Haggard scandal renews controversy on sex therapy debate

[urban-hermit]

Thank you for your response. As you said, taking an expansive view is not so helpful in terms of determining which behaviors are beneficial for human beings and which are not. If we limit ourselves to a specific issue such as homosexuality, and to a specific definition of natural law, discussion will be more immediately productive and easier to participate in.

I would define natural law as the law of reason, because I am interested in better understanding the reasonableness of homosexual activity. Perhaps we should start a new thread where this can be discussed more efficiently. I am interested in better understanding what you are specifically referring to when you say there is “lots of disagreement” with regard to homosexual activity and natural law, because I do not think practically speaking that much serious disagreement exists when our terms are defined in such a way as to focus on what is objectively in the best interest of human beings.

Sarcasm is an art. Feel free to express yourself.

Most discussions I have seen about natural law limit it to human behavior. One could take an expansive view and say it encompasses all the natural sciences, too, but I’m not sure that would be helpful in the context of behavior.

Some say there is a natural law that defines acceptable human behavior. Then they define criteria for natural. Then they clasify behavior as in compliance or not. This notion turns on the discernment of the nature. Where there is disagreement on the nature, there is disagreement on the derivative natural law. Where there is disagreement on the derivative law, there is disagreement on behavioral compliance.

So, multiple interpretations coexist within the community that accepts the existence of natural law.

Others do not accept the existence of natural law. They do not accept that human nature is limited by anything other than the human imagination and do not accept that humans can corral it into a tidy set of behavioral laws.

Define the set of natural laws one is positing, and one can say if behavior is in compliance. Define another set and the exercise can be repeated. The same behavior is in compliance with one set, and out of compliance with another.

These few sentences are a gross disservice to the issue, leave out much which needs to be said, and only touch the surface of complex question. But I think they give an shallow overview of how disagreements about natural law can exist in our society, and how men of good will can have opposing views on controversial social issues.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Thank you for your response. As you said, taking an expansive view is not so helpful in terms of determining which behaviors are beneficial for human beings and which are not. If we limit ourselves to a specific issue such as homosexuality, and to a specific definition of natural law, discussion will be more immediately productive and easier to participate in.

I would define natural law as the law of reason, because I am interested in better understanding the reasonableness of homosexual activity. Perhaps we should start a new thread where this can be discussed more efficiently. I am interested in better understanding what you are specifically referring to when you say there is “lots of disagreement” with regard to homosexual activity and natural law, because I do not think practically speaking that much serious disagreement exists when our terms are defined in such a way as to focus on what is objectively in the best interest of human beings.

People can define natural law as the law of reason and still find homosexuality in compliance.

A simple explanation of “lots of disagreement:”

Observation is necessary to define the nature of man. One must observe humans and their behavior in order to discern their nature. The the observer posits a prioris and standards by which the observations will be considered within or without the nature of man. It is these aprioris andstandards that can differ from one observer to another. If we push, we can see that it is not natural law that is being developed, but an extension of those standards that are being proposed.

One can say the standard is reason, and another can come to different conclusions using the same standard. They can each recognize the different standards and starting points involved, and understand the process by which the other arrived at his conclusion. It’s not hard.

Again, this is an insufficient nutshell of an answer, and leaves gaping holes in an issue that deserves far more attention. But I do not hold that a disagreement about standards or natural law means one party or the other is dealing in bad faith, lacks intelligence, or suffers from a character defect.