Apr 3rd, 2009 at 10:02 am
Iowa Court Strikes a Blow for Equality
Good news for Iowa gay couples: “The Iowa Supreme Court says the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.”
Clearly I’m not in a position to comment on legal issues relating the interpretation of the Iowa constitution, but it seems clear to me that discrimination against gay and lesbian couples violates the values of equality and due process that underlie the U.S. constitution and most state constitutions that I’m familiar with.
78 Responses to “Iowa Court Strikes a Blow for Equality”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
Those damn blue-state liberals, always trying to impose their coastal-elitist values on our…..
wait….Iowa?
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
Actually, Iowa is sorta a blue state (just not a coastal one).
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
I think it is important to note that the decision was unanimous. There isn’t much of a legal argument in favor of discrimination.
Also, Iowa has always been socially progressive, if not politically blue.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Yeah, I too am surprised that the decision was unanimous. I am interested in learning what aspect of Iowa law makes the issue so clear.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
It was, as Matt noted, all about the equal protection clause in the Iowa state constitution.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
I can’t say I really disagree with this decision. Once we allow marriage to voluntarily childless couples, and to divorced people, and to people who think marriage has no more meaning than whatever they arbitrarily choose to give it, and once we tolerate all manner of heterosexual wrongdoing, from pornography to adultery, it’s hard to say that civil marriage has any connection left to either the natural-law or the Christian definitions of marriage. If we want to restore some manner of sexual sanity and decency in America, we need to start with the straight people. Homosexuals are really a side issue, and even if homosexual acts are always wrong (I’m on the fence about that), they’re no more wrong than, say, whacking off.
I don’t want gay marriages to be performed by churches, and I don’t want them to be performed by constitutively Christian countries- no gay marriage in Poland, Peru or Santo Domingo. But beyond that, I have no real problems with a secular and irreligious country like America choosing to allow civil marriage to gays. Hopefully then, decent straight and gay people can start working together on the real threats to sexual sanity in America- things like easy divorce, casual sex, pornography, and abortion.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Andrew Sullivan posted this link to the summary of the ruling that explains the court’s reasoning:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209143.PDF
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
IMHO, as a nerdy law student, the money quote from the opinion, after they decide that gays are subject to intermediate scrutiny is this one, re the arguments for traditional marriage:
“A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes . . . when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Re: A person who really approached natual law without an anti-sex bias would understand that the involuntarily childless, the voluntarily childless, and gay couples can all have sex, and indeed be married, in accordance with natural law.
Er, no, DTM. The sexual function in human beings is naturally oriented towards two things: the formation of love and friendship within a long-term pair-bond, and the bearing and rearing of children. As the function of walking is locomotion, the function of speaking is to convey truth, and the function of eating is both to enjoy taste, and to repair and construct the body. Now, a sexual relationship need not be a procreative marriage in order to be licit. But it must be oriented to the goal of developing into a procreative marriage, or at least open to that goal.
Not every sex act needs to be either marital or procreative. But a sexual relationship which deliberately excludes, for its entire life, the possibility of marriage and procreation is not just falling short of these goals, but is actively contravening them. Involuntarily childlessness is not comparable, since a sin requires the exercise and consent of the will.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Nice catch, Zach. That’s a tidy demolition of what passes for legal “reasoning” in conservative circles.
I’m anxious about how this will play in Dubuque, but cautiously optimistic. Congratulations to the people of Iowa. Score one for basic human decency.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
There is no such thing as “Natural Law”.
It is nothing more than a man made construct to support a personal philosophy. I automatically dismiss anyone who points to “Natural Law” as a basis for their reasoning.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Did Iowa just hand the election to John McCain?
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Hey, DTM, LaFollette Progressive, give Hector a break. He’s being consistent in his principles and honest about it, and he’s not being bigoted against gays. I know I, personally, would be thrilled if the religious right boogeymen would put as much energy into fighting divorce and whacking off as they put into fighting the existence of gay people.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 am
The fine logical reasoning of Natural Law Hector:
A. “The sexual function in human beings is naturally oriented towards two things: the formation of love and friendship within a long-term pair-bond, and the bearing and rearing of children.”
OK. I don’t entirely agree, but that’s at least a defensible claim with some rudimentary grounding in biology.
