Reply to Michael S.

Well, Michael, I thought I *did* answer your question.  What we have here, I suppose, is a failure to communicate.  The natural-law approach to moral questions--at least, the natural-law approach associated with Catholic moralists--does not presuppose the authority of, nor does it assert, any theological propositions.  The "any theological propositions" in that statement includes whatever theological propositions I might want to assert.  One who pursues the natural-law approach aims to speak to people of every faith and of no faith.

(See the final chapter of John Finnis's Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford Univ. Press, 1980)--chapter 13, if memory serves--for an interesting discussion of the relationship between theology and natural law.  As I recall, Mark Murphy (Georgetown, Philosophy) published an essay on that chapter within the last couple of years--though I may be mistaken about that.)

One more thing.  You are quite wrong, Michael:  Cathy's first paragraph was entirely on point--and that is true even though you agree on the merits with Robby on issues of sexual morality.  Robby's post was indeed insulting, and in my reply, I tried *not* to return the favor.  But Cathy--whose post, I emphasize, I did *not* solicit--was accurate in what she said in her first paragraph.  Either that, or it was not insulting for Robby to call me insincere ... hypocritical ... keeping up pretence.  In any event, Michael, the unfortunately personal part of this dispute is among Robby, Cathy, and me, and I can't imagine what good purpose you think it serves for you to get involved with respect to *that* aspect of today's to-and-fro.

(And as for the "ideological partisanship" to which you referred at the end of your post:  Who introduced the word "liberal" into this discussion--as in, "Oh, those 'liberals' are at it again!"?  And introduced it quite inappropriately, given the nature of the issue at hand and the politically "conservative" identity (and self-identification) of many on my side of that issue:  Rauch, Carpenter, Cheney, etc.  With you, I'll be quite happy if we see no more ad hominem-argument-by-label!)