New law would FORCE everyone to hire gays

[GreenJeans]

Sure. If someone claims they are expressing themselves by walking into a public school naked I would claim that is not legitimate.

We once allowed chattel slavery. Not all laws are just.

I see no great similarity betwen religious affliation and unnatural acts?

1. I would consider the naked stroller as expressing himself quite well. It would be very authentic, but not allowed. The same would be true of aguy dragging across through rush hour traffic on he interstate.
2. I agree laws an be unjust. However, under our laws homosxual sexul activity is protected by law.
3. The similarity is that both activities are legal and protected by our laws. We live under law, not various groups’ individual notions of what is natural.

 

[JimG]

With “protected class” status, however, many organziations would have to include sexual orientation in their Affirmative Action plans.

Not only that, they would likely have to put “sexual orientation” as a block to filled out on employment and other applications.

A similar situation arose with regards to racial discrimination and civil rights laws. I recall that questions regarding race were removed from loan applications; even asking the question was considered discriminatory. So it was taken off.

Later, organizations representing minority groups lobbied to have it put back on. Without the identification question, they couldn’t gather the statistics to determine whether or not discrimination was occurring.

 

[cor]

The two fields, while sharing the same name, are inter-related but they are distinct. One can believe in the natural law (the moral law that arises out of the nature of things) while disagreeing with the notion that human positive law ought be an expression of and only of the natural law (for example, one might believe that human positive law should also express positive divine law in a Catholic country – or for that matter objectively speaking in all countries).

The theory of law known as “natural law” is to be compared with alternative theories such as the traditional model or the Law and Economics model.

When I wrote positive in my post and also in this one, it is not referring to “legal positivism.” It’s referring to the distinction made between “natural law” and “positive law” An example of a positive law would be the command to be baptized. Another example would be the command to drive on a certain side of the road. Some positive laws are technically also natural laws or are closely related to natural laws (such as laws criminalizing murder)

All right. Time to break it down a bit.

Here’s the nickel tour:

According to NL theory as expressed by Aquinas, there are four types of law:

1. Eternal Law - basically, God’s conception of things
2. Divine Law - what God has revealed to us through Divine Revelation (think 10 Commandments)
3. Natural Law - the law written into our nature as humans and knowable by reason alone (though with error and difficulty). Included are the general precepts to seek the good and avoid evil, to know and to choose, to live in community, to propagate the species, and to preserve self (Aquinas).
4. Human Law - the civil law, including constitutions and statutes. Aquinas might say that HL is an order of reason promulgated by one with proper authority for the common good. How do you figure out what’s in the common good? NL.

According to NL theory, the NL constitutes the boundaries of the HL. If a HL were to be enacted which was outside of the bounds of the NL (like, say, rounding up all the Jews and killing them), that would not be law but rather a perversion of it. It would not be binding, and should be disobeyed.

Are NL and HL distinct concepts? Yes, by their very definition they are distinct.

According to the NL, is the NL morally binding? Yes.

According to the NL, is the HL morally binding? In as much as it is valid law, yes.

For these reasons, I don’t think the distinction you made between a “theory of ethics/morals” and a “theory of civil/human law” isn’t a very good distinction.

Maybe a book? This was one of the texts my instructor, the author, used during the course on Law and Morality I just finished. It’s a popular level reader, if that would be helpful. If you wanted something a little more academic, I would recommend a different book. It’s a much tougher read, but worth it.

What about Positivism or Positive Law?

Positivists (like Austin or Kelsen) assert that law is only the will of the sovereign, whether a single individual, a small group, or the majority. Under the Positivist approach, if a law is enacted it is valid law and must be obeyed. So if the majority happens to pass a law stating that all Jews must be rounded up and killed, it is a valid law and those who are subject to it are compelled to carry it out.

This is part of why the WWII trials were such a difficult thing! The Germans were Positivists! If we tried them *as *Positivists, they would have gotten off scott-free because “they were just following orders” – and those orders were, to the Positivist, valid orders.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[cor]

1. I would consider the naked stroller as expressing himself quite well. It would be very authentic, but not allowed.

He would definitely be expressing things like his intention, his emotions, or his desires – and in that sense “himself” – but is he expressing his true objective nature? A man who wears feminine clothing despite expressing his intention, emotions, desires, beliefs, would not be expressing his true objective nature (the fact that he is a man).

Nevertheless, I believe most forms of expression ought be protected (I say most because I don’t think bestiality should be protected for example).

I agree with you that homosexuals engaging in private homosexual conduct should not be punished. Because to be punished by the State one must have violated the common good in some way. If the conduct were in public however, it may violate the common good (by being disturbing to passersby).

Those who wish to stroll around naked can do so at a “nude beach” or some other venue and thus avoid being a disturbance to the majority.

The same would be true of aguy dragging across through rush hour traffic on he interstate.

We live under law, not various groups’ individual notions of what is natural.

