Evolving Backwards
“... as we reset a standard to something less beneficial.”
The term evolution creates a lot of opinions, feelings, and
perspectives. I’m not going to
even try to sort that all out.
Darwin and all those that desire to turn man toward themselves
(humanism/secularism) and away from God have plenty on the subject. Also, the many Christian apologists
that can defend the case of creation and development are much more suited to
engage the topic at deeper levels.
I am just laying out some thoughts I’m having since last week’s
announcement that Obama has “evolved”.
I am always intrigued by word selection and word usage. Words/semantics create paradigms. So I view words as highly
important. The concept of
evolution carries with it the idea that something is “improving” or developing
to a better state. To go from a
tadpole to a frog is better. To go
from an ape to a human is better and so on. The idea that evolving is “coming to a better state” is common
in whatever context its used. So
when Obama is said to be “evolving” on his view of gay marriage it carries with
it the idea that he has now come to a better state or has improved. So I guess if we want to improve
or come to a better state as a person or society we must “evolve” to embrace gay marriage as legally equal to 1 man/1
woman (historical, Biblical, traditional) marriage. The other perspective here is that if you do not embrace gay
marriage as legally equal then we are “less” of a person or society. I guess those that do not want legal
equality of gay marriage are “apes” while others such as Obama have arrived at
“human” level of superiority. Gay
marriage is not even banned in America.
Any same sex couple can be “married”, live together, and commit
themselves to each other forever.
There is nothing stopping them from that. The issue then is not “gay marriage” or the ban of it. It’s a political effort to give legal
equality to something that is less beneficial to children, to society, and to
the future.
This takes me back to my point on evolution being something
that is suppose to take things to a better state, an improvement. If Obama’s example is his “evolution”
on this subject and he has now come to a “better” position, then we would need
to conclude that the American culture/society should evolve and embrace legal
marriage equality for gay people.
Yet, culture/society would decline in its care for children, in our
social stability as we are foundationed on the quality of family life, and in
the future population that would effect production, invention, commerce, taxes,
etc. So is setting gay marriage as
a legal institution evolution in the idea of coming to a better state, or is it
smoke and mirrors, political games that will lead us to decline? Amazing the word evolution is used to
prop up something that leads to regression.
If we followed the idea of evolution being an improvement,
we would want a nation that worked hard on raising moral children of integrity
and values that would create better marriages of men and woman for much
stronger families. We should not
evolve backwards in eroding the foundational institution of marriage and
family, we should be “evolving” into better Biblically moral people with deeper
committed marriages and better parenting.
This would create stronger productivity, creativity, economy, and social
structure that would take a nation to greater opportunity. Obama didn’t evolve on the issue. He just denounced his previous lies. That is NOT the kind of “evolution” we
need to follow. That is taking
steps toward regression and collapse of a great nation.
We must see clearly beyond emotions that gay people are
equal to all others and their interest in commitment to each other is not
restricted in America, but the legal status of marriage is for 1 man/1 woman,
and to that there is no equal.
Anything else erodes our social fabric as we reset a standard to
something less beneficial. That is
evolving backwards.
No comments:
Post a Comment