Re: The Rite of Marriage is not a "Right'



On 5/29/2012 9:01 AM, moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
malcolm.mclean5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
mos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

You're really on a rant here Jay. I think the word "natural law"
was used as Herman Rubin always uses it; the _physical_ way the
world runs. All your examples have nothing to do with that.

A "law of nature" is an observation about the physical world. A "natural la=
w" is a law that derives from immutable aspects of human psychology. You ca=
n't draw a firm line between the two. We have a psychological need to breat=
he because of the laws of oxidation/reducation reactions than underlie our =
biochemistry.

It's easy to laugh at the "divine right of kings". However of about 200 sta=
tes in the world, almost every one is represented by a single person. (The =
exceptions are oddballs like Andorra). Every single state has gone in for m=
onarchy, loosely defined. That's also true in history, the exceptions, like=
the joint reign of William and Mary, few and short-lived. There's only one=
major counter-example I can think of, which was the Roman republic with it=
s two consuls. That led to a protracted period of civil war. So it seems to=
be natural law that a sovereign entity will have one person designated as =
the leader.

Hmm, perhaps the difference is _how_ that "leader" is selected and
what if any are the constraints on his powers.

What Moshe? You reserve the calling of black and white to only me? <g>

Of COURSE it makes a difference -- a difference that Malcomb either overlooks or (worse) disregards. Subscribing to the "divine right of kings" and the election of a POTUS are so far apart that to lump the two as one is at best laughable and at worst ludicrous.


--
Shelly
.