Prop 8 defender of sanctity of marriage is divorcing his wife

natural law gives way to nothing.

No such thing has ever been demonstrated to exist. There is no 'natural law'. The natural state is simply one of anarchy and survival, out of which arises order through evolutionary process and mutual interest.

I'd have to disagree. It's a theory, it was invented first I think by Aristotle.

'Natural Law' has never been demonstrated to exist, nor has anyone ever even cared to innumerate these 'laws'. It is a meaningless phrase. There are only successful and unsuccessful organisms and strategies. The only 'laws' of the universe are those revealed through physics: gravitational force, the speed of light in a vacuum, etc.
Like any other theory it was an explanation of observation of natural phenomena, perhaps in this instance human behaviour.

Are you familiar with evolutionary psychology and the moral instinct? Wanton homicide and blind aggeression is a failing sttrategy. Populations that instinctively cooperate and are less aggressive toward eachother are more successful, so their numbers increase..
 
For something that doesn't exist it sure has a lot written about it :lol: But then so do gods I suppose. But natural law can be seen to operate in practice. Have you watched two kids arguing and one yells out, "but that's not fair!"

No I'm not familiar with evolutionary psychology but I take the point you made about it. Again, like natural law, it's an explanation (or a set of explanations) about observed phenomena.
 
No such thing has ever been demonstrated to exist. There is no 'natural law'. The natural state is simply one of anarchy and survival, out of which arises order through evolutionary process and mutual interest.

I'd have to disagree. It's a theory, it was invented first I think by Aristotle. Like any other theory it was an explanation of observation of natural phenomena, perhaps in this instance human behaviour. It was probably also part of an invented moral code. I think after Aristotle, possibly by Aquinas, God got into the equation. The link between natural law and God is tenuous though. We know natural law exists, the jury is still out on God.

John Locke.

I think he wrote about it but it was known before Locke.
 
But then so do gods I suppose. But natural law can be seen to operate in practice. Have you watched two kids arguing and one yells out, "but that's not fair!"

See my threads on the 'moral instinct'

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.

Moral Foundations Theory Homepage

It's not a 'law'. It's simply a successful evolutionary 'experiment', upon which are built Man's ethical codes in the name of mutual interest and benefit. Recall that rape, too, is a successful evolutionary adaptation. Simply being natural or emerging from nature does not make an action 'right' or 'good' as 'natural law' implies.
 
But then so do gods I suppose. But natural law can be seen to operate in practice. Have you watched two kids arguing and one yells out, "but that's not fair!"

See my threads on the 'moral instinct'

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.

Moral Foundations Theory Homepage

It's not a 'law'. It's simply a successful evolutionary 'experiment', upon which are built Man's ethical codes in the name of mutual interest and benefit. Recall that rape, too, is a successful evolutionary adaptation. Simply being natural or emerging from nature does not make an action 'right' or 'good' as 'natural law' implies.

Okay, I take all those points. I'm hesitant to do two things now. One is to indulge in semantics (not accusing you of it, just warning myself because I have a habit of doing so), the other is to go to a reference source. Call me stubborn but I need to work this out without recourse to an authority.

I'm in agreement with you that nothing is naturally "good". What's "good" is whatever enhances the ability of humans to continue to exist, both as a species and as individuals. That's basic instinct in humans. So, we invented the idea of "good" to indicate that we should, communally, pursue that which enhanced our collective and individual existence. Rape - forced sexual intercourse - had to be declared not a "good" (uh-oh, I have to watch out for "ungood"!) because it damaged our ability to live in harmony with one another, at least in our own groups, I suppose raping some other tribe's females was considered at best neutral. From all that it seems to me that we (I'm ascribing this idea to Aristotle but for a moment I want to keep him out of the discussion) invented the concept of natural law to describe that which was good for us, individually and collectively. One of the ways the binding effect of natural law could be bolstered was by enlisting gods. Gods and natural law came, I think, after the idea was first formulated.

So what I'm trying to argue is that natural law exists as a concept to bring together the protocols that enhance communal human life. So it exists because humans exist, it doesn't exist without humans. "Nature red in tooth and claw" doesn't envisage natural law, humans do.
 
Rape - forced sexual intercourse - had to be declared not a "good" (uh-oh, I have to watch out for "ungood"!) because it damaged our ability to live in harmony with one another, at least in our own groups, I suppose raping some other tribe's females was considered at best neutral.
(if KK doesn't ban me for 'modifying your quote' ..)

