A Conservative Manifesto: On Gay Marriage

A counter argument for gay marriage.

In the past, the topic of gay marriage had been an issue that was suppressed within society and dwelled in the underground layer of its fabric. However, over the past years, ideas and cultural norms that were once considered unsavory have taken root in society and have become entwined with a broader sense of conciseness. A common underpinning amongst these underground ideas is to rebels against the very pillars society stands for, and one of these pillars that are on the verge of collapsing is the pillar of family.

 

Gay marriage has become a topic of discussion in the early millennium with its merits and cons and how it might come to effect society as a whole. Most who are for the notion of unorthodox marriages have accused opponents as nothing more than the maintainers of the statues quo and religious fanatics bent on ushering forth a New Jerusalem rotting in religiosity. For the record, these accusations can be no further from the truth, and as you read on, you will come to discover the true reasons of why gay marriage should be looked at with a weary eye by those to are driven by reason.

 

To begin, we must first know what compels the idea of gay marriage and the driving force behind the proposition. Gay marriage is defined as the unorthodox marriage of a man and a man or women and women (Orthodox being a single man and single women). I will admit that my reasons may be abstract, but it can be dully placed forth that the philosophical mind set that pushes for gay marriage to become a conventional norm within society lays on the mind set of the Utilitarian. The Utilitarian mindset is the philosophical conscious of an individual or a group who protest that that which is in the best interest of society is what makes the majority happy.  Proponents of gay marriage push this notion based on the premis that by legalizing gay marriage, it will make those who desire it happy, and have no effect on those who wish to thwart it. Another notion among the champions of gay marriage is the presumption that by prohibiting gay marriage, the minority that wish it so are being oppressed by every institution within society and to break free of that oppression is a strive that must me achieved at all coast against the “evil” status quo.  Lastly, consideration must be made on the demographics of the individuals who propose the institution of gay marriage. There will be, of course, a mix group of people from all walks of life, but the most vibrant will be left-leaning youth, academic elitists, and sometimes well educated, world-traveled individuals who sport the Utilitarian mind set.

 

Arguments have been made that the implementation of gay marriage will only free the oppressed by letting them marry of their choice, and hinder no one wanting to marry in orthodoxy. However feeble and humbling these arguments might be, it is important to understand that implications in unorthodox marriage will rote forth within society. First and foremost, understanding must be taken on the consideration of the children. A child growing up in a gay household runs the risk of growing up with the notion of confused gender roles. Confused gender roles runs a wide risk of problems. For starters, a sense of confused gender roles can lead to a lowered notion of self worth in a child. A mother in the house hold is the symbol of support and nourishment within the family and the father is a symbol of direction. Without a mother, a child will grow to see conflicting direction within his two fathers and come to be confused with his self, and his self identify. However, more devastating is the case of the absences of the father in the house hold because there will be no sense of direction present within the family and the child. The child will grow to be compulsive and unstable as there is no buffer factor to channel the child in a suitable direction. Now it can be argued, that within gay families, being both either female or male, it will come to pass that one individual will come to take on the characteristics of a male and the other will come to achieve the characteristics of a female. This proposition is flawed in two premises. The first, a woman can not take on the characteristics of a male, and the second, a man cannot take on the characteristics of a female. Thus, the backing for theses two argument is one, why? Because in order to develop a male conscious, one must grow up and have lived their life entirely as a male. One must have been perceived by society as a male and have been expected to enact in male behavior, and take on responsibilities of a male aptitude. The transfer from the consciousness of a female to a male is convoluted due to the fact that a woman would not have had the opportunity to gain a male consciousness by being brought up as a male within society. The same can be said for females. What makes a female, a female is not only her biological and chemical make up, but her conciseness of the world influenced by her past experiences. A woman’s intellect and intuation can sometimes far surpass the capabilities of men. There is no way a man can master these capabilities just because he chooses to be the opposite sex the next day. To conclude, the underlining notion that must be addressed with  these problems is the result in a loss of self esteem within a child. Men are not socially or biologically able to transform into women and neither women into men. A child needs both in its life for a stable understanding of duality. Dealing with only one sex unconditionally will result in  skewed self esteem, and convoluted idea of self worth in a child.

 

Moving away from the micro, we now move towards the macro. Gay marriage is not only a detriment to the family; it is also unsavory to a body politic as a whole. Let us say for instance that the body politic represents a human body. Like any nation, the freeways and streets make up its veins, and its community and shops make up its organs and infrastructure. Through the healthy inter workings of every structure; wealth is produced in the physiological and psychological wellbeing of the individual. Its land represents its body and the family represents its cells. If there is only a minuet change within a cell or a cell’s growth, then this can come to have a detrimental affect on the body as a whole. Likewise, an unstable family resembling a faulty cell is the path to the degradation of a country or a body politic. Soon this mutation within in the cell comes to affect the rest of the body. It travels through the veins, and comes to convolute the greater structures of community and shops which results in the hindrance of the physiological and psychological wellbeing of the body politic as a whole. To conclude, this second paragraph might come as a notion to discard by the American, being that American consciousness dwells on loyalty to other occurrences besides the state.  Americans find loyalty to themselves first and foremost, and then to being a sports fan, a mother, a father, a certain race etc. These notions are okay and reinforce the strong philosophy of individuality in America. However, there comes a time when a particular instance faces us all, and it is our responsibility as well educated and reasoning individuals to make a conscious decision on behalf of our nation.

 

Ideas that are more status quo oriented are far too often suppressed within our society by the “struggling class.” However, we must remember that the status quo is often the safest of all discourses, and more often than not, a total dissolution in the status quo leads to violence when the permeation of slow change is not taken.  Therefore a consideration on the position of the status quo must be taken into account to make a firm bases for challenges against those who seek to overthrow it. For every Conservative who ever find themselves engaged in argument, use my words as munitions and never shy away from your beliefs.   

 

-Avgvstvs