A Matter of Nature

As of Friday, May 4, 2012

Your editorial on the Marriage Amendment deserves some response. The language you used was both volatile and pejorative, and as such was more designed to intimidate and confuse than to illuminate. You even, once again, made an Orwellian reference to “big brother,” although one wonders what “big brother” doesn’t want people to know or wishes them to forget.

This is not matter of bigotry (at least not ours), or prejudice, or rights or discrimination; nor of religious interpretation. It is however, a matter of nature, reason, and the natural law.

One of the primary effects of marriage and human sexuality is the procreation of children. This effect is uniquely heterosexual. In the case of infertility due either to a physical deprivation or age, the persons in the relationship are capable of acts that are apt for procreation and are therefore natural, even if conception doesn’t occur.

This is never true of a same-sex relationship. In such a case, there is only the imitation of nature. Please remember that marriage is not a private relationship but a very public one, and the family is the basic unit of society.

Finally, this is not a matter of one generation binding another to something that is certain to change as the culture changes. While human behavior may change frequently, human nature does not, and the nature and ends of human sexuality do not.

When dealing with a moral absolute, the culture doesn’t determine what is true or false, good or evil. The culture will either embrace the true and the good or reject it.

What is truly tragic is that the same-sex community isn’t being betrayed by Christianity or this amendment, but by the culture that is opposing it.

Monsignor Jeffrey Ingham

St. Anthony Catholic Church

Southern Pines

More like this story

flanoggin 1 year ago

Your religious beliefs are just that; your beliefs. It is some people's nature to be homosexual. Your interpretation of marriage should not be public policy. And yes marriage is a public acknowledgment and celebration of couple's who wish to spend their lives with each other. This amendment does nothing to protect marriage, but punishes homosexuals, who will exist and be together anyway. As a celebate religious, what do you know of marriage or sexuality, aside of what you have been taught by cathecism?

Easygoing 1 year ago

Unfortunately the Catholic church has been in the forefront of oppression and bigotry for centuries. Not a great role model for inclusion and tolerance of other's beliefs.

dustyrhoades 1 year ago

Some churches, including the Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Church, accept gays and gay marriage. Some do not.

Amendment One is an attempt to write one religious doctrine into law at the expense of another. This is clearly un-American and exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to guard against. It's religious tyranny, and I'm not interested in hearing the aspiring tyrants tell me it's not. The Taliban tells the people it oppresses that they're just following God's law, too.

Easygoing 1 year ago

And speaking of "natural law" did you know some species of animals eat their children? Who is the definer of "natural law"?

flanoggin 1 year ago

Google Monsignor Jeffrey Ingham. 'Nuff said.

katimae 1 year ago

This is a powerfully worded letter, and I thank the writer for his passion and eloquence in expressing his beliefs. However, he has not taken the infinite variation of humanity into account in his reasonings. While faith and living the Way of Christianity are wholly admirable, the writer chooses only those segments of the population that meet his view of society - family units - and holds it as the example for our entire Earth. And I'm sorry, Sir, but there is just more to our beautiful race. There are whole communities of people dedicated to raising the children of the world, communities of loving and giving people. Our communities become our families in many respects - we are parents ourselves, or educators, or youth leaders, or scout leaders, or any of so many vocations that serve the next generation. There is so much worthwhile in communities such as ours and many others that contributes to the building of lives. There are many people who do amazing, wonderful things for the sake of their fellow humans. And some of them are gay. What you are asking people to do, is deny that homosexuals have any right to the joyful celebration of commitment and togetherness that happens when two people are married. I believe it's wrong to declare any person unworthy of equality, unworthy of the gratitude of the community they serve and live in. Well, I'm telling you, Sir, and everyone else; homosexuals are not unworthy of the grace the God bestows on every beloved part of his creation. And if the family units of two consenting, commited married adults are, in fact, the ideal functioning base of our society, then for HEAVEN'S sake, let everyone have one!!!

clarabelle 1 year ago

"When dealing with a moral absolute, the culture doesn’t determine what is true or false, good or evil. The culture will either embrace the true and the good or reject it."

a "moral absolute".............. I wonder when the "Department of Moral Absolutes" declared this one!

what a crock!

