tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post1368669095310366259..comments2022-11-25T01:39:28.941-07:00Comments on Nate in Salt Lake City: LDS Doctrine and Same-Sex Couples, part 2: Natural LawNate W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-26377684486209723482009-02-26T18:43:00.000-07:002009-02-26T18:43:00.000-07:00Micah: Agreed. Hermaphroditism (including ambiguou...Micah: Agreed. Hermaphroditism (including ambiguous genitalia and genitalia that does not match chromosome structure) is a major difficulty in the way of accepting sex (not gender) as an inherent or eternal construct.<BR/><BR/>Mark: Agree totally that natural law is a conclusory standard. I would freely admit that natural law may not be the same thing as natural man or behavior in nature, but if not that, what is it? the standard of "right reason" obscures more than it enlightens, and in the end, it is some sort of a moral intuition argument without any reliance on anything outside the self to determine right or wrong. <BR/><BR/>And, it would take a book to unpack the sentence you describe, but it refers to the fact that Mormons are materialists, not idealists. It starts with the idea that being is eternal and there is no such thing as immaterial matter and goes from there. Honestly, materialism is one of the things I find most appealing about the Mormon worldview. <BR/><BR/>I know that didn't really explain much, but I hope it helped a little.Nate W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03346853295987719998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-51849088757214128442009-02-26T11:02:00.000-07:002009-02-26T11:02:00.000-07:00Hey Nate. Thoughtful posts, as always. Here's my...Hey Nate. Thoughtful posts, as always. Here's my two cents:<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't rely on examples from elsewhere in the animal kingdom to justify any human behavior. There are examples of mammals who eat their young under strained circumstances, but that would do little to justify its emulation in the human realm. Can we not see humans as something more divine than rats?<BR/><BR/>The very premise that anything can be classified as "sin" implies that there is a right and wrong way to act. The existence of both types of behavior does not mean that neither is sinful. If you don't believe that any behavior is capable of being classified as sinful, then we should be having a different conversation.<BR/><BR/>The common use of the modifier "natural" in "Natural Law" and "natural man" is unfortunate, and does not necessarily require that Natural Law is that to which a natural man is obedient. Ironically, it's generally the opposite. But then again, I find "Natural Law" to be ill-defined by both the proponents and opponents thereof.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me to my conclusion: I hate natural law arguments. They are probably the most conclusory arguments I have ever heard. It generally comes down to "because I said so."<BR/><BR/>You may be on to something with your last paragraph.<BR/><BR/>Can you explain the meaning of: "Mormonism tacitly denies that the natural world possesses any intrinsic or God-given moral purpose." What is "the natural world" and what would it mean for it to have a "moral purpose"? Without further guidance, I find these statements vague and unhelpful, but I'm not a philosophy major.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14555401679927449510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6964838309830106124.post-25407726443365343152009-02-24T12:31:00.000-07:002009-02-24T12:31:00.000-07:00I wonder if Natural Law theory also hits bumps in ...I wonder if Natural Law theory also hits bumps in its road because a notable portion of people across all cultures, geographies, and time are born with indistinguishable genitalia. <BR/><BR/>If God wanted gender and gender-oriented behavior to be so finite and precise, why would such mutations regularly occur?<BR/><BR/>Just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com