B. “Not every sex act needs to be either marital or procreative. But a sexual relationship which deliberately excludes, for its entire life, the possibility of marriage and procreation is not just falling short of these goals, but is actively contravening them.”
This is a nice bit of three-card monte. Gays and lesbians who wish to marry, just like infertile straight couples and widowed senior citizens, are seeking love and friendship within a long-term pair bond. So therefore, all of these groups are meeting one of the two natural law requirements you’ve laid out. But now you’ve played your card trick… gays and lesbians (unlike the other parties mentioned earlier) have no possibility of marriage because you are deliberately discriminating against them. And then you justify this discrimination on the grounds that they have no possibility of marriage.
Why? Because you say so.
The beauty of natural law philosophy is that nature’s lawyers always take your side in an argument and never show up to dispute your claims. Which is probably why it’s so popular with opinionated know-nothings.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Most of what the “Protect Marriage” people say in terms of arguments are bullshit – if marriage is about procreation, for example, then how come we let verifiably sterile people get married? That wasn’t always the case; if I recall correctly, a nobleman in the Middle Ages and later periods used to be able to divorce his wife (which was generally hard to do at the time) by claiming she was barren.
In any case, I hope this survives the inevitable State Constitutional Amendment drive that will follow in Iowa. It would be nice to get a Midwest state with gay marriage permitted – perhaps that might convince some of the borderfencers that gay marriage won’t lead to Massive Societal and Moral Decadence.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
La Follette Progressive,
Are you asking what I think is right for the United States, or what would be right for Florence-in-the-Andes? Because I’ve got to tell you- Florence-in-the-Andes would not extend marriage rights to gay people, true. But it would also not extend marriage rights to voluntarily childless people, the guilt part in a divorce, and a Bishops’ Blacklist of people judged to be ideologically opposed or ignorant of the foundations of Christian or natural-law marriage.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
“Natural law”? Bah!
“Law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified”–O. W. Holmes,Jr.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
DTM,
Natural law in this sense becomes a matter of determining through observation and reason–in other words, determining scientifically in the broad sense–what is conducive to human flourishing.
Why does something have to be conducive to “human flourishing” to be part of natural law? And define “human flourishing.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Why should I accept the premise that homosexual marriage is not oriented toward children?
This premise is false. It’s true that such couples can’t have children by sexual means. However, they can adopt. Two loving parents are conducive to raising a child. Moreover, lesbian couples can undergo artificial insemination (or do it the old fashioned way).
Not that it matters. I see no reason why every single marriage needs to be oriented toward children.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Er, no, DTM. The sexual function in human beings is naturally oriented towards two things: the formation of love and friendship within a long-term pair-bond, and the bearing and rearing of children. As the function of walking is locomotion, the function of speaking is to convey truth, and the function of eating is both to enjoy taste, and to repair and construct the body. “.
Right, and for dogs the function of chasing is to run down and catch rabbits for food. Likewise, cats stalk and pounce to catch mice for food
That’s why Dogs never chase Frisbees and cats never pounce on balls of yarn
Because that would be unnatural
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
DTM, your version of natural law is certainly more to my taste than Hector’s, but it still boils down to the simple problem that tradition and cultural mores are far more powerful, in terms of observational filtering and ideological interpellation, than reason. Therefore it tends to become a tabula rasa upon which people inscribe their preconceived notions and assign them the authority of law.
A decent, liberal-minded person will draw decent, liberal conclusions from a natural law inquiry. A fascist will draw fascist conclusions. And Hector will draw idiosyncratic, possibly insane conclusions.
Which is not to say that there is nothing to be gained, ever, from observing nature and using reason to infer moral principles. But I think the phrase “natural law” comes pre-loaded with false authority and a great deal of baggage.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Hector,
But a sexual relationship which deliberately excludes, for its entire life, the possibility of marriage and procreation is not just falling short of these goals, but is actively contravening them.
How is the choice of two men to marry any more “deliberate” a contravention of the goal of procreation than that of a woman who has had a hysterectomy and her beloved?
You aren’t really going to give me a reply about a miracle, are you?
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Joe in Lowell,
Re: How is the choice of two men to marry any more “deliberate” a contravention of the goal of procreation than that of a woman who has had a hysterectomy and her beloved?
Did she already have a child? And was the hysterectomy for medical reasons? The choice of a healthy, childless couple in a long-term relationship, to get themselves deliberately sterilized in order to avoid children is also wrong, I think.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Re: “Law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified”–O. W. Holmes,Jr.
