Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homosexual "marriage" is not a natural right
Renew America ^ | 21 June 2011 | Tim Dunkin

Posted on 07/21/2011 11:36:10 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

One of the fundamental truths about the founding tenets of this nation is that our ordering principles — the basis of our laws, our conception of rights, the purposes to which government is supposed to obtain — are built upon the acknowledgement of and respect for natural law. Natural law presupposes that there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and carries with it the necessary understanding that this natural law, far from being the product of random happenstance or social consensus, is instead instituted by the Divine authority of a Creator God who formed the world in which we live, and who ordered its function along certain design that operate at all times. The analog to this in human civilization is that if society is to be in accord with natural law and its Creator, then society must recognize and order itself along lines that are in accord with the character and nature of the Creator and the "design features" He has inserted into His handiwork, and which are further accessible through the reasoned and reasonable revelation that He has given to us, specifically in the Judeo-Christian scriptures.

This nation was indubitably founded upon such an understanding. It is apparent in the very Declaration of our independence from Great Britain, in which it was declared that our separation from England and our taking our place among the nations of the world as an independent and equal participant were in accord with the laws of nature and nature's God. The further declaration, framed as a proposition of fact, that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights further demonstrates that even at the inception of this nation, respect for the order established by God was foundational to what our nation's political and social system were intended to be.

(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: culturalmarxism; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; judeochristian; moralabsolutes; naturallaw; naturalrights; samesexmarriage; squarecircle

1 posted on 07/21/2011 11:36:13 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Its not natural for Islam either so it has nothing to do with our countries laws.

It is about 6,000 years of modern recorded history of mankind and what it has found of value when creating a society.


2 posted on 07/21/2011 11:40:47 AM PDT by edcoil (The will to win is important, but the will to prepare is vital. -- Joe Paterno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Homosexuality is a corruption of natural sexuality. It is obvious as to the purpose and design of sexuality and that homosexuality is a perversion of this purpose and design. To have government force people to accept perversion and corruption is evil and is a crime, not a right.


3 posted on 07/21/2011 11:41:20 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Great work, as always, sir!


4 posted on 07/21/2011 11:44:15 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Libertarians argue that we can’t define marriage because any definition moves us down a “slippery slope” toward undue interference with personal freedoms.

Bunk. Governments have been defining marriage for thousands of years; and before organized governments existed, marriage was defined by tribal chiefs, families, religious leaders, etc. Were our founding fathers so worried about the slippery slope that they would have supported today’s anything-goes rules?


5 posted on 07/21/2011 11:47:20 AM PDT by Socon-Econ (Socon-Econ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

You have a huge “amen” on that from me. Well said.


6 posted on 07/21/2011 11:48:09 AM PDT by sierrahome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Socon-Econ

Exactly. The dirty little secret is that our Founders - even Jefferson - were NOT libertarians.


7 posted on 07/21/2011 11:51:52 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home." - Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Nature and natures God has a way of dealing with these things. I see a more aggressive form of AIDs on the way. Nature has a way of preserving itself. It was designed that way.
8 posted on 07/21/2011 11:53:17 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

An outstanding essay!


9 posted on 07/21/2011 11:56:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's not really 'cut, cap and balance,' it's 'tinker, obfuscate, borrow and spend.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

The untenable tenet:
Given: Natural biological plumbing:
Given: Gays have parents.
Given: Gays cannot be biological parents by themselves as a pair.
But heterosexual parents have gays.
Ergo heterosexual Parenting is superior to gay, because the former produces the latter;
the latter cannot produce the former.
Ergo gays are dependent upon the heterosexual mode, i.e., the heterosexual marriage.
Gay mode is dependent upon heterosexual mode for existence.
Ergo, the former and the latter cannot be equal, since one is superior to the other.

Conclusion:
Heterosexual marriage is superior to ``gay marriage``.

Therefore ``gay`` is inferior to heterosexual marriage since the ``gay`` mode is dependent upon, and issues from, the heterosexual marriage.

