Skip to comments.Why doesn't anyone say man/woman marriage comes from natural law?
Posted on 03/08/2013 6:07:45 PM PST by cradle of freedom
Will someone please state the obvious--male/female marriage comes from natural law. Marriage is the natural way that a man and woman raise and nurture the children that they bring into the world. The whole structure of human society is built on the foundation of male/female marriage.
It is acceptable to deny marriage to members of the same sex because they have never had rights to marry under natural law and it is not, therefore, discrimination.
Same sex marriage will also open up the door to other forms of marriage such as multiple marriage and incest.
Most rational people understand that it is self evident.
The homo-lobby is the only ones saying anything to the contrary....and it isn’t even coherent.
You’re 100% right.
I really hope that someone in politics or the law will actually use the term “natural law” when speaking of marriage. Since our laws and Constitution are based on natural law it would give traditional marriage greater standing in the same sex marriage debates. In today’s media propaganda flooded culture, the side with the most media access wins. In America today words such as discrimination are much more powerful than tradition, morality, Biblical. People are so dumbed down intellectually and morally that the traditional, moral or Biblical arguments just don’t have the power that they once had.
Unfortunately, we no longer live in a rational culture.
We have to find the right arguments otherwise the homosexual agenda will be seen as the wave of the future. They are gaining the momentum. See how some Republicans are getting antsy to join the pro-gay team? You don’t see Democrats abandoning their pro-gay agenda for a pro-family agenda. No, the Democrats win two presidential elections in a row and the Republican rats are abandoning the ship. We have to get some intelligent, well spoken people with legal backgrounds to speak out for our side.
How hard have you searched for it?
The whole structure of human society is built on the foundation of male/female marriage.
Exactly. And that is why it is imperative for our country to promote and protect marriages from a socially productive POV.
It sickens me to see so many liberal FReepers who applaud queer marriages, support overturning DOMA, and argue the government should stay out of the marriage business.
They want the government out of marriage? Well, guess what? They are getting their wish as LBJ’s Great Sociey program has replaced the father with a welfare check and has attacked the social values of marriage to such an extent that wide-spread welfare - and not healthy productive familes - are now the norm.
Right. Man & Woman were created by God and joined together. Anything else is unnatural. - These homosexuals have joined in with the heterosexuals in that they change “partners” at the drop of a hat. - I care not WHAT Barack Hussein Obama has EVOLVED on in his ever changing campaign mode. It ain’t natural; they know it is not natural, and they can’t force anyone to bow to it. Not they; not Obama.
He seems to fancy himself as some wise sage bestowing “civil rights” on the stupid masses.
The same malevolent spirits who believe marriage has no natural meaning and order are the same reality-denying entities that believe sex (that natural state of being either male or female) is something that can be changed and rearranged at will.
This is "man as his own god" drawn out to its hideous, debased, destructive, and completely absurd end.
There is a growing segment of the population that will double down on lies to maintain the delusions, and they will do whatever it takes to silence the objectors.
I am afraid you are right.
The deranged ‘progressive’ agenda is about persecuting subscribers of tradition and Christians.
And the original linky...
Thanks, I just looked it up but the reason that I asked is that I never heard it discussed in the media. I have heard terms such as traditional marriage but I had never heard natural law used in defense of traditional marriage.
Not just the gays, but all those who hate the traditional family The feminists, the marxists, the hippies.
The concept of "Natural Law" is not widely used or understood these days, either.
... they must be destroyed. Marriage begets the family. The family has been undermined and attacked for decades. This marriage defilement-abomination was the next step.
The argument for natural law (i.e. truth, reality) was lost the second the demonic hordes got away with perverting the language i.e. changing truth into a lie. It would be like agreeing that it is fair that a thief return 50% of the stolen property, because that would mean each party would have an equal share.
This is the audacity, chutzpah and change that got Obama elected and reelected. Destroy the old way in order to bring in the new order. Hey it has worked every time it has been tried, if "works" is defined as millions upon millions eliminated.
Liberals don’t believe in natural law, they believe in government.
The MSM doesn’t talk about it because it makes too much sense and would harm their gay agenda.
The Fifth Estate no longer informs the people, it misinforms them.
You do hear natural law used when discussing the Constitution. I don’t think the Founders spoke of natural law as something like the law of the jungle which applies to animals, rather natural law is the moral law that is written in the hearts of human beings. Without natural law there would be no sense of right or wrong.
Natural law is what makes us a nation of laws not of men. Without an understanding that rights come from God we would be a nation of men, that is a nation where might is right.
But millions of Americans didn’t vote this time because they didn’t like the candidate opposing Obama.
“The Dawn of Sex” puts forth the theory that man, like 9.99999% of the animal kingdom, is by nature polygamous.
Natural law also implies the village participating in bringing up children communally.
So natural law as espoused by the English settlers is, if not fully debunked, fairly open to interpretation.
