Natural Law Arguments in Defense of Marriage

The following is a great article showing that the state has no business trying to re-define marriage. It discusses the natural law definition of marriage and how it's true purpose is the begetting, rearing and education of children in a society.

True marriage has nothing to do with the romantic, lovey-dovey, kissey-face BS modern society has tried to thrust upon it. It's all about RAISING CHILDREN and always has been. A union which does not result in children is pointless and it is no wonder that such unions so often end in divorce.

Marriage: It’s Natural

Natural Law Arguments in Defense of Marriage

As the institution of marriage is now under near constant attack with several additional states gearing up to redefine it altogether, it is appropriate to consider the arguments in support of the divinely ordained nature of this institution. It is imperative to do so at this time in particular as the organs of power in our society are bent on denying that marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman for the purpose of begetting, rearing and educating children.

We have a president and media Gestapo who propagate the falsehood that marriage is whatever they declare it to be. Interestingly, in a public debate in which I participated over California Proposition 8 last November, my challenger began his remarks by stating that he believed the State had no business defining what constituted a marriage. He concluded therefore that the law should let anything be accepted as a marriage that is claimed to be such by individuals, regardless of its form.

I began my reply by saying that he was absolutely correct in his premise that the State had no business defining marriage. His inference was, however, incorrect. The reason the state has no business defining what is marriage is that no person has the competence to do so. The state, and any individual, for that matter, is likewise incompetent to define or redefine what is water, fire or the sun. Marriage is what it is, as these other substances are. People have the ability to think about and understand to a greater or lesser extent what comprises the pre-existing essence of marriage. The state has only the ability to craft laws with respect to the implications flowing from this reality to the extent necessary for the common good. The institution itself is not in any way subject to the volition of individuals or the state.

So if marriage is not whatever we want it to be, how do we know that it is the lifelong society of one man and one woman for the purpose of begetting, rearing and educating children?

There are two sources of our knowledge, the Natural Law and the Divine Law. In this article we will consider the Natural Law reasoning which proves this definition. We will examine the Natural Law, not because it says anything different from Divine Law or is superior to it. On the contrary, as they both have their origin in the same source—the Eternal Law, the Divine Reason—they are completely in accord with one another. Our reason is that we must be familiar with these arguments to defend the truth in a nation whose leaders willfully refuse to listen to arguments from the Divine Law.

*************

So far we have proven only that a man and a woman together making use of the marital act are necessary to orient it towards its natural function. We have not yet demonstrated the further conclusion that for humans (as distinguished from other animals) the act involves a long term stable relationship between the partners. To do so we need to consider human beings not in relation to what they have in common with animals but the aspect of their nature that distinguishes them.

First, we can note that unlike many animals, human beings are born incapable of satisfying even the most basic needs for survival. They require an extended period of complete care by mature humans to even survive. Just on a physical level, people are born social animals (creatures that depend on being present in a society). This indicates another purpose associated with the act of procreation. It must be undertaken in a situation in which a society exists, the presence of people capable of fulfilling this long term need for care. Thus, the end of the act can be further described as procreation and care (or rearing of) offspring.

**************

Now, men and woman compliment or complete one another. We have already seen this on the physical level. Neither a man nor woman contains within himself or herself what is necessary to beget a child. Each one brings something to complete the process. It is also true on other levels. Men and women’s physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual compositions differ and therefore compliment each other. Therefore a society of merely one type is incomplete, lacking the balance of complimenting abilities.

To summarize, the ends or purpose of the marital act are the begetting, rearing and education in a society of children. These ends require the use of the act by a man and a woman who have formed a stable, enduring and complimentary society.

Read more: The Remnant Newspaper

I recommend that anyone interested in knowing the true purpose of marriage read the entire article.




[edit on 23-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by FortAnthem


I think that is pretty good, but the do what makes you feel crowd will have another thing to say about it. Star and Flag for you.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
A union which does not result in children is pointless and it is no wonder that such unions so often end in divorce.

And unions that do result in children never end in divorce, right? Jeez, if only all those parents who got divorced had just had children... .... What?

