Currently in Australia there is a postal vote to gage the voters opinions on same sex marriage. Now we were promised a Plebiscite, as voting is compulsory in Australia it would have provided a very clear gage of the voters opinions. Within the Parliament there is overwhelming support for same sex marriage, but enough do not support it and this has been as good as we can currently hope for. Now even if the majority vote against it in the postal vote, the Parliament can still vote to implement it, but probably won't. Traditional Conservatism has three guiding principals, Tradition, Order and Family and all of them are opposed to same sex marriage.
Here I will spell out why each principle is opposed to same sex marriage.
Marriage is so old that we don't really know how old it is, but considering that the marriage of one man and one women is near universal it must be old. Even Australian aborigines who have been in Australia for tens of thousands of years and for most of that time have been isolated from the rest of the world have marriage. And only one form of it, one man and one women for life. Now there have been variations, but it has always involved men and women because only one man and one women can create life. Marriage is traditional because it connects the past, the present and the future.
Marriage is at it's heart about life, and only one man and one women can create life. Life is part of Order. Order means that everything has it's rightful place and also a wrongful place. For example I live in a house, but I don't live in your house, so if you open the door to your house and I'm there I am in a wrongful place. For me to assess my bank account is rightful, for me to access your bank account is wrongful, even if it was lawful. Because it is not Order. Everything should be in it's rightful place and that includes marriage. For people who cannot create life to marry is wrongful.
Now there are two arguments against that, firstly men and women who cannot have children marry. But in the past there was no way of knowing if they were unable to have children. Tradition now says that they can marry, furthermore no one is arguing that they should not marry. The second argument says that homosexuals can use artificial means to have children or that they can adopt. Nature has provided that one man and one women can create life, and in the vast majority of cases to raise them together. A child should have both a mother and a father, that is Order. Homosexuals cannot provide that.
For one man and one women to create life is natural, it is Tradition, Order and Family. Because the birth of a child creates a new family. Marriage provides the best social environment in which to raise children. Because Marriage is about binding together one man and one women and their children. A family is not a social construct that is flexible and changeable. The family remains what it has always been. Same sex marriage seeks to disconnect that, to pretend that family is endlessly malleable, that it can be forced into any shape and that it will still fit. That it is both evolution and unchanging, but that is not true because it cannot be true. Once marriage is changed from it's timeless meaning then it will be corrupted and corruption is never a good thing.
Instead of helping working class men to get and keep jobs, instead of discouraging unwed mothers, we have a political class that actively supports unemployment and children growing up without fathers and now homosexuals getting married. We have a political class that actively attacks the Family and therefore the future. As we should have learnt from our own experience and from overseas experience, change will mean more change. It never ends, it is endlessly destructive, is that really what you want?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Scarlet Pimpernel - A Book Review