Is Marriage a Right?

I must first quote our the Declaration of Independence, I will further allude to the Bill of rights, and at times for this context I will also quote Bible verses in this OP for clarification of the Millennial stand of issues of which are now being questioned. I do not expect everyone to agree and this thread is not intended to be a hate threat nor is it intended that those who choose to participate to express their hate or anger because they don't agree.

the Title of the OP is to understand what is a right or not a right in the course of Marriage.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

After reading that and the Articles of the Bill of rights Bill of Rights I have not found in it any right to Heterosexual or Homosexual Marriage, this being said it would seem that Marriage is not a right promised to anyone.

But the interesting point in the Declaration of Independence says, "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." This implies that there are natural separations (marriage being one of them) and equal station in society (marriage) which would be according to the laws of Nature and of God's Nature. The Laws of Nature established that male and female are needed for procreation, though science has made it possible today for the natural process of conception to be by-passed, the gestation cannot and still abides in the realm of the Laws of Nature.

Laws of nature do not give a right of Marriage, however God's Nature does provide for Marriage but not as a right but as a necessity for moral purity in the area of Adultery.

Marriage is found in the Bible and in nature. First i want to quote the verses that indicate that God's nature saw marriage as one man and one woman

the word marry and married indicates Marriage between one man and one woman.
Mt 19:3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

the words marry and married indicate marriage and defined over the last 4,000 years a being between one man and one woman. Historically no one had a right to marriage it was just something that was because of moral uprightness.

In my next post of this OP we will discuss the Moral aspect and conclude the OP altogether.

Historically Adultery was recognized in Pre-judaic law (Law of Moses for all Israel Mal. 4:4) and seemed to be some what a natural law whether one believed in a God or were just animistic. Even animistic tribal societies recognized that once a male and female coupled it was a bond that was not to be violated.

There are three examples of the natural understanidng that Adultery was wrong found in the pre-Judaic law recorded in the book of Genesis. Please remember all three of these examples are historical in writing and are pre-law of Moses.

Ge 12:18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. 20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

We are not told how Pharoah figured that he was about to commit adultery but it was understood that it was wrong and that a moral act could have been violated if he had taken her to wife In those days and in tribal society to have sex with a person of the opposite sex resulted in a marriage hence the use of the word wife.

Ge 20:1 ¶ And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah. 3 ¶ But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife. 4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? 5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. 6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. 7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine. 8 ¶ Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid. 9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. 10 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing? 11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. 12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother. 14 ¶ And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife.

Here a second time under similar circumstance the similar event of morality was about to be violated and in this case the God of Abraham spoke directly to Abimelech. Even he knew it was wrong to commit adultery and claimed innocence since it was Abraham who deceived him otherwise he would not do it. He probably would have killed him and took Sarah just a Abraham feared.

understand that Abimelech is a title given for a rule much like King, when we read this last example as found int he Bible.

Ge 26:6 ¶ And Isaac dwelt in Gerar: 7 And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon. 8 And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife. 9 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die for her. 10 And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. 11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.

Now years later Isaac does the same as his father Abraham. and you see that they knew it was wrong to lay with another mans wife and that it was a crime with a sentence of death placed on it by Abimelech.

Now We have seen that natural laws indicated male and female were made to marry. But they had no right to marry it was not guaranteed in the bible and it is not guaranteed in society as a whole. It was recognized that if a man and a woman coupled they were married or joined and that constituted the marriage.

the Marriage is not a right but an obligation to the one coupled with because of moral issues of Adultery and most societies recognized that taking or laying with anothers wife and or husband was Adultery.

Having lien this ground does anyone have the guaranteed right to Marry?

The answer is NO.

Did marriage exist between any other than one man and one woman since the beginning?

The answer is NO.

Now seeing that this understanding is based on the Laws of Nature and God's nature do we have the right to redefine Marriage?

The Answer is NO.

Even our reading of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights indicate that Marriage is not a right and in the traditional understanding does not violate the laws of nature.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

1. The pursuit of happiness could very well include marriage.

2. The 14th Amendment says that states' laws must apply to all citizens equally. Marriage is a state law.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Let me reiterate that sexual pleasure or happiness is not a guaranteed right either. Marriage is not always a happy thing now is it so how can we place it under pursuit of happiness.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Did marriage exist between any other than one man and one woman since the beginning?

The answer is NO.

Not true.

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]

Source

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ChesterJohn

2. The 14th Amendment says that states' laws must apply to all citizens equally. Marriage is a state law.

We would have to go against that which is the laws of natural to extend marriage to same sex couples. and we would have to redefine Marriage from its natural and historical definition that has been established since the beginning.

Marriage today is only a law for monetary purposes of taxation and fees that was established by the Roman Catholic churches and later adopted by governments to make money off the people. Marriage contracts, taxation etc.

Big governments establish what they want for the purpose of MONEY

We don't have the right to happiness. We have the right to PURSUE happiness. And marriage is considered by many to be included in the PURSUIT of happiness.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

However you are only going back 2000 years or so and the historical recordings we have of the Sumerians and Arcadians (sp?) do not respect any other union.

