Same sex marriage legalised in the United States

[Triewd]

I've asked people what "natural law" is before and never really got a satisfactory answer or one that didn't involve reading whole theological texts. Can you do any better?

as simple as I can put it:

"an observable law relating to natural phenomena"

Much more than that would require a theological text - or my own definition.

One project I keep putting off is the precise definition of natural law.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How are equal protection and marriage related?

Because "married" is a legal state. So it should be made available equally to all citizens. That's the most basic point of "equal protection" and I actually find it hard to believe that anyone would honestly have to ask.

 

[Triewd]

The only thing that "violates natural law" is children not having access to loving, stable parents and caregivers. It's not like heteros are exactly excelling on this issue, particularly when they're caught trying to artificially limit access to stable legal relationships amongst parents and caregivers.

Edit:

Doesn't mean your quoted article doesn't make a good point. It does, but it doesn't make the point your post following it makes. Its point, if you read it, is that adoptive children need to be able to grieve and seek out birth parents if possible and they want to. Closed adoption, as a state of being, is outmoded. Adoption itself, is not. Children of divorce need to be able to have access to both their loved parents and grieve as well. One parent takes most/all by default, as a legal state, is harmful. Allowing the legal divorce, is not. Children of same sex couples(and here was the point, if you caught it), need to be allowed stable and loving role models of both genders for maximum growth rather than existing in an environment that "doesn't need or want men." If you have kids, that line of thinking and its counterpart is also outmoded. Two same sex parents, is not.

Right and heres the thing: do children need two parents that are different?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

as simple as I can put it:

"an observable law relating to natural phenomena"

Cool, so you include gay sex then?

 

[Triewd]

Cool, so you include gay sex then?

homosexual relations are actually natural. Christians would howl blue murder at me but yes they are natural.

EDIT but they also are NOT the same as Heterosexual relations ether.

 

[Arakhor]

"an observable law relating to natural phenomena"

People wanting to have families is a biological urge. Even I want to sometimes and that's really not my thing. (For reference, I'm one of the billions of Christians alive today, so let's not generalise any more than necessary.) Many examples of homosexuality can be found throughout the animal kingdom, from penguins to hedgehogs (of all things). If your issue is that having two mummies or two daddies violates natural law in some fashion, why does that require gay marriage to be illegal?

 

[Leonel]

as simple as I can put it:

"an observable law relating to natural phenomena"

Much more than that would require a theological text - or my own definition.

One project I keep putting off is the precise definition of natural law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo

Are we done here?

 

[Farm Boy]

Right and heres the thing: do children need two parents that are different?

I didn't put a number in there on purpose. But we do know that children are absorbent little things. They'll suck hardship right up on average, they've no defenses. They'll also suck up good inputs as fast as you can provide them, on average, they're built for it. And we know, we know that having more than one stable and intimately involved parent/caregiver/mentor is a win over a single person struggling to manage both successful navigation of society and quality raising of offspring. Here's another thing, two same sex parents are different, they're not the same parent because they're both gays or lesbians. And here's yet another thing, positive role models of gendered people will generally help kids navigate successfully a society composed of individuals that are so gendered. Nothing in there was a condemnation of same sex marriage even if the author thinks that there is(of which I'm not convinced from what was supplied). What was condemned was the withholding of input from a multigendered circle of role models and adults to learn from. Something our current courts fail to enforce, given custody cases, at a terrific rate. I have a degree of faith that same sex couples will actually shake that state of stale wrongness up.

 

[JollyRoger]

as simple as I can put it:

"an observable law relating to natural phenomena"

Much more than that would require a theological text - or my own definition.

One project I keep putting off is the precise definition of natural law.

So marriage itself does not qualify?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've asked people what "natural law" is before and never really got a satisfactory answer or one that didn't involve reading whole theological texts. Can you do any better?

And here I was thinking that "natural law" involved things such as the laws of physics...IE universal law.

As a result

The problem is same sex marriages want children and that violates natural law.

Is false. There is nothing we can observe from experiments or evidence that precludes same sex marriages from wanting children. Evidence I've seen suggests strongly that the opposite has a very high likelihood (for it not to be true, every gay couple claiming it would have to be lying, which is unlikely).

The act of giving birth directly without heavy surgery is constrained to women, but otherwise I similarly see no evidence as to how this supposedly violates natural law.

I see no need to flame your statement, just to point out that it isn't supported by evidence.

