Abortion And Birth Control Wrong At Al Cases

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1388396' date='Sep 18 2007, 10:48 PM']This kind of completely irrational carp is why I gave up attempting to reason with Carderro long ago - he is utterly immune to any kind of logic or rational or coherent thought whatsoever.[/quote]


Part of me understands this point after reading your last post Carderro. You can not blow something off as apple-oranges if it doesnt match your POV.

The analogy of the homosexuals on the island is an example of natural law. They have violated the natural function of sexuality so much that they would die off. You cited the lezbo thing, but that would mean there was hetro sex. Homosexuality is a violation of natural law in that you have destroyed the 2 major functions of sex. Also, the act itself cannot be called sex. It is mutual masterbation. There is no intercourse because you do not have the parts needed. The mouth is not for intercourse, the anus is not for intercourse. At the most liberal it could be considered a foreplay act, but the actual sex can not happen. So dont call it sex.

Natural function of sperm is to seek out the egg. What happens with the homo sperm?

You cite people who "cannot" have children. That is an example of the right-process having something wrong. The parts dont work right. That is not a cognative error on the part of the people. It is not a violation of natural law. Plus, there are situations were couples that believe they are not able to have children will get pregnant. The couple, as a couple open to life, is able to use sex for the aspect of mutual love and intimacy that sex promotes as a foundation for a family.

Or are you saying that Homosexuals are "parts that dont work" using a perversion of a sexual act for plessure?

Natural law isnt an invisiable mother who slaps you and puts you in the corner. Natural law says that things have the function they were intended for and if something is perverted to no longer act in the function it was intended for then there will be issues for the user. Bleach is used for cleaning. If you drink it then you will have issues.

I never argued that Homosexuality hurts others. You cited that as a counter argument, but I never said that once. I have 2 friends who are practicing homosexuals. They dont hurt me, but that does not mean we dont talk.

The reason the this debate, was that it was on abortion and you converted it to a dialogue on homosexuality as a violation for natural law.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Revprodeji

[carrdero]

[quote]Revprodeji writes:Part of me understands this point after reading your last post Carderro. You can not blow something off as apple-oranges if it doesnt match your POV.[/quote]
Socrtates was quoting from a great misunderstanding about my beliefs and an impatience to understand them. I have theories and beliefs about each and everyone of those examples that you listed but if you want to discuss homosexuality with me, fine, will dscuss homosexuality, but if you believe that homosexuality will eventually lead to or is the same as murder, pedophelia, alcoholism or that homosexuality is a threat to your life, I am going to have to make the call of "apples and pears".

[quote]Revprodeji writes: The analogy of the homosexuals on the island is an example of natural law. They have violated the natural function of sexuality so much that they would die off.
Homosexuality is a violation of natural law in that you have destroyed the 2 major functions of sex.[/quote]

It is not written within Natural Law that there must me a planet with adaptable life on it. Humans have the capability now to destroy life on this planet as we know it 100 times over. There is not a Natural Law that would preserve us. Natural Law states that if there is a planet with adaptable life on it, this is how it is played and as you can clearly witness there have been some interesting rules added. Does Natural Law care that there have been more rules added? In some cases, apparently not.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: Also, the act itself cannot be called sex. It is mutual masterbation.[/quote]

But even as in masturbation the Laws of Nature still apply. Natural Law does not care if you pleasure yourself with another man or woman or a doorknob, it has a function to perform, it performs it well and it doesn’t judge. Where does the term “violation” originate and apply?


[quote]Revprodeji writes: Natural function of sperm is to seek out the egg. What happens with the homo sperm?[/quote]
I better question is why hasn’t Natural Law been designed to detect these violations? Why, if it is in direct violation of Natural Law to spill sperm to the ground that Natural Law does not recognize this injustice and prevent this “waste” from happening?

[quote]Revprodeji writes: You cite people who "cannot" have children. That is an example of the right-process having something wrong.[/quote]
Then I will cite the example of adoption in which two homosexuals who wish to begin a family of their own will agree to adopt an orphaned child from a couple who under certain circumstances could have children but are unable to care for it. Natural Law can have many contingencies, there is a lot of room to play within these rules, one just has to see the potential and the possibility.

Edited September 19, 2007 by carrdero

[N/A Gone]

Sir,

Quit using the term "natural law" because the concept you are promoting is not natural law.

Based on the historical and universe sense of natural law, promoted by Thomas, argued for by Martin Luther King Jr, Homosexuality is a violation of natural law.

The system you have going for you is your own creation and in that you can judge what is allowed to work and what isnt. I am not going to argue with you about your autonomistic dogmas.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1388600' date='Sep 19 2007, 11:23 AM']Sir,

Quit using the term "natural law" because the concept you are promoting is not natural law.

