Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Nature argues for heterosexual unions

Letter by Joseph B. Cristel , Carbonado on July 25, 2012 at 9:32 am with 20 Comments »
July 30, 2012 11:28 am

More than a tradition, natural marriage is an intrinsic part of man’s nature. It brings male and female together for the cohesiveness of society and the preservation of children who benefit from both a mother and a father.

Natural marriage predates the church and the state. The law doesn’t create anything. It defines what nature has already defined. Its purpose is to protect and nurture marriage, not redefine it to suit the preferences of a few.

Though procreation isn’t required for marriage, it is the expected norm. Childless couples are the exception to the rule. For homosexuals, sterility is the rule without exception. Certainly there are some fun off-label uses for sex, but the main purpose is procreation.

Nature predominately and profoundly argues for male and female natural marriage. Gay marriage is an anomaly. It is not vital in any way to the existence of society. Natural marriage, on the other hand, is indispensable.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 20
  1. A mishmash of vague talking points that add nothing to the argument about whether or not all peole are created equal and deserve equal protections under our laws.

    Any argument that homosexuality is “unnatural” goes against all scientific evidence, and historical facts.

  2. tellnolies says:

    Nature doesn’t “argue” for marriage one way or another. Marriage is a human institution, not a natural state or process.

  3. Nature doesn’t have marriage. Nature has mating. That mating takes place in the proper season and only for procreation. Mating pairs or groups are different according to species. Some are for life (but that doesn’t necessarily mean monogamous) some are just seasonal. Seasonal pairs/groups split up after breeding season.

    Nature also has examples of same sex pairings. Some groups of primates are known to have what are described as orgies.

    So…what were you saying about nature and natural marriage?

  4. Well stated yet succinct. fortunately, most people understand just how radical a departure this crazy notion is. BTW, if the rainbow boyz are being constitutionally deprived of their federal civil rights, why aren’t they filing section 1983 lawsuits for damages?

    Answer: because they aren’t a protected class nor can they show that they are being deprived of anything under the law. Equal protection and equal treatment lawsuits require that the government do something to violate civil rights. Applying the same standards to everyone is not a consitutional violation. To be accurate, equal protection would be violated if special rights are granted to the rainbow boyz.

  5. Homosexuality predates the church too.

  6. sandblower says:

    What’s radical is how far out of touch with reality pgroup seems to be.

  7. Frankenchrist says:

    Cannibalism predates the church & the state. That makes it good?

  8. surething says:

    SMH.

  9. LeePHill says:

    Is this going to be a weekly column, Joe?

    You seemed a bit obsessed.

  10. Fibonacci says:

    It seems like those most intolerant of gays are those most worried about their own sexuality.

  11. Harry_Anslinger says:

    “Nature arguing?”. Absurd. This letter has about as much scientific validity as claiming the moon is made of cheese. And about as much cheese.

  12. Final_Analysis says:

    Gay marriage is really just about getting spousal benefits from employers and the government. Check it out.

  13. LeePHill says:

    “Final_Analysis says:
    July 25, 2012 at 4:57 pm Gay marriage is really just about getting spousal benefits from employers and the government. Check it out.”

    Knowing more than one gay couple, I can say you’re wrong, but even if you weren’t wrong….equality is equality.

  14. josephcristel says:

    My feed back:
    Pgroup..thanks!Your support is greayly appreciated!..Tuddo..Homosexuality is “unnatural” in the context of natural marriage..equality isn’t an issue here…Telnolies..I should have said nature argues for the coupling of male and female..you’re right…..Murigen..Pairings in nature are by far heterosexual.Marriage should follow that pattern not go against it…Krumm..yes and rape and murder predate the church to..so?..they are not institutions like marriage…Frankenchrist..No it doesn’t but marriage is good cannibalism isn’t.The moral authority is first with marriage not the state…LeePHIL..Nope. Just honing my arguments on your responses.

  15. josephcristel says:

    Finishing feedback:Fibonacci….I’m intolerant of a lifestyle that has no part of natural marriage being forced upon our society.Neither me or my sexuality are worried, thank you…..Harry-Anslinger…If you listen more intently Harry nature does present a formidable argument…I’m scienced out at the moment so why don’t you provide the “scientific” validity for your side?…Final-Analysis..You’ve got 99% of the benefits now..get the rest through legislation..you don’t need marriagefor that..Thanks again to all for the feed back.I look forward to the next time.Hopefully my communication will get clearer.If not I’m sure you’ll let me know! Good Evening.

  16. josephcristel, please explain your statement that you present as if it is some kind of fact: Homosexuality is “unnatural” in the context of natural marriage..equality isn’t an issue here

    Homosexuality is a naturally occurring and normal part of existence for many animals, most mammals and certainly for humans.

    I am not sure what you mean by “natural marriage”. Nature doesn’t marry anyone, a state does through its legal system.

    One could say that in much of historical time, polyandry was the most prevalent form of marriage. Tribal societies even today practice this type of marriage. Prevalence does not make any one type of amrriage natural or unnatural since gthere is not such a thing.

    Human rights is the key issue in this entire debate, and same-sex marriage will be finally decided by the courts, just like interracial marriage was, based on Constitutional values, whether a majority votes one way or another.

  17. LeePHill says:

    “no part of natural marriage”

    What is “natural marriage”?

    “LeePHIL..Nope. Just honing my arguments on your responses.”

    Keep honing. Try to avoid baseless assertions more often.

  18. SwordofPerseus says:

    I smell the stench of quasi christian intolerance, ignorance and a smug sense of superiority. It is apparent the letter writer is not a keen observer of the Natural World nor a student of the History of Mankind.
    Another baseless rant of the morally bankrupt right wing.

  19. SwordofPerseus writes: “I smell the stench of quasi christian intolerance, ignorance and a smug sense of superiority. It is apparent the letter writer is not a keen observer of the Natural World nor a student of the History of Mankind.
    Another baseless rant of the morally bankrupt right wing.”

    I sense that the smug sense of superiority is not limited to the morally bankrupt right wing.

  20. vingrotto says:

    Joseph, there is nothing “natural” about marriage. It doesn’t occur in nature. Society, man and religion created it. NEWSFLASH – Other people’s happiness will not affect you! Too bad. It would appear you need it. Now excuse me while I tip back this natural light beer (gross) and practice keeping my nose out of other peoples love lives…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0