Yes, Rea. There is a Sovereign. And he can be identified, as Anselm showed.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
DTM, fair enough. To be clear, my objection to natural law philosophy has more to do with the hubris of those who take the “law” aspect of it at face value. But then, the same could be said for any totalizing philosophical worldview. There’s nothing at all wrong with using it as one model among many for engaging with the world.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Hector,
Did she already have a child? And was the hysterectomy for medical reasons?
Yes, she had a hysterectomy after experiencing severe bleeding giving birth 20 years ago. Her husband died 12 years ago, and now she’s met someone she wants to marry, and who wants to marry her.
Those two have the same 100% certainty that their union will never produce a child as any gay couple in America. Why is their choice to marry any more a deliberate effort to avoid procreation than that of a gay couple?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Given the lack of trolls even touching this topic, I’m pretty sure that the right-wing has pretty much given up on opposing gay marriage. even at The Corner, the best they can muster is discussion of how Iowa should pass “residency requirements” to regulate gay marriage there. (K-Lo, predictably, links to Mitt Romney’s statement he released responding to the news). They’ve given up. They know there’s no outrage to be milked from this, anymore.
Seriously, where’s Al? Where’s charles/Mixner? not even James Robertson to opine on the suburban Maryland conservative’s take on the issue.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
DTM,
That is more in the way of a postulate or a definition than a conclusion.
So why “postulate” or define “natural law” in that way? It doesn’t make any sense. Natural diseases and natural disasters are governed by laws of nature (”natural laws”) but they are hardly conducive to “human flourishing.” And what if humans can only “flourish” at the cost of harm to other species? Why should we define “natural law” to privilege human beings over parts of the natural world?
Anyway, I think you could get broad consensus on the view that human flourishing involves individuals rationally using their abilities and capacities to their fullest practical potential.
I’m asking you what you mean by the term as you are using it, not what you think other people mean by it. Your description above seems to support actions that are not usually understood to be ethical. For instance, it may be “rational” for someone to use their abilities and capacities to murder other people. Is that consistent with “human flourishing?”
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Re Hector
I’m curious as to what Mr. Hector finds objectionable about pornography. I am also curious as to what constitutes pornography in his opinion.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I’m curious as to why Hector would even want to live in this country. You’d think that Saudi Arabia would be more to his liking. Saudi Arabia certainly has the social policies that Hector pines for. I guess his hatred of Islam exceeds his desire for Medieval sensibility.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Involuntarily childlessness is not comparable, since a sin requires the exercise and consent of the will.
“Sin” has no legal bearing, but the use of it does help identify the superstitious morons in the room.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Fostert,
Moving down to Santo Domingo or Ayacucho and being a sweet potato farmer would be more my cup of tea than Saudi Arabia. Actually, Saudi Arabia is remarkably similar to the United States, in that both Jefferson and Muhammed were, at bottom, warmed-over variants of the ancient error of Arianism. I.e. both Jefferson and Muhammed believed that Jesus was a nice guy, but not Divine. And as one might guess, a unitary view of God leads inevitably to a unitary view of politics. The apostles of Jefferson who seek a world united under the dollar and the ballot box, are remarkably similar to the apostles of Muhammed who seek a world united under the Quran. Christians, on the other hand, believe in diversity of persons, even as God Himself is a diversity of persons (three, to be exact).
SLC, I have to run, but I’d be glad to discuss why pornography is gravely against nature later. Indeed, I suspect St. Jude (and his Divine cousin) would be substantially more horrified by pornography than he would be by the relatively tame (by ancient world standards) examples of monogamous homosexual relationships. ‘Against nature’ is precisely what pornography is.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
DTM,
So by way of background, “natural law” in the relevant sense applies to human conduct, so that is why the primary focus is on human beings. Other parts of the natural world, including animals, are subject to the laws of nature, but not “natural law” in this sense because they are not rational beings.
How do you know there are no rational beings except humans? How do you know that animals are not rational beings? There is overwhelming evidence that some animal species are capable of rational thought. And you just said you are defining or “postulating” natural law, so why define it in a way that privileges human beings over other parts of nature?
But that of course doesn’t mean other parts of the natural world cannot be objects of natural law, meaning that there would be some guidance on how humans should interact with the natural world.
