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.
Given what we know about the chemical aspects of love and how it changes over time you can make a pretty solid case that marriage has no grounding in natural law. Human society is built around mutual protection and labor sharing. Marriage really comes from the need for groups to define people’s relationship to each other and stuff (my house, my sword, my wife, go get your own). A lot of human society is unnatural constructs to avoid conflicts and when they arise to settle them through something other than violence.
Dupanloup I, Pereira L, Bertorelle G, Calafell F, Prata MJ, Amorim A, Barbujani G (2003). “A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity”. J Mol Evol 57 (1): 85–97. doi:10.1007/s00239-003-2458-x. PMID 12962309
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00239-003-2458-x
Here are the first couple of pages of a 1955 Fordham Law Review article that purports a direct connection between marriage being a monogamous union between a man and a woman and natural law. Unfortunately it seems to have some logically unfounded assertions and seems in general very dated.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1453&context=flr
THE NATURAL LAW, THE MARRIAGE BOND,
AND DIVORCE
BRENDAN F. BROWN
. THE NATURAL LAW DICTATES MONOGAMY
NATURAL law is that objective, eternal and immutable hierarchy of
moral values, which are sources of obligation with regard to man because they have been so ordained by the Creator of nature. This law conforms to the essence of human nature which He has created. It is that
aspect of the eternal law which directs the actions of men.’ Although this
law is divine in the sense that it does not depend on human will, nevertheless, it is distinguishable from divine positive law, which has been communicated directly from God to men through revelation, for natural law
is discoverable by reason alone.” Natural law has been promulgated in the
intellect. At least as regards its more fundamental principles it is knowable proximately through the conscience.3
The most basic ideal of this law, namely, that every man must live in
accordance wth his rational nature, so that he will do good and avoid
evil, is self-evident to all. No reasoning is required to reach a knowledge
of this ideal.4 But other parts of the natural law are not perceivable with
an equal degree of facility. Varying gradations and types of reasoning
The following papers were given at the Second Annual Conference on The Natural
Law, presented by the Guild of Catholic Lawyers of New York on Dec. 4, 19S4. Honorable
Albert Conway and Honorable Owen McGivern presided.
* A.B, LLB., Creighton University; LL.M., J.U.D, Catholic University of America;
Ph. D. (Law) Oxford University. Formerly Dean, The Catholic University of America,
School of Law. Professor of Law, Loyola University of the South.
The writer takes this opportunity to express his indebtedness for assistance received from
Right Reverend Monsignor Robert E. McCormick, J.C.D., former Officialis, Archdiocese of
New York, Metropolitan Tribunal, Very Reverend Francis J. Connell, C.Ss.R., S.T.D., LL.D.,
Dean, School of Sacred Theology, The Catholic University of America, and Very Reverend
Charles E. Sheedy, C.S.C., LL.B., S.T.D., Dean, College of Arts and Letters, University of Notre
Dame. He also appreciates the aid which he received from Reverend Louis J. Hiegel, S.J,
J.C.D., Lecturer on Canon Law, School of Law, Loyola University of the South, New
Orleans, Louisiana.
1. Aquinas, St. Thomas, Sumnia Theologica, Treatise on Law, Q. 90-97 inc., Review
by Brown, I De Paul L. Rev. 312-318 (1952).
2. Ibid.
3. Sheedy, Letter, October 10,1954, to Brendan F. Brown.
4. Connell, Outlines of Moral Theology 30 (1953).
are necessary to ascertain the sub-norms of that law. 5 Some of these are
discoverable by an immediately derived deduction, which is almost
obvious, such as the requirement of some form of marriage or contractual
agreement before a man and a woman can lawfully have sexual relations.
But other sub-norms are ascertainable only after observation, study, and
experience, both individual and sociological. Examples are the secondary
goal of marriage, and the precise means for the just and adequate effectuation of the primary and secondary purposes of marriage.’
The necessity of some kind of marriage, either polygamous or monogamous, dissoluble or indissoluble, is obviously deducible from the basic
ideal of the natural law, since without propagation and the rearing of
children, the human race would become extinct.7 This ideal demands some
form of abiding union between man and woman, even if it be only for a
limited period. All men realize that there must be some fixed, definite and
settled arrangement, which will enable man and woman not only to procreate, but also to protect the offspring until they are capable of looking
after themselves. It is self-evident that marriage differs from the mating
of animals, to the extent that will and reason are distinguishable from
blind instinct.’ No demonstration is needed to show that marriage must
uphold the unique dignity of human personality.
