Homosexual "marriage" is not a natural right

Renew America ^ | 21 June 2011 | Tim Dunkin

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

One of the fundamental truths about the founding tenets of this nation is that our ordering principles — the basis of our laws, our conception of rights, the purposes to which government is supposed to obtain — are built upon the acknowledgement of and respect for natural law. Natural law presupposes that there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and carries with it the necessary understanding that this natural law, far from being the product of random happenstance or social consensus, is instead instituted by the Divine authority of a Creator God who formed the world in which we live, and who ordered its function along certain design that operate at all times. The analog to this in human civilization is that if society is to be in accord with natural law and its Creator, then society must recognize and order itself along lines that are in accord with the character and nature of the Creator and the "design features" He has inserted into His handiwork, and which are further accessible through the reasoned and reasonable revelation that He has given to us, specifically in the Judeo-Christian scriptures.

This nation was indubitably founded upon such an understanding. It is apparent in the very Declaration of our independence from Great Britain, in which it was declared that our separation from England and our taking our place among the nations of the world as an independent and equal participant were in accord with the laws of nature and nature's God. The further declaration, framed as a proposition of fact, that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights further demonstrates that even at the inception of this nation, respect for the order established by God was foundational to what our nation's political and social system were intended to be.

[EternalVigilance]

I agree with you about the use of the language. I try very hard to avoid the phrase “traditional marriage,” for example.

I’m thinking you’re being a little too hard on the writer, though. Hey, at least he is laying out the facts about natural right, and natural rights. This is rare enough these days.

[nmh]

“They don’t. Neither do bacteria, fungi, plants, or insects. The universe isn’t designed for homosexuals. To nature, homosexuals are a disease. The word “Abomination” is a good way to describe it. “

YOU bet!

:)

The younger generation is being BRAINWASHED to believe that it it perfectly normal.

My kids KNOW better.

The Bible states it is wrong and even for anatheist or an agnostic - it’s OBVIOUS!

THE PARTS DON’T FIT!

There is nothing “normal” about a MALE ACTING like a FEMALES

or

a female ACTING LIKE A MALE.

That alone shows how ABNORMAL it is.

Yes, God DESIGNED US ALL to have different roles.

God wired US ALL to be either a female or a male.

There is NOTHING in between.

Birth defects can be easily corrected and if there is doubt, check the DNA. The DNA will point out which gender you are.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Well, because he’s, you know, a Republican. They’re all a bunch of compromisers and sellouts and moderates.

[metmom]

Libertarians argue that we can’t define marriage because any definition moves us down a “slippery slope” toward undue interference with personal freedoms.

Bunk.

Well said.

By demanding that the government allow all kinds of *marriages* under the guise of *not defining* them, it FORCES the government to define marriage.

From the government's position, it's a lose/lose situation. By defining it as the traditional monogamous, one man/one woman at a time scenario, libertarians don't like it. By refusing to define it, the government IS by default defining it as anything goes.

What libertarian and others want is that the government define it the way THEY want, under the false premise that it is a neutral position.

When if comes to moral issues, there is no neutral position.

[LearsFool]

I’m thinking you’re being a little too hard on the writer, though. Hey, at least he is laying out the facts about natural right, and natural rights.

Okay, I'll give him kudos for his explanation of natural law theory and natural rights.

But in this fight we seem to be compiling a "top 10 objections to homosexual marriage" - which, as any good salesman knows, is a loser's game. All our opponent has to do is knock down a few of the easiest ones and we begin to look - and feel - like stubborn, bigoted fools making up objections as we go.

The firmest and most defensible ground, in my opinion, rests on this point:

Marriage is marriage. It is axiomatic, and simply not subject to being "redefined". (So we can stop opposing "the redefining of marriage", as that objection, too, concedes so much ground that we may as well surrender.)

"Unisex marriage" is nonsensical. In its most generic sense, marriage is the joining of two different things. There's no point in joining two of the same. (Ever try screwing a light bulb into another light bulb? What's the point?)

