Welcome to PatsFans.com

Per Request: Natural Law

Discussion in 'Religion and Lighthearted Discussion' started by ThatllMoveTheChains!!!, Feb 10, 2014.

  1. ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

    ThatllMoveTheChains!!! Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +67 / 4 / -0

    #24 Jersey

    First link is broken for me. Second one contains multiple definitions; I'm guessing you're rolling with the Christian one? So now can you please explain why homosexuality is counter 'Natural Law', but making home with someone who's infertile is cool?
     
  2. Boogs

    Boogs Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +162 / 4 / -4

    Men aren't made to have sex with each other. They are made to have sex with women. Likewise, women aren't physically designed to have sex with women.
     
  3. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    "Sex" involves any number of acts that aren't limited to a man and a woman.
     
  4. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    23,113
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ratings:
    +778 / 20 / -18

    I am pretty sure i have read that there are homosexual animals as well, so the whole its a choice thing or unnatural act thing probably fails there.
     
  5. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    Agreed. I was just sticking with the claims regarding "sex" and physical design.
     
  6. Boogs

    Boogs Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +162 / 4 / -4

    True. You can have sex with a sock, a doll, an animal, etc. All that is messed up too.
     
  7. Boogs

    Boogs Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +162 / 4 / -4

    I know. And I'm saying there is something psychologically wrong with that animal.
     
  8. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    ah, the old fallback to comparisons with bestiality...

    I like the twist you've added, though, claiming that most heterosexuals are "messed up," too.
     
  9. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    23,113
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ratings:
    +778 / 20 / -18

    If the evidence conflicts with your view, the evidence is flawed. You must be very religious.
     
  10. Boogs

    Boogs Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +162 / 4 / -4

    Yes we are chico.
     
  11. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    pretty bleak view

    (though if most of us are messed up, wouldn't that mean that most us are actually normal? ;) )
     
  12. Boogs

    Boogs Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    69
    Ratings:
    +162 / 4 / -4

    You got me on that one man.
     
  13. ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

    ThatllMoveTheChains!!! Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +67 / 4 / -0

    #24 Jersey

    And this is what confuses me; natural law was thrown out there as if it was separate from religion, but only the religious version contains content that could be seen as anti-homosexuality. The original roots are more an argument against tyranny and antisocial behavior. Once religion usurped it it's no longer an alternative to coming at a discussion from a religious standpoint. All the arguments I've seen anti-homosexuality seem to be a house of cards trying to hide the basic ones: uncomfortable with it and God said so.
     
  14. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,971
    Likes Received:
    86
    Ratings:
    +206 / 9 / -26


    Outside of homosexuality advocates in the late 20th century, who was challenging the fact that homosexual acts were acts against the natural law in all of human history?

    The gay rights movement of the Middle Ages??? :rolleyes:

    Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.....all pagans.......all saw homosexual acts as contrary to the Natural law.



    "Let me begin by noticing a too little noticed fact. All three of the greatest Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, regarded homosexual conduct as intrinsically shameful, immoral, and indeed depraved or depraving. That is to say, all three rejected the linchpin of modern "gay" ideology and lifestyle.
    Socrates is portrayed by Plato (and by Xenophon) as having strong homosexual (as well as heterosexual) inclinations or interest, and as promoting an ideal of homosexual romance between men and youths, but at the same time as utterly rejecting homosexual conduct. This is made clear in Sir Kenneth Dover's book Greek Homosexuality1; in Dover's summarising words: "Xenophon's Socrates lacks the sensibility and urbanity of the Platonic Socrates, but there is no doubt that both of them condemn homosexual copulation."2 It is also made clear by Gregory Vlastos in his last book, precisely on Socrates: In Socratic ero^s involving relationships of affection between men and boys or youths, intimacy is limited to mind- and eye-contact and "terminal gratification" is forbidden3 (and a fortiori in relationships between adult males, since virtually all Athenians regarded sex acts between adult males as intrinsically shameful)4.
    Vlastos thus makes it clear that Socrates forbids precisely what I have been calling homosexual conduct.
    What, then, about Plato? Well, the same Plato who in his Symposium wrote a
    famous celebration of romantic and spiritual man-boy erotic relationships, made very clear that all forms of sexual conduct outside heterosexual marriage are shameful, wrongful and harmful. This is particularly evident from his treatment of the matter in his last work, the Laws, but is also sufficiently clear in the Republic and the Phaedrus, and even in the Symposium itself. This is affirmed unequivocally both by Dover and by Vlastos, neither of whom favours these views of Plato. According to Vlastos, for example, Plato--
    saw anal intercourse as 'contrary to nature,
    ' [footnote: Ph[ae]dr[us] 251A1, L[aws] 636-7] a degradation not only of man's humanity, but even of his
    animality..."5
    It is for Plato, Vlastos adds, a type of act far more serious than any mere going "contrary to the rules".6
    As for Aristotle, there is widespread scholarly agreement that he rejected
    homosexual conduct
    . In fact, such conduct is frequently represented by Aristotle (in some cases directly and in other cases by a lecturer's hint) as intrinsically perverse, shameful and harmful both to the individuals involved and to society itself.7"