Ergo the term ``gay marriage`` is a contradiction in terms because it usurps the meaning, definition, function of marriage , and falsely acribes to it the fullness of meaning thereof;
e.g.,redefining gray as black or redefining gray as white.

reductio as absurdam

Simple logic.

It is a false tenet.
Ergo ``gay marriage`` is a living lie.


10 posted on 07/21/2011 11:57:45 AM PDT by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Homosexuality is a corruption of natural sexuality.

It's a form of psudo-masterbation. They get bored with themselves, and seek out other "selves." This is why they're so self absorbed.
Some go back to their childhood selves and seek out other peoples children for relief.

11 posted on 07/21/2011 11:58:24 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Shared with ten thousand of my closest friends ...


12 posted on 07/21/2011 11:58:28 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's not really 'cut, cap and balance,' it's 'tinker, obfuscate, borrow and spend.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I think the guy who wrote is a RINO, though.


13 posted on 07/21/2011 12:00:52 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home." - Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Homosexuality is a PERVERSION that is as old as time.

Longevity does NOT make it normal.

I don't care if ANIMALS engage in it.

Human beings are NOT “animals” and have a HIGHER INTELLIGENCE. Sorry ... evilutionalists. Your ancestor can be an “ape” but I am designed by God and in His image. He is certainly no “ape”. No society in the history of the world has been bettered by homosexuality. Homosexuality ALWAYS, yes ALWAYS destroys and brings a society to it's knees. Just look at the Roman Empire if the Bible scares you and you wish to be an agnostic or an atheist. Look at SECULAR history.

14 posted on 07/21/2011 12:01:48 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Not only is it not a right, but it is another tool to destroy the sanctity of marriage and the family! God made men for women. He made men women for men! The world is full of perversions, and they are very sad, but God wanted His children to have one another in order to multiply, and there is no future in same sex marriage! In fact twenty years ago it would never have been passed into law! That is how far we have fallen, led by the evil Left.


15 posted on 07/21/2011 12:02:06 PM PDT by Paperdoll (NO MORE BUSHS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I say this about few writings, but this piece is definitive.


16 posted on 07/21/2011 12:03:30 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's not really 'cut, cap and balance,' it's 'tinker, obfuscate, borrow and spend.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Why?


17 posted on 07/21/2011 12:04:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's not really 'cut, cap and balance,' it's 'tinker, obfuscate, borrow and spend.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Unisex marriage is no more a possiblity than square circles. (A unisex marriage license? May as well pick up your unicorn license while you’re there.)

It’s discouraging to see this author debating over whether there is a natural right to be joined in matrimony with someone to whom it’s impossible to be joined. Engaging in such a debate concedes so much ground to our opponents that we may as well retire from the field altogether.

We talk of “traditional marriage” - as though there were different kinds of marriage and we happen to prefer the traditional one. Now we talk about whether America’s founding principles “permit” pseudo-marriage.

Our opponent need only reject America’s founding principles (not uncommon these days!) and he’s free to make marriage into whatever he wants. That’s the weakness in this line of argument, and it’s a severe one.


18 posted on 07/21/2011 12:07:04 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I don't care if ANIMALS engage in it.

They don't. Neither do bacteria, fungi, plants, or insects. The universe isn't designed for homosexuals. To nature, homosexuals are a disease. The word "Abomination" is a good way to describe it.

19 posted on 07/21/2011 12:11:02 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AFA-Michigan; AKA Elena; Abathar; Albion Wilde; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

This is an OUTSTANDING essay!

20 posted on 07/21/2011 12:15:52 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

I agree with you about the use of the language. I try very hard to avoid the phrase “traditional marriage,” for example.

I’m thinking you’re being a little too hard on the writer, though. Hey, at least he is laying out the facts about natural right, and natural rights. This is rare enough these days.


