Gay marriage is a moral question on the level abortion: that is, it is not of necessity a religious one. It is not in fact a particularly religious matter at all. Therefore, as with any philosophical issue, we have the need and indeed the right to debate it in public. Especially seeing as our laws reflect the kind of people we are.
Gay marriage should not be allowed. As it is clear that good families can only come out of loving heterosexual relationships which have children naturally (that is, in league with nature: it takes a male and female to have a child and in no other way can that happen while remaining congruent with nature), and that gay couples cannot have children of their own in such a way, then by definition a gay couple cannot be a family. Seeing as the family is the building block of the greater society, it must be defended strongly, even fiercely, towards the end that society must be strong with reflection to nature, to the way things out to be, in order to survive.
Many arguments have ensued about who defines marriage. Yet no one truly defines it; they see it as a reflection of the natural law or they do not. It has been said that homosexuality is well documented in the world of the lower animals. Even if so, it is fair to ask whether we are more than mere animals. If you wish to think about people as though they had no choice, no free will in their actions, then you are making us less than human. That argument, such as it is, speaks for itself.
A common legal argument is that same sex couple do not receive the legal benefits of married heterosexual couples. Well, if they cannot be married as a matter of course, any issues of legal rights are moot. If they cannot marry, they simply are not entitled to the rights of marriage.
Some say that all sorts of awful people can and do marry and have children. That they certainly do. Which is why there are laws against pedophilia, abandoning or abusing your children, and taking them from your custody if you are unfit. The laws recognize familial obligation and do their best to uphold and enforce it.
More can, and surely will, be said about this issue. But the bottom line is this: any society which will not uphold and respect the natural laws is a society which cannot last. We risk becoming that type of nation if we deviate from the objective norms of the natural environment.
Comments
I wonder if people like Charles Martin Cosgriff are aware that the world will only become a better place by way of their departure from it.
Charles Martin Cosgriff is a bigot whose voice should be silenced by God himself, but Charles Martin Cosgriff seems unaware of his character flaws, therefore would not recognize the voice of God anyway.
Shame on you, Charles Martin Cosgriff. You should keep your vile morality to yourself. It has become embarassing for those of us who see the light on this issue. You speak for no one but yourself. And other bigots.
Happy Thanksgiving, tool.
Wow, your article is nothing but pure bigotry, plain and simple. Let's not tangle ourselves in a dispute where I'm called out for name-calling. You honestly deserve it for putting your narrow-minded views in print for all to see.
I guess since you can't say what you want about blacks and jews, you'll enjoy what you can say about the gays.
This article makes so many great points. Stating that no one really defines a marriage is interesting, since in the previous paragraph you define a family. Then you deny marriage based on your definition of a family! Brilliant!
I'm just wondering something, though. Would you call a divorced mother raising her children a family? What if that mother lives with her sister, or her parents to help her raise the children, is it a family then? What if she lives with her best friend to help reduce expenses? What if she remarries?
Also, since many homosexuals have either fathered or given birth to children in heterosexual relationships, are they a family? Are they a family if the heterosexual relationship dissolves and the homosexual parent is the better caregiver and gets custody? What if that homosexual parent then lives with relatives, parents, or friends?
Since you have no problem defining what a family is, you must be an expert, so please let me know the answers.
Is this a joke? Same sex couples have children either biologically or through adoption yet this guy doesn't think those children should be allowed married parents. Why does he want to discriminate against children? Obviously they are only a convenience for this guy to be used as a screen for his real intention of bigotry. Either this man is a nut or just stupid.
Kudos to CT on the one year anniversary of its marriage equality law. And congrats to all the couples who are coming to CT to wed from all across the country.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
And to the marriage foes, sexually phobic, and flat earthers, please find something else to do with your time, because life's just to short. Find love.
Who are YOU to tell others what they can/cannot do, whom the may/maynot marry? Their PARENTS???
