Friday, May 11, 2012

Move Your Dadgum Foot!

As promised, a follow up on yesterday’s post.

picture perfect
Many conservative Christians find themselves at odds with science on the matter of “origins” – Big Bang or “Let there be light”?  Evolution or Intelligent Design?  I’m going to tell you a secret you may not hear many other places.  The Judeo-Christian religious tradition (JCRT) and science are not really as incompatible as some would have you think.  Let’s apply this to the matter at hand – marriage. 

Evolution, itself, requires just as much faith to accept as Christianity does.  There simply are no facts about our origins available to us.  But the broader field of science has dug up some observations that not only don’t compete with JCRT, but actually SUPPORT it! 

Let’s return today to where we started yesterday, with what science calls biological imperatives

“Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming. Living organisms that do not attempt to follow or do not succeed in satisfying these imperatives are described as maladaptive; those that do are adaptive.” wiki article

Evolutionists claim these imperatives developed as organisms evolved from simple to complex.  That’s fine to believe, there just are no facts to back that up.  But look at the list of imperatives - survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming.  Every single one of those imperatives is demonstrated to be true in the first five chapters of Genesis.  God even COMMANDS one of them!!! (If you have trouble seeing where and how, email me, we’ll discuss it.)

Much of science tries to deny the existence of God and yet, the claims they make support the order God has put into the world.  Now, as for marriage…  Why is monogamous marriage, heterosexual pair-bonding for life essential – other than “God says so”?

I believe I conclusively argued yesterday that human reproduction can only be achieved through heterosexual intercourse (or some mechanism of getting the boy seed to the girl egg), right?  We good on that?  So let’s move to the two imperatives that follow reproduction: quality of life-seeking, and group forming.  Those two imperatives are the fundamental argument for monogamous, heterosexual marriage (MHM).

I think we all agree – here, just two days before Mother’s Day – that a mother’s role in the development of a healthy child is irreplaceable.  Please tell me if you disagree.  And although much of the “civilized” world is tumbling into a welfare state where the unique role of a father is neutered, it is still INARGUABLE that children in homes with married parents are better off in virtually every dimension of the human experience.  Do we really have to argue that point?  Browse some of these research articles if your noggin needs some schoolin’.

So, I’m still trying to figure out how MHM is not the rule of the land (and according to the Supreme Court, it is).

When a conservative follower of Jesus, like me, begins to describe marriage we use words that appear to strike fear into the heart of Liberal-minded folk.  
“Denial of Self” 
“Shared Responsibility” 
“Shared Resources” 
“Submit to Husband / Sacrificially Serve Wife”

These terms, which describe behaviors essential to developing quality of life and formation of groups, are not the terms you often hear in Liberal enclaves.  

Sure, “It Takes A Village” I’ve heard it said, but that village had better not infringe upon individual rights to enjoy any drug of choice, any sexual practice of choice, or infringe a woman’s choice to kill a baby in her belly.  

Villages are funny things to Liberals.  They’re great for generating tax revenue, but they’re deemed unworthy of dictating moral behavior within the village.  Gay marriage is rejected in almost every state where it is put on the ballot.  Abortion-on-demand is rejected in poll after poll of American citizens.  But the village is repeatedly told, those are individual rights which the village may not obstruct.  Fair enough, but let’s make taxation a woman’s right to choose as well, hmmm?

The JCRT view of marriage is designed to STABILIIZE (conserve) society.  Marriage is designed to create a life-long pair bond between a male and a female – a bond that withstands the ups and downs all marriages go through. 

Marriage is designed to STABILIZE (conserve) the home in which children are born and raised – a home filled with security and certainty, a home where male and female role models are always present. 

Marriage is designed to STABILIZE (conserve) the fabric of the culture in which it exists – a culture which is NOT radically altered by every "modern", passing whim.

MHM (monogamous, heterosexual marriage) is demonstrably the single most common and persistent form of human relation throughout recorded history – and we assume prior to that as well.  Just like gravity which causes a falling rock to hurt our toe, some people may not like the consequences of MHM.  

In other words, when two homosexuals want to cohabitate, the preponderance of history and morality are against them and they don’t like that.  But like gravity, MHM is a real and factual part of the world we live in.  You can either rail against gravity or you can move your dadgum foot.  

And you can rail against MHM because “it cramps your style”, but that doesn’t change the facts.  Homosexual behavior and homosexual pair-bonding offend BOTH the standards of science and of JCRT.

MHM, and reproduction in that context, are direly CONSERVATIVE concepts.  And I’m not speaking politically.  Monogamous heterosexual marriage and reproduction are the fundamental behaviors that conserve – preserve, if you like – the human experience.  MHM provides the correct mechanism for reproduction AND provides the correct context for nurturing the life begat by said reproduction.

If your toe hurts, don’t curse gravity.  Without gravity, you’d be a disintegrated former blob of water and protein mingling with stardust.  Sometimes, “the laws of nature” have their advantages.

I am the author, Clark H Smith

No comments:

Post a Comment