The study of cultural anthropology reveals the historical fact that
practically all peoples have attached an inherently sacred and religious
character to marriage, which they have expressed by special and symbolic
rites of a public and solemn kind. These rites became part of their traditions, customs and laws, which recognized that marriage is not of human,
5. Sheedy, Materials for Legal Ethics 10 (1950) edited notes of Right Reverend Monsignor
William J. Doheny, C.S.C., J.U.D., judge of the Roman Rota.
6. Joyce, Christian Marriage 6-8 (1948).
7. See Petrovits, The New Church Law on Matrimony (1921). On page 1, he writes:
“Marriage in General. The word matrimony is a compound derived from the two Latin
words, namely, nmatris mrunum meaning the office of the mother. The burdens Inherent In
gestation, the pain accompanying parturition, and the numerous anxieties subsequent to child
birth, being indicative of the most intimate relationship between mother and child, are generally adduced as the reason why the word mother in preference to the word father has been
embodied in the name of this Sacrament.”
8. Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter, Christian Marriage (Casti Connubfi), December 31,
1930, Translation published by the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, D.C.
(1931). This Encyclical elaborates and emphasizes certain points in the Encyclical Arcanum
of Pope Leo XIII, published fifty years previously, namely, on February 10, 1880. The chief
purpose of Casti Connubii was to reaffirm the basic thought of Arcanum In the light of
conditions which adversely affected the society of the family at the beginning of the thirties.
See also Pope Pius XII, Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives, October 29,
1951, Translation included in Moral Questions affecting Married Life, Discussion Outline by
Rev. Edgar Schmiedeler, O.S.B., Ph.D., Director, N.C.W.C. Family Life Bureau, National
Catholic Welfare Conference, 18 parag. 49.
but of divine origin, in which man does not create life but only cooperates with Divinity in its transmission.’
Man is obliged in his choice of institutions to select only those which
are in agreement with the natural law. This is particularly true of marriage since it is one of the most important, affecting as it does, the spiritual and temporal welfare of the whole human race by determining the
status of the family which is the foundation of society. 10 According to
the natural law, there is an obligation to adopt that form of marriage
which will best achieve not only the almost self-evident objective of
satisfying the urge toward propagation, and care for the physical needs
of children, and their moral and educational training, but also the secondary purpose, namely, the mutual assistance of the spouses, physical,
mental and spiritual, and the allaying of concupiscence. 11
But the precise form of marriage which is commanded by the natural
law is not immediately apparent and known to all, for it does not pertain
directly to the primary inclination of that law. The prescribed type of
marriage is not a primarily derived deduction from the basic ideal of the
natural law, as are the prescriptions of the Decalogue, for example.12-
This explains why there is more agreement that murder is against the
natural law than there is that divorce is morally wrong.
[etc.]
If people would just recognize God as Creator.
He created this “ natural law”.
The Founding Fathers recognized nature and nature’s God and based our Constituion on them. No one can say that it is discrimination to deny same sex marriage, only man-woman marriage which is the basis of the family and the whole human race can be considered to be under natural law. Same sex marriage is outside of the natual design and opens up more disruption and dysfunction as it encourages other abberant unions to come forth and demand the right of marriage.
Marriage is something that cannot be taken lightly as the survival and well being of all the generations to come depends on marriage under natural law. For thousands of years in every society marriage has been between male and female. Those who wish to change marriage in a radical and poorly thought out way have the burden of proof to make. We cannot throw the dice with our children’s future.
All of this promotion of homsexuality, gay mariage and other immoral acts are manifestations of cultural marxism or Gramscian marxism. Communism was invented by some mad but very educated people. They were well informed about history, anthropology, pyschology and sociology and they are always using their understanding of human weaknesses against their fellow man. They understand the power of propaganda and mind control.
I agree with you posts at 65 and 66.
This has been going on a long time and
Its bringing our country under Gods wrath.
Thankfully our God knows us each as
an individual creation of his.
So natural law as embodied in the Constitution is a form of Christian Sharia Law then? Specifically, the first Nicene Council version of Christianity, modified by Martin Luther? or which version? What happens when one version of Protestantism conflicts with another, which Protestant Law should the government follow? What about Mormonism? Catholicism? The Essenes? Orthodox? etc. There is no mention of “Natural Law” in the Constitution, nor mention of “God” as would have been expected if Natural Law or God were intended to be reflected in the federal government. There is certainly no mention of Christianity or the Bible. One cannot infer that which is not there to begin with. I think there is a difference between inspiration and incorporation that some may be missing.
