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
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.
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!
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.