But you just defined “natural law” in terms of “human flourishing.” So if harming or exploiting animals, or any other species (e.g. intelligent extraterrestrials), is conducive to “human flourishing” it is consistent with “natural law” as you have described it. Even exterminating another species entirely would be consistent with natural law, as you have defined it, if it promoted “human flourishing.”
Well, first you have to back up and ask if this murder is really rational. To summarize an extremely complex subject, human beings are social beings and we individually flourish when we work together peacefully and cooperatively, in what are sometimes called “civil societies”. Crimes like murder tend to undermine civil society.
That doesn’t mean every murder or every instance of every other kind of crime undermines civil society. Your criterion was “rationality,” and there are circumstances under which it may be rational for one person to murder another.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Actually, Saudi Arabia is remarkably similar to the United States, in that both Jefferson and Muhammed were, at bottom, warmed-over variants of the ancient error of Arianism. I.e. both Jefferson and Muhammed believed that Jesus was a nice guy, but not Divine.
That’s not “Arianism.” Not even close.
Why aren’t there any intelligent people on the other side of this issue?
Oh, right.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Wow. Every time I think Hector is just a little crazy, he proves me wrong. He’s clearly full on crazy. I used to think he was more reasonable than Randall Terry (with whom I’ve had extensive conversations), but now I’m not so sure.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
He’s clearly full on crazy.
Since he has “argued” that the US = Saudi Arabia because Arianism = Nestorianism, I’ll reserve judgment on “crazy” and assume for now that he’s just plain stupid.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“both Jefferson and Muhammed believed that Jesus was a nice guy, but not Divine.”
I’m with them on that. Although I take it on a somewhat strange path from there. I think Jesus was a great Bodhisattva. In Buddhism, nobody is divine, but Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are respected dearly. Jesus does deserve that respect, and I give it to him. But the Son of God? No way. That characterization might have some legitimacy if God existed. But even then, it’s a big stretch, as the Muslims so wisely make clear. If God exists, He surely doesn’t need a sidekick. And to divide God the way the Christians do is simply offensive to God. But that’s fine with me because He doesn’t exist anyway.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I have my opinions on this issue, but I find it very hard to believe that sharing them in this context will convince anybody (short version: The gay marriage movement goes the wrong way by insisting on celebrating homosexual marriage because homosexuality is oh so totally, effectively similarly situated to heterosexuality, as opposed to celebrating homosexual relationshiphs on their own terms because they make people happy leads us in a stupid direction). So instead I’ve gone through the comments section and will argue with people based on things they have said that are completely ancillary to the main issue.
Sick of the Stupids,
What do you mean by talking about Nestorianism? If you mean that Nestor was closer to the Koranic than Jeffersonian view of Jesus (The Meaning of the Koran talks about Christ and Jesus as being interestingly seperate), but what Hector describes as Arianism (in a popularized and off-hand way) is waaay closer to Arianism than it is to Nestorianism which has seperate divine and human natures within Jesus.
I would be cool with “I think you mean Nestorianism, not Arianism.” Then you would just be wrong, but your snarky misrepresentation of people’s words and your insistence that people are stupid for knowing the difference between Arianism and Nestorianism make me less likely to sympathize with you. Hector may be stupid (Anselm’s proof of God which Hector seems to find convincing is not very convincing to me.)
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
BETTER VERSION
I have my opinions on this issue, but I find it very hard to believe that sharing them in this context will convince anybody (short version: The gay marriage movement goes the wrong way by insisting on celebrating homosexual marriage because homosexuality is oh so totally, effectively similarly situated to heterosexuality, as opposed to celebrating homosexual relationshiphs on their own terms because they make people happy. The former leads us in a stupid direction). So instead I’ve gone through the comments section and will argue with people based on things they have said that are completely ancillary to the main issue.
Sick of the Stupids,
What do you mean by talking about Nestorianism? If you mean that Nestor was closer to the Koranic than Jeffersonian view of Jesus (The Meaning of the Koran talks about Christ and Jesus as being interestingly seperate) that’s fine, but what Hector describes as Arianism (in a popularized and off-hand way) is waaay closer to Arianism than it is to Nestorianism which has seperate divine and human natures as part of Jesus (again, popularized and off-hand).