This businsses abour man/wife being best for children is MOOT. Studies have shown that gay parents are just as good as straight ones. See story/link apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html
-Eddie
If you want to espouse bigoted and illogical arguments. Than I guess you have valid points. However, you refuted your own arguments. You spoke about non religious beliefs and looked to nature to confirm your morality but then dismissed evidence from nature that did not suit your arguments. Speaking from a place of fear and ignorance, you have narrowly defined a family. There is enough hate in the world so why don't you find a real issue to stand behind. By the way, your religious undertones were quite evident in what you wrote, so why not be truthful when trying to promote your religious agenda.
Great Article - I clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman as part of the natural law. The definition of family is based on that law too.
Divorced families are broken families. They are incomplete. At times, families are broken up through no fault per se: someone dies, for example. When extended family and friends help out, as they should, they are merely doing the best which can be done in a bad situation of a broken family.
Homosexuals who have fathered children have taken on the obligation of family and should do their best to live up to it in a moral framework. Do not make the mistake of saying they cannot help but act on their feelings. Almost all of us are born with issues: bad temper, for example. Yet we expect those folks to control themselves as they have free will. Simply because you're born a certain way does mean you have the right to act it out.
James - this is not an inherently religious issue. Many people simply want it viewed that way so they can dismiss it with serious thought. That is intellectual dishonesty and nothing more.
I could say that you POV is only a thin veil for your secular undertones, but I do not. Because any secular/religious dichotomy begs the question of actual right and wrong. Things are right and wrong on their own terms.
The nature of the lower animals and human nature are different issues. Animals only act: they are not to be judged on human terms, which are on a different, higher level of nature. We think and act: we can consider the meaning of our actions. That gives us the responsibility to think and act morally.
The opponents of gay marriage need to impose a punishment, in law, to make their cause against gay marriage stick. The SCOTUS annihilated that punishment in the Lawrence v. Texas case. The bigot hero, Antonin Scalia agrees, "The SCOTUS has opened the door to gay marriage. There isn't anything in the way of stopping it" (Lawrence v. Texas dissent).
Conversely, we're on the cusp on annihilating proposition 8. Witness the glorious, and spectacular trial, on 1-11-2010 @ 8:30 AM. The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger! No shame, and very proud to destroy proposition 8!
after reading what ur write Imust think you have some mental problems. No offensive but ur thought and "philosophy" are ridiculous. objecting ur points would be like just a waste of time.
If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.
It really is that simple. Why does the American Taliban feel the need to turn their religious beliefs into law?
Thanks for responding. Since you recognize that these families are broken families, and you feel that when friends or relatives help out, they are still broken families, when are you going to propose that people are only allowed to get married once?
Let me clarify: Broken families are 'incomplete' when divorce or death enters the picture. Therefore they deny natural law as they no longer provide both biological parents, correct? Since they defy natural law, when are we going to deny them remarriage?
Why should we allow them to further their broken families with remarriage? Or are you just going to turn around and say that, even with your own admission these families are broken, they should still be able to get married because they're heterosexual?
I just wonder, when are you going to write an article entitled "Second marriage: Simply Indefensible"? As that's the position your logic supports.
What century is this guy living in?! C'mon, join us in the 21st century, where loving, committed couples of various gender compositions are living decent, respectable lives and raising children together! Any couple with children should be encouraged to marry, not prohibited from marrying! For once, get past your archaic prejudices and think of what's best for children: that's having married parents! Let gay couples, especially those with children, marry!
Great article - I'm not against heterosexual remarriage if circumstances permit. I never said that such persons could not remarry regardless of circumstance. So long as they act in congruence with the natural law there should be no issue.
Now, as to divorcees, well, now we must address the nature of even heterosexual marriage. Divorce should be rare; people need to be more considerate of what marriage means before they enter into, and respect it as an institution as they are in it. The question becomes, is marriage until death or not? If it is until death and someone's spouse dies, the survivor is by definition free to remarry. If is it until death, then a divorcee cannot be free to marry. Either way, society must learn to respect proper marriage or disintegrate over the long run.