If, as an alternative, you are claiming the above violates "natural law" as defined by religion, you are claiming this action should be restricted to others regardless of evidence of its merit, for no reason other than "I don't like it" or "because I said so". In creating laws for society, such is not a constructive basis for restricting action.

The only thing that "violates natural law" is children not having access to loving, stable parents and caregivers. It's not like heteros are exactly excelling on this issue, particularly when they're caught trying to artificially limit access to stable legal relationships amongst parents and caregivers.

If you go by the "universal law as defined by nature", then even that does not violate natural law, neither do murder/heinous acts. However, heinous acts have negative utility while properly caring for children does not (it has very positive utility to humanity, and by extension to individuals), so it would be reasonable to make murder illegal and encourage raising children well.

If you go by the "deus vult" reasoning, then hell you could say any of them are good or bad, and the underlying rationale for doing so would be identical (some being we can't comprehend said it's good so it's good by definition, off we go then)...which is why that rationale is weak as a basis for decisions or law.

Edit:

As Triewd defines "natural law", same sex partners wanting children only violates natural law if none of those in said marriages actually want children, and they simply claim that they want them (either by lying or as an honest mistake). I feel the evidence against that is crushing.

But if we reject the notion that they're all mistaken/lying, then observational evidence suggests to us that they do want children and that this does not violate natural law.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

People wanting to have families is a biological urge. Even I want to sometimes and that's really not my thing. (For reference, I'm one of the billions of Christians alive today, so let's not generalise any more than necessary.) Many examples of homosexuality can be found throughout the animal kingdom, from penguins to hedgehogs (of all things). If your issue is that having two mummies or two daddies violates natural law in some fashion, why does that require gay marriage to be illegal?

The mental image of homosexual hedgehog sex may well have damaged my own hormonal balance. Should have spoilered that one maybe.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Sonic slash fiction though.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you go by the "universal law as defined by nature", then even that does not violate natural law, neither do murder/heinous acts. However, heinous acts have negative utility while properly caring for children does not (it has very positive utility to humanity, and by extension to individuals), so it would be reasonable to make murder illegal and encourage raising children well.

Well, given that it's not a very useful term for describing anything past a vague description of "this is how it's always been and we either can't change it or it would be bad for us to change it" I'm trying to roll with that. It was what the murky "" was supposed to indicate.

 

[Arakhor]

The mental image of homosexual hedgehog sex may well have damaged my own hormonal balance. Should have spoilered that one maybe.

Unsurprisingly, it's generally between female hedgehogs, rather than males.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, given that it's not a very useful term for describing anything past a vague description of "this is how it's always been and we either can't change it or it would be bad for us to change it" I'm trying to roll with that. It was what the murky "" was supposed to indicate.

Well yeah, tradition for tradition's sake is likely to lead to error.

But my point is that nothing in the laws of physics prevents murder or improper care of children. We work against those things because the evidence we have suggests that doing so is valuable to the best of our perception, at least to most people.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Unsurprisingly, it's generally between female hedgehogs, rather than males.

Like I needed even more details? Cruel...very cruel.

 

[Triewd]

TheMeInTeam

Is false. There is nothing we can observe from experiments or evidence that precludes same sex marriages from wanting children. Evidence I've seen suggests strongly that the opposite has a very high likelihood (for it not to be true, every gay couple claiming it would have to be lying, which is unlikely).

The act of giving birth directly without heavy surgery is constrained to women, but otherwise I similarly see no evidence as to how this supposedly violates natural law.

Ill stop you there and requote my source again:

Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.

I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man. Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary. There were times I felt so angry with my dad for not being there for me, and then times I felt angry with myself for even wanting a father to begin with. There are parts of me that still grieve over that loss today.

I’m not saying that you can’t be good parents. You can. I had one of the best. I’m also not saying that being raised by straight parents means everything will turn out okay. We know there are so many different ways that the family unit can break down and cause kids to suffer: divorce, abandonment, infidelity, abuse, death, etc. But by and large, the best and most successful family structure is one in which kids are being raised by both their mother and father.

Basically Children need a Mother and a Father there is no way around that.

That is fundamental.

 

[Farm Boy]

You've still missed the point of that, I think. There is a point, but that hard line drive of yours is aimed at the friendly dugout, not the beer bleachers. The author may very well be with you, fwiw.

 

[Arakhor]

Not that I'm doubting the good lady's sincerity, but that evidence is rather anecdotal.

 

[JollyRoger]

Basically Children need a Mother and a Father there is no way around that.

That is fundamental.

So chastity devices for all and procreation requires a government certificate and monitoring?