WYLFWT.com Museum

    You all must be thinking, not 1984 again. However, that book is just so full of examples of how today's society can be linked to this totalitarian society. One topic is marriage. In this book, marriage is solely for the purpose of reproduction, all sexual ecstasy is barred. Therefore, married couples were usually not physically attracted to each other, and sexual intercourse is regarded as a "slightly gross procedure." In the book, there is the Junior Anti-Sex League, which is basically the equivalent of those kids that pray to Yeshua just a little louder to annoy the hell out of the rest of us. They want to remove the right of teenagers to choose what to do with their bodies and keep their wombs for marriage and production of more future dead soldiers.

    Now, we must look at the status of marriage in America. Tax benefits are given to heterosexual couples, but even more to those with kids. Gay marriage is not allowed yet. Notice that the government gives tax incentives to families with OFFSPRING!! Notice a pattern? Also notice that the rightist politicians support abstinence-only-until-marriage sex ed programs. These programs do not support non-procreative sexual activity whatsoever. Then these same politicians are against abortion in almost all cases. However, when these children turn 18, they actively pursue their recruitment into the military. They also are against gay marriage, because it "breaks up families." However, the only way it undermines Orwellian families is that no offspring could be produced. May Big Brother bless them.

    One must also consider the heterosexual couples that are unable to produce children. According to people that argue about how heterosexual couples produce nuclear families neglect those married couples that are unable to produce children. Adoption is less procreative than actually having children. But according to arguments that I have heard about how heterosexual marriage produces nuclear families, wouldn't these loving couples be excluded from their criteria. They might as well be with the same-sex couples under this standard. Basically, this argument is that marriage should not be about love, just about reproductively just like how the Party and the Junior Anti-Sex League wants it to.

    Anyways, looking at this argument, the proposed ban on gay marriage is just one step closer to us accepting the principles of Ingsoc. The mini-true concept that homosexuality is immoral is possibly just a cover-up for a much larger Orwellian conspiracy. Let them marry, there's no reason not to if you're for the overall freedom of people from the developing Big Brother. I know that I sound like one of those guys that says that everything is a government conspiracy. What I said above is only a BUNCH of odd coincidences. Maybe they truly believe in a moral America. I just doubt it when they let cash cows fatten up our kids and financially rape the poor.

Anyways, support your local gay couple

    However – conspiracy or not – it’s also completely logical and perfectly commonsensical that the government should promote and endorse heterosexual couples, especially those with children. In so doing, the government is reinforcing the institution that lies at the very crux of our society. It is not simply encouraging procreation, but it is also fortifying a social institution that renders an ideal framework for conceiving and raising children. Compassionless as it sounds, the State is not much concerned about rewarding or praising romantic love. Its primary objective in favoring married heterosexual couples is to simply uphold a construction that best formalizes the human condition.

Marriage sanctions the union of opposites which alone creates new life. (Whether or not a given married couple does indeed create new life is inconsequential; the basic, ideal structure that society strives for is still being strengthened) There is no reason why society should equate the union of a heterosexual couple, which is procreative in the vast majority of cases, with a union between two same-sex individuals who cannot procreate at all. (Some will argue that gay and lesbian couples can surmount this hurdle via adoption or artificial insemination; however this argument holds no water when you consider that in order to do this, homosexual couples are necessarily and inexorably dependent upon heterosexual couples. 

    I restate my question – how does homosexual marriage benefit society? If marriage is redefined to include same-sex unions, how are society’s interests being served? Why should the government spend my tax dollars supporting an institution that only serves to undermine and debase the institution of family in this country?

 

The Pick said... How I love Orwellian references! For a similar literary twist, you ought to check out "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, Bobby. But I digress...

    I agree with JennyJane on this one, to an extent. The government recognizes and rewards heterosexual marriages because of what it does for this country; like it or not, it's more widely accepted, it produces children more often, and it produces more benefits for society in general, even when children aren't produced. Allow me to explain:

    The most centralized argument the government could make for hetero marriage is power. People are strengthened by solidarity, and we live in a cheap world. Anyone well-versed in Orwell could easily recognize that strength comes from people believing things are good, whether they are or not. In essence, being that the majority of the nation subscribes to the heterosexual family, they are united by their similarities. That gives them power, which makes Uncle Sam awful interested in their morals, as unscrupulous as he is. That makes the majority feel happy, united, and represented. That's enough to opiate the masses.

    Like it or lump it, the alternative lifestyle is the minority; that means, overall, that it is politically impotent as a Democrat in Texas. It's really too bad. In both cases, a very important group is getting swept under the rug for the benefit of the government. Ain't America grand? Well, yes it is, but not for that reason.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Add Comment