By natural law, do we mean natural law exclusively as espoused by European colonists (that’s what America was, colonies) at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? With all of their prejudices and unscientific notions? At the time, they thought it preposterous that Man was related to apes, and evolution as a theory had yet to be discovered by about 80 years. If the Constitution is based in part on Natural Law, and science has advanced since the time
the Constitution was written, then how if at all does
the law as a whole reflect the advancements made
in science with regard to Natural Law-
Or by Natural Law do we mean something other than science—
specifically, something such as religion??
I don’t think religion as a basis for Natural Law will fly logically. In fact, it would seem to be a rather logically repulsive end
run around the concept of separation of church and state.
Just my dos centavos...
If it is true that natural law is found in the hearts of men, then it is based on society’s concept of morality, which in turn is a function of time. As such, should everyone not, in our hearts, have empathy for gay people? After all, gay people are human beings too.
Putting on asbestos underwear now, lol...
There's more to making a family than producing children. Children are a very necessary but not sufficient condition for creating a strong family unit that is also a social and political unit. The bond of one male plus one female forms that foundation, as a unit. More females might mean more babies born but they don't contribute to and enhance the building of that strong unit.
Yup. ISNT Natural. Parts dont fit.
A man & woman devoted to each other usually procreate.
A man & man, or woman & woman, absolutely cannot.
Contraception removed procreation as a typical consequence of male-female devotion. Procreation is considered as optional as adoption.
However, marriage for devotion’s sake remains.
Procreation now being an option instead of a consequence of marriage, and marriage being an option instead of a consequence of procreation, devotion remains the sole basis for modern marriage.
Procreation no longer being a compelling component of the institution, absolute inability to becomes irrelevant.
And so the non-sequitur of “gay marriage” went from absurdity to legal right.
And so it shall continue, until plummeting population compels society to recognize there IS something special about a man & woman devoted.
I and many others have tried that argument to no avail. We here “maybe it isn’t natural to you, but to gays it is” It’s their old and tired born that way argument, which is used to refute the natural law argument. The only thing I have found that turns the argument, (or at least shuts the proponents up) is to say two wives does not marriage make, nor does 2 husbands=marriage. In either case you are left with two of the same halves,the other half is left vacant. Words, and names of institutions are no different, have meaning. Those others sets of beings may be something, but they are not marriage.
There is an inherent complementarity between an man and a woman. We do not speak of a man and a woman commisurating to perform respiration, one with lungs and one with a diaphragm. We do not speak of a man and a woman coming together as one flesh to provide, one a heart and the other vessels to carry the blood being pumped. But, there is one circumstance which does require such a union, with its regenerative powers. The union of opposites is the only possible realization of their procreative potential. If they do not come together, procreation will not occur.
There is a complimentarity of wife and husband which does not end in biology. Nurture of child, protection of wife and family, emotional differences, intellectual differences. The family is based on enduring conjugal partnership, a feat not possible in a homosexual relationship. Many pro-homosexual advocates will even profess that the optimum circumstance for nurturing a child is a father and mother. This is the ideal, the normative or how it was designed. Natural Law remains though many have suppressed the truth of Natural Law to profess the lie.
The Catholic Church warned against opening this Pandora's Box in the 60s and 70s. It lost that battle.
Objective reason, a male connector plugs into a female connector.
By Natural Law, I understand Nature, which we may say is lawless in human terms, yet inexorable in its influence, and hence perceived as "Law" in human terms.
I commented not so long ago on an article which noted the irony that the elite liberal class hues closely to Natural Law in their respect for Family, which is the basis of the entire elite power structure. I mean, "The Kennedys" ... come on. Say no more, say no more. Family has the provided the entire structure of my life, I might say, and it is a self-reinforcing concept, as anyone might understand that can stay married for more than ten minutes. Follow your nose.
... Oh, you can't? You didn't? You're on the outs. Nature is brutal.
That Zer0 defies Natural Law by promoting homo marriage, he is violating the Constitution by declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, is unconstitutional. This is a rejection of Natural Law and the Constitution that governs it. This rejection sets the stage for impeachment.
Marxists want the family unit smashed so the state could adopt the role of arranging procreation and the raising of children into the tenets of leftism. It is also a strategy for destroying the Church which is the last bastion against government control of the individual.
You see, my friends, homo marriage has deeper implications than you can imagine. It is designed to control the individual by separating him from the sovereignty of the family.
Homo marriage is part of the Marxist plan to destroy marriage and render the individual a subject of the state.
You have stated it perfectly. Zer0 rejects Natural Law and for that reason, he should be impeached. Natural Law is the basis of our Constitution. Reject Natural Law and reject the Constitution. It is that simple.
“Polygamy works fine for producing children, so I don’t see that Natural Law prevents it.”
In fact, Natural Law probably encourages it. A woman is out of action while she is pregnant while the man who impregnated her can go on to impregnate other women. Our closest wild relatives, apes, are polygamous. It makes sense from a survival standpoint when infant mortality rates are very high as they are in the wild. I think maybe the traditional nuclear family makes sense when you see civilization begin. As man began to build permanent settlements and start engaging in trade and specialized labor a nuclear family is probably easier to survive in than a pack.
