What Do You Think Of These Reasons Why Ssm Affects Marriage?

[4588686]

And if natural law does not exist then any number of "social facts" are actually meaningless. They would be arbitrary and, in effect, "horsepoo."

No. The 'social facts' wouldn't be meaningless. They would just be misattributed or insufficiently/incorrectly understood. Which, as we will see below, is exactly what you have done.

But please keep mocking me. I can absolutely feel the love here on this forum. I might have even been interested in having a real debate with you from the very beginning if your first couple of posts hadn't immediately equated my position with animal excrement and my own intelligence with the same.

I don't see why you have the need for strangers to validate and stand in awe of every intellectual position you hold. You seem to think that my position stands at odds with some pretty basic observations of human behavior. Sometimes people think that other people hold bad positions. I never equated your intelligence with 'horsepoo.'

I would argue that his makes you at the very least a partial instigator in this debate, but since you're obviously not going to offer up anything but scorn:

I don't think I'm the instigator. I think that you, and everybody else who wants to inhibit what other people can do by molding laws in accordance with a fictitious 'natural law' are the instigators. If you are going to insist on treating some people (gay, lesbian, transgendered et cetera, for example) as second class citizens then you should have a bit more fortitude than to get your petticoat ruffled when somebody demands that you provide evidence for the doctrine that you are using as a justification to promote oppression.

Natural law is intrinsically tied to human behavior, to the relationship between man and reality, and to the objectivity of the universe. Aristotle and Roman law both recognized natural law as a rational set of behaviors established by nature for humanity, and this would at least appear to be self-evident. Although there are often vast cultural differences between the various peoples of the world, there are a few common denominators as well. Murder, rape, assault, etc. are all frowned on within the context of each individual society, and laws are established or were established by previous generations in order to block and punish these behaviors. In fact, even the earliest human records deal with this issue of justice and man's moral behavior. The early concept of natural law as it was proposed by Aristotle equates natural law closely to animal behavior, but this explanation is probably not enough to fully understand our situation and place in reality. After all, humanity would seem to enjoy several fundamental advantages which the rest of the animal kingdom does not. Our capacity for sentient thought automatically makes us, at the very least, the dominant animal on the planet, but it also speaks to something more. In the modern academic world this situation is often ascribed to natural selection, genetic predisposition, cultural engineering, etc.


However, these explanations still do not answer the question of key differences which separate humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom.


A wild animal takes what it wants when it wants. Even the higher animal species (ex. dolphins and chimpanzees) can and do display shockingly violent behavior towards other species and other members of the same species both within and without their individual social groups.  There may be positive or negative consequences for these actions, but even in these cases the animals are clearly acting within the structure of instinct.  This is not the case with humans.  We are capable of acting with great violence towards each other and of committing horrible atrocities, but our capacity for sentient thought also gives us the ability to consider these actions within a context which seems completely foreign to any of the animal species.

This is not in-and-of-itself proof of natural law, but it is compelling evidence that there is something more overarching than mere genetic predisposition acting on humanity. If humanity is merely responding to instinct then it is also clear that humanity is more than capable of surpassing this instinct. The very way in which we perceive the world around us allows us to--without too much trouble--act in any way we desire, and yet we often do not (at least, I am giving the people reading this the benefit of the doubt).  Again, there may be negative or positive consequences for these actions, but these decisions do not need to conform to any instinctual prerogatives.  This suggests that humanity is functioning as a being which in many ways transcends the animal kingdom.

This book will clarify most of the points you are misattributing to a transcendent moral system.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95165609/A-Cooperative-Species-Human-Reciprocity-and-Its-Evolution

You can just upload any word document and download it for free.

But you are presenting a false dichotomy between human capacity for altruism, cooperation, and shared intentionality. You're basically making the argument that C.S. Lewis made in Mere Christianity. It was a logically flawed argument then but the science was such that it could have an intuitive appeal without it being clear how good scientific inquiry could explain this. But biology, gene theory, neuroscience, game theory et cetera are vastly more advanced when that argument was advanced by Lewis.