    http://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/articles/finnisorientation.pdf
     
  15. ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

    ThatllMoveTheChains!!! Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +67 / 4 / -0

    #24 Jersey

    It seems to me you're confusing their personal beliefs on what's right and wrong with their beliefs which was the basis of natural law, or maybe I'm confused. Near as I can tell the Greek philosophers laid the ground work with the basic idea that there are things we can all agree on that are right and wrong and that any laws that go against those aren't laws at all. It seems that it's not until Aquinas that attempts were made to start defining these things.

    Regardless I fail to see the argument made by natural law that's supposed to be convincing. Maybe expanding a bit with your own words why homosexuality is against natural law and why other things like masturbation, birth control, etc. aren't would help me understand where you're coming from.
     
  16. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    23,113
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ratings:
    +778 / 20 / -18

    This has nothing to do with nature, it is mens opinions.
    Further you dismiss current enlightened thinking based upon views held alongside the belief the world is flat.
     
  17. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,971
    Likes Received:
    86
    Ratings:
    +206 / 9 / -26



    I know I'm not confused. I simply answered your "objection" citing evidence to contradict your contention that the Greek philosophers simply "laid the groundwork" and didn't address Natural Law "specifics".

    Your response didn't address my evidence whatsoever nor did you provide evidence to the contrary. Then you seem to just restate your point.

    When did I ever say that masturbation, birth control, etc. don't contradict the Natural Law? Thats a strawman if I have ever seen one. I have clearly said in previous threads that sex acts need to be open to procreation.
     
  18. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,971
    Likes Received:
    86
    Ratings:
    +206 / 9 / -26


    I "dismiss" current "Progressive faith" thinking that denies the self evidence of Natural Law and replaces sex between a man and a woman where there is a openness to procreation as well as a complete complementarity.... with masturbation between a man/man or woman/woman where the "act" itself is closed entirely to procreation and the participants have no complementarity whatsoever.

    BTW, this is the same "Progressive faith" that gave us Eugenics (hello Nazis), abortion on demand, and forced sterilizations.
     
  19. ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

    ThatllMoveTheChains!!! Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +67 / 4 / -0

    #24 Jersey

    Your 'evidence' doesn't refute my objection. Nowhere does it point to a definitive definition laid out by these philosophers. Not to mention that someone else's opinion isn't really evidence. But anyways here

    The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    I'm not sure how you consider the original purpose of this thread a strawman. You claimed to use natural to support your stance; but so far you've refused to touch on what definition you're using, how you use it to support your stance, and how this is supposed to be convincing to non-religious folk.
     
  20. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,971
    Likes Received:
    86
    Ratings:
    +206 / 9 / -26



    I metioned your use of a strawman when you stated that in some way I had held that masterbation and birth control didn't contradict the Natural Law when I said no such thing.

    Just to clarify.... are you saying that if the ancient Greeks conveyed the fullness of understanding of Nautral Law and that any further development of this understanding would somehow be invalid?

    As to your definite defintition......when you say "someone else's opinion", please be more specific.....who's opinion to what?
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>