Floating Rocks

stone-in-waterIt would take either a seriously misguided or willfully malignant intelligence to postulate that there exist no basic principles and properties by which the world operates. Clearly, it is a foolish endeavor to attempt to prove that the universe is not imbued with particular qualities that allow it to function. Without these laws, there would be no order, and self-perpetuation would be nigh impossible and doubtful at best. However, as frequently and ironically happens, the prime of creation, man, will decide that perhaps what is obviously true through empirical scientific data is simply conjecture foisted upon ourselves from previous generations and that modern society, in order to truly engage in self-expression, must seek constant redefinition. Of course, the issue I am considering here is the current dilemma of marriage. The question, at its most basic level, is, “Does society have the capability to redefine a natural law in a way that suits its fancy?”

First, one must seek to discover the original definition of marriage. It seems that a workable definition would be: an exclusive, permanent, potentially-childbearing relationship between a man and a woman that is only void upon the death of either party. Anything other than this inherently promotes a chaotic and problematic family structure that actively produces a situation that denies order and therefore is detrimental both to society and to individuals. Now, it may not be politically-correct to make such an assertion, but that should have no bearing on its actual correctness.

It has become popular to support “marriage equality”. I support marriage equality. I don’t believe that any one marriage should be considered more valuable or legitimate than any other. One marriage may be better than another, but that doesn’t mean that its inherent worth is more than a less perfect instance. It’s the same with people. A rich, well-behaving man’s life is worth no more than that of a destitute, petty thief. I’m fairly sure most of society would agree with me here. Then again, most of society, according to recent polls, would probably take issue with my previous definition of marriage. Thus the conflict ensues.

As stated above, attitude of man is one that often seeks to redefine natural laws. For example, it is a natural law that murder is always wrong. Yet, the world operates today under a legal definition of murder that is incomplete and allows for it without calling it so. Abortion, the killing an unborn child, is murder. It is also quite legal.

Now, because of the prevalence and popularity of government taking action to legalize murder, allow me to provide a situation in which the government takes a similar action. Say, perhaps someday in the future, it becomes politically correct to support “density equality”. There would be ads featuring celebrities and politicians saying things like, “I can’t wait for the day when all physical objects can float. Imagine the freedom. They can’t take your pride, rocks. It gets better.” Thus a campaign begins to legislate the ability of all rock’s right and ability to float, due to the fact that saying otherwise is derogatory and insensitive. After all, rocks can’t change the fact that they were formed more dense than water, and therefore shouldn’t be maligned by people pointing out that they lack the capability of flotation.

That would be absurd, right? After all, the government can’t pass a law endowing all rocks with the ability to float. That would be stupid and illogical, not to mention impossible. Yet society consistently thinks that government is suddenly granted this power if there is enough popular support for such an action. This is a dangerous idea, and the precedent that it sets is nightmarish to say the best about it. What if one day the government decides to redefine safe speed limits to enforce “speed equality”. There would be no restrictions on how fast one could drive on even the most perilous stretches of road. This would be inherently irresponsible and would doubtlessly lead to the deaths of many people. But using the logic that the current, power-possessing generation is capable of doing so would, in fact, make just such a thing possible.

This logic comes from the understanding that there is no higher being than man, thus there are no limits on his power to do as he wishes. But it breaks down when it constantly seeks to justify its behavior to society or other people. Why is this necessary? It is ironic that those who seek to eliminate governmental interference in their daily lives perpetually beseech it to redefine basic, far-reaching natural laws to somehow justify themselves to some purportedly non-existent higher authority. The fact is, it is impossible for government to redefine anything, let it be marriage, sanctity of life, or the flotation of rocks. To act otherwise is to defy order and to defy reason.

Discussion — No responses