Children have been successfully raised for millenia without monogamous marriage, in many cultures. Monogamy is as dysfunctional to those cultures as polygyny is to some here, or at least, as they profess here. In recent history, many terrible wars have been fought due to differing religious beliefs. There is nothing good about abdicating reason in favor of faith in determining how society should operate— on the contrary, it has been proven to cause great societal damage. What next? Perhaps we should throw in the towel, stop using the brains that Providence gave us, and just make laws asserting that the earth is flat (because everyone can look outside and see that) and that the sun revolves about the earth (ditto).
What do you mean by Providence?
Why? For starters, on its face your premise is antithetical to the notions of Natural Law held by the Founders of this Nation. That alone renders it suspect in my mind. You sound like an Obamanite. Why should I believe you rather than them? Were they oblivious to this contradiction that you allege?
You deny that that Natural Law both exists in the hearts of men, and is immutable. If that is the case though, as I stated, if moral laws are not universal and unchanging then they reduce to relativistic preferences rather than prescriptive requirements. It's one or the other. The two premises are antithetical. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You affirm the latter. Fine. What you are describing is called normative ethical relativism, or conventionalism, and it amounts to a view of morality that holds that you ought to do what society tells you to do. And since every society has their own viewpoint, morality is relative and changes over time. In short, there is no law above society.
There are logical corollaries to that premise, though. One is that it forecloses any ability to criticize another society's practices. If a society disdains "empathy for gays", to use your example, then I can just say, well, that is their society. Who are you to criticize another society's practices when the members of that society are obligated under your premise to follow their society's own relative social conventions?
The same goes for your other examples of slavery, marriage, and concubinages. If there is a polygamous, slave-holding society then you are in no position to criticize them either because they are merely obeying societal norms that are a function of time and changing social circumstances, whether it is slavery in Judea in 600 BC, in Classical Greece or Rome, or in Mississippi in 1860.
In fact, your conventionalism and relativism renders the idea of a moral reformer within a society a contradiction in terms. A moral reformer such as William Wilberforce who worked to bring about the end of the slave-trade in England would by definition be immoral because he was violating the rules imposed by societal norms of the time. There is obviously something very wrong with your premise.
...perhaps a good time to ask if social concepts rooted in the agrarian ages are relevant, much less representative of some “Natural Law.”
An animal without a transcendant standard has no warrant or justification for any notion of "good" in the first place, (good as compared to what?) much less the rejection of any "social concepts".
Cordially,
Here is an article about some very clever people who believe that they are using their reason and rationality. These are the architects of gay marriage in the Netherlands.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2996616/posts?page=15
Probably the same thing you would mean by Providence.
I just prefer not to get too heavy with the G word in light debate. It tends to inflame emotions quickly.
I know some folks on both sides will go off the deep end. Your point (beyond that truism)?
I hope you read the article about the architects of gay marriage in the Netherlands. You will see that they are busy trying to further push the boundries of what is defined as marriage and morality. My question to you is, what kind of society do want your children and grandchildren to live in? We get the kind of society that we tolerate.
I think you have set your philosophical sights too low.
Abstract what is being said on both sides, subtract sex and sexual orientation, and address the strictly interpersonal that remains.
You or I or both of us can rant and rail all we want about straight sex and traditional marriage. The fact is that
birth control and the Internet — technology — have drastically changed the landscape of sexual outcomes
and with it sexual morals. Go to any high school
or college and take notes if you don’t believe. Go to
any church and take notes too. In the 19th century
it was considered immoral for women to show their ankles.
Are you throwing your lot in with the Victorians? Why
not, since morals should be absolute and the Victorians
certainly had their morals? We should not change, right?
As for me sounding like an Obamanite, check my FR signup date (Feb. 1998 or so). Are you alleging I am an Obama
troll and invented a time machine? You flatter me too much, sir (or madam).
I am saying that technology can have an effect on morals.
According to a scientific study in an earlier post,
humans were polygamous before 20,000 years ago. Obviously,
unless you have DNA evidence that refutes the study
and survives peer review to be published in a science
journal,
the prevailing morality of the time was that polygamy
was moral.
20,000 years ago we were homo sapiens, not animals,
as you imply (nice try though) hmm, maybe the real
problem is simply that sex makes you feel dirty.
The same founding fathers that wrote the D of I wrote the Constitution (more or less). We are still working
out the full implications of what they (and the writers
of the amendments) wrote. If one of the amendments implies
that a person has equal right to be regarded as in
a civil union with another person, then that explicit wording and arguments derived from it for example seems
to trump any implied imported natural law.