The_AnonymusProfit 1 year ago

This is one of those subjects where most peoples minds were made up a long time ago and their not willing to change them for anyone. Most of the postings on this subject have been straight down that line. For or against, and the diatribe that follows. I have myself posted several what I consider reasoned arguments against this amendment with little or no response. Such can be expected when a subject is so very fundamental in nature and partisan in belief.

So the question that is asked and the contributions given on both sides are meant to attempt to persuade any that might still have yet to come to a decision either for or against. The problem as most see is the argument itself, is this a religious issue? Is it a legal issue? Is it both? If questioning a Christian on where his or her decision came from, most likely they will tell you such and such biblical quotes, to the christian the bible is the living will of GOD. Most likely they will only give you partial quotes that support what they say due to the fact that many biblical passages can support and denounce at the same time. They also many times more then not are misinterpreted due to the fact that the majority of Christians don't understand the fundamental aspect of the bible and how to relate its passages.

Christianity however is not the only religion in the US. How do the Wiccans feel? What does the church of Asastru say?

I find it is simplest to consult the constitution in matters such as this. For while the bible may tell Christians how to live their lives to acheive salvation, if you break a mortal law you will merit punishment.

The constitution is very plain in this instant. The Equal Protection Act Clause states: no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This means that no one person or group of people can be denied a right shared by another person or group due to any disqualifications such as color, creed, or sexual preference. Now one could argue that this clause is not valid due to the fact that the 14th amendment was never ratified and is in fact a moot amendment, however the courts have decided that the amendment is justified.

So the question then begs us, can we as Christians based on our beliefs, deny an American citizen any right due to creed? The simple answer is no. The fact is that even if Amendment 1 passes, it can still be overturned. Many fought for years to keep black people from voting. Many people now fight to keep homosexuals from marrying. While one can argue Natural law vs laws of nature, societal evolution is something that can not be curtailed. We can not have it both ways. Fortuantly for the homosexual, this country is not a theocracy, it is a Republic.

JD 1 year ago

How many Divorced and Remarried Catholics attend your church? How does that work with your "basic unit of society?" And isn't the "basic unit" citizens in general?

nothingspecial 1 year ago

Your wisdom and courage is appreciated, Monsignor Ingham.

visigrad 1 year ago

This amendment ONLY protects Marriage. And as you say " homosexuals, will exist and be together anyway"....so how is that punishment ?

T_Rat 1 year ago

You mention "nature" and "procreation" as if the precedents set by the "natural world" or biology would dictate not only how human beings live but how they legislate. Did you know that there are spiders whose young, once hatched, eat their brethren that have not hatched and, when done, take their jaws to the mother that bore them which, being so numerous, results in the mother being eaten to death? Did you know that lion males kill the young of the family they want to take over? Did you know there are primates that join for the season only to raise a family and others who engage in promiscuous sex that would make Hugh Hefner look like a virgin? And If biology is so sacred why do we so welcome interference with it at every turn of ill health? The use of the natural world as a argument for human behavior is fraught with contradictions, and therefor absurd, but to use these same arguments to legislate is a crime against democracy. If you want to live your life according to the laws of nature that is your prerogative but you don't have the right to demand the same of others.
You say it is not a matter of discrimination etc. for you this may be true, but it certainly is for others and their own comments prove this. From above all I can identify close-mindedness. You say "the primary effects of marriage and human sexuality is the procreation of children" as if to devalue a commitment of one person to another should they choose not to procreate, but rather grow together or to raise the lost or forgotten children of others. What is truly tragic is the case of intelligent persons keep their minds so closed, or shackled by the propaganda of culture. The word is a wondrous place, humans are a diverse species it is time to leave the middle ages and embrace the rational. The Renaissance was over 300 year ago already.

chapelhillian 1 year ago

Uncivilized tribes around the world (even ones that have no contact with the outside world) have one man and one woman. i guess that means our so called civilized isn't as civilized as we think it is. Our American culture has become so diluted over these past few decades due to the scourge of political correctness, multi-culturalism, liberalism and their combined effects

NC Marriage Protection Amendment Facts and Misconceptions.

Misconception: The amendment isn’t necessary.

Fact: Unless North Carolina passes the Marriage Protection Amendment, our present marriage laws are vulnerable to future legislative or judicial decisions overturning them and imposing same-sex marriage here. This is what occurred in several other states, including California, Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont and Connecticut.

Misconception: Marriage is simply about loving couples making a public commitment of their love.

Fact: Marriage provides an opportunity for a couple in love to declare their commitment to each other, but the government doesn’t regulate marriage to provide a forum for public commitment simply because two people love each other. Marriage is regulated by government because it is the unique social institution based in eternal natural law to channel the biological drive of men and women with its inherent capacity to produce children into family units with the best opportunity of ensuring that any children produced by that sexual union are known and cared for by their biological parents. It is in the interests of children that government regulates and licenses marriage.

Misconception: The measure prohibits important public benefits for same-sex partners of city and county employees.

Fact: Nothing in the amendment prohibits same-sex couples from any rights or benefits. Local governments and the UNC System may offer (or continue to offer) benefits to same-sex partners of employees or students if they choose to do so by changing the basis upon which benefits are offered.

Misconception: The amendment could invalidate domestic violence programs for unmarried same-sex couples.

Fact: The amendment has nothing to do with domestic violence programs and does not change the law on domestic violence. We would not support it if we believed it did.

Misconception: The amendment could interfere with existing child custody and visitation rights that seek to protect the best interests of children.

Fact: The amendment has nothing to do with existing child custody laws or arrangements. We would not support it if we believed it did.

chapelhillian 1 year ago

Misconception: The amendment could result in courts invalidating trusts, wills and end-of-life directives– which are not “private contracts” – in which an unmarried partner is a beneficiary and/or is entrusted with the care of a loved one.

Fact: The amendment has nothing to do with trusts, wills and end-of-life directives. The amendment simply puts our existing definition of marriage into the constitution where it will be protected from future legislative or judicial decisions. We would not support it if it invalidated such contracts.

Misconception: The amendment is bad for business.

Fact: We are concerned about any proposed legislation that would negatively impact employment opportunities in North Carolina, especially in light of our current economic situation. We would not support the proposed amendment if we believed it would imperil employment. According to the information we have received, research shows that states with a marriage protection amendment in their state constitution are the nation’s top performing economic states. This includes eight of the top ten “best states for business” (according to a survey of 556 CEOs) and eight of the top ten states for job growth (according to Moody’s Analytics).

Misconception: The amendment signals to homosexuals that they are second-class citizens.

Fact: Thousands of gays and lesbians have chosen to make North Carolina their home despite the fact that they are unable to marry here. All residents of our state – regardless of sexual orientation – are to be respected and welcomed. Our own teaching as a Church is clear on the inherent dignity of each and every person without exception. Because traditional marriage is so foundational to our identity which is based in eternal natural law, we simply do not believe that marriage can be redefined.

myvoice 1 year ago

Thank you Monsignor for your letter. You are truly a Holy man and I thank my God for you and all you represent. I thank God that you stand up and speak for what you know and believe to be the Truth and you do this in the Church and in the public square. We are blessed by you.
Thank you chapelhillian for posting the very clear and comprehensive explanation of Amendment One. I hope many read this and go to the polls on Tues to vote FOR the marriage protection amendment.

greentara13 1 year ago

oh great a celibate priest tells us how sexuality works, woo! that is wonderful! Except it is the 21st century. Please read deeper in the torah and holy words. I want you to read the words and feel the power, not what any one else might have said or suggested. Love is all there is! Can't get past it or pass it off on a pastor, it is just is.

greentara13 1 year ago

oh by the way, celibacy is unnatural for all your darwin types!
can't have babies, can't reproduce, which is the one the reasons we can only marry a man to a woman y'all starting to sound like a logan's run episode, a lot of recycled over processed bull pucker! sheer nonsense! have any of y'all been married? betting that is the main reason you are divorced now, mmm hmmm... can I have some mustard with my biscuits?

starbuck 1 year ago

I would like someone to provide a non-religious explanation in favor of this amendment.

visigrad 1 year ago

I am saddened by many of these posts.It would seem many people have reduced to mankind his or her sexuality and the temporary pleasure itmay provide A person consists of body and soul ( and no Christians did not invent that...read the ancient Greek philosophers). . From my perspective and I hope many others both marriage and priesthood are lives of sacrifice... not selfishness. A man and a woman give totally of themselves one to another with the help of God, often resulting in the creation of new persons...new life ! And the priest gives his entire life body and soul to Christ for the sake of the kingdom. Often resulting in new spiritual life in his spiritual children. Please if you disagree that is your right.....but don't write viscous comments in return.

T_Rat 1 year ago

The real sadness, tragedy, crime is that the majority thinks it has a right to tell a minority how to live. The arrogance of it all. This amendment does not improve or ensure anything for the majority other than the imposition of their values on others. The desire to "all" to be "like me" is a classic case of self-righteousness, an egocentricity close to being a mental illness, I have to wonder, why am I wasting my time even writing this. Live and let live.

lakeview 1 year ago

Starbuck- Can't a person view marriage as one man and one woman without having to be religious? I know many people like that and I'm sure you do as well.

Why haven't any gay individuals wrote an opinion on here? Is jimheim, jimt,, jd, katiemae, TAP, moonChild7 or One of the regular supporters of gays gay themselves?

JimHeim 1 year ago

lakeview, why would that matter?

JeremyG 1 year ago

So are many voting for the amendment basing the decision on Leviticus 18:22 (the Bible verse that declares homosexuality an abomination)? If so does that mean they also support the right to own slaves from neighboring countries as stated in Leviticus 25:44 (Watch out Canada!)? Also should one be killed for working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2)? Or is it ok to be selective about which parts of the Bible you follow?

The_AnonymusProfit 1 year ago

Lakeview no I'm not gay, I don't even have gay friends, I know some gay people thats about it. I must say that it does feel very strange to be supporting something that moonie is for. How the world turns...

JeremyG, above I stated that most Christians do not understand how to interpret the word. I would say 98% of Christians have no idea how to properly read and interprett the bible.

As far as what you said earlier, remember that jesus gave us a new commandment, he told us to love unconditionally, if we do that then we have followed the laws of god.

katimae 1 year ago

Lakeview-would my opinion matter any more or less to you if I was? THAT'S the question you need to ask yourself. If you think that being gay makes someone less deserving of equality then the problem lies not with them but with you. I'm a woman who is (almost everyday) happily married to a man. And that doesn't make me better or worse than anyone else. I fight for the homosexuuals in my life and in this state because they have just as much right to a happy life as I do.

starbuck 1 year ago

Can't a person view marriage as one man and one woman without having to be religious? -Lakeview

Yes, a person may have this view without being religious.
Counter, some who are religious and in favor of the amendment provide scripture as justification. For those who are not religious- on what do you base your decision? I inquire because I am curious.
These posts do not have logical support that may give any undecided voters or any non-religious voters the means to make a decision. All political banter is used to sway voters and these debates seem to fall short. When faced with options or when I am asked to believe something (anything) it is important that I based my actions on more than "just because".

GJohn 1 year ago

JeremyG...tell it, Buddy! I'm sick of the self-righteous Bible thumpers wailing about following what's in the Bible, only to find that they pick and choose at the Bible Buffet just like the rest of us sinners. And, can anyone tell me why so many people are so interested in what others do in their beds????? People's sex lives (created by God Himself) are nobody's business!!!!!

native 1 year ago

Love one another

doctrinafidem 1 year ago

Concerning the natural law, as has been a topic of discussion here and as it was more predominately in the lamentably-closed op-ed written by Dr. Deucher, I believe that there is an equivocation which has caused quite a bit of confusion. Modern science proposes "nature" as the simple given set of qualities, the genetic or atomic makeup of the physical world. The sense in which Catholics use the term "nature" in "natural law" is related, and includes that of the given, but only as something secondary and consequent.
When Catholics speak of a thing's "nature," they are speaking of those things which innately, permanently, and essentially belong to it. While certain aspects of a thing can change--the tint of skin, length of hair, taste in music or beer--none of these things are essential to what it is to be a human. What is essential is to be living in a body and to be rational, i.e., capable of reasoning. Modern philosophy would deny the existence of such a nature altogether--beings are considered as mere congeries of matter, and the "nature" is simply the consequence of this compilation.
But this is absurd for two reasons: first, because the mere juxtaposition of different parts of matter fails to explain the functioning of the resultant being (I do not mean the mechanism or cohesion of it, but the active reality which perdures and operates in a specific, pointed way, within a system). Second, because this would make the world unintelligible. If there were no definitive boundaries on beings, the basis upon which we structure every description, definition, and sort of planning that we put into the world, we would have to create them for ourselves--but out of what? On the basis of what would we call anything a deviation or a disease? If we can recognize natural limitations in the sense of biological health, and psychological health, why not morality? Nature--in the modern sense--is undeniably rife with ostensible limitations; yet when we break down things at their atomic and subatomic levels, we realize that mere matter is in constant flux, and lacks any explicative principle for its continued cohesion in a directed manner. The processes we observe at the most minute levels of being give us an idea as to "how;" but fail to provide any indication as to "why"--and the best answer that can be given for those who deny the traditional sense of "nature" is that "why" is simply a creation of man... but anyone who has spent time with young children will realize that the question is prompted from without, and not within.

doctrinafidem 1 year ago

That being said... when we talk about the "nature" of man, we can mean it in two ways: one, the traditional sense, as to what it is for a man to be a man insofar as he is a man; and two, as what belongs to the material constitution of things, which can deviate from what is natural in the first sense. This is obvious--as aforementioned, we see it in biological and mental health all the time. A man who eats dirt is not right in the head. A man with cancer has his cells replicating improperly. We designate that they are improper because they disrupt the proper, natural, intended functioning--a functioning the why of which the mere matter cannot explain. Similarly, for those of us who believe that man has a moral health just as much as he has a physical and mental health, there are things natural to, conducive to, and profitable for his moral health; and there are things detrimental to and destructive of it. Following Aristotle, I would say that by nature (in the traditional sense), man is moral; and by nature, man is political. His moral character is not and can not be severed from his political character (in fact, Aristotle wrote his Ethics and his Politics as two parts of the same work). When one person within the same body politic engages in corrupt morality, it becomes an issue for the whole body politic--as can be evidenced in this very issue. Homosexual practice has led to homosexual legislation; and legislation about issues of morality redounds upon the morality of the political constituency. An amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman is, to my view, the moral equivalent of preventative medicine.

AReasonableVoice 1 year ago

It's a poorly worded amendment. This is not just about defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The amendment very clearly says that a marriage between a man and a woman is the "only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized by the State." That means its other intent is to also make sure we don't have civil unions or domestic partnerships, regardless of the clause addressing private contracts. You'd think that people who want to protect marriage from same-sex couples would be happy to give them an alternate way of committing to each other, just as long as it's not marriage. The authors of the amendment have a different agenda, however.

katimae 1 year ago

Doctrinafidem- thank you for your opinion. I enjoyed reading it. My problem is that one segment of society is writing their morals into my constitution. Preventative medecine for what? Still in your argument-as well reasoned as it is- you imply that homosexuality is wrong for humanity. Why is it so impossible to believe that a certain percentage of humans -today and throughout history simply are homosexual. It's not a symptom of decay- or a moral 911. Your preventative medecine (this amendment) will continue the persecution of a large number of people. While not having the amendment won't change anything or hurt anybody. In the medical field this would mean NO TREATMENT NEEDED.

doctrinafidem 1 year ago

Katimae--the point was that any constitution cannot prescind from morality, and attempts to do so are ill-advised and destined for some sort of abuse. The radically secular governments of the 20th century still imposed their morality upon the people... with much less room for any argument or discussion and with a much greater degree of persecution. To as a human live is to live morally, to live morally is to live politically, and to live politically is to live in a common society. The society in which we live inevitably has an effect upon us: the things we see, the places we shop, the items we buy. The social consequence is an important issue; but the question as to whether or not it is right to engage in homosexual acts, for anyone, is more important, so I will address that first. As I said, I believe in an inexorable, immutable human nature; and homosexuality is a deviation from what is fitting for and fulfilling of that nature. Moreover, I perceive our right to liberty and our right to pursue happiness as a freedom for, and not simply a freedom from. Our natures are capable of being fulfilled through living virtuously--and this is what the founders knew to be the meaning of happiness (read George Washington's inaugural address). The license for intimate homosexual relationships is only a freedom from--that the sexual behavior of humans is innately ordered towards reproduction is obvious, and we who believe in human nature take this to be a sign of that nature; to use one's sexual organs in a manner which deviates from this innate ordering is to deviate from the nature, and consequently to have freedom from but not for, as it is not being used for an essential fulfillment, but only an accidental one, physical pleasure, which is not an end in itself for a rational nature. [*As an addendum/disclaimer, I recognize that there is a biological disposition to homosexual attraction, but refuse to accept that such a disposition could ever become a necessity.]

doctrinafidem 1 year ago

As for the social issue, before we get to legislation, I have for myself, my family, my friends, and any of those with whom I share in this life, an obligation to the truth and to the good. That is part of being human, and is (or ought to be, in all places) made explicit in the Catholic Church. A full and truly happy human life is one which involves others; our humanity is manifested in our sharing in the acts of knowing and loving. As such, it saddens me to say that many of my friends or acquaintances who at one point believed in the teaching of the Church no longer do. Confusion about what constitutes a right, about human nature, and in several cases a genuine desire for homosexual friends to be happy... and even in some cases, for themselves to find happiness, they have promoted or gone down a path that cannot give genuine human happiness. Every individual who asserts the right to homosexual marriage, or the personal right to act as a homosexual, effects all those around them and puts at conflict the obligation to the true and good and the desire to love one's friends.

Now when we come to the issue of legislation, given the constitutional ordering of this society, and what is or ought to be a limited government (far too unlimited, these days), it does not fall into the purview of any governmental branch (executive, judicial, legislative) to create or enforce laws concerning the personal sexual acts of individuals (though quite a few states do still have laws forbidding quite a lot of things). Marriage, however, is an institution with a role in society. Families are not only a personal choice, but the vehicle of society; it is through families that values are taught and transmitted, and through families that people grow up and become productive members of that society. It is in our nature (both biologically and essentially) to have certain formative influences and inputs, including having a father and a mother. It therefore falls completely under the government's jurisdiction, especially given the consent of a voting majority, to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

katimae 1 year ago

While I completely respect your intelligent argument- I guess what it boils down to is I believe differently. The difference is not better or worse, but just different. My state constitution should be written in a way that benefits all the citizens of the state, not just some of them. Hopefully, supporters of the amendment won't have the majority on Tuesday. If the majority in fact decides NOT to pass this amendment, would that have any influence as to how you view the society the constitution governs?

moonchild7 1 year ago

The NATURAL LAW that you try to explain Monsignor Ingram, concerning Human Beings isn't just about the procreation of children. Human Beings are SOCIAL ANIMALS, not ANTI-SOCIAL ANIMALS. The survival of our species while of course centering on the continuation of ourselves also consisted of our need for us to belong to social groupings. It was in these groupings that provided the strongest of all survival skills because it was in these groups that we lived, worked, and loved together. We would have NEVER survived this long without those qualities and especially that last one, LOVE. There are Heterosexuals, Homosexuals and Asexuals. Within those groups for thousands and thousands of years the Heterosexuals have done almost all of the pro-creating (no kidding). But some of the Homosexuals have contributed when for whatever reasons they decided to have sex with a heterosexual and conceived a child. It did happen. Religions then tried to bring order to civilizations by creating "Laws" and "Guidlines" for survival. These too were about the species trying to get along with one another but we know how that's turned out. The Catholic Church is the LAST institution on this earth that needs to be preaching any moral beliefs anymore. They haven't done enough Hail Marys for ALL of their SINS, and. are still, sexist jerks. Maybe after a hundred years or so of doing really GOOD WORKS will you have regained any moral standings upon this earth.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
28	29	30	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1

A Matter of Nature

More like this story

Comments

May events