Based on the historical and universe sense of natural law, promoted by Thomas, argued for by Martin Luther King Jr, Homosexuality is a violation of natural law.[/quote]
Again I must ask, why do you believe that homosexuality is a violation of Natural Law when it is clearly evident that it exists, there are no penalties, no sentencing or no correction to this violation? Is it because Thomas said so?

Edited September 19, 2007 by carrdero

[thessalonian]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388601' date='Sep 19 2007, 11:30 AM']Again I must ask, why do you believe that homosexuality is a violation of Natural Law when it is clearly evident that it exists, there are no penalties, no sentencing or no correction to this violation? Is it because Thomas said so?[/quote]

Why is murder against the natural law because it is evident that some have a tendancy toward wanting to off people. That something "exists" is no indication of it's rightness or wrongness. By your logic we should just allow those with genetic diabetes to die. Your moral basis is your own thinking that you try to impose over others. Making moral statements about lack of morality and about natural law based on your own reasoning. If any of us are to be able to make moral statements like the ones you have above, their basis has to be on something above us or greater than us. Something that is wiser than our own individual thinking that takes in the good of all and is able to really deternmine if something that we personally think is good is actually bad for us and will cause us great harm. It is quite evident that there is such an "intelligence" that exists by the complexity of creation that is far beyond man's ability to reason and comprehend, yet is apparently comprehendable. But you will keep raising the level of your own thinking to being the judge of what is natural because that is what you do.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388601' date='Sep 19 2007, 11:30 AM']Again I must ask, why do you believe that homosexuality is a violation of Natural Law when it is clearly evident that it exists, there are no penalties, no sentencing or no correction to this violation? Is it because Thomas said so?[/quote]


Trust me, the last thing I will ever be accused of is being over thomistic.

Define the penalties and an actual example of how you see natural law. When we speak of natural law we are talking about an object and the fact that it has a natural purpose it was intended for. When you use that object for a purpose outside of its natural intended purpose you screw the system up. God might not hit you with lightning (he is fighting a lawsuit after all) but that does not mean there are not issues for that action.

Of course, to assume natural law makes you assume there is a law-writer. In that there is an intention in the design and its use, and it is not a random arbitrative thing.

Sex then is our concept. Our object. Its design is for a species to use for the procreation of the species. In order to carry on the generations. In that sex also is designed to foster an enviroment that will assist in the upbringing of that generation by providing a unifying pleasure for the woman/man. In that sex is procreative as well as unifying. That is the natural function we see of it in its design, and in what it produces. As well as its universal use.

Homosexuality violates that function in that it is not procreative, nor does it involve the intended parts of woman/man. We know that the design is not intended for Homosexuality. The anus was not designed in a physiological sense for that action (if you have a credited medical journel report that says different I would be very interested. ) The mouth, even if it does not cause harm, was not intended for the act as well. The sperm was designed to "swim" in the womans "system" towards the egg. That is what it was designed for. There is no such objective for a homosexual. You blew off the island analogy but the fact remains that if the entire world resorted to homosexual sex that we as a people would die off. You can insert a medical or an adoption as you cited, but by inserting a foreign tool you are admiting that the system is wrong. You wear glasses because your eyes are bad. Are you suggesting homosexuals adopt because the system is bad? And where did that adopted baby come from? Hetrosexual sex. The homosexual on the island can not produce the next generation and will die off because of it. Extermination of a species seems like a rather large penalty.

[carrdero]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1388605' date='Sep 19 2007, 11:37 AM']Why is murder against the natural law because it is evident that some have a tendancy toward wanting to off people. That something "exists" is no indication of it's rightness or wrongness. By your logic we should just allow those with genetic diabetes to die. Your moral basis is your own thinking that you try to impose over others. Making moral statements about lack of morality and about natural law based on your own reasoning. If any of us are to be able to make moral statements like the ones you have above, their basis has to be on something above us or greater than us. Something that is wiser than our own individual thinking that takes in the good of all and is able to really deternmine if something that we personally think is good is actually bad for us and will cause us great harm. It is quite evident that there is such an "intelligence" that exists by the complexity of creation that is far beyond man's ability to reason and comprehend, yet is apparently comprehendable. But you will keep raising the level of your own thinking to being the judge of what is natural because that is what you do.[/quote]
??????????????????

[N/A Gone]

can you offer something more than question marks?

[Anomaly]

Rev,
carr's version of Natural Law have nothing to do with philosophy, morals, or evaluating principles. Natural Law is basic laws of physics, such as dropping a brick on your bare foot where gravity exists, will hurt. Period.

[N/A Gone]

ok, so he is not using the term Natural law in its classic understanding. Rather he is talking about literal physics.

Even still, on the island they die out.

That is a rather bad way to judge an issue. Like Thes said, murderers and rapists and other crimes dont have a physical penality.

[thessalonian]

Let me spell it out for you carrderro. You are not God and without him you have no basis for making any kind of a moral judgement, even a neutral one, saying that something is neither good nor bad because you don't know all the consequences. Anything you say is just a guess and what looks like a pure glass of water might have poison in it.