This is where wee see the complexity of social contract, as these 2 groups must now form a contract between them. This could be a simple 'non-aggression agreement' (don't kill me and I won't kill you. if you kill one of us, we'll kill you all), it could be extended to mutual trade, or it could even eventually come to reach a point where the two intermarry to the point that they become, in effect, one ingroup, rather than each viewing the other as a group farther away from the center ego that members of their own village. (imagine this in your own life. There's you. Then there are family and close friends. then acquaintances, neighbors, and further out... Each successive 'ingroup' is less valued and less important than the preceding group). Or, this system could fail and war could develop.

I started pondering this in middle school and learned a few years ago that the concept of 'social contract' had already been thrown around before. I read up ion some research for new ideas, but I try to avoid relying on other sources when thinking about things until it's time to throw my conclusions out into the boards for review.
From all that it seems to me that we (I'm ascribing this idea to Aristotle but for a moment I want to keep him out of the discussion) invented the concept of natural law to describe that which was good for us, individually and collectively.
It was a way of understanding it before modern knowledge allowed us this new insight, just as the gods explained thunder before Man learned about electricity.

One of the ways the binding effect of natural law could be bolstered was by enlisting gods.
Certainly. Ascribing it to an authority (with the power to punish) expanded upon social contract and legal/social ramifications and was /is an effective means of controlling (and manipulation) the masses. Thus, organized and standardized religions were born. Historically, religious authorities have oft been political and social authorities as well, because of this.


So what I'm trying to argue is that natural law exists as a concept to bring together the protocols that enhance communal human life. So it exists because humans exist, it doesn't exist without humans. "Nature red in tooth and claw" doesn't envisage natural law, humans do.
Agreed. I thought you were getting at 'natural rights' and absolute morality-style 'natural law' at first. Now I see that we're effectively saying the same things in different words.
 
Last edited:
Oh no YOU by far have the title of most idiotic poster of all time. Your fear of gays comes through loud and clear you are just too dumb to realize it.

it has nothing to do with "fear of gays"....its changing something that has been going on since the dawning of man....thats not something that you can change overnight....




What "marriage" has been going on since the "dawn of time"? It sure as hell ain't a marriage where the woman had ANY kind of choice in who she married. It certainly isn't "One Man One Woman" as so many would like us to beleive.

So tell me just EXACTLY when did "AMERICAN" marrige become "TRADITIONAL" mariage.
 
The man's rants on the necessity of family values were vitrolic - he rivaled most of the evangelical clergy on waxing strong where "Christian" behavior was concerned. Now, after 40+ years of marriage, when he and his spouse divorce he gets embroiled in a "this is MINE" battle. Those family values are really shining out there, aren't they?
 
Oh no YOU by far have the title of most idiotic poster of all time. Your fear of gays comes through loud and clear you are just too dumb to realize it.

it has nothing to do with "fear of gays"....its changing something that has been going on since the dawning of man....thats not something that you can change overnight....




What "marriage" has been going on since the "dawn of time"? It sure as hell ain't a marriage where the woman had ANY kind of choice in who she married. It certainly isn't "One Man One Woman" as so many would like us to beleive.

So tell me just EXACTLY when did "AMERICAN" marrige become "TRADITIONAL" mariage.
Man grabs women has sex starts family.....and it evolved......and if you only knew how to read you would see i never said squat about "American" marriage.....now you show me where man grabs man has sex with man and starts family.....
 
it has nothing to do with "fear of gays"....its changing something that has been going on since the dawning of man....thats not something that you can change overnight....




What "marriage" has been going on since the "dawn of time"? It sure as hell ain't a marriage where the woman had ANY kind of choice in who she married. It certainly isn't "One Man One Woman" as so many would like us to beleive.

So tell me just EXACTLY when did "AMERICAN" marrige become "TRADITIONAL" mariage.
Man grabs women has sex starts family.....and it evolved......and if you only knew how to read you would see i never said squat about "American" marriage.....now you show me where man grabs man has sex with man and starts family.....

I've got a sneaking feeing that the discussion is going to start looking at the purpose of marriage. That should be interesting :D
 
I've got a sneaking feeing that the discussion is going to start looking at the purpose of marriage. That should be interesting :D

one of the reasons i dont care if gays marry Di.....why should they not experience the same misery that Hetros go through....
 
Sorry dude but facts are facts and my ancestors were no more chimps that yours. However would certainly seem to be some chump in your bloodline.
 
I've got a sneaking feeing that the discussion is going to start looking at the purpose of marriage. That should be interesting :D

one of the reasons i dont care if gays marry Di.....why should they not experience the same misery that Hetros go through....

:lol: Misery loves company Harry! it should be spread around! :lol:

Good point, except for my wife. For over 30 years every moment she has spent with me has been pure escatasy. She is one lucky woman. She may not realize that but it is a fact.
 

Forum List

Back
Top