that they will also be impacted by the proposed changes.

Cohen addresses parents, emphasizing the significance of their children's well-being and innocence. Through words like "choke" and "graphic", he suggests that allowing same-sex marriage could have extensive consequences beyond those directly involved. Cohen targets both the general public and attendees of the Federal conference, urging them to reject the idea that gay marriage is a fundamental right.

Despite none of the writers being gay, and the audience only knowing that Tuohy and Cohen are married, they each have unique perspectives on same-sex marriage. Newton and Tuohy share a similar viewpoint using informal language, however, Newton focuses on the changing times and the mistake of holding onto "traditional wisdom," whereas Tuohy explores the definition and current significance of

marriage while recognizing societal changes. In contrast, Cohen advocates for preserving traditional values and highlights potential repercussions by utilizing formal language.

Cohen and Newton both offer opposing views on "progressives". While Cohen mocks and criticizes these individuals, Newton advocates for leaving the past behind and also mocks those who adhere to "traditional wisdom". In a way, Newton himself can be considered a "progressive". Cohen and Tuohy further disagree with each other. Cohen argues that marriage is the foundation of family life, whereas Tuohy presents the statistic that "one in three babies is born outside wedlock" to argue that marriage is no longer necessary for Australians to start a family.