"One is in harmony with natural law or one isn't." Okay. But what is the criteria? There are lots and lots of people who are willing to tell you how you should live your life so as to be in accord with their beliefs about the way things *should* be; you are one, apparently, lots of priests and mullahs are in that category, Rick Santorum and a lot of Republicans are, too; lots of people want to tell others how they *should* be, but they all use different criteria (or rather, they mostly cite different books).
Is there a simple, universal criteria that you use? *Is* there any simple, universal criteria?Saying "natural law" doesn't mean anything without an agreed upon definition (and it's obvious that when emotions are involved, even an otherwise intelligent person can't get their emotional responses to submit to a dictionary definition of a commonly used term.) There is a lot to be said for "live and let live" even when you don't see eye to eye with choices others make. (And I'm not saying that doing manifest harm to another is okay; however, speculation that harm might somehow be perpetrated in some magical spiritual fashion isn't, in my opinion, grounds for attacking, demonizing, and coercing others to act and be a certain way on the "material plane".) It appears to me that most people read and listen primarily to sources that already agree with their pre-formed opinions and presumptions. It's uncomfortable to examine perspective different from one's own, and I'm just as prone to that as the next guy or gal; however, I take comfort in finding that over time my feelings and understanding about different and (to me) important subjects have modified and changed. Leads me to believe I'm still working on getting to some aspect of what's true and not settling for a comfortable lie. *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" <anitaoaks4u@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior > > > > Many people, though far fewer than still needed to put to rest moral > > judgments of purely natural behavior, believe and feel that homosexual > > orientation is just what some percentage of any population feels. It has no > > moral significance whatsoever for lots and lots of folks. > > > > Your argument appears to be that people who are homosexual should adopt > > your moral interpretation and then feel bad about themselves. Just imagine > > for a moment, if you will, your worst fears realized and a now majority > > empowered gay society really *did* want to impose their homosexual values > > and orientation on you. Telling you that it was evil and wrong to feel the > > way you do about members of the opposite sex. Wouldn't that seem wrong? > > Isn't your sexual attraction towards others (or lack thereof) just a > > fundamental element of your personhood? > > > > The "homesexuality is unnatural" argument carries no weight as evidenced in > > the science of simple observation of all the examples in nature. > > One is in harmony with Natural Law and one isn't, "the moon is not disturbed > by the baying of wolves", the truth will always remain the same, it's just up > to us to discover what this truth is. >
