Natural Law

Pretty sharp, Jeff.

Good points. Well said.

By the way, did you see the Onion story on gay marriage:

http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1

The reason that the debates are so shallow and that parties flip-flop on their “doctrines”, e.g., states rights championed by liberals, etc. is that modern day politics (and the courts) are driven by a cultural issues agenda and not a coherent philosophy. This is precisely why Pope John Paul II is concerned more about the “culture” than any particular secular governmental or political system.

Justice Scalia in his scathing dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy criminal case) says it well. “Today’s opinion (Lawrence) is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.”

“The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that ‘the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.’ This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws (e.g., bigamy, same sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, etc.) can survive rational-basis review.”

Welcome to agenda driven the culture wars.

Escellent point about natural law. Remember the beating Robert Bork took over it?

The more I listen to (allegedly) conservative talk-show hosts the more I realize they have little understanding of anything "conservative" at all.

They may have some use as populist weathervanes but as protectors of any sort of conservative principles, they're about as helpful as Janet Jackson's nipple clip.

Homie, if you don't grok how outlawing slavery was an expansion of rights, I have but one thing to say: Suicide is painless.

Palolo Malidini,

True it was an expansion of rights for those treated as slaves, but it also denied slave owners so-called rights to own slaves.

Jeff, I was thinking along those lines when I was listening to Sean Hannity today. I love Hannity, but it seemed he couldn't make a persuasive or compelling case for marriage between a man and a woman only if his life depended on it - but he has a Catholic School Education... so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised.

" This movie is hard to watch because a microscope zoomed in on our sins is hard to watch. " You said it.

Oops disregard previous.

I'm sorry - I don't understand. What do you mean when you say "natural law," and what does that have to do with gay marriage?

Miss Poppy

Miss Poppy,

Here is an article on what the Natural Law is:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

What is natural law? Well, natural law is a theory or, more accurately said, a family of theories. There are as many understandings of what constitutes natural law as there are people talking about it. Look it up in an encyclopedia. Any good encyclopedia will give a wide varieties of ways in which the term has been used.

When it comes to its relationship to marriage and single-sex marriage, people declare in very specific terms exactly what it means and why it constitutes a valid argument against single-sex marriage, with no evidence to support a word they say. The connection of marriage and natural law typically has to do with the ability and responsibility to procreate and rear the next generation. The problem with procreation and child rearing as the legitimizing activities of a marriage is that, in the process, it delegitimizes all two-sex marriages that, either by choice or inability to do so, fail to bear fruit. Marriage after a woman has reached menopause? A violation of natural law. Marriage among the handicapped, incapable of either bearing of rearing children? A violation of natural law. Marriage between 2 people who don't want children? Again, a violation of natural law.
I think one can make a better argument for the inclusion of one-sex marriages within natural law. First, it is true that there is not a single culture anywhere in the world that does not have a homosexual population. Just as it is true that there is no culture in the world that lacks a left-handed population. Not only that, many species of animals have a percentage that exhibit homosexual behavior. Everything from dogs to birds to lizards. My personal guess is that if all species were studied for this we would find it to be a universal. But the point is that we can't just dismiss all this as "lifestyle choices." God made some portion of His kingdom homosexual. Part of God's nature. As for marriage, homosexual long-term unions are on the same moral footing as heterosexual unions. I don't see that natural law has anything to say about it, but there are both personal and societal benefits derived. And if God placed both heterosexuals and homosexuals in His kingdom, are they not both entitled to the fruits of the kingdom?

Anyway, Poppy, I wouldn't worry much about natural law. It's just an instrument to argue whatever you want to argue. It's been used to justify everything from slavery to Hitler's killing of the disabled, homosexuals, Jews and Gypsies, as well as the continued separation of the races and the inferiority of women. Now it's being dragged up to support the latest flap over single-sex unions.

Sorry Dennis, If you want to tell someone to ignore natural law you should first no what it is. To give marriage after menopause as wrong under natural law proves you don't know what it is.

Killing of anybody can never be rationalized as approved under natural law since all have the right to life and no one can take it away except in defense. Ignoring the natural law is when humans are treated as animals.

Jeff. I'm back. You misread what I said. What I said is that the argument often made by those who oppose single-sex unions is that marriage is for the purpose of bearing and rearing. That is not my argument. My mention about marriage after menopause is the logical extension of the arguments of others. Let me quote a piece appearing in my local newspaper last week: "Marriage came about because of the natural law that endows a man and a woman with the ability and responsibility to co-create, with God, another human life and to care for that human life until the cycle begins again." This same argument can be found in lots of places. Just Google "natural law" and marriage.

But let me cite the newadvent.org discussion on natural law cited above:

"The discriminating norm is...human nature itself, objectively considered...The manifesting norm, which determines the moral quality of actions tried by the discriminating norm, is reason. Through this faculty we perceive what is the moral constitution of our nature, what kind of action it calls for, and whether a particular action possesses this requisite character."

Now, in terms of sexuality, can I assume that you accept the fact that some of God's creatures, both human and other, are homosexual by nature? You didn't challenge that in your response. So, when we talk of the discriminating norm, we're talking about a human nature that includes homosexuality. Now according to the above, through reason we perceive what is the moral constitution of our nature and what is doing right. But by whose reason? I suspect that you and I would come to different conclusions, both of us using God's gift of reason. And if we include homosexuals in the "we" in the above sentence, might we not expect to see a further expansion of the possible "reasoned" conclusions about what is right?

We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's Jefferson, said to be articulating natural laws. If the pursuit of happiness is part of natural law, and if a long-term committed relationship between two people serves in the pursuit of happiness, how does it violate natural law?

See what I mean? Natural law as a theory is way too open to differences of opinion. If you can address in specific terms where I'm missing the point, or where my logic fails, I'd welcome that. But blowing me off with "you just don't understand natural law" doesn't serve. By the way, I don't know what the second paragraph of your reply has to do with anything I said.