So if you feel this way about divorce, why isn't that included in your article? Why do you only single out gay relations?
And why is a divorced broken family different from a family in which one spouse dies? I thought natural law requires both biological spouses- if it doesn't, why can't gay couples form a family when one person in the couple has biological children?
When you preach about natural law you can't set up gray areas with heterosexuals able to remarry and form a family and gays unable to do so. Natural law is universal, so if both biological parents aren't in the marriage, why are you stating it's acceptable behavior for heterosexuals but not homosexuals?
great article - I think you're confusing the issues. Divorce is a separate act from gay marriage precisely because divorce ends a family. As to a gay biological parent being part of a family, that surely could work...if the person in question is willing to in congruence with natural law. that would require the choice to not act on his homosexual impulses.
Why not include it in my original article? In the same manner that I can talk about baseball without talking about all sports. Thought there may be intersecting threads, each sport is ultimately judged on its own merits. Divorce and gay marriage, while they may at times converge, are ultimately separate questions.
In a divorced broken family there has been conscious choices to separate, whereas deaths are usually unintended and not the fault of the folks involved. Natural law is not violated when a family, shall I say, blends heterosexually as the natural male/female relationship is not violated.
There are no gray areas BTW, GA. There are only areas which have not yet come up in this discussion thread.
No, they aren't separate issues because you're stating gays cannot get married because they can't be a family. Your article is about natural law and how you feel gay couples violate that.
When I point out that separated heterosexuals via death or divorce violate natural law, and thus can't be a family (a point which you agreed with when calling them 'broken families') I logically follow your argument, that we should then deny those heterosexual couples the right to marriage.
You're the one confusing the issue by first stating gays cannot be part of a family, and then later claiming they can be. Either gays can form a family, and thus a marriage, or they cannot.
I just want you to state clearly what this natural law is, where I can find a copy, and why it seemingly only applies to gay couples.
The law can't be about biological children, because you've already allowed widowed spouses the ability to get remarried. So what natural law are only gays violating?
Families are a building block of society, but defining any norm for a family only creates outcasts, thus weaking communities. Families can be very odd, diverse, and stronger for it.
Your article is absurd. How can you press the need to follow natural law? Our society and way of live is anything but natural. To follow natural law is to follow your instinct and nature, which is the opposite of what you would have gays do.
Charles Martin Cosgriff is obviously intellectually bankrupt. Our "natural" world is full of gay parents raising kids. He should be embarrassed for demonizing the millions of people living in gay households. There is nothing more natural than humans loving and taking care of each other. He should be sad and ashamed for hating other natural humans simply because they love each other. I bet he claims to be a "Christian". Shame on you Charles Martin Cosgriff.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E4M39FRIGc
Great article - a clear reading of my article and various replies would state thus:
1. The natural law is obvious in that only male and female can have children together, and thus a family. This is not possible for same sex couples.
2. The widowed can remarry a person of the opposite sex as their first marriage ended in death.
3. A person with homosexual inclinations can marry and have a family with the person of the opposite by choosing not to act on their homosexual impulses. That would not violate natural law.
4. The natural is written on the pages of history and can be known with simple and honest, objective consideration of the issues and human obligations towards them.
5. Heterosexual remarriage due to death does not constitute a violation of the natural law as
the previous marriage has ended.
You are making it sound as though gay marriage and divorce are not exclusive issues. They are, as they only intersect tangentally. It is simply one big red herring.
Great article - gays are violating the natural law that only heterosexual couples can have a family as only they can have children.
You want the book on the natural law? Read the appendix to C. S. Lewis The Abolition of Man. Read The Analects of Confucius. Read Aristotle's Metaphysics or Ethics.
"As it is clear that good families can only come out of loving heterosexual relationships which have children naturally."