I would be cool with “I think you mean Nestorianism, not Arianism.” Then you would just be wrong, but your snarky misrepresentation of people’s words and your insistence that people are stupid for knowing the difference between Arianism and Nestorianism make me less likely to sympathize with you. Hector may be stupid (Anselm’s proof of God which Hector seems to find convincing is not very convincing to me.), and I don’t think you are, but you may be looking at things in a less than useful way.
I AM THE MORAL PANICKER!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
The gay marriage movement goes the wrong way by insisting on celebrating homosexual marriage because homosexuality is oh so totally, effectively similarly situated to heterosexuality, as opposed to celebrating homosexual relationships on their own terms because they make people happy. The former leads us in a stupid direction.
I think there’s quite a few LGBT folk who would wholeheartedly agree with you on this, MP. A lot of us get a little uneasy with the whole “But we’re just like you!” approach, however politically expedient it may be. You’ll still find lots of people (mainly those who came out in the immediate post-Stonewall period) who want no part of this whole “marriage” business.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Re: You’ll still find lots of people (mainly those who came out in the immediate post-Stonewall period) who want no part of this whole “marriage” business.
Do you mean the San Francisco bath house culture? If so, the best word I can think for that is, frankly, “evil”. As it is said, “Woe to them who call evil good, and good evil.” But since the leaders of the gay marriage movement assure me they are marginal to the gay community, I’ll take their word for it. Gays can police their own community, and I (and those like me) will work on trying to improve the sexual norms of straight America.
Stick of the Stupids,
Nestorius (not “Nestor”) held that Jesus was a conglomerate of separate divine and human natures. Muhammed certaionly did not believe Jesus had a divine nature, nor did Jefferson. I freely aknowledged that I referred to Arianism in a deliberately abusive and offhand way. I despise Arianism (whether espoused by Jefferson, Muhammed, or modern apostates like John Shelby Spong) both intellectually and morally, and will never get me to refer to it in a polite or respectful way, so you’d better get used to it. ‘Nice guy’ indeed. As St. Anselm said, aut Deus aut malus homo. Either Jesus was divine, or He was a cynical megalomaniac.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
And I didn’t say that the US = Saudi Arabia, I said that the fcat that both of them are seriously deficient from a natural-law perspective, is not unrelated to the fact that both of them were founded by neo-Arians.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“There is overwhelming evidence that some animal species are capable of rational thought.”
I missed that one on the first pass. That some animals have rational thought is beyond question. But that’s really not the issue. Sentience is what matters, and that goes well beyond rational thought. It’s often hard to say which animals are sentient and which are not. But elephants are certainly sentient. They bury their dead and then come back to visit the graves. And they sometimes leave items at the graves. They aren’t just self-aware, they clearly understand the concept of life and death. And they will put their own lives in jeopardy to save the life of another. By ‘another,’ I don’t just mean other elephants. They’ll do it for humans, too. Dogs are capable of rational thought, but elephants are sentient beings.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Hello Hector,
I think you may be confusing my remarks to Sick of the Stupids with those of Sick of the Stupids to you. I was actually challenging Sick of the Stupids for challenging your definition of Arianism. I then provided a quick definition of Nestorianism as opposed to Arianism to criticize what seems to me confused impatience on the part of Sick of the Stupids, although he did not really make it clear what he meant either.
Thank you for correcting me on Nestorius as opposed to Nestor. Also, I am fine with you choosing to be hostile to Arianism, but it does seem that you jump to conclusions too quickly.
It is true that there is no divine nature of Jesus in Islam, but you will also notice I did not actually say that Islam was Nestorian as opposed to there (I should have emphasized my generosity in suggesting this interpretation) being a seperation of natures within Isa in a strained way justify an interpretation of Sick of the Stupids obscure remark. It is a reference to the following passage from the Koran (which I misremembered). I do not exactly know what it means. Maybe it is just about the Resurrection.
“4.156″: And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grievous calumny.
“4.157″: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
“4.158″: Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
DTM,
What do you have in mind?
What what do I have in mind? Animals? The Great Apes and certain birds, for example.
But that is a big “if”.
Huh? Why would “human flourishing” be greater if we stopped harming and exploiting animals? Since “natural law,” as you have defined it, concerns only the welfare of human beings, and not any other species, we may do whatever we like to any other species, no matter how much harm or suffering it inflicts on them, as long as it promotes “human flourishing,” no matter how small the benefit to humans, and still be acting in accordance with “natural law.” Given that your principle attaches no value to any aspect of nature other than human beings, calling it “natural law” is a total misnomer. You should be calling it “human supremacy law” or somesuch.
