By Robert Benne
In elementary school the teacher would demonstrate the magnetic field of a magnet by putting iron filings on a paper right over the magnet. Sure enough, the filings would get ordered according to the pattern of the magnetic field of the magnet. I often use that homely example to illustrate what the Western tradition has meant by natural law. The filings stand for us humans and the magnetic pattern represents natural law. Insofar as we abide by the magnetic field we gather into peaceful, orderly patterns. Insofar as we don’t we fall off the paper or wander aimlessly on the surface, bumping into each other randomly.
The analogy breaks down, of course, because we humans have the freedom to resist the patterns and go our own way. But perhaps the magnetic field is real and the patterns it elaborates are our guide to human flourishing. Perhaps something like the magnetic field is what the ancient tradition of natural law thinking is pointing to when it argues that reasonable humans have the capacity to recognize and follow the natural patterns embedded within human nature and nature itself.
There are many examples of these patterns. Our natural sense of justice leads to an expectation that we should get what we pay for. Oppression of others leads to their rebellion; the Golden Rule is a better way. When we take in too many calories over time or pollute our atmosphere our health diminishes.
True, violations of the natural pattern do not bring negative consequences in every case. Sometimes the oppressor gets away with it, but in the long run and in general, departures from the natural pattern do invite serious turbulence.
Let’s get to more contentious ground. It seems reasonable to claim that natural processes have produced complementary beings—male and female—who fit together biologically, emotionally, and functionally. Most cultures encourage unions of the two sexes that are permanent and shored up by public promises. When the two have sex children are brought forth and nurtured by that bonded pair. Together they bring up human beings who subtly gain their identities replete with all the subliminal gestures and recognitions that enable them to relate properly to other humans. The pair form the child in the moral and intellectual virtues that enable them to live productively and harmoniously in society. Indeed, this pattern is so near universal that marriage and family as institutions arise in almost every society.
Recently we have found that men’s and women’s roles are somewhat malleable—some men can nurture children well and women can be the breadwinners, but there seem to be tuggings in human nature itself that distinguish men’s and women’s roles more than we care to admit. Other patterns are not so malleable; children flourish best when they are in a stable home cared for by both a biological mom and dad who are committed to each other and the child.
There are huge social repercussions when this pattern is widely rejected. Americans are experiencing the extensive erosion of marriage and family life, especially among the working and lower classes—Black, White, and Hispanic. The absence of an involved father is devastating for the future of the children. The educated classes pretty much adhere to the pattern sketched above but oddly enough won’t defend it as a social good.
Until very recently, the laws of Western societies undergirded this pattern—the institution of marriage—with all its natural, consensual, social, and religious dimensions. All believed that this “thick” definition was anchored in natural law itself. But recently the “thick” definition has gradually been reduced to only its consensual dimension. Marriage is whatever two—or more?—people consent to. In this “thin” definition there is little to justify keeping gays, lesbians, polyamorists, and perhaps close blood relatives from joining in the bargain.
But in allowing this we disrupt the underlying pattern that is part of natural law and thereby deconstruct the institution itself, which is built on permanent heterosexual unions oriented toward the birth and nurture of children.
If there is such a thing as natural law we are likely to find just those aforementioned negative effects when we depart from it. Indeed, I believe there is such a pattern, as do billions of people in a common-sense sort of way. Our departure has already been damaging and further experimentation may multiply it. Nevertheless, the magnetic field still tugs and we always have the freedom to return to its patterns, patterns that will enable our society to flourish. We should exercise that freedom.
Comment by Marco Bell on April 12, 2013 at 12:23 pm
A cogent article by Mr. Benne, and a calm voice of reason.
However, he seems to think that this LGBT/Marriage Equality issue is something that will, if left undeterred, end society as we know it. Traditional marriage with it’s natural order will continue unabated in spite of Gays, Lesbians, or Transgendered couples marrying. I know of several cases to support this.
Life goes on!
He also short sightedly infers that these yearnings for equality are something that can be undone. As if to suggest that being Gay, is only a choice, and not a human condition, like being left-handed.
I appreciate his analogy to Natural Law, but it’s not necessary to justify one’s prejudice or preference. He eludes to the freedom to return to the Natural Law ‘way’, but doesn’t that mock the desires of those who see freedom differently than he?
Respectfully,
Marco Bell
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on April 13, 2013 at 10:28 am
In fact marriage IS losing its meaning and significance in regions that have redefined it. Researcher Stanley Kurtz presented statistical evidence to that effect a couple of years ago.
And it only stands to reason, due to a number of factors. For example, when a term, like “marriage,” loses its specificity it also loses meaning. This may be somewhat of a semantic/philosophical argument, but it is true. Why do we have different words for “dog” vs “cat?” It’s because they are clearly different things. Once you remove that distinction by simply referring them as “animals” then meaning is lost.
Marco, this article is about the wisdom and morality of redefining marriage, an institution that has been implicitly and explicity understood as an opposite-sex enterprise for thousands of years. Indeed, heterosexuality is to marriage what the internal combustion engine is to the car. Is it not reasonble to think that unintended consequences will occur if we make such a radical departure from our understanding of marriage? And what if bad consequences do result, Marco? Will you be there to put the genie back in the bottle? I think not.