Well, that is a pretty broad statement, and as we all learned on our SAT review materials, broad statements tend to be the wrong answer. Indeed, every reliable piece of social science data shows that same-sex couples raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. In fact, lesbian couples actually did BETTER at raising children than heterosexual couples in one study that was released last week.
Charles Martin Cosgriff is simply a moron, and it is not worth the time to debate him. Everyone should just leave now and debate with people who can be reasoned with.
So you also believe those that are sterile, choose not to have children, are too old to have children and/or have already been divorced (because divorce sure doesn't promote a wholesome image), should also not be allowed to marry?
In other news, I can see why the Examiner failed in Baltimore...when you have an organization that tries to push religious opinion as news, that tends to happen.
Wait, I thought I recognized you, Martin! You were chatting me up on Manhunt one day and we had problems arranging a get-together because of your family obligations! It is rather ironic that you, a closeted gay man who has profiles on gay dating sites, would argue against gay marriage! Hypocrisy at its best!
This article would not pass a high school English class based on the fact that its very premise is a poorly constructed false assumption: that Marriage has at its core the sole purpose of creating children. In fact, marriage is much more than that on many levels as determined by the couple getting married.
To assume that the ONLY purpose of marriage is to have children is in itself assuming a Religious basis for marriage. "Be fruitful and multiply." Why else would be acceptable for sterile couples, seniors and those who practice contraception to get married who cannot, or choose not to, have children? What about families created through adoption?
Family is what we make of it, however it is created. Whether it is a couple by themselves, of whatever pairing, or a couple with children through biology or adoption, as long as they love and support each other, it is a family.
Love is all that matters. Your bigotry does not.
Dude ...seriously?? Are you smarter than a fifth grader??? um.....nope.....so sorry....
The writer has clearly not given this issue any thought. He premises the assertion that "by definition a gay couple cannot be a family” on the fact that a gay couple cannot reproduce. By this logic, an infertile married couple, or an elderly married couple "by definition...cannot be a family".
He also writes that "good families can only come out of loving heterosexual relationships which have children naturally." This sweeping statement is utterly devoid of empirical support, and the writer makes no attempt to justify this broad assertion with any form of argument or analysis. So a family in which loving heterosexual parents adopt cannot be a good family?
This type of argument (“It is so because it is so”) is tautological and conclusory. The writer argues that if gay people cannot marry, “they simply are not entitled to the rights of marriage” – ignoring the fact that the law (not nature) does not yet permit gay couples to marry.
This is a travesty of justice.
PHILIP
Jesse writes: "Wait, I thought I recognized you, Martin!..."
Are you serious, or are you just pulling my leg?
PHILIP
What nonsense. Tell me why my partner and our children should be penalized, and denied the benefits and privileges that your spouse and your children receive from our government. Self-righteous bigots.
When the religious right loses on moral grounds, they turn to 'natural law'. When they lose on natural law, they turn to hysteria, lies, and prejudice. Notice not one of this guys arguments supports anything reasonable. Fact is, 'marriage' as we know it, is only 50 years old. Thats right: people 'choosing' to marry another person out of love, rather than religious, cultural, financial, or kinship ties, is a new concept.
They are as freaked out, if not more about the 'choice' of a same sex partner, as they were about different races, and prior, different religions, and prior, a woman having 'property rights'.
Same anti choice crap over and over again.
I really believe that State and Federal Civil Partnerships are a better goal for the LGBT community. As in Washington and elsewhere, this is a much easier case to make.
Civil Partnerships should be open to all, gay or straight. They make much more sense in our current times. In 2004, over a quarter of births to woman ages 25 to 29 (27.8%) and over half of births to woman ages 20 to 24 (54.8%) were to unmarried women. Marriage, as a prerequisite for children, is simply falling out of favor with our younger generations. Civil Partnerships allow for protection of the children and family members in these cases.
