Seth wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:
That's still a naturalistic fallacy. Why is a "natural end", whatever that is, relevant to anything at all?
Why isn't it? The "naturalistic fallacy" is not a law of physics or nature you know, although you refer to it as if it is the ultimate rebuttal to any sort of "is/ought" issue.
You seem to be totally clueless of logic. I'm not making an assertion. Mick (and you) are making the assertions. It's up to you to provide evidence and reasoning for them, or continue to be dismissed as wibblers.
Catholic doctrine holds that a "natural end" is preferable to artificial means when it comes to procreation. This doctrine is based on Catholic belief with respect to the commandments of God about sexuality and its proper and moral use.
There's no evidence for God. Why should I give a shit what a bunch of hypocrites (the Catholic leadership) think of anything??
Empirically speaking, the laws of the United States, ratified by the Supreme Court have regulated the expression of sexuality in society as a fundamental part of social order. The reasoning that has prevailed since well before the formation of the US (by thousands of years) is that unrestrained sexuality is harmful to society and particularly harmful to the stable family unit, which is extremely harmful to the society as a whole,
Where's your evidence for this?
Regulation of sexual practice has been a matter deemed suitable for government regulation for a very, very long time, and whatever your or my opinion it is within the purview of government to regulate such practices. (I disagree with that, but that's another argument)
What does this have to do with "natural laws" and the like??
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.