call physical love. And this love of one sex for the other is truly
a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be
removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the
right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.

The adversaries cavil at these arguments; they say that in the
beginning the commandment was given to replenish the earth but that
now since the earth has been replenished, marriage is not commanded.
See how wisely they judge! The nature of men is so formed by the
word of God that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of the
creation, but as long as this nature of our bodies will exist just as
the earth becomes fruitful by the word Gen. 1, 11: Let the earth
bring forth grass, yielding seed. Because of this ordinance the
earth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, but
the fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order will
exist. Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earth
cannot be changed, so, without a special work of God the nature of a
human being can be changed neither by vows nor by human law [that a
woman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman].

Secondly. And because this creation or divine ordinance in man is a
natural right, jurists have accordingly said wisely and correctly
that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. But
since natural right is immutable, the right to contract marriage must
always remain. For where nature does not change, that ordinance also
with which God has endowed nature does not change, and cannot be
removed by human laws. Therefore it is ridiculous for the
adversaries to prate that marriage was commanded in the beginning,
but is not now. This is the same as if they would say: Formerly,
when men were born, they brought with them sex; now they do not.