Acartia_Bogart
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014
|
| Quote (JohnW @ May 06 2015,11:48) | | Quote (Woodbine @ May 06 2015,09:07) | | Isn't 'Natural Law' just a) a euphemism for secular Catholicism and b) the naturalistic fallacy writ large? |
Natural Law is what I say it is. My beliefs and attitudes are the only ones justifiable by Natural Law, which is eternal and universal. I know that other people, in other times and places, have had different interpretations of Natural Law. But those people are at worst, evil; and at best, failed attempts at being me. |
Barry is up to his old tricks of providing rebuttal within another person's comment.
| Quote | UDEditors: YM’s comment and our rebuttal (in bold) are combined here:
Homosexuality is neither good nor bad, moral nor immoral. It just is.
UD: Yes, if you mean the disposition to homosexuality. No, if you mean homosexual behavior, for the reasons set forth @ 4, which you do not even address, far less rebut
Whether or not it has a genetic link is immaterial.
UD: Agreed, for the reasons set forth in @ 4.
The only thing that we know for sure that in manifests itself very early in life.
UD: Which, for the reasons set forth @ 4, is also immaterial.
For the same reason, same sex marriage is also neither moral nor immoral.
UD: No, for the reasons set forth @ 4 — YM, you are very long on bare assertion; very short on rational argument.
It is just a formal commitment between two individuals, every bit as valid and meaningful as a marriage between an opposite sex couple.
UD: YM, you should note this very carefully, because you seem to have a problem with it. Merely asserting a conclusion is not an argument.
The opposition to SSM takes one of two forms. By far the biggest is a religious objection, which the natural law argument is a category of,
UD: Obviously; blatantly; glaringly wrong. See comment 4. Which religion was Aristotle pushing when he condemned homosexuality on the basis of pure reason?
and the objection because it makes people uncomfortable.
UD: People are made uncomfortable by it because it is ontologically disordered; but the logical objection stems from the latter, not the former.
Canada has had same sex marriage for ten years and none of the warned consequences have come true. It hasn’t weakened the institution of marriage. It hasn’t led to multiple person marriage or human animal marriages.
UD: Ten whole years! Well, I guess that settles it. Again, beside the point for the reasons set forth in comments 4. Also, for the reasons set forth @ 7, Canada most certainly has not had same-sex marriage for ten years for the same reason that Canada has not had (and never will have) square circles.
Their activities do not harm anyone or anything, other that puritanical sensitivities. But much the same arguments that have been used to oppose SSM were also used to oppose inter-faith marriages and inter-racial marriages. .
UD: Your argument here seems to be: People were wrong about other things; therefore they are wrong about this thing. Look up “non sequitur” and you will see why this argument does not work. And yes, their behavior does harm; anytime a person acts in a way contrary to human nature he has done harm because he has acted in a way contrary to the good. Your “harm” argument also fails for the reasons set forth in the addendum to the OP. Finally, those who opposed inter-faith and inter-racial marriages did not make Aristotelian arguments (or if they did they were wrong to do so). |
Barry really doesn't like same sex marriage.
|
