This is not really important, but it is interesting. Now that gays can fool nature (but not nature’s God ;) by choosing artificial insemination to have children, I wondered if the birth certificates need to have more lines for parenthood on them. Do they? Something like:
- Biological Father
- Biological Mother
- Birth Mother
- Legal Father/Mother 1
- Legal Father/Mother2
I only bring this up because I read about how Spain has changed Mother and Father on their birth certs to Progenitor A and Progenitor B (I guess that’s biological parents?). Inquiring minds want to know.
Please prove the existence of something called "nature's God" or else cease refering to it in your statements.
Sorry, can't oblige. It's an expression used to indicate the difference between natural law and processes, and the God who created them. It is also to show that they are extricably linked.
It doesn't "show" anything at all. Please prove the existence of "natural law."
Most often, history proves natural law, a.k.a. common wisdom. Sayings like "absolute power corrupts absolutely" could be considered natural law. Here are some links on natural law:
Natural Law (Catholic Encyclopedia) – nice overview
Natural Law (Wikipedia) – this entry is nice because it talks about how various governments have been set up, with reference to Natural Law
Natural Law (Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy) – this is nice because it distinguishes between natural laws and morality derived from it
"Common wisdom"? You must be kidding. More like, the common assumptions or common superstitions.
Where is this "natural law" written? Where can I look it up? I'm not talking about third-party analyses, but the law itself.
Common wisdom is available in many traditions, confirmed by human experience. If you can't tell the difference between wisdom and superstition, you are to be pitied.
Try this. Have unprotected sex with as many partners as you can find. Forget about the laws of nature and common wisdom, and see what happens. You'll soon find out, like many who HAVE lived this way, that the laws of nature are to be taken seriously.
Since YOU can't tell the difference between wisdom and superstition, I pity YOU.
If you mean the laws science has discovered and formulated, then I agree with you. If you mean "moral laws" then I don't.
Actually, if you would read the third link, you would see the *intellectual* discussion of the overlap of the two. But if you believe in a world where morality is totally subjective, then the discussion may be lost on you.
Actually, it's people like you who drive me there.
And how do I drive you to moral relativity? I believe that I have made balanced claims – for instance, that some morality is self-evident and clear, that some is in the gray zone. Hence the expression i oft repeat, "in the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty, in all things charity." Some things are of course, not clear. But that doesn't mean that NOTHING can be surely determined.
I mean, when you say that hx is acceptable, aren't you making a claim to objective truth and morality?