A man and a woman are different, and therefore can be joined. This is the case symbolically and actually, as their differences are complementary, both physically and even in their very being (i.e. "men are from mars, women are from venus".)

Yes, of course all this is due to God's laws of nature. But it can be seen by simple observation - as any non-re-educated teenager can tell you. No need for a Jeffersonian thesis; it's self-evident.

[EternalVigilance]

Understanding principles and saying the right words and the consistent implementation of those principles and words in public policy and politics are not necessarily the same thing.

And we’re all learning every day, hopefully.

But, as I said, I believe you wrote a fine article. Kudoes.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Thanks!

[EternalVigilance]

I’m very much open to your argument. For a very long time, I’ve recognized that what you’re saying is exactly what the founders did with the Declaration. They simply asserted self-evident, or plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face, Truth. This is why I gave up arguing with atheists/Darwinists. When I encounter them I simply assert the truth and move on.

[little jeremiah]

Well said!

Check your freepmail in a couple of minutes.

[blasater1960]

Nothing “natural” about it. That which gives life is not supposed to be deposited in that which is the sewer.

[EternalVigilance]

By the way, I have no problem with principled Republicans. Some of my best friends are Republicans and even Republican office holders.

And I will live and die a republican, believing as I do in the republican form of government handed to us by our forebears.

[LearsFool]

This is why I gave up arguing with atheists/Darwinists. When I encounter them I simply assert the truth and move on.

I'm finally learning to do that as well.

On this subject, they're not redefining "marriage", but merely denying the definition. (As if redefining "sunrise" would make the sun come up in the north.)

[EternalVigilance]

You’re absolutely right.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I agree - but sometimes a writer has to use “commonly accepted” language so that the readers will more readily understand what he or she is saying. Specifying “traditional marriage” helps the reader to more readily understand exactly what is being referred to, without having to “unpack” a definition based on guessing from the writer’s ideology.

[reaganaut]

Marriage of any kind is not a “right” at all. It is a RITE.

If marriage were a right, the government should have yentas.

[reaganaut]

Match.gov ping.

[Morpheus2009]

I don’t care if ANIMALS engage in it.

Animals do masturbate, and to me, it would seem that homosexuality is an extension of masturbation.

[Morpheus2009]

I don’t care if ANIMALS engage in it.

Animals do masturbate, and to me, it would seem that homosexuality is an extension of masturbation.

[LearsFool]

I don’t care if ANIMALS engage in it.

Some animals urinate in their water supply. Some kill and eat their young, others their mothers, others their mates. And so on.

When we find ourselves blindly imitating animals as examples of how we ought to behave, we've sunk pretty low.

[LearsFool]

sometimes a writer has to use “commonly accepted” language

Yes, I agree with you there. But why do you think radicals begin by introducing changes in language?

I'm not just being nit-picky here. Words are thoughts encapsulated. If I can get you to talk about and think about something using my terminology, even if you reject my proposal you're several steps closer to accepting it than you were before.

And what's worse, those who're too lazy or ignorant to fight me as vehemently as you do are easy pickings for this language tactic. Their brains will be filled with the pictures my words paint - in this case, an old-fashioned, "traditional" marriage side-by-side with a new, "modern" marriage. And while they may choose for themselves the traditional one, they'll readily accept the modern one as an "alternative family". (Hmm, wonder who came up with THAT term?!)

Since I began to notice language innovations, I'm constantly on the lookout for them. And whenever I see one, I ask, "What is the purpose for introducing this new word or term?" (Both C.S. Lewis and George Orwell warned about this tactic, which in itself should perhaps give us pause.)

For instance, why did we abandon "the earth" and "the world" in favor of "the planet"? Why did "problems" become "challenges"? Why did "sex" become "gender"?

No doubt you can think of more, and there are tons of these that I miss. We ought not to use commonly-accepted language innovations if they hurt our cause. Instead, we should work to make accurate language commonly-accepted. It's what I try to do in my little way when I post comments here. You're such a good writer, though, you certainly have a greater impact than I - whether with clear, accurate language or with the lexicon written by the enemy.