21 posted on 07/21/2011 12:19:35 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's not really 'cut, cap and balance,' it's 'tinker, obfuscate, borrow and spend.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

“They don’t. Neither do bacteria, fungi, plants, or insects. The universe isn’t designed for homosexuals. To nature, homosexuals are a disease. The word “Abomination” is a good way to describe it. “

YOU bet!

:)

The younger generation is being BRAINWASHED to believe that it it perfectly normal.

My kids KNOW better.

The Bible states it is wrong and even for anatheist or an agnostic - it’s OBVIOUS!

THE PARTS DON’T FIT!

There is nothing “normal” about a MALE ACTING like a FEMALES

or

a female ACTING LIKE A MALE.

That alone shows how ABNORMAL it is.

Yes, God DESIGNED US ALL to have different roles.

God wired US ALL to be either a female or a male.

There is NOTHING in between.

Birth defects can be easily corrected and if there is doubt, check the DNA. The DNA will point out which gender you are.


22 posted on 07/21/2011 12:36:26 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Well, because he’s, you know, a Republican. They’re all a bunch of compromisers and sellouts and moderates.


23 posted on 07/21/2011 12:43:07 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home." - Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Socon-Econ; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; wagglebee; DJ MacWoW; trisham; BykrBayb; ...
Libertarians argue that we can’t define marriage because any definition moves us down a “slippery slope” toward undue interference with personal freedoms.

Bunk.

Well said.

By demanding that the government allow all kinds of *marriages* under the guise of *not defining* them, it FORCES the government to define marriage.

From the government's position, it's a lose/lose situation. By defining it as the traditional monogamous, one man/one woman at a time scenario, libertarians don't like it. By refusing to define it, the government IS by default defining it as anything goes.

What libertarian and others want is that the government define it the way THEY want, under the false premise that it is a neutral position.

When if comes to moral issues, there is no neutral position.

24 posted on 07/21/2011 1:00:28 PM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I’m thinking you’re being a little too hard on the writer, though. Hey, at least he is laying out the facts about natural right, and natural rights.

Okay, I'll give him kudos for his explanation of natural law theory and natural rights.

But in this fight we seem to be compiling a "top 10 objections to homosexual marriage" - which, as any good salesman knows, is a loser's game. All our opponent has to do is knock down a few of the easiest ones and we begin to look - and feel - like stubborn, bigoted fools making up objections as we go.

The firmest and most defensible ground, in my opinion, rests on this point:

Marriage is marriage. It is axiomatic, and simply not subject to being "redefined". (So we can stop opposing "the redefining of marriage", as that objection, too, concedes so much ground that we may as well surrender.)

"Unisex marriage" is nonsensical. In its most generic sense, marriage is the joining of two different things. There's no point in joining two of the same. (Ever try screwing a light bulb into another light bulb? What's the point?)

A man and a woman are different, and therefore can be joined. This is the case symbolically and actually, as their differences are complementary, both physically and even in their very being (i.e. "men are from mars, women are from venus".)

Yes, of course all this is due to God's laws of nature. But it can be seen by simple observation - as any non-re-educated teenager can tell you. No need for a Jeffersonian thesis; it's self-evident.
25 posted on 07/21/2011 1:08:35 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Understanding principles and saying the right words and the consistent implementation of those principles and words in public policy and politics are not necessarily the same thing.

And we’re all learning every day, hopefully.

But, as I said, I believe you wrote a fine article. Kudoes.


26 posted on 07/21/2011 1:30:34 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's not really 'cut, cap and balance,' it's 'tinker, obfuscate, borrow and spend.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Thanks!


27 posted on 07/21/2011 1:32:02 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home." - Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

I’m very much open to your argument. For a very long time, I’ve recognized that what you’re saying is exactly what the founders did with the Declaration. They simply asserted self-evident, or plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face, Truth. This is why I gave up arguing with atheists/Darwinists. When I encounter them I simply assert the truth and move on.


28 posted on 07/21/2011 1:38:26 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's not really 'cut, cap and balance,' it's 'tinker, obfuscate, borrow and spend.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Well said!

