Why doesn't anyone say man/woman marriage comes from natural law?

[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.

[cradle of freedom]

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.

[cradle of freedom]

But millions of Americans didn’t vote this time because they didn’t like the candidate opposing Obama.

[SteveH]

“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...

[SteveH]

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...

[thecodont]

Polygamy works fine for producing children, so I don't see that Natural Law prevents it. It is our religion that prevents it.

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.

[amihow]

Yup. ISNT Natural. Parts dont fit.

[ctdonath2]

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.

[gidget7]

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.

[Texas Songwriter]

J. Budziszewski says, "We are passing through and eerie phase of history in which the things that everyone really knows are treated as unheard-of doctrines, a time in which the elements of common decencyare themselves attacked as indecent. Although our civilization has passed through quite a few troughs of immorality, never before has vice held the moral highground. Our time considers it dirty-minded to treat sexual purity as virtue; unfeeling to insist too firmly that the sick should not be encouraged to seek death; a sign of impious pride to profess humble faith in God. The Moral Law has becme the very emblem of immorality. We call affirming it "being judgemental", which is our way of saying that it has been judged and will not be tolerated".

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.

[newzjunkey]

In these times "natural law" is irrelevant. "Advances" in "medicine" have made it obsolete.

The Catholic Church warned against opening this Pandora's Box in the 60s and 70s. It lost that battle.

[higgmeister]

Objective reason, a male connector plugs into a female connector.

[dr_lew]

Or by Natural Law do we mean something other than science— specifically, something such as religion??

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.

[jonrick46]

The Left hates natural law. Natural Law is the basis of our Constitution. Marxism rejects Natural Law because there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong. There is only pragmatism. The ends justifies the means.

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.

[jonrick46]

Homo marriage is part of the Marxist plan to destroy marriage and render the individual a subject of the state.

[jonrick46]

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.

[MtBaldy]

“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.

[thecodont]

Your summary is pure poetry and absolutely bulletproof.

[dr_lew]

I suppose one has to accept a certain refinement of primitive sensibilities which allowed women to exert their influence without parity in physical combat. Certainly the record of this extends to the earliest periods of human history. Not so early perhaps, but old, is the story, as told by Gibbon, of the Empress Theodora, who psychologically dominated her husband, Justinian, and forbade him to abandon his office in the face of mob rule over Constantinople.

[savagesusie]

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”.

[savagesusie]

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.