*Menu
Search
Submit
McCook Gazette
Letter to the Editor

Natural law

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Dear Editor,

I read with some amusement the Opinion article in the Gazette, Tuesday, March 3, 2015, titled "Pay attention." The very length of the article conjures up the famous lines in shakespeare's "Hamlet," to wit: "Methinks thou doth protest too much."

The article continually insists on the belief that religion should be erased from influencing any man-made laws based on the old secular argument that freedom of religion militates against tainting any law with religious influence. One would have to wonder how the author can reconcile the fact that the law-making bodies in our federal government open each morning session with prayer for divine assistance in their making laws for the American public, not to mention the fact that the image of Moses, the great law-giver can be found high above the arena of the House of Representatives.

It seems we just can't get away from God. Some years back, Francis Thompson wrote a poem entitled "The Hound of Heaven" in which a character keeps running, running, running, running, freely, freely, freely and all the time conscious of something snapping at his heels, until exhausted, he finally succumbs and turns to the God who loves him and who never gave up on him.

And then we have the old specious argument of "inequality," always propounded by those who lack any logical argument for their stance on any subject, never mind homosexuality. The variety and inequality of God's creation is what makes it so beautiful and so refreshing.

Finally, to answer the final charge of the author, "Come up with at least one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to marry, without using your holy book, and maybe I'll consider your side."

The reason is quite simple and can be found in the creation of the hierarchy of beings from vegetable, animal and man, namely, "The Natural Law." Let us know what you find there that would confirm your stance on marriage.

Sincerely,

Jim McHale,

McCook, Nebraska

Comments
View 4 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

  • Here again we don't know exactly what Jesus thought on this subject. He seems indifferent to gays. He seems not to take sexual immorality too seriously either. For example , see this -- " The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, sir.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again "----Not especially harsh at all. Doesn't condemn her, just doesn't want her to do it again. And , I guess, Jesus is the Christian's God. There's the Christian example of how to act. Jesus condemns the ones trying to harm the prostitute, not the prostitute. He would probably be the same way with gays. If he thought they were engaged in some sexual impropriety.-- Jesus did think that marriage was special. If fact he thought nobody should be allowed to divorce. Christians do not agree with Jesus on this. They say you can get a divorce if you like. Jesus held the marriage was sacred and that no man should break up what God had made as one, The Christians strongly disagree and say that people can break up that which God has made as one. Christians do not believe that marriage is sacred. That is a certainty. Neither Bruce or Jim actually explain what they mean by natural law. Gayness is prevalent in nature. It's not rare or unusual.

    -- Posted by bob s on Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 5:37 PM

  • I found it a challenge to discern your point, Jim, after reading your long laundry list of platitudes. So I went back to read the article to which you are responding.

    In my opinion, you missed the point entirely; not surprising since you proclaim allegiance to a non-taxed corporation: your church.

    Many Americans do not share your belief pertaining to the purpose of government. We do not think it is in the best interest of a free society to have its government deciding who can get married to who. There is only one arena where the constitution grants our government the power to discriminate against it's citizens, and that would be found in the 16th amendment.

    The real issue behind gay marriage is what powers are we willing to give to our federal and state governments.

    I can understand why you are not concerned when your perceived enemy is being oppressed by the government that rules over it. The problem with that "logic" and your reference to natural law is...... well, you have just established a precedent which now will be reaching to yourself. Enjoy!

    -- Posted by shallal on Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 7:22 PM

  • Shallal, you forgot one important factor, "The Voter" as you know, there was a vote on this matter. The Nebraska voters voted against for the state to not recognize same sex marriages, it is the Goverment's job to see this holds true.

    -- Posted by Shock on Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 8:30 PM

  • Shock, I am glad you believe strongly that it is the government's job to forever uphold the results of an election that occurred over a decade ago.

    However I did not forget "the voter". I am sure you have heard Benjamin Franklin's quote -- 'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.'

    Pretty obvious which of the two options you seem to value most.

    -- Posted by shallal on Fri, Mar 6, 2015, at 8:08 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: