First things first, I am not letting my dad drive my car again. He didn't do anything heinous such as scratch the new paint job or get a speeding ticket. He just ruined my fuel economy.
I had been working so hard to get my fuel economy up. I pushed up my driving range from 900 km to 1050 km. That means on a single tank, I'm getting 150 km more if I drove to in a 'normal' style. What does my dad do? In round trip from home to his office, which is about 12 km, he knocks my driving range back down to 900 km. That is an extra 150 km gone.
Just proves to show that not all scientists are environmental.
When I hear conservatives or Roman Catholic bishops harp on about how people should obey 'natural law', I really question whether or not they have thought their statement through.
Natural law isn't what people really think it is. If we are defining it, the simplest way interpretation of natural law is the law or order of nature. That is what birds, animals and insects would do in their ecosystem. That should be all fine and dandy. In reality it is not that concrete.
In one aspect, there has been well documented cases of homosexuality in the animals world. This ranges from rabbits to giraffes. Therefore if anybody should say that homosexuality is against nature, please refer them to Roy and Silo - two male penguins that successfully hatched an egg.
Talking about sexual relationships, I'm rather glad with first hand experience we are not animals. My female dog is in heat at the moment, which is driving my male dog crazy with sexual frustration. Firstly we separate them to avoid them having sex all the time but the male dog can smell the pheromones being given off by the female dog. So he is still has the sex drive but no way to ease it. Secondly despite several attempts they cannot do the business, furthering the sexual frustration.
What if this applied to people? I dread to think the anarchy that would occur if men were able to detect when women are fertile. Chastity belts would become all too fashionable. Plus this proves that animals are usually (but not always) polygamous. It is their natural drive to spread their seed to ensure the survival of their species. Humans have gone the other way by reverting to monogamy in the concept of marriage. And since marriage is the concept most bashed on about by the church and is apparently against natural law, it seems contradictory.
Natural law states there should be "survival of the fittest". Christians may not believe in evolution but in nature only letting the strong survive seems to be paramount. Female praying mantises kill the male after copulation to provide food for the young once they are born, seeing that the males are useless after giving their seed. So if spouting natural law, wives are allowed to kill their husbands to ensure a trust fund for their children - or at least can't kill the husbands until the men have worked their socks off providing enough money. It only stands to reason. Also would we let so many poor, hungry, disease ridden people live, as we so clearly do with charities? If we were enforcing natural law, we would allow these people to die, leaving on the rich and wealthy to live. So why do we help impoverished people?
Because we don't followed natural law or natural instinct. We transcended just being apes who bashed rocks together. We are human beings or people. We have set our own moral standards 0r human standards, which is to help the needy and accept people for what they are. That is what being a person is all about.