While I hear the excuse 'separate is not equal', it's bogus in legal terms. You aren't being asked to go to a separate school or water fountain. At worst you will check a different box on your tax forms. You can have the ceremony. You can still call yourselves what ever you want to your friends and family.
Besides Life Partner sounds better than spouse...
For the record, I voted against the constitutional ban in my state and I will continue to do so. But I still favor Civil Partnerships over marriage...
Philip Chandler - Infertile and elderly heterosexual couples are nonetheless acting in congruence with nature, of acting as man and woman rather than acting as pure animal. Homosexual couples are never doing that. Homosexual couples can only claim faith to that small area which is nothing less than mere self gratification. It is a shallow pool to wade within.
Empiricism is the data of science, not reason. Empiricism, the sole reliance on data rather than reason, of mere isolated fact ahead meaning, of thesis ahead of rationality; this is obviously in the strata of a leap of faith more so than living in the realm of reason, of the interpretation of fact ahead of the raw animal lust behind the facts. Yet we are the ones accused of simple religious dogma, of emotion before rational thought. It is the 'ethical' left who are hypocrites. Science, it seems, is a religion upon itself.
Julian, my friend, are we to stand for for the passing fancy or the everlasting right and wrong? That the current body politic may want something does not make it right.
Have you read the natural law, Charlie? Because I have a copy, and it specifically says that every being on God's Earth should ignore what you say, because you are an idiot. Call me for a copy, it's 1-IMA-BIGOTEDASS.
Dear Martin: Is not natural law discerned by observing nature? Science and medicine have informed us that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic that is immutable by early childhood. Regardless of your indefensible proclamations on natural law, gay people will continue to be married, raise children, and live their lives in defiance of your bigotry and ignorance. Sooner or later you must acknowledge that the natural order is more complicated than you pretend it to be. Furthermore you seem to want it both ways; for you suggest that “we are more than mere animals.” That’s right - gay people may not be able to reproduce via the so called traditional methods, but as humans we have transcended mere animal limitations. We can select among any number of assisted reproduction technologies precisely because god gave us brains so that we might reach our full potential.
Your comment, "But the bottom line is this: any society which will not uphold and respect the natural laws is a society which cannot last."
Charles Martin Cosgriff, the Wikipedia entry that you, apparently, created for yourself implies you are Roman Catholic, having attended a Roman Catholic university in Michigan. How does a concrete statue of the Virgin Mary weeping tears conform to your natural laws? I think that if we conformed to "the natural laws" there would be no Roman Catholic Church, because much of their doctrines are based on the super-natural. Do you think men who never marry and wander around a monastery in dresses are conforming to natural laws? Aren't the testicles of Roman Catholic priests rather worthless if the priests don't use their testicles to conform to natural laws? Aren't these men violating nature by hanging out with each other, excluding women? Seems to me your "natural laws" are applicable to those you wish to disparage, but not for those you favor.
Wow, I actually read your whole article because I was waiting for a punchline. It is in fact a bit surprising that you where allowed to print it given its C level high school work and D level College work concernig facts. What is obvious is that you have a religious background you are attempting to hide by creating the God-like authority of "natural law" as some kind replacement for God. While there are a number of reason philisophically why your argument would fall flat, the most glaring has to be why heterosexual couples who can not have kids seem to deserve some sort of pass; Or why Marriage would last beyond any couple's child-rearing years? if you are going to be logical --and you aren't, at least be consitent.
Everyone wants to dismiss what I say because the assert it is expressly religious. Yet if I were to assert that their thoughts were invalid merely because they were secular that would be seen as unfair and unreasonable.
I repeat, my POV is not inherently religious. Religion is simply a straw man used herein in an attempt to deflect debate about the actual crux of the issue.
As to people doing what they want to do without consideration of the rights of the general society, gay couples 'marrying' and having 'families' according to their will only, well, that is little but a recipe for anarchy in the long run, which is precisely where a disregard for right and wrong must eventually lead.