Anyway. Yes, that is the natural purpose of marriage. But that doesn't mean it's the sole purpose of marriage. We have transformed as a species far beyond the natural needs of things. Our children can remain children until 18, unlike the old days when they had to begin working and marrying at 12. The natural end of childhood has transformed to the modern end of childhood. Marriage need not be for one sole purpose.

My girlfriend feels that marriage is an archaic method of making wives and children the property of men, which it is by its nature. That doesn't mean that's all it has to be.

ok, so if a man and woman cannot beget a child, to put it in terms of this argument, because either one has a predisclosed physical disability that would prevent conception does that put them in the same boat as gay people? neither group can get married because they can't beget a child? that makes no sense.

Oh wait, heres why it doesnt make sense, because the wording of the conclusion doesnt reflect the main point of the article, which is that parents should be able to provide a stable and nurturing environment.

The article says that men and women bring seperate components to build this environment, but this does not mean it is restricted to just men and women. It is very possible for a man to bring the qualities usually provided by the woman and vice versa.

In fact, in my argument thiss article seems to state that marriage should be based upon the ability to demonstrate a positive environment to raise the chhildren in. I do not know any gay couples with children, but i do know that many children raised in these homes are campaigning for gay marriage. I also know that I have seen MANY heterosexual couples that are unfit to raise kids!

Regardless of any of this, it would be impossible to set or enforce standards for marriage based upon the Natural Law arguments of this article.

Originally posted by Ozzy Mandias
I do not know any gay couples with children, but i do know that many children raised in these homes are campaigning for gay marriage. I also know that I have seen MANY heterosexual couples that are unfit to raise kids!

Omgeez that is because thar brainwashed by thar gay parents! With thar gay aganedanes!

Justwanted to add this.

Im really not sure why either side wants marriage in the first place. It seems to me that whatever the arguments for what marriage is or should be miss the point. I thought marriage was about being with someone you love. It doesnt take the state to make a marriage, it takes to people comitting to eachother.

This whole legal battle is just a repeat of seperate but equal. I say that we remove the right for the sate to tell us what marriage is at all.

Here is a good quote by a comedian on the issue:

If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it? Would you go "Baby, this # we got together, it's so good we gotta get the government in on this #. We can't just share this commitment 'tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this #, baby. It's hot!"

-Doug Stanhope
en.wikiquote.org...

Well natural law can also be used to justify Polgamy, polyandry, homosexuality and eugenics.It is in short anything you want it to be.

I am not justifying any of the above but support anyone's right do as they please within reason.

T

Marriage is a legal concept not a natural one. As such it is defined however we collectively want it to be defined.

What this article is talking about is monogamy (in the sexual not legal sense) not marriage. Monogamy can be said to have a natural purpose in that it is the most efficient mating pattern in terms of passing on ones genes.

Marriage has nothing to do with this, as evidence I point to various cultures that have allowed polygynous marriages for thousands of years. Clearly marriage can and has been defined differently to what this article suggests.

This article is wrong because it starts with an incorrect assertion; it is in essence one long straw man argument.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Mike_A


I completely agree.
To me, the problematic nature of the assertion that "marriage is natural" is shown in this quote:

There are two sources of our knowledge, the Natural Law and the Divine Law. In this article we will consider the Natural Law reasoning which proves this definition. We will examine the Natural Law, not because it says anything different from Divine Law or is superior to it. On the contrary, as they both have their origin in the same source—the Eternal Law, the Divine Reason—they are completely in accord with one another.

This, here, is the sandy foundation of the whole house of cards. It's not based on facts.

reply to post by FortAnthem


See what I mean there out in full force.... I am all for Civil Unions that are equal protected under the law, and for the life of me I cannot understand why a gay couple would want to "get married" in a church setting knowing the bible condems the act... Can anyone here freaking explain that?

Maybe we should just outlaw marriage all together and be done with it.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


Oh, yeah, I fully expected this when I posted it.

People in this day and age just cannot tolerate the truth and attack it with a vengence whenever it shows it's head in public.

