Of course not! Nothing about the whole 'enormous rodent' thing, she's a married women.
LOL true, that is also a big issue. I should not have said Mrs. Beaver, but I should have just pointed to her and said a life form just like her that is not married. Maybe her twin sister. lol.
That's great. I didn't raise any religious reasons. I'm an atheist, so I have no religious reasons.
Your definition made a claim that applies to infertile women. You need to come up with a defense of that that excludes aliens.
I came up with it that you are talking about below. I was just saying that natural law arguments can be done without religion.
Now here you try to save your claim, by carving out an exception in your moral rule for infertile women. But again you run into an issue because of your reasoning for the exception, that it's based on raising a kid. Suddenly you again run into an issue: if an infertile woman can raise a kid, why can't the right type of alien?
Ok it's not carving out a rule for infertile groups. Let me put it like this natural law deals with what is moral and what works for societies. To see what is natural we look at humans in nature, and we look at as many different groups as possible. A high tech civilization has removed itself from natural law and it has problems since humans are part of nature at the end of the day. So we can't look at corrupted modern western society. We have to look at history where things have not been corrupted, we look at tribes and early city states, or we estimate what values WOULD work on the basic level like that. We can also look at animals especially those close to us.
So here is the thing, for all we know without modern tech we don't know that women are infertile or not. All we know is that sometimes they have kids after lovemaking and others don't. Maybe the gods disfavor them, or they are cursed, or whatever. But they did not have gene tests to find out beforehand. So this means the stable way a society would do it would have a man marry a woman and if it was found that there is no fertility either he divorces her or he gets a second wife.
If you make love to a man under no circumstances will you have a baby, the same goes for other species(Besides the Asari and other fetish bait we talked about earlier) Again we look at how nature handles it.
Then I think you are gross. Therefore you are morally wrong. No, that isn't proof at all.
Do you know why you think my arguments are gross. There is a good biological reason for it.
Specifically, this argument is gross.
First, let's deal with the animal part: animals aren't moral actors. What they do cannot be moral or immoral because they do not think, anymore than a bullet can be blamed for a murder.
I mean yes they are, animals can be bad or good. Also destroying property is nothing, yet harming an animal is different than destroying a bullet.
Now, the gross part. Congrats, you managed to justify non-violent pedophilia, for old enough girls or any boy as long as it's with the opposite sex. Because they can have children with some degree of safety.
This tells us the issue with pedophilia isn't safety or fertility, it's consent, which kids can't give.
You are so bad at arguing that you accidently justified pedophilia. You should stop.
What a stupid argument. I'm sorry dude, you are the one who is bad at arguing.
Let me show you what you did. You gave a statement that is true. "Having sex with minors is bad" which is correct
"because the minors can't consent" which is wrong. It's both irrelevant and not factually true. Here is another analogy
"Slavery is wrong" true "because the Chinese invaded the British in the 1800's." Not true also not related
First off when talking about NATURAL LAW it is a universal that means it applies to ALL humans from the African tribal in 5000 BC, to the European in the 1500's AD, to the modern day America 2024 AD, to yes the year 2500 AD humans living on a space colony at the L3 Lagrange point.
That means you need to be precise with your words and what they mean. If we are talking biologically once a person completes puberty they are no longer a "child"(unless you'd call those 15 year old migrant youths in Europe rioting and raping children)
Now sure a person can still be considered a child socially and legally until they meet the criteria to be a man or woman society imposes and there are many good reasons for those rules.
But your argument did not say any of those reasons you just said "They can't consent." like a liberal mantra without any thought. Obviously yes those who are very young can't consent and don't know anything. But grown teenagers that want to have sex, and know what it is can. But we as a society put rules to restrict that because we know that teenagers and young adults are impulsive and can make mistakes and do things that they would later come to regret. They are able to make small choices "Do you want to buy this food or that food." but we don't let them make big choices "So do you want to take out a home loan? Do you want to engage in this risky activity"
They can know what it is and want to do it which is consent but we don't trust them to act wisely.
When society says they can't consent we are talking about legal fiction. To simplify it we put these rules for the protection of people. Here is another instance of us removing consent from people to help prevent abuses.
Do you think a 30 year old prisoner can consent to have sex with a 28 year old prison guard? Legally we say no they can't because we realize that the prisoner is in a place where there is a great balance of power in favor of the prison guard and the prison guard can easily coerce the prisoner to do things they may not want to do.(Let's ignore any corruption issues just limit it to consent) Thus we say legally the prisoner does not have the ability to consent. Do you really think that the prisoner is too stupid to know if he wants to be in a relationship or not?
Same argument applies to the teens. They may have matured biologically but we as a society have seen them act irresponsibly and know that they could get taken advantage of by older partners who have more knowledge and can manipulate them.
The thing is this is all irrelevant because none of these arguments are directly dealing with natural law. We can use natural law to see that there is a problem teens/young adults being irresponsible with sex and then looking for ways our society can solve it without damage. The looking for solutions part is not natural law though.
Again natural law is supposed to be UNIVERSAL that would mean it's the bare minimum for human society to live, it's not your specefic culture and making things better. Also you can look again at the varying jurisdictions with different ages of consent to see it's not based on natural law. Will a 17 year old who is considered of age in one jurisdiction "magically" become incompetent when they go to another? What about if an 18 year old from a place where you aren't considered of age till they are 20 goes to a place where they are of age. Are they now competent?
Again there are arguments to defend it but the way you did it was just bad.