I am not certain of this, but I’ve been told that Clarence Thomas holds to the legal school of thought known as “natural law” (Scalia evidently does not, though he does believe in the existence of the natural law as an ethical theory)

 

[GreenJeans]

1. I have no idea how one expresses their true, objective nature, and doubt the naked stroller would either. However, I did see a bit on TV a few year ago about a woman in California who walked all around town naked. The town had laws against obscenity, but her actions didn’t qualify. So, she went everywhere in the buff. They showed her grocery shopping, driving, going to the dry cleaners, etc. She was about 45 years old, 5ft 5in tall and weighed 180lb. She said she saved money on clothing, but spent more on sunblock.
2. I say we live under laws rather than various ideas of what is natural because there are conflicting ideas of what is natural. Hence, the law allows a common standard for all those people with differeing views of nature.
3. Thomas’ ideas on natrual law are interesting because while he sided with the majority in the recent partial birth abortion case, he indicated he maybe sympathetic to a commerce clause challenge to the same law. This implies he is making decisions based on the legal evidence and issues presented. He upheld the law this time, but might strike it down next time. Scalia joined Thomas in the concurrance. (Note: This is a bit like reading tea leaves.)

 

[Urf]

Rather than dismissing it out of hand as a “religious principle”, explain how natural law is not a universal application of principles that guide the choices of men and the laws that govern societies?

Are eye glasses natural? Survival of the fittest is natural, but no one insists on letting the weak die, do they? What about our civilization is natural? Please tell.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Nooooo… because a pedophile has commited a crime. Being gay is not a crime. Being a pedophile is.

Kim

Acting on it is a crime, not being.
While there may be pedophiles of both orientations the percentages far lean toward homosexuality being an indicator of pedophilia as a percentage of the population versus a percentage of pedophiles

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

Of course in such an agenda driven discussion, biased researching will occur but the % proportion of offenders versus the % of self identified homosexuals should be established numbers and seem to indicate a correlation between perverse sexual behaviour and further perverse sexual behavior.

Remember please, such actions are a grave sin, regardless of what practicioners and worldly people and well intentioned people who do not follow the Master may advocate.

 

[Mirdath]

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

Of course in such an agenda driven discussion, biased researching will occur

You say this after citing WorldNetDaily (which also has a marked anti-Catholic bias, so you know) and Family Research Council? No, I’m not buying it.

 

[RyanL]

Are eye glasses natural? Survival of the fittest is natural, but no one insists on letting the weak die, do they? What about our civilization is natural? Please tell.

I say we live under laws rather than various ideas of what is natural because there are conflicting ideas of what is natural. Hence, the law allows a common standard for all those people with differeing views of nature.

Both of these statements present an understanding of natural law which is at odds with the definition given by those who present the theory. Natural law doesn’t concern itself with what is “natural” (according to the common usage), but rather what is in accordance with our nature as humans. For example, murder is “natural” among humans (it’s found in every human society), but it is not in accordance with our nature. Rape is “natural” among humans, but it is not in accordance with our nature. Conversely, books are “unnatural”, but reading them is in accordance with our nature.

Thomas’ ideas on natrual law are interesting because while he sided with the majority in the recent partial birth abortion case, he indicated he maybe sympathetic to a commerce clause challenge to the same law. This implies he is making decisions based on the legal evidence and issues presented. He upheld the law this time, but might strike it down next time. Scalia joined Thomas in the concurrance. (Note: This is a bit like reading tea leaves.)

Justice Thomas is an Originalist who doesn’t believe in stare decisis; rather, he believes in construing the documents according to the meaning of the words at the time they were written. It’s a very principled approach. He doesn’t see abortion anywhere in the text, so he’s never going to affirm any “right to an abortion” as being afforded by the Constitution. Same with Scalia.

Interestingly, both of these guys believe in the Natural Law, although Scalia says that he took an oath to uphold the positive law; should the two conflict, he would most likely remove himself from the verdict, refusing to give weight to a properly enacted positive law which is unjust under Natural Law principles.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

You say this after citing WorldNetDaily (which also has a marked anti-Catholic bias, so you know) and Family Research Council? No, I’m not buying it.

W.D. Erickson et al., Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters

regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6506&longdesc

I can keep drilling down, but it takes time.

 

[GreenJeans]

Both of these statements present an understanding of natural law which is at odds with the definition given by those who present the theory. Natural law doesn’t concern itself with what is “natural” (according to the common usage), but rather what is in accordance with our nature as humans. For example, murder is “natural” among humans (it’s found in every human society), but it is not in accordance with our nature. Rape is “natural” among humans, but it is not in accordance with our nature. Conversely, books are “unnatural”, but reading them is in accordance with our nature.

Justice Thomas is an Originalist who doesn’t believe in stare decisis; rather, he believes in construing the documents according to the meaning of the words at the time they were written. It’s a very principled approach. He doesn’t see abortion anywhere in the text, so he’s never going to affirm any “right to an abortion” as being afforded by the Constitution. Same with Scalia.