If you want to deny marriage between two men or two women
because a marriage must be between a man and a woman, how
do we define man and woman? What about people with XXY chromosomes, or XXYY? Hermaphrodites? etc. Are the rights
of these people protected under the Constitution? I think
they should be, else they are relegated to being subhuman. The restriction of civil union to those with normal chromosomes seems a distinction which forever forbids people with chromosomal abnormalities to lead lives that
other people would consider normal and full, that is,
including civil unions, purely by a matter in which
they have no say, that is, their inherited genes. Would
you consider that fair if it happened to you??? If
you answer no, allow me be the first to profess my
skepticism.
I am not here to make a case for absolute moral relativism.
But it sounds as if you have problems with dealing with reality. Face it, sexual morals have been pushed and
pulled by technology over the ages. I’m addressing
primarily marriage, not self defense or some other issue. You seem to
broaden the issue to all morality and change it and then
introduce red herrings by suggesting I am some sort
of generic relative morals advocate.
You do have a way with fancy sounding language though.
None of our personal sexual preferences are very relevant here.
I’m not suggesting civil unions be expanded to more than two people. I think that is a separate issue. I think that one must ask first if any person is discriminated against by existing laws. I perceive polygamous unions as being more in most cases in the direction of creating new laws. Man (homo sapiens) is by nature polygamous (see the science referred to earlier), and so I would not be surprised if laws to come to reflect that over time. Laws need to reflect reality, not legislate arbitrary morality from the point of view of one aribrary religious viewpoint. Polygyny was tolerated in the Old Testament, and clearly the Jewish people had children who somehow survived that. In the New Testament, Jesus never preached against polygamy, so it’s not a sin from Jesus’ perspective. It is still not uncommon in Polynesia, Africa, and South America. So right there we have contradictions between various religions and cultures, and current law favoring some religions over others. Is enforcing one religious or cultural viewpoint over another really the best function of civil government, and in the interests of all people, even if it contradicts the religion or culture of some?
Religious differences of opinion are often matters of interpretation or semantics, and ultimately tend to be settled by wars because of the intractability of the proponents of religious views (”we” are right because “we” know morality better than “you”).
Wars can decimate men, women and children indiscriminately, and have done so in the historical past.
Religious wars are often nasty, brutish, and can last a very long time.
Since you evidently favor moral absolutism, I take it you would have no problem with the judicial penalty for adultery of stoning to death.
Anything less would seem to be be, by your standard, moral relativism, which you abhor.
Anything less would seem to be be, by your standard, moral relativism, which you abhor.
If I did, on what moral grounds could you possibly object?
Cordially,
For two thousand years marriage has been between a man and a woman. That is OUR culture. Let’s keep our culture. If you want to live in Pago Pago in a grass hut, go ahead but keep our culture as it is. It has a great set of values when people actually follow them. If you want to experiment with other exotic lifestyles do so but leave the country first.
You don’t have children, do you?
I don’t want to impose my cultural and religious beliefs on anyone else.
I don’t want to restrict government recognition of civil unions due to a narrowminded prudish and self centered view of what I or anyone else thinks should go on behind closed doors.
Religious viewpoints are the source of many of the worst wars in history. War takes its toll on men, women, and children. It is often inflamed by emotions and ignorance.
The USA was motivated to be settled by Europeans in part
for religious and cultural tolerance. In doing so
they decimated the extant indigenous culture, which
included polygamy.
Where is your religious tolerance??
Where is your cultural tolerance??
Do you favor ethnic cleansing of populations who hold
beliefs differing from yours?? (It certainly sounds
that way.)
There are plenty of new immigrants and old here now
as well as those in lifestyles who may differ from yours.
People generally recognize the USA as being the beacon
of individual freedom, not enforcement of conformity for arbitrary and capricious irrational reasons.
Should everyone belong to a bowling league just because many people do? And for those who are not in a bowling league,
should they be shunned? Should non-bowlers be penalized by omission in law, as homosexual couples currently are?
Again, polygamy is most definitely not an experimental lifestyle, and it is not restricted to remote locations, no matter how hard one yells and screams. People should
feel free to choose the lifestyle they please, as long
as there is mutual consent in interactions with others.
Your personal moral values are yours, which you are welcome to keep.
Why can’t you simply allow everyone else to have their own?
Here is the definition of bigot from webster:
Bigot
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
See anything familiar in your own opinions??
Whatever happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
???
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.