Nothing in this essay conclusively argues that being gay–though the percentage of people with strong same-sex attraction is much smaller than liberals suggest–is a conscious choice. But the behavior one CHOOSES to undertake, regardless of one’s natural predilections, is most definitely a choice. We are not barnyard animals with no control over our urges. And those behaviors we choose to participate in can further solidify the desires which precipitated them. The desires that grow are the ones we feed.
Marco, the author does not say, as you suggest, that “yearnings for equality” can be undone. He does suggest that these yearnings are not based on a rational understanding of equality. We can use all sorts of legal and political means to pretend that same-sex unions are “equal” to traditional marriage, just like we can argue that 2+2 “equals” 5, but reality will always draw a different conclusion.
Comment by Marco Bell on April 13, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Cleareyedtruthmeister stated, [“…heterosexuality is to marriage what the internal combustion engine is to the car.”]
I too, like analogies for clarification purposes, but in this particular case, you’ve overlooked the likelihood of the internal combustion engines (perfect) replacement being an electrically operational version. Hence perhaps even a reasonably improved alternative.
I do agree that semantics is at play in the word games deployed in the Marriage Equality issue, but I still don’t believe that Marriage as a long-standing Institution is at risk of collapse if our Society broadens it’s inclusion of the LGBT population.
My father feared the outcome of allowing African-Americans (not his choice description), the Right to vote, back in the ’60’s. I don’t see how that “destroyed” the status quo? Granted, in his mind, it diluted the potency of his (prejudiced) constituency, so if that is closer to your concern, I would agree. But is it morally RIGHT?
Also, the clear distinction between species like Dog and Cat, can be further defined by breed, color, texture, etc. Perhaps we as a society will rise above our current (out-dated) descriptions of Marriage and other libelous descriptions to embrace such diversity?
Thanks for your thoughtful exchange.
Sincerely,
Marco
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on April 14, 2013 at 10:25 am
Marco, where did you “learn” that African-Americans got the right to vote in the 60’s? Would it shock you to realize that that right was granted in 1870? Would it further shock you to learn that black men had the right to vote 50 years before white women? Since you got that wrong, are you not concerned that there are other things you are misinformed about? Is this what passes for “education” among our friends on the left these days?
Allow me to ask you another question, Marco: Have you ever encountered an ex-African-American? Me neither.
But I have encountered people who, through therapy, religious conversion, etc., say they have had their same-sex attraction lessened to the point that they consider themselves no longer practicing homosexuals (in effect, “ex-gay”). Gay activists (and the media, who are often the same people) say these people don’t exist, but they do. Not that these folks have necessarily had their same-sex attractions totally snufffed out, but they have had them significantly modified.
The point is this: you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare the civil rights of African-Americans to same-sex marriage rights (though this line of “reasoning” has become such an oft-repeated ruse among activists that it’s validity is never questioned). Such analogies simply don’t fly among fair-minded, thinking people because civil rights can only apply to immutable characteristics, and that is not the case when you are talking about something that primarily involves behavior. (Incidentally, there is a growing body of evidence that pedophilia has just as much of an organic component as homosexuality, even to the point it could be referred to as “pedophilic orientation”…what might liberals do with this?)
Pingback by Why Traditional Marriage Should Be Legally and Culturally Supported | the northampton seminar on April 15, 2013 at 9:46 am
[…] In elementary school the teacher would demonstrate the magnetic field of a magnet by putting iron filings on a paper right over the magnet. Sure enough, the filings would get ordered according to the pattern of the magnetic field of the magnet. I often use that homely example to illustrate what the Western tradition has meant by natural law. The filings stand for us humans and the magnetic pattern represents natural law. Insofar as we abide by the magnetic field we gather into peaceful, orderly patterns. Insofar as we don’t we fall off the paper or wander aimlessly on the surface, bumping into each other randomly. http://juicyecumenism.com/2013/04/12/why-traditional-marriage-should-be-legally-and-culturally-suppo… […]
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on April 16, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Interesting commentary and frank honesty from a lesbian activist: http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/
Comment by Marco Bell on April 17, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Thank you Cleareyedtruthmeister,
I stand corrected on the facts regarding the Black voting Rights date. I should have cited the Civil Rights act dethroning “Separate but Equal”. – My bad.
I am not one who thinks that homosexuals may not choose to ‘stay gay’.
I imagine we all know someone who wrestles with these psychological and physiological tensions everyday, but I am not out to “Un-Out” anyone. (Sorry for the pun). That is exhibited on all sides of the sexual spectrum.
Given that full spectrum of sexual identity, it would only make sense that there will be those individuals that are closer to one end of ‘it’ than the other, and therefore, they might feel less convinced of their ‘leanings’ one way or another. Kind of on the cusp, if you will? These individuals will show up on the “Ex-Gay” chart as a person converted. Praise God!! (Eye roll) In essence, you’re just “trimming” the edges in an attempt to narrow the scope of the sexual-identity chart.
As for deviant behavior such as pedophilia, even if there is determined evidence to support your fear that this too, is a “cousin” to Homosexuality, it wouldn’t take a brain surgeon to distinguish that ALL human sexual tendencies are organic.
We have civil laws for our own protection, and I couldn’t imagine that ANYONE (except the pedophile) would accept anything close to that as a tolerable lifestyle.
Notice I don’t use the word CHOICE. This is because we’re talking about people’s innate, perhaps inherited traits, be they, their sexual orientation or their hair color.
Thanks for your reasoning on these issues.
Sincerely,
Marco