St. Thomas Aquinas described natural law as our participation in the eternal law, that is, God's law, and this is also a fundamental aspect of natural law.  The concept of a Prime Mover is necessary for understanding and defining the world around us.  [Here we come to the real sticking point of the argument since you deny the existence of God, but for the sake of others I will continue.]  We are also clearly able to reach and understand certain concepts--axioms--which we accept as real in-and-of-themselves.  These are both unprovable and absolutely necessary to our understanding of math and logic.  The laws of thought would be chief among these for the purposes of this discussion.  These are traditionally attributed to Aristotle, and they have a long history in shaping human society and thought (ex. a particularly poignant quote concerning these laws is attributed to Avicenna for anyone who wants to look it up).  The nature and exact number of these laws has been debated over the centuries, but the basic principles have largely remained the same.  However, these axioms must also be given their definition by something beyond ourselves since without a Prime Mover to act as a ruler by which reality is measured the axioms themselves loose any meaning except that which we give them a priori.  We can still say that they are true in-and-of-themselves, but the very fact that they are true in-and-of-themselves stands as compelling evidence for the existence of a Prime Mover.  Humans discover laws.  We do not invent them.  This Prime Mover, as the Creator of reality, has established definition which we are capable of knowing a priori and a posteriori and allows us to understand reality around us.  This means that these laws would not only apply to material but also to the metaphysical as well.  Morality clearly falls within the metaphysical.  Our capacity to comprehend good and evil must be based on something more than simple genetic predisposition if we are to ascribe it any meaning.  It is true that if I murder someone I make myself a criminal under the civil laws of this country, but so what?  A nation is fully capable of making any law it desires (ex. there are way to many good examples of this), and ultimately, if there is no way to assign morality to an action then we give up the authority to judge that action.  I may still be punished under a set of civil laws, but this punishment would be arbitrary.  Since the absence of a Prime Mover would also dictate the absence of any afterlife I could also rest assured that death would eventually and effectively end any punishment I could possible face.  

Which axioms?

I don't think that you understand how math words regarding axioms. Or rather, you have a very, very outdated understanding of how math 'works' since your understanding of math kind of got shattered by non-Euclidean geometry.

Axioms are not mystical, special propositions that support the entirety of math of of themselves are inherently unprovable. For a given formal systems, some proposition are taken as base assumptions but these statements are only axiomatic in that system. You could design a different formal system in which those same axioms are demonstrable theorems.

[Socrates]

The meaning of "marriage" is not set in stone. And I'm fine with the state accepting a contract between a man and his sister, his mom, 10,000 women, etc. Why does the state need to have anything to do with marriage? Why is the term "marriage" so sacred? It's just a word. The meaning of "marriage" is different for different people and depends on context, like any other word. 

 

 

Wrong.  Marriage does have a real specific meaning, and is not just a meaningless word, much as you would like to make it so.

 

If marriage were just a meaningless word, the Church, and others, would not oppose legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" so strongly, nor would homosexual activists push so hard for the state recognition of homosexual "marriages."

 

In reality, "gay marriage" is all about nothing more than so society giving official recognition to same-sex sodomy, and sodomitic relationships, as fully equal to marriage of man and woman, when they are not.  (Show me one single instance of a child conceived through homosexual activity, and I'll recant that statement.)

 

"Gay marriage" is not merely about legal contracts.  Homosexuals can already legally make contracts regarding inheritance, hospital visiting privileges, etc, by power of attorney, as can any other unmarried persons.

This is why there has never been any kind of push by "straight" people to have various completely non-sexual contracts legally recognized as "marriage."

 

(Again, if you're against any legal recognition of marriage, there's no reason to whine about homosexual "marriage" not getting legal recognition.  Decide what your argument is, first.)

 

 

 

Nutrition is also fundamentally essential for human society. Should we start banning McDonald's? We get annoyed with Liberals when they try to force their ideals on society. How is this different? 

 

Not giving special legal recognition and benefits to homosexual relationships has nothing to do with banning private activities.  As I said before, in states where "gay marriage" is not legally recognized, homosexuals remain completely free to live together and sodomize one another all they want.  Nobody's being forced to do anything.

(More on this later.)

 

 

It's humiliating that the state won't allow my kids to receive my inheritance unless I get a state endorsed slip saying my marriage is valid. It's more humiliating if they further abuse this power and tell me I can't have a contract with Ned because... just because.

 

Wrong again.  People can, and do, arrange inheritances (whether to one's children, or other parties) without being legally married.  It can be legally arranged by power of attorney.  (Ask CatherineM if you have more questions - she has legal expertise in this area.)

 

 

Marriage is a private matter. The government is trying to force us to act a certain way by endorsing a specific brand of marriage. People aren't stupid. They can get along just fine without the government spoon feeding morality to them. 

 

Again, the government isn't forcing anybody to do anything.  

 

Millions of people, both "straight" and "gay," choose to live together and perform sexual acts without being legally married, and the state doesn't lock them away for doing so.

 

 

Not all things are equally deserving of special recognition.

 

Here's something very loosely analogous, but hopefully you'll get the point:

The government gives special recognition and award to servicemen  in war who perform acts of valor above and beyond the call of duty by awarding them the Medal of Honor.

It does not follow that everyone who enlisted to fight in that war is entitled to the Medal of Honor, whether their conduct was valorous or cowardly.

 

(Or do you wish to argue that the government is "forcing morality" by giving recognition to valor rather than cowardice?)

