John, I am shocked and amazed to see someone of your caliber joining in a bar brawl.
Ha! Sometimes you just have to intervene to save the inocente!!
You must have missed the bit about two thirds of Spanish, in a mostly Catholic country, approving LGBT unions.
No. My response was to your comments, not what two thirds of Spanish people think. After all, you said the words “perverts” and “sodomy”, as used by Charlemagne II were “loaded words”. In other words, you belittled the use of those words because you know full well that their true meanings make what two thirds of Spanish people have decided to accept rather distasteful.
You must have missed the bit about two thirds of Spanish, in a mostly Catholic country, approving LGBT unions.
Nice attempt at sidestepping once again. Because two thirds of Spanish people decide to make a wrong acceptable by law doesn’t alter the wrongness of that which they decide to accept. Nor does it make equal that which is, by nature, unequal.
You must have missed the bit about etc.
And this is your answer to me asking you * “Doesn’t the word “pervert” have any meaning with you anymore?” *Well, does it?
Yes, there are versions of natural law ethics which don’t condemn gays.
You made that one up!
It depends on the catalog of goods, and the decision about which goods are placed in the catalog is subjective
Natural Law is the only objective ethical system mankind has. If you think the contents of the “catologue of goods” are subjectively arrived at, then you have inadvertently condemned all science to the basket of subjectivity.
All other systems of ethics also involve subjectivity of course, but most don’t condemn homosexuality either.
All objective criteria describe homosexuality as disordered and certainly not normative.
Without looking, the only system I remember that does is the Thomas Aquinas version of natural law.
I think you are confusing Natural Law moral theory with Natural Law legal theory. The latter has divergent interpretations, whilst the former is committed only to the objectivity of moral norms.
Did you miss that was a quote from someone else?
Are you referring to our Abe Lincoln quote? Shame you didn’t read my response properly, because I provided another Abe Lincoln quote for your edification!
If some of this post seems a bit flippant it’s because of those kind of remarks. Plus you wrote a lot and I’m late for an appointment. Sorry.
My remarks weren’t flippant. What I did was give you a very Spanish example of the hypocrisy involved in giving certain ‘rights’ to one group of people, while denying certain ‘rights’ to another group of people The notion of “equality” is thus rendered to be little more than one of expediency.
Our president speaks of senseless suffering. Spain is a monarchy, the word president means president of the government, i.e. prime minister. Congress and the Senate both voted it through. Several other democracies have done the same. They regard biased treatment of citizens for no good reason to be senseless.
Senseless suffering!! Tell that to the Basques who have been brutalised for centuries. Meanwhile you have fallen for the propoganda that would have us believe that gays have “suffered” because they couldn’t “marry”. I still await an answer to my query about my intense suffering because I can’t marry my dog. After all, it’s just plain unfair!!
John, I am shocked and amazed to see someone of your caliber joining in a bar brawl.
And that’s your answer to my posting this - *“You are confusing ‘secular’ with ‘immoral’. Hitler and Stalin were heads of secular states. Do you celebrate their reigns?” *Inocente, you celebrate secualrism, yet are blind to what it can turn up and is turning up in society when objective morality is forgotten.
It’s a bar room brawl because you drink the bad grog, shoot from the hip, miss the target and instead blow out all the windows, shatter the bottles and even wound the bartender.
Meanwhile the rest of us lean on the bar casually drinking in perfect safety because you can’t shoot straight!!
