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.
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.
Ding!Ding!Ding!
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.
ping
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.
Men feel closer too and will be more motivated to work for and protect children that they know are theirs. In polyandry no man knows for sure which children are his and in polygamy men will take the wives of other men, this is not good for group cohesion.
Beautifully said.
We know this as cultural marxism which stresses the destruction of human society so that the state may control everybody and everything.
Natural Law, simply speaking, are things we can’t not know. It is not possible to not know it is wrong to kill our offspring. It is not possible to not know that homosexuality is wrong. It is not possible to not know it is wrong to torture children and babies. It is not possible to not know it is not wrong to to commit adultery. These are things written on the heart of every man. Paul speaks of it in Romans 1:18 - the end of Romans Chapter 2.
Natural law is the human conscience that God gives to us. Unfortunately many people today have been talked out of this basic intuitive realization through the atheistic educational conditioning that we have. They only believe something if it is *scientific* but some of the most important truths cannot be proven in a scientific way. People are becoming spiritually dull and the dullest people are some of the most educated. It’s like the old joke, you can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.
That is why Zer0 must be impeached. He is going against our Constitution which protects us from Marxism.
If morality consisted merely of societal values that are self-created and temporary, "a function of time", as you put it, then it would be relative. As such, moral laws would not be universal and unchanging but would be reduced to relativistic preferences rather than prescriptive requirements. In that case, it would make no sense to use the word, "should" (a prescriptive) as you do with regard to having "empathy for gay people".
The assumption that that the natural law is based on society’s concept of morality, which is a function of time, is self-defeating.
Cordially,
"Natural Laws are basically Common Sense. Cause and Effect/Laws of physics, biology, human design and needs"
Human biology, as another poster pointed out, makes Polygamy viable, and perhaps even optimal for creating the most offspring. You say natural law is opposed to polygamy, though:
The reason Natural Law prevents polygamy is that it reduces a woman to cattle and unequal to men
So "Natural Law" - based on cause and effect and common sense - insists that Men and Woman are equal? That seems strange and wrong. Men and woman are *not* equal in almost anything. Men are stronger, faster, more aggressive, etc. Woman have their strengths, too, obviously, and carry babies for 9 months when they are pregnant.
Wikipedia's definition of Natural Law is much like yours: "certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature"
I'm not sure how Natural Law guarantees "equal rights to all"... That sounds pretty modern.
Marcus Tullius CiceroCicero wrote in his De Legibus that both justice and law derive their origin from what nature has given to man, from what the human mind embraces, from the function of man, and from what serves to unite humanity.[21] For Cicero, natural law obliges us to contribute to the general good of the larger society.[22] The purpose of positive laws is to provide for "the safety of citizens, the preservation of states, and the tranquility and happiness of human life." In this view, "wicked and unjust statutes" are "anything but 'laws,'" because "in the very definition of the term 'law' there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true."[23] Law, for Cicero, "ought to be a reformer of vice and an incentive to virtue."[24] Cicero expressed the view that "the virtues which we ought to cultivate, always tend to our own happiness, and that the best means of promoting them consists in living with men in that perfect union and charity which are cemented by mutual benefits."[22]
Cicero influenced the discussion of natural law for many centuries to come, up through the era of the American Revolution. The jurisprudence of the Roman Empire was rooted in Cicero, who held "an extraordinary grip . . . upon the imagination of posterity" as "the medium for the propagation of those ideas which informed the law and institutions of the empire."[25] Cicero's conception of natural law "found its way to later centuries notably through the writings of Saint Isidore of Seville and the Decretum of Gratian."[26] Thomas Aquinas, in his summary of medieval natural law, quoted Cicero's statement that "nature" and "custom" were the sources of a society's laws.[27]
The proposition that natural law is somehow both recorded in the hearts of men and independent of time is contradictory.
Man is a social animal and what constitutes humane treatment in the social consciousness, I assert, does change over time.
Consider slavery in Judea in 600 BC, in Classical Greece or Rome, in Mississippi in 1860.
Then consider marriage (or concubines) today, in 1960, in 1860 Mississippi, and so on.
Asserting that Natural Law both exists in the hearts of men, and is immutable, seems logically self-defeating and very presumptuous. Where do such moral judgments end and faith-based beliefs begin?
Some people are of the opinion that marriage is in essence a social convention brought about indirectly by the advent of technologies such as agriculture, metal tools and weapons, and the need to bring better social order to agrarian communities around 10000 to 150 years ago.
In the natural state, hetetosexual men desire women sexually, and heterosexual women desire men sexually.
In the natural state, homosexual men desire men and
homosexual women desire women sexually. Plus
you have people with (naturally occuring)
chromosome based abnormalities whose lifestyle choices
may run the entire range. In nature, both men and
women defend themselves and their loved ones.
In addition, natural selection occurs.
All else— concepts of what constitute proper
and improper slavery, marriage, concubinages, etc. is
imposed by societal norms that are a function of time
and changing social circumstances and wide availability
of technology, such as the plow, the axe, and birth control.
To make more informed decisions we should first strive
to consider the full archaeological and biological information
available to us through science (ie not just
the Koran, New Testament, or Old Testament, etc.)
or a current snapshot of what some people view
as laws of morality (Moral Majority?), distinct
from legal law.
If it is no longer true that the technological
constraints imposed on agrarian societies apply
in the modern technological age in the USA,
then it is perhaps a good time to ask if social
concepts rooted in the agrarian ages are relevant,
much less representative of some “Natural Law.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.