 

 

Ah, I was saying that basing laws on religion alone is similar to a Sharia based government. I still believe this. I was just agreeing that my example was a poor one.

 

 

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." John Adams

 

Our founding fathers were moral people but many of them weren't Christian. They were trying to get away from a theocracy. There's nothing wrong with basing our laws on religious beliefs, but from which religions? 

 

 

This is a Catholic argument. Even if it is immoral, that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Two people getting married does not pose a threat to me.  

 

 

 

Going to Mass on sunday is moral. Should there be a law enforcing mass attendance? Some morals should not be enforced by the state. I think we just differ as to which ones these are. 

 

 

Read more carefully next time.  I never claimed America was a Christian theocracy.

 

The different American founding fathers held a number of different religious views, however none of them saw any need for anything other than the union of man and woman to be legally recognized as "marriage" - nor did anybody at all until a few decades ago.

 

The point of the John Adams quote was to demonstrate that the fathers - whatever their theological views - had no problem with "religious" moral principles in law.  (There are also many similar quotes by other founders - I like the Adams one because it's pithy.)

Opposition to "gay marriage" is not an exclusively Catholic issue.  There are many non-Catholics opposed to state-recognized "gay marriage."

 

Are you going to try to argue that the entire U.S. prior to 2005 was a Sharia-like "theocracy"?

 

Keeping legal marriage between a man and woman (as it always has in this country) is not the establishment of a religion, or state church (as would be requiring citizens to attend Sunday Mass, or requiring that people be married in the Catholic Church).

 

It would be just as silly to say laws against murder or theft constitute "theocracy" because the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal."

[Socrates]

Natural law morality is some made up horsepoo whose only intellectual foundation is inferred from religious presumptions.  

 

Your face is made up horsepoo.

[Socrates]

Lol.

 

Natural law is inferred from the assumption that setting someone on fire for no good reason is wrong.  Also: that there is a metaphysical platform from which I can objectively say that setting someone on fire for no good reason is wrong.  But don't stop now.  I'm enjoying your thoughtful and well-constructed arguments.

 

Oh please.  Every enlightened smarty-pants person is well aware that human beings and their behavior are nothing more than the entirely meaningless dance of atoms.

"Morality" and "immorality," "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than superstitious nonsense caused by the random movement of said atoms.  (As are such notions as "gay rights," but it's not polite to point that out.)

 

A person deliberately setting another on fire, of course, has absolutely no more moral meaning than any other process of combustion occurring in nature.  

 

 

 

No point trying to debate morality with a nihilist.

[4588686]

Oh please.  Every enlightened smarty-pantaloons person is well aware that human beings and their behavior are nothing more than the entirely meaningless dance of atoms.

"Morality" and "immorality," "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than superstitious nonsense caused by the random movement of said atoms.  (As are such notions as "gay rights," but it's not polite to point that out.)

 

A person deliberately setting another on fire, of course, has absolutely no more moral meaning than any other process of combustion occurring in nature.  

 

 

 

No point trying to debate morality with a nihilist.

 

 

I'm not a nihilist.  Nor is morality superstition.  You may want to read that book I linked.  It doesn't contain much homoerotic adulation of Reagan.  And it has a lot of math and facts and other scary things in it.  But it has some cool pictures that you might enjoy.  

[4588686]

Your face is made up horsepoo.

 

 

Nuh uh

[Chestertonian]

I'm not a nihilist.  Nor is morality superstition.  You may want to read that book I linked.  It doesn't contain much homoerotic adulation of Reagan.  And it has a lot of math and facts and other scary things in it.  But it has some cool pictures that you might enjoy.  

 

So your contention is that morality is a cultural construct and nothing more, right?

[Socrates]

I'm not a nihilist.  Nor is morality superstition.  You may want to read that book I linked.  It doesn't contain much homoerotic adulation of Reagan.  And it has a lot of math and facts and other scary things in it.  But it has some cool pictures that you might enjoy.  

 

Geez, what's up with you and all the homo talk about Reagan?

 

 

Maybe you should just keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.

[4588686]

Geez, what's up with you and all the homo talk about Reagan?

 

 

Maybe you should just keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.

 

 

That is suspicious that I keep reverting back to that old troupe.  Well played, sir.  

[4588686]

So your contention is that morality is a cultural construct and nothing more, right?

 

 

No, I wouldn't say that.  It is a function of society and human nature but it's not just an arbitrary social construction.  

[Amppax]

This is unfortunate, this thread was getting good.

[Chestertonian]

No, I wouldn't say that.  It is a function of society and human nature but it's not just an arbitrary social construction.  

 

How do you account for altruism? Is it simply Darwinian reciprocalism in action?