A different Tory, pro capitalist, good Christians, confused, unique and often dangerous views of the world. I am non partisan and often non nonsensical
Friday, 1 June 2012
I must declare certain facts; one sex is unacceptable concept within traditional conservative circles, this is not to sex is unacceptable full stop but we consider it not a valid topic for the public sphere in which political debate takes place. This awkwardness with this most private of topics has led to traditional conservatism being wholly unable to engaged with identity or gender politics at all.
This inability to engage with the new politics of self and of definition has led to the abomination of neo conservatism the first split from the conservative family since the dawn of man. These market worshipers believe that man must be made to confirm to wider social needs though they are very vague about the results. We cannot accept this; man should love his community and his place in the order of things, we acknowledged that this may require a shortening of the self but this should not be seen as a sacrifice but an exchange for participation in a larger self and to be able to partake in the glory of community and nation.
So what does this mean for those whose gender or sexual orientation forms part of their selfhood and this selfhood is in opposition to the gender aspect of the selfhood of their community? Much more simply put how should conservatives react to none heterosexual people.
Well let us start with first principles. God ordained the order of the world; all things that exist within these orders are thus part of the divinely inspired and sanctioned order. God ordered that man should mate with women for the increasing of his kingdom and the mutual joy of both parties. Thus we state and we state as an article of truth that there is only man and women and only man and women can be joined together in a meaningful union.
So what about those who gender is not recognised, without accepting there union we are abridging there selfhood. Well firstly we do not accept that one’s sexual preference is part of one’s selfhood. This obsession with sex is a product of a decaying and self-centred society and will be of a lesser concern to them once we heal the harm market and self-worship has done to community. For the3 time being however, the harm has been done and thus we must respond to these misguided calls.
In order to restore the idea of unions for life and of the centrality of the family I would suggest it be best that we allow those who have a non-ordained sexual preference be allowed within their own community to join together in empty union with one another. These unions would not be acceptable as a moral union or an ordained union as they serve no purpose and are alien to Gods divinely inspired order but they would increase mortal unions and once more increase and retrench the idea of monogamous family units in our society.
So beyond marriage what else must we do? I really believe the best we can do is ignore it. Communities will accept or exclude them and it would be unacceptable to force communities to share the same sex obsession which they themselves share and it would be equally unacceptable to stoke the fires of hatred based on the same sexual obsession. Thus the best solution to these issues is to retrun society to a stage were once more sex is not part of the public discourse and where those who has issue with it can be allowed to deal with it without a great deal of interference.