Interestingly, both of these guys believe in the Natural Law, although Scalia says that he took an oath to uphold the positive law; should the two conflict, he would most likely remove himself from the verdict, refusing to give weight to a properly enacted positive law which is unjust under Natural Law principles.

God Bless,
RyanL

1. My statement wasn’t an exposition of natural law, and is probably at odds with many things it didn’t address. It was addressed to Fix and his use of “unnatural acts.” Perhaps he can tell us what he means.
2. Thomas is also no friend of the commerce clause. His one para concurrance with the majority highlights the fact that this case did not include a commerce clause challenge. In the case of the federal partial birth law, the commerce clause is the wedge used to secure federal involvement. Therefore, there is speculation that he would overturn the partial birth ban on a commerce clause challenge. Scala joined his opinion.

 

[GreenJeans]

W.D. Erickson et al., Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters

regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6506&longdesc

I can keep drilling down, but it takes time.

Is there any general conslusion that can be drawn about a group that has a higher than normal characteristic?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Is there any general conslusion that can be drawn about a group that has a higher than normal characteristic?

Good question. I am an alcoholic (not practicing anmore ) Now, had i recognized my predisposition and had I a bit more prudence I might have taken steps to avoid occasions of sin that studies show I was vulnerable too and nont fallen down in the first place.

Every plan needs a foundation in the truth. By understanding myself and what motivates me I am better able to practice the virtue of temperance, so it would be with chastity.

 

[fix]

1. I would consider the naked stroller as expressing himself quite well. It would be very authentic, but not allowed. The same would be true of aguy dragging across through rush hour traffic on he interstate.

Nothing authentic about it. Any desire one may hold does not translate into a protected expression of freedom. Freedom includes boundaries.

1. I agree laws an be unjust. However, under our laws homosxual sexul activity is protected by law.

Again, that they exist does not prove they are just.

1. The similarity is that both activities are legal and protected by our laws. We live under law, not various groups’ individual notions of what is natural.

The activities may be legal, for now, but they are not similar in any other way. The law certainly should not contradict what is natural, should it?

 

[GreenJeans]

Nothing authentic about it. Any desire one may hold does not translate into a protected expression of freedom. Freedom includes boundaries.

Again, that they exist does not prove they are just.

The activities may be legal, for now, but they are not similar in any other way. The law certainly should not contradict what is natural, should it?

1. Authentic expression is accurate and effective. Protected expression is expression that enjoys the protection of some outside agency. Authentic expression may be illegal, and it may be unprotected.
2. 1. Homosexual activity is legal, 2) Homosexual activity is protected under law, 3) Some think laws which guarantee legality and protection are not just.
3. Different people have different views of what is natural. The law never makes everyone happy. Those who think homosexuality is natural are happy with the law. Those who don’t are not.

 

[GreenJeans]

Good question. I am an alcoholic (not practicing anmore ) Now, had i recognized my predisposition and had I a bit more prudence I might have taken steps to avoid occasions of sin that studies show I was vulnerable too and nont fallen down in the first place.

Every plan needs a foundation in the truth. By understanding myself and what motivates me I am better able to practice the virtue of temperance, so it would be with chastity.

OK. You said “While there may be pedophiles of both orientations the percentages far lean toward homosexuality being an indicator of pedophilia as a percentage of the population versus a percentage of pedophiles.”

So, if we have a population with a higher than normal incidence of a particular characteristic, can we say membership in that population is an indicator of the characteristic?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

So, if we have a population with a higher than normal incidence of a particular characteristic, can we say membership in that population is an indicator of the characteristic?

No, not without further understanding than we have regarding human sexuality and its derivations. As I said in another thread, for secular concerns it is better to deal with effects because determining causes are very difficult; however, for the subject in the base group, prudence would dictate an especial attention to the virtue of chastity, especially and ultimately for the following reason:

Hence to use this divine gift [conjugal love] while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[GreenJeans]

No, not without further understanding than we have regarding human sexuality and its derivations. As I said in another thread, for secular concerns it is better to deal with effects because determining causes are very difficult; however, for the subject in the base group, prudence would dictate an especial attention to the virtue of chastity, especially and ultimately for the following reason:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I agree we lack the understanding of sexuality.

 

[goofyjim]

As everyone knows I do not practice the gay lifestyle but I would hate to think an employer could fire me if they found out I live with same sex attraction.

 

[GreenJeans]

As everyone knows I do not practice the gay lifestyle but I would hate to think an employer could fire me if they found out I live with same sex attraction.

Continued employment of a gay may be contrary to the moral judgement and religious belief of someone if they saw homosexuality as an abomination. Likewise, continued employment of a Catholic might be contrary to the moal judgement and religious belief of someone else if they saw the pope as the anti-Christ. Why should people be forced into conflict with their religious belief?