Kurt - Infertile heterosexual couples are not given a pass as such. They are acting in congruence with natural law: they are acting as male and female couples should.
Micah - "Science and medicine have informed us that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic that is immutable by early childhood." So a homosexual has no choice but to act on the impulse? There is no free will on the matter? Further, how many other charachteristics are 'immutable'? Are we allowed to act on any and every trait we may be born with? This is dangerous ground and lowers humanity to mere animal status. It is an insult to human dignity. We can do better than any base impulse. We can judge whether our actions are good or bad and act accordingly. To act any other way is to be less than human.
DJM - You're mixing the issues. Anyone has the right to choose celibacy. Not everyone has the right to marry.
Let me tell you folks:
I've known I was gay since I was 9. I went through my younger years as a wild-child (as most of us do). In my 30's, I found someone who made me begin to view life and priorities differently...in a great way (I grew up!)...Can you relate?!
We have been together for 10 years now. Sex? not really anymore. Our bond is deeper than that. We laugh, pay bills, travel, help each other through hard times, visit family together. We would marry if law allowed...but we are not seen as good enough. Ironic that I have finally felt good enough to myself for over a decade after a life of feeling like I did not fit in. A lot of my hetero frinds have been through the same feelings and paths that I have. I don't care what my neighbors do or don't do in private. I care that they are good citizens that want me to have the same opportunities they have to protect the one they call partner. I grew up with tha same dream they had. Why can't I have it too?
"Are we to stand for for the passing fancy or the everlasting right and wrong? That the current body politic may want something does not make it right."
So.. what's your point?
The current body politic chooses to ban Gay Marriage. Does that make this stance right?
What is 'everlasting right and wrong?'
The Bible was commissioned in the year 300 CE by the politicians (body politic) of the day. Where was 'everlasting right and wrong' before then? In the natural world, everything that has a beginning will have an end. This will be true of the Bible in time. Just like the gods who were fervently worshiped in Ancient Greece.
BTW, did you get my point that a very large part of our population is NOT living in your perfect man-woman-children relationships? So, where's the application of natural order there?
Jeff - I mean this more charitably than I know it's going to sound, because I have no doubt at all that homosexuals have anxieties about themselves as almost everyone does in one way or another. But there is a difference between wanting what you want and wanting what's right. We need to, every one of us, ask ourselves very seriously whether we are doing what we should rather than what we want. Then we must answer those questions in an objective honesty, which none of us are likely to do very well. We are called to try our best to do what is right. That often means denying our wishes in favor of acting well.
One cannot rationally want what is not right. To ask for what is not right begs the issue entirely and only serves ourselves.
Julian - my point is of course obvious: that what the body politic wants does not make it right. But it doesn't make it wrong either. What certain individuals want does not make it right, nor wrong either. Things are right in and of their own selves; the body politic either recognizes as much and makes laws accordingly, or it does not and makes bad law.
Everlasting right and wrong are things right or wrong for all times and all places. It has always existed, yet is only observed in the best of times. Or, ironically, the worst, such as WW II.
Those not living as they should are in violation of the natural moral law the same as anyone who acts poorly.
You are wrong about who 'commissioned' the Bible. But as that is an area of faith rather than philosophy I will leave it at that.
Martin: You willfully misrepresent my criticisms. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals choose to engage in sexual activity - However they cannot choose their sexual orientation. The larger point I have attempted to point out is that natural law supports the observation that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally valid alternatives. Furthermore your construct is fraught with paradox. You would insist that humanity enslave itself to the mores of nature, but then complain that an affirmative gay viewpoint “lowers humanity to mere animal status.” How dare you compare loving same sex households to a “base impulse.”
Interestingly the Catholic Church once insisted that natural law and the divine order necessitated that the earth be at the center of the universe. It took 400 years for the Vatican to apologize to Galileo. So much for an infallible track record for interpreting natural law! In good time they too will repent for the many sins they have committed against GLBT pers
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!