[carrdero]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1388647' date='Sep 19 2007, 01:19 PM']Let me spell it out for you carrderro. You are not God and without him you have no basis for making any kind of a moral judgement, even a neutral one, saying that something is neither good nor bad because you don't know all the consequences. Anything you say is just a guess and what looks like a pure glass of water might have poison in it.[/quote]
Thank you Thessolonian for coming down all this way towards properly identifying to everyone what I have already been pronouncing as my beliefs.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1388624' date='Sep 19 2007, 12:40 PM']Rev,
carr's version of Natural Law have nothing to do with philosophy, morals, or evaluating principles. Natural Law is basic laws of physics, such as dropping a brick on your bare foot where gravity exists, will hurt. Period.[/quote]
There's another version?

[carrdero]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1388628' date='Sep 19 2007, 12:43 PM']ok, so he is not using the term Natural law in its classic understanding. Rather he is talking about literal physics.[/quote]
Yes, Natural Law not Human Nature.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388720' date='Sep 19 2007, 04:49 PM']There's another version?[/quote]Yes. Natural Law as far as moral philosophy. You need to read up on that and use the meaning that human society has ascribed to that phrase. If you want to establish a 'carrdero definition', make that clear so we can speak the same language.

"Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is an ethical theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere"

[thessalonian]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388719' date='Sep 19 2007, 03:48 PM']Thank you Thessolonian for coming down all this way towards properly identifying to everyone what I have already been pronouncing as my beliefs.[/quote]


Then you violate what you believe by saying things like these:

[quote]Homosexuality is not a violation of Natural Law
Birth control is just another way humans have hacked Natural Law. It is neither right nor wrong.

I guess what I am trying to express is that every entity existed in the spiritual realm before incarnating into a physical form. The spiritual realm contains knowledge that an entity can access because this realm is not bound by our time

There is a GOD but He doesn’t dole out souls

Relax. Homosexuality is not a threat to anybody.
The only moral dilemmas that I have observed for both heterosexuality and homosexuality are the biased beliefs and opinions that some individuals have placed upon it.

it does not mean (contrary to some people's beliefs or opinion) that it is wrong or in violation of Natural Law.[/quote]

You have no business making statements on morality pro or con as I said and on whether a certain action does no harm or not. You do not know and there may be a clear glass that looks like water on a table and you may tell someone to drink it thinking it to be water and it is poison. Here come the question marks again I suppose.

Edited September 19, 2007 by thessalonian

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1388733' date='Sep 19 2007, 04:19 PM']"Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is an ethical theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere"[/quote]

thank you

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1388751' date='Sep 19 2007, 05:58 PM']thank you[/quote]Your welcome. carrdero has mistaken 'Natural Law' with the 'Law of the Jungle', meaning it isn't about 'ethical choices', it's the ability to do an 'action' and avoid consequences, or dealing with the consequences that are a result of your action.

In other terms, most of us posters here define Natural Law as self evident moral parameters for right/wrong. carrdero rejects the basic parameters of right or wrong for consequences/no consequences. Not to be mean (well, not really, let's be honest), carrdero has really come up with a sophistry masquerading as 'philosophy'. Humanity's collective awareness and knowledge has developed far beyond that. But hey, even Monet may find a fresh box of 8 crayola's and a stack of blank paper 'a fresh discovery'.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1388758' date='Sep 19 2007, 05:20 PM']Your welcome. carrdero has mistaken 'Natural Law' with the 'Law of the Jungle', meaning it isn't about 'ethical choices', it's the ability to do an 'action' and avoid consequences, or dealing with the consequences that are a result of your action.[/quote]
The Law of the Jungle????

[carrdero]

[quote]Thessolonian writes: Then you violate what you believe by saying things like these:[/quote]
[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: Homosexuality is not a violation of Natural Law[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: Birth control is just another way humans have hacked Natural Law. It is neither right nor wrong.[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: I guess what I am trying to express is that every entity existed in the spiritual realm before incarnating into a physical form. The spiritual realm contains knowledge that an entity can access because this realm is not bound by our time[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: There is a GOD but He doesn’t dole out souls[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: Relax. Homosexuality is not a threat to anybody.[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: The only moral dilemmas that I have observed for both heterosexuality and homosexuality are the biased beliefs and opinions that some individuals have
placed upon it. [/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: it does not mean (contrary to some people's beliefs or opinion) that it is wrong or in violation of Natural Law.[/color]

My belief.

[quote]Thessolonian writes: You have no business making statements on morality pro or con as I said and on whether a certain action does no harm or not.[/quote]

Now, here is how this debating game is played. You take any of these beliefs that you feel you disagree with and compose a rebuttal based on your knowledge, observations or experiences that you have collected and would like to share.