What do you have in mind?
Murdering your spouse for her life insurance, for example.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
By the way, I should remind charles that the notion I suggested would enjoy a broad consensus among natural law theorists
Then I should remind DTM that I don’t care what he thinks “natural law theorists” think. I’m asking him what he means by “natural law,” “human flourishing,” etc.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
DTM,
The evidence and the animals.
I already gave you some examples of animals. Wikipedia has a useful entry on animal cognition.
Again, that is not necessarily the case.
Yes, it is necessarily the case. Since you define “natural law” purely in terms of the welfare of human beings, the welfare of all other species is irrelevant.
Part of the problem is that you are starting to swap in terms like “welfare”, “harm”, and “benefit”, which is starting to move us into utilitarianism. Human flourishing is different from welfare in that sense,
In what sense? Human “flourishing” has nothing to do with the welfare of human beings? Nothing to do with harm or benefit to human beings? Then what on earth is your phrase “rationally using their abilities and capacities to their fullest practical potential” supposed to mean? What do you mean by “fullest practical potential?” Potential for what?
Again, that is incorrect.
No, it is completely correct. You defined “natural law” as “what is conducive to human flourishing.” Anything that is “conducive to human flourishing” is consistent with “natural law,” as you have defined it, regardless of its effects on anything else.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Do you mean the San Francisco bath house culture?
No.
If so, the best word I can think for that is, frankly, “evil”.
Thanks for sharing.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Re Hector
Mr. Hector states that pornography is evil but has yet to define what pornography is.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
For Hector:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no, it is an ever-fixèd mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand’ring bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.–W.S.
May you experience it.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:06 am
As a Minnesotan I’ve always despised Iowa, but given the courage of their Democratic leadership compared to ours I think it’s time to surrender and find a lamer rival.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
DTM,
I suggest you read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.
I suggest you stop evading and explain what you mean by “rationally using their abilities and capacities to their fullest practical potential.” What do you mean by “fullest practical potential?” Potential for what?
It’s always the same pattern with you. You say something really dumb because you haven’t thought it through, or are just incapable of seeing its implications until they are explained to you by someone else. You’re challenged to defend your statement. You realize you can’t defend it, so you engage in an extended exercise in evasion and then run away.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
DTM,
I was trying to answer your questions, but you refused to listen to the answers.
No, you stopped answering. We’re at the point where you need to explain what you mean by “human flourishing.” You previously described it as human beings “rationally using their abilities and capacities to their fullest practical potential.” You then claimed, hilariously, that this has nothing to do with human welfare, or with harms or benefits to human beings. So what the hell is this phrase supposed to mean? What is the “fullest practical potential” supposed to mean? Potential for what?
Of course, we both know why you’re not answering. Your definition of “human flourishing” would boil down to some form of utilitarianism, albeit one that ignores the interests of all beings except human beings. You would ultimately define “flourishing” in terms of maximizing happiness or the fulfillment of desires or somesuch. But you’ve already claimed that your “natural law” nonsense is substantively different from utilitarianism, and you just can’t bring yourself to admit you’ve painted yourself into a corner. Same as always with you.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
DTM,
I stopped answering when it became clear you were refusing to listen to the answers I was giving.
What do you mean by “rationally using their abilities and capacities to their fullest practical potential?” What is the “fullest practical potential” supposed to mean? Potential for what?
This is at least the third time I’ve asked. You’ve evaded the question each time I asked it. Run away! Run away!
April 4th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Again, why should I waste my time trying to answer your questions when at 8:16 you announced you already knew all the answers?
If my answer is wrong, to show that it’s wrong. If my answer is right, I agree that confirming that would just be humiliating to you. It is right , which is why you keep evading the question. You’re just so transparent.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:23 am
As it is said, “Woe to them who call evil good, and good evil.”
Indeed, sir, woe to you.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
When Chuckles is losing an argument, he throws out ever-more insignificant questions and pretends not to understand the answers as a way of muddying the waters.
It used to be requests for links and data to back up even the most banal and obvious observations – which he himself never provides – but now he’s reverted to asking for definitions of the most obvious terms, and then asking for definitions of terms used in the previous definition, ad infinitum.