It won't stop me from posting threads like this because I know there are some out there who are still not blind to the truth who may benifit from this.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

See what I mean there out in full force.... I am all for Civil Unions that are equal protected under the law, and for the life of me I cannot understand why a gay couple would want to "get married" in a church setting knowing the bible condems the act... Can anyone here freaking explain that?

Maybe we should just outlaw marriage all together and be done with it.

We don't.

Those gay people who campaign to have it called "marriage" are idiots IMO. All you need are civil unions which give the same rights, end of story.

There's no need to rile up the religious for no reason, marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, always has been. When the government decided to make it a Lawful Institution, they opened the door to this argument themselves by deciding WHO could love WHO.

The article is right, no human has the competence to define marriage cause nobody can tell you that your love is more powerful or less valid that another person's love.

~Keeper

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

 

Oh, yeah, I fully expected this when I posted it.

People in this day and age just cannot tolerate the truth and attack it with a vengence whenever it shows it's head in public.

It won't stop me from posting threads like this because I know there are some out there who are still not blind to the truth who may benifit from this.

What is the truth exactly? Other than people just don't want gays to marry?

Who in god's name would benefit from keeping people who love each other, from enjoying the same rights as everybody else?

Such an archaic way of thinking, it's just mind boggling. Leave your religion out of my civil rights.

~Keeper

[edit on 2/23/2010 by tothetenthpower]

Interesting article, though it raises more questions that are not brought about. I believe a marriage is more than what is mentioned in that article and all of the trouble started with the body politic. If you are to use that article as an argument, as it is, then it could be argued that all marriages are invalid as they are not arranged by society or a person to bless and determine that such a match would produce a child. Nor does it take into account people, of opposite sex, who live together, have children, but choose not to wed, as they find it not within their interest for such. As much as the proponents of keeping marriage wants to not let it be defined any other way than what they view it, the question is are they willing to give up everything to keep it that way? Are they willing to give up all of the bennifits that are associated along with being married under the eyes of the law? If you consider that the main reason why those who are homosexual want to have the right and the option to marry is because they want the same rights and options that married couples are bennifited under the eyes of the law. Is it right that 2 people who are in a stable monogmous relationship for a good 20 years, not be afforded the same bennifits under the law just cause they are the same sex? Or do we go back to the age, of where marriages are arranged, and then end up with a marriage of a lack of love, or where the couple ends up living in 2 separate rooms cause neither can stand the other, only for the man to come in and attempt to get the woman pregnant for the purpose of having a child. Is that a healthy atmosphere for a child to be brought up in? The reality as hard as it may be to swallow would be to take the bennifits of marriage out of the law and return it back to that of the religions, where it is the aspects of the churches to determine what constitutes as a legale marriage, instead of having it in the aspect of legale issues. Historically speaking, at one time it was the chruches that would preform not only the marriages, but also the divorces. There is one other aspect that in todays society that is not covered and would raise interesting aspects. A couple who have been married and then one decides to get a sex change, is it still a legal marriage? Or how about a post op transgender person is proposed to and then accepts the proposal, would that be a legal marriage? There are too many aspects and questions that are not discussed. I for one say cut all bennifits that the law affords 2 people who want to get married, tax, insurance, and death. Take it out of the law and see where the argument goes from there.

reply to post by FortAnthem

This is a poor argument, and it falls apart right at the start.

The state, and any individual, for that matter, is likewise incompetent to define or redefine what is water, fire or the sun. Marriage is what it is, as these other substances are.

The initial premise is that these concepts are self-evident, they define themselves universally, across all peoples, in all times, which is absolutely untrue.

One cannot even discuss meaning without the employment of language, which brings a whole host of interpretive baggage with it. Words have a formal meaning, a denotation, and an evocative component that is less precise, connotation. The word "sun" may be defined as "a star", which requires that one know what a star is, have a basic knowledge of science (natural law), etc. When we think of the sun, this is what comes to mind most often, but we could also say of the sun, it is "The God who brings us the seasons." This seems rather silly to us, since we "know" the sun is not a god, but a massive ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion, releasing energy in the form of heat and light, as well as other radiation. We know this because we have a tradition of accumulated knowledge that supports this claim, and can appeal to authorities who can demonstrate the veracity of these claims. This has become the accepted definition, because it is based on shared experience of evidence. Connotation is even more problematic to the premise of "self evidence", because it is a constantly shifting appellation of meaning, and it is not consistent with denotation. "Sun" can evoke feelings of warmth, happiness, possibility, power, reverence, pride, things completely unrelated to "nuclear fusion" or its status as a "star", related only to the experience of the individual.

The sun does have its own "implications", but they are not "flowing from this reality"; these implications come from a geopolitical/social/economic location that must be defined. Meaning is contingent, not self evident.

The implications that are used as evidence in this argument exist in a limited world of meaning that includes "Natural Law" and "Divine Law", both of which are extensions of religious systems of belief founded on non-observation, and superstitious thinking, and have nothing to do with the tradition of inquiry known as science. This argument attempts to place the reader in a common universe, but fails to acknowledge or define the scope of this universe, which is of course the religious ideology of American fundamentalist Christians. It masquerades as an appeal to reason, but is simply dogma; lazy thinking with an agenda.

reply to post by tothetenthpower



Keeper I can respect that, And by all means I think Civil Unions should be granted under the full privileges of the law, that are granted to "married" couples... I can support that, I don’t see the need (like you said) to get the religious riled up because nothing gets accomplished.

Many followers of Christ, That I know; are okay with civil unions they know that Jesus taught us to love thy enemy, and for the Far right who take it to the extreme they should know Jesus is disappointed in them as he is with everyone else.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


I am wondering, since i did not agree with the sophomoric level of reasoning in the article of the OP, am i one of the ones "out in full force"?

i just happen to find the whole situation absurd. I do however, think that i agree with your conclusion, and perhaps Keepers. We should get rid of marriage as a legal institution and replace it with civil unions or whatever terminology is neutral. Marriage can remain, but purely as a religious practice like baptism or conformation.

A person would be able to have a union for the legal ramifications (taxes and legal guardianship and such) without being married, and be able to be married without the legal union.

the problem with taking a different approach is that you will either offend the religious people that want to protect the sanctity of marriage, or you attempt to create a seperate but equal system. However this is an oxymoron because you will never be able to have seperate but equal when you give one side the title of marriage and deny it to the other side, even if all else is the same.

Personally, i think everyone involved in the process is just way to focused on what they want to step back and look at things from a logical standpoint.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Ozzy Mandias]

reply to post by Ozzy Mandias


Just because you dont agree with my point of view doesnt make it an amature suggestion... I am trying to find middle ground to this, Your not going to get everything you want, nor will, therefore it is easier to find a middle ground and work from there.

Look Keeper and I are from two differnet backgrounds but we agreed on an emotionally charged issue.

For the sanity of the country I think the option I have put forth is a very Noble Option and should be considered... Your not going to statify everything but if we can satisfy about 60% of the country then Mission Accomplished.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


Agreed.

Mind you I would not classify homosexuals as "enemies" of Jesus, but I understand where the reference comes from.

~Keeper

Originally posted by Solasis

Originally posted by FortAnthem


Anyway. Yes, that is the natural purpose of marriage. But that doesn't mean it's the sole purpose of marriage. We have transformed as a species far beyond the natural needs of things. Our children can remain children until 18, unlike the old days when they had to begin working and marrying at 12. The natural end of childhood has transformed to the modern end of childhood. Marriage need not be for one sole purpose.

My girlfriend feels that marriage is an archaic method of making wives and children the property of men, which it is by its nature. That doesn't mean that's all it has to be.

It is this kind of teaching that public indoctrination centers and the TV have made many who do not know or seek the One true God into believing that
marriage is no longer a current need that we as a civilization have grow past as we evolve into god like creatures.

There are studies that prove children need their bio mother and father through out their development, what has happened is that we as adults have been taught it is some one else that must bare the responsibility of proper raising of the child. We are a society of it is someone else's fault we give children free reign of their lives at about the age of 10, we do not participate in the lives that they have in public schools where they learn many things that take away their childhood innocence.

Marriage is to be with one man and one woman for life, most of the people today are not satisfied with what they have and are constantly looking over the fence for greener pasture.