An Evolving Society?

As support for same-sex marriage grows in the U.S., champions of so-called "marriage equality" have celebrated the "evolving" of society. Among the many keys to any successful campaign, is the ability to utilize persuasive jargon to sway the target audience's opinion. The political left has mastered the art of the persuasive word, the phrase that will tug at the heartstrings. As with any agenda or campaign, this requires a stretch, or in many cases complete re-definement, of the word.

Which brings us to the issue of society's "evolving" on the issue of same-sex marriage. There are many issues and troubling signs that I find with the application of this description of society's acceptance of SSM.



First let's define the word evolution. Evolution, particularly as it pertains to social institutions, is the process of progressive change. This means that society progresses, it advances, in regard to a social issue. Presumably, this refers to a further movement away from a state of primitiveness to a more polished social climate.

Which raises the question: If the reigns on social norms are consistently relaxed, where is the line drawn? There most certainly isn't a universally accepted "red line" of sorts, because each component of mankind, i.e. every individual, is by definition just that- an individual. We are not robots. We all have different opinions, evolving opinions, borne not just out of disposition but also from life experiences. Therefore, there cannot be a man-made, authoritative, final definition on what is accepted and what is not. The issue of same-sex marriage itself is an indicator. Just a few decades ago, the very idea of same-sex marriage was viewed as abhorrent. Now look at where society stands. If society "progresses" along the path of reign-regression, what is the ultimate end goal?

This argument isn't meant to be representative of a "fear-mongering" mentality. It's simply predicated on logic. If society's definition of "acceptable" keeps being redefined, if the restrictions on the individual's place in society are constantly being loosened, if it is impossible to establish an end goal, then the only logical conclusion is that social anarchy is the ultimate end result. In other words, only when every restriction is lifted can the end "goal" be accomplished.

This doesn't mean social anarchy will descend upon us the minute all 50 states allow same-sex marriage. Such a process would take many, many decades, even centuries. However, when morality is defined by man's definition anarchy ensues. Nothing mankind establishes is set in stone, particularly when it comes to social norms. If one supports same-sex marriage, it doesn't mean they actively support unbridled permissiveness. However, if one is a prisoner of a society-dictated moral mandate, he or she cannot say definitively "but only to this point".