Check your freepmail in a couple of minutes.


29 posted on 07/21/2011 1:39:46 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Nothing “natural” about it. That which gives life is not supposed to be deposited in that which is the sewer.


30 posted on 07/21/2011 1:45:23 PM PDT by blasater1960 (Deut 30, Psalm 111...the Torah and the Law, is attainable past, present and forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

By the way, I have no problem with principled Republicans. Some of my best friends are Republicans and even Republican office holders.

And I will live and die a republican, believing as I do in the republican form of government handed to us by our forebears.


31 posted on 07/21/2011 1:52:08 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's not really 'cut, cap and balance,' it's 'tinker, obfuscate, borrow and spend.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
This is why I gave up arguing with atheists/Darwinists. When I encounter them I simply assert the truth and move on.

I'm finally learning to do that as well.

On this subject, they're not redefining "marriage", but merely denying the definition. (As if redefining "sunrise" would make the sun come up in the north.)
32 posted on 07/21/2011 2:04:30 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

You’re absolutely right.


33 posted on 07/21/2011 2:26:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It's not really 'cut, cap and balance,' it's 'tinker, obfuscate, borrow and spend.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

I agree - but sometimes a writer has to use “commonly accepted” language so that the readers will more readily understand what he or she is saying. Specifying “traditional marriage” helps the reader to more readily understand exactly what is being referred to, without having to “unpack” a definition based on guessing from the writer’s ideology.


34 posted on 07/21/2011 3:19:04 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home." - Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Marriage of any kind is not a “right” at all. It is a RITE.

If marriage were a right, the government should have yentas.


35 posted on 07/21/2011 4:15:26 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrreaganaut

Match.gov ping.


36 posted on 07/21/2011 4:18:46 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nmh

I don’t care if ANIMALS engage in it.

Animals do masturbate, and to me, it would seem that homosexuality is an extension of masturbation.


37 posted on 07/21/2011 5:20:25 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nmh

I don’t care if ANIMALS engage in it.

Animals do masturbate, and to me, it would seem that homosexuality is an extension of masturbation.


38 posted on 07/21/2011 5:20:44 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
I don’t care if ANIMALS engage in it.

Some animals urinate in their water supply. Some kill and eat their young, others their mothers, others their mates. And so on.

When we find ourselves blindly imitating animals as examples of how we ought to behave, we've sunk pretty low.
39 posted on 07/22/2011 6:07:06 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
sometimes a writer has to use “commonly accepted” language

Yes, I agree with you there. But why do you think radicals begin by introducing changes in language?

I'm not just being nit-picky here. Words are thoughts encapsulated. If I can get you to talk about and think about something using my terminology, even if you reject my proposal you're several steps closer to accepting it than you were before.

And what's worse, those who're too lazy or ignorant to fight me as vehemently as you do are easy pickings for this language tactic. Their brains will be filled with the pictures my words paint - in this case, an old-fashioned, "traditional" marriage side-by-side with a new, "modern" marriage. And while they may choose for themselves the traditional one, they'll readily accept the modern one as an "alternative family". (Hmm, wonder who came up with THAT term?!)

Since I began to notice language innovations, I'm constantly on the lookout for them. And whenever I see one, I ask, "What is the purpose for introducing this new word or term?" (Both C.S. Lewis and George Orwell warned about this tactic, which in itself should perhaps give us pause.)

For instance, why did we abandon "the earth" and "the world" in favor of "the planet"? Why did "problems" become "challenges"? Why did "sex" become "gender"?

No doubt you can think of more, and there are tons of these that I miss. We ought not to use commonly-accepted language innovations if they hurt our cause. Instead, we should work to make accurate language commonly-accepted. It's what I try to do in my little way when I post comments here. You're such a good writer, though, you certainly have a greater impact than I - whether with clear, accurate language or with the lexicon written by the enemy.
40 posted on 07/22/2011 6:49:34 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson