You said in a previous post that under natural law, there’s no problem with exclusive same-sex relationships. I’m trying to point out that even the pre-christian days, the (non-Judaics) peoples had natural law to guide them,and there were no formal same-sex marriages even then. …] If there really is no problem with same sex unions in natural law, then why did the pre-Christian cultures not have same-sex marriages?
There is a crucial, logical difference between these two issues which you keep skipping over: a) there is no problem with same-sex relationships under natural law; b) most cultures (but see others
here) have not had
formalised same-sex relationships. It would be wholly illogical to assume that the mere lack of formalisation demonstrates that they did not have same-sex relationships or to assume that the mere lack of formalisation demonstrates that they had any problem with same-sex relationships. Logically, all that the lack of formalisation indicates is a lack of perceived need for formalisation.
Many things did not require formalisation. In ancient times, one did not (generally) need a passport to travel from one country to another, one did not (generally) need a licence to own a weapon, and one did not (generally) need a certified marriage to have a sexual relationship with someone. Ancient legal systems were less comprehensive, and thus less restrictive, than modern ones (see also Tacitus’ comment “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous its laws”).
Thus, for example, in Greek society, a man could have an ongoing sexual union with a hetaira ('εταιρα - roughly half way between concubine and prostitute), with no form of ceremony or licence and no legal responsibilities except those of commerce, with a pallakis (παλλακις - concubine, a role which afforded more
social freedom than was permitted to a wife), with no form of ceremony but an expectation of continued union which did not extend to the children of such a union, or with a suzugos (συζυγος - “yoked” - legally-bound wife), with a ceremony and a set of legal responsibilities including the inheritance rights of the children and the safeguarding of her continued ownership of her property throughout the marriage.
Only the last form of union produced legal heirs; only the last form required a formalised marriage.
Catullus, meanwhile,
tells us of the Roman
concubinus, the male concubine, whose sexual activity with his male lover ceases when that lover marries a woman. Xenophon
tells us that, in some Greek states, gay couples “live together as if married”. The system is the same as the man with the παλλακις: socially-accepted and in no need of legal formalisation because no heirs are produced.
So, to sum this all up, the Greeks and Romans had ongoing,
same-sex relationships which they had
no need to formalise legally, just as they had ongoing,
different-sex relationships which they had
no need to formalise legally.
They did not have same-sex marriages because they did not need to: such formalisation was only required regarding heirs.
These days, marriage entails a whole raft of rights and responsibilities which did not exist then, such as the right to inherit one’s spouse’s property or the right to decide upon the medical treatment of one’s spouse. As a result, there is now a need for marriage (or something legally identical) both for different-sex and for same-sex couples under the most basic Natural Law consideration of equity.
So, do you mind of I ask what your definition of natural law is? You have referred to Aguinas, so I assume that you are familiar with his definition, but I’d like to see what you believe that is, exactly. I’ll then provide a Catholic definition of natural law based on Aquinas. We’ll see if they are similar - somehow I think they won’t be.
As
mentioned above:
as
Thomas Aquinas says, commenting on Romans 2:14, “When the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law”, “Although they have no written law, yet they have the natural law, whereby each one knows, and is conscious of, what is good and what is evil.” This is what Natural Law means: an understanding of what is good or bad, right or wrong, based upon the observable operations of the world around us, rather than upon any
divine command. It is
a philosophical conception regarding which a Christian can be in complete agreement with a Hindu, or an atheist, since it requires no God (or other metaphysical entity or force). This is the
standard definition of the term.