While true no all tribal groups adhere to that which is natural it does not make the Fijian tribe right and the natural laws wrong.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

then pursue it no one is stopping you. But NO ONE has a RIGHT to MARRIAGE even under our laws.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
We would have to go against that which is the laws of natural to extend marriage to same sex couples. and we would have to redefine Marriage from its natural and historical definition that has been established since the beginning.

Not at all. Homosexual coupling is found in nature, therefore NATURAL. Marriage has no definition. We each define our own marriage.

Marriage today is only a law for monetary purposes of taxation and fees that was established by the Roman Catholic churches and later adopted by governments to make money off the people. Marriage contracts, taxation etc.

Maybe that's why YOU'RE married, but I did not marry for money, law or taxation. I married for love. I define my marriage. You can stay out of it.

Big governments establish what they want for the purpose of MONEY

They can do whatever they do. But I married for love only.

This implies that there are natural separations (marriage being one of them) and equal station in society (marriage) which would be according to the laws of Nature and of God's Nature.

Sorry that has nothing to do with marriage. It refers more to the separation from Britain and that everyone is equal. You seem to forget that the Declaration is a document of war.

Natural law

Because the Congress in July 1776 had resolved upon independence from Great Britain, however, they thought it inadequate to appeal only to the British constitution. Instead, they addressed the “opinions of mankind” and made their appeal on the basis of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Seen as justification for recognition of the political independence of the new United States, natural law appears to ground the law of nations; in the absence of an imperial suzerain or an international league, nature itself must be the standard and world opinion its court. Little is said at the beginning of the Declaration about this aspect of natural law, other than that it supports the equality of separate states. But the powers belonging “of right” to “free and independent states” detailed in the Declaration’s conclusion – “to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce” and unspecified others – should probably be understood as natural in the minds of the Declaration’s signers. The notion that “international law” arises chiefly from treaties among nations, even the term “international” itself, is a development subsequent to the Declaration; indeed, one commentator has traced the origin of modern thinking about international law to the question among European powers of what constituted formal recognition of American independence.[1] That the Americans needed legal separation from Britain in order to find allies in the fight against her was clearly recognized at the time and by scholars since.

It's funny how you bring up nature when talking about marriage because marriage doesn't exist in nature but guess what does exist in nature? Homosexuality.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Because as the framers intended, "the pursuit of happiness" extends beyond merely physical happiness to include moral and spiritual happiness.

Just as not all marriages are happy ones, not all marriages are about sexual gratification either. While "the pursuit of happiness" does not specifically mean "getting laid" as many people today think it does, it also does not exclude materialistic happiness either.

The framers intended it to mean not only material happiness, but something "greater" and more completely encompassing than simply getting one's rocks off.

I think you need to bone up on what the terms meant at the time of the constitution and declaration being written before continuing the debate.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You said:

Did marriage exist between any other than one man and one woman since the beginning?

The answer is NO.

And I have proven you wrong.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

then pursue it no one is stopping you. But NO ONE has a RIGHT to MARRIAGE even under our laws.

I'm not saying they do. I depend on the 14th amendment for my position. Marriage is a state law and ALL citizens have equal protection under it.

Gay people are getting married and more places are letting them.
Get over it.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Is dating a right?

Marriage is one obvious conclusion to dating or "courting" as my generation calls it.

Considering that Jefferson hated what the church turned Christianity into and that he wrote the Declaration of Independence and firmly believed and fought for the separation of Church and State... doesn't it logically follow that his intention was simply state that 'man' had a right to pursue happiness? That the means of that pursuit could only be individually determined?

Spirituality was very important to Jefferson, he believed in Jesus as a teacher, he followed the word of Jesus believing the word to ring most true to him but he did not believe that Jesus was the son of God nor that the father of Jesus was THE God. But he also very vocally despised the Church.

So with all that in mind, why would Jefferson tie Judaic concepts to the very birth of the nation he was playing a large hand in founding?

Even so... it doesn't matter. The legal boons of marriage are now part of our society. Constitutionally we are bound to either remove those boons from everyone or extend them to everyone.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Yes. Marriage is a right. You have a right to do anything that doesn't directly harm another person.

I cannot fathom what has gotten us to the point in our history as a species that we are sitting here, today, asking that question. If we really don't know whether or not marriage is a right, then think of how many people must have died to preserve a freedom that we are wholly ignorant of, to the point of actually having arguments over it.

ETA: for my fellow Americans...lets remember that while our founders were intelligent men and adept thinkers, they are not the holders of the keys of freedom. they may have held them for a short while...but the ideals of liberty are the core of every being on Earth. Right down to the pitiful condition that caged animals find themselves in. It is natural law, and supercedes all men. Including Thomas Jefferson (who was an arrogant scoundrel in his own right, despite being an amazing thinker).

I don't care what religion has to say on the matter, if two people want to get married and enjoy/suffer then let them.

They have every right to the benefits that come along with getting married.

NO!! YOUR SEX LIFE WILL END..!!!