Your summary is pure poetry and absolutely bulletproof.
The Catholic Church does all the time, but idiots don’t realize that Natural Law originated with the Greeks. They think it is “religious” and Catholicism.
Natural Laws are basically Common Sense. Cause and Effect/Laws of physics, biology, human design and needs, etc. and it is embedded into Catholic Theology by St. Thomas, but it is also embedded into the Founding Documents. Civil Rights—Rights from the Creator—all come from Natural Law Theory.
Our Laws are supposed to be “Reasoned” but Marxism/Darwinism don’t believe in “Fixed” laws of Nature, so they can never use Reason and Logic. It is why Ayn Rand referred to them as being “irrational” (among worse things).
Homosexuals can’t use “Reason” and Natural Laws-—that is why they change the meaning of the words and always twist truth-—to make people “feel” “evil is good”.
Natural Law is used by Catholic Theologians all the time—and in profound ways.
The reason Natural Law prevents polygamy is that it reduces a woman to cattle and unequal to men. Christian Ethics were embedded into Natural Law by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1245 and the Natural Rights of children to be raised by their own biological parents (only) is actually a basic component of the Laws of Nature.
All children have the Natural Right to be raised by their biological parents. Any system that denies this “right” reduces children to a commodity to be bought or sold. It is dehumanizing and should be unconstitutional. It uses human beings as a “means to an end”—like slavery. It is immoral. Laws have to be moral to be “Just”, since Justice is a Virtue. There is no such thing as an immoral “Just” law. Promotion of Vice is unconstitutional unlike what Justice Holmes stated, whose socialism/progressivism destroyed our “Justice” system.
Polygamy puts in a system where women are not equal to men. The only system which guarantees “equal rights” to all involved—even children is the one-man, one-woman system which created the most free successful country in the world.
Actually, I’m really comfortable with the state staying out of marriage altogether. Marriage existed long before there was anything resembling a modern state. There were no licenses to sign for Abram. Marriage was created by God. If you think about it, it’s pretty weird for the state to be involved at all.
I think there’s a pretty good argument that marriage is between the couple and God. Each Church can have their own marriage contract as a condition of marrying. Then the state would just enforce that like any other contract, instead of dictating the rules of marriage.
Athiests can do whatever athiests do.
Homosexuals can pretend they are married and find an Episcopal or ECLA priest to “marry” them. Won’t make any difference on Judgement Day.
Of course, Homosexuals will be furious if this happens because getting official approval of what they do and then being able to force it on the rest of us through the power of the State is the main point of the whole homosexual marriage hyperventilation.
You’re kidding, right?
“Natural Law” is a concept akin to “life begins at conception.” They both fundamentally undermine the legitimacy of practices wicked people want approved.
You may as well quote “thou shalt not steal” to a mugger.
It’s not that no one is saying it; it’s that no one who agrees has an influential job in the mainstream media.
The ultimate goal is the ability to punish those who disdain homosexuality.
"man/woman marriage comes from natural law."
Yes, the union between man and woman is representative of our relationship with God or a Natural Law. However, speaking in regards to the ungodly who have come to worship themselves and science, even evolutionary theory should be used against homosexuality. It makes no sense either way.
If two men or two women live together for seven yrs. is that considered marriage by common law????
There are those of us who simply refuse to let these miscreants dictate the rules of the language or anything else. They try to bully the rest of normal society to accept their demands and to normalize their perversions.
I don’t get upset by them, nor do I buckle under to them. I laugh at them, openly mock them, address them as sodomites or whatever else sends them into orbit.
I do not consider a couple of queers... married, and while they might get some sanction under the law, I am not compelled to accept them as married. I see them as a couple of queers, nothing more.
To engage them on this natural law business, is to engage them at all. Simply refuse to accept their argument as a legitimate line of thought. It does not pass even the remotest scrutiny.
They are now living in your head...rent free. For what?
The NY Times and the rest of the leftard media who supports this, is getting to you...which is their while point. Then as you fume about how wrong they are, and attempt to argue your point (no matter how well reasoned) they then point at you and say you’re the one being who is crazy...
You have taken the bait...are you going to let them set the hook too?
Don’t engage them on this and don’t accept they argument.
Repeat this line to them...it drives them nuts.
Homosexuals do not reproduce...they recruit.
What in the world is “Natural Law”.
You’re taking the argument for man/woman marriage from a religous viewpoint. And while that’s fine, you need to look at it from a SECULAR viewpoint. From a purely political POV.
And when you do that, you see queer marriage harms a nation; no-fault divorces harm the country; Governmental laws and policies against marrriage has increased welfare, crime, poverty, lower economic standards and so on; repeal of DOMA will further the erosion of a solid social structure which in turns erodes the economic base as well. And add in a whole laundry list of other obvious liberal results like an increase in welfare bennies for unmarried mothers and you see the obvious:
A government like ours that glorifies Great Society programs is doomed for failure. As goes the American Family - so goes America.