Mike, I believe your question is off-topic, and encourages others to go WAY off topic.

The fundamental question "What is nature's law?" STILL has not been answered by the person who posed the question. Until we have that answer, the parameters of the debate are not adeqately defined. If this question is not answered soon, I suggest we close the debate, before it starts wandering aimlessly all over again.

Rommie

Acknowledged. I stand corrected. Whether this is on-topic or off-topic cannot be established without knowing what the original question means.

However

? According to Chameleon's definition, the debate is already lost. Homosexual marriages are clearly NOT against (Chameleon's definition of) nature's law.
? According to the definition of Guest (Posted: 01-04-2004 08:27 AM) the motion is similarly quashed.
? No other definitions have been presented.

The only thing which might turn this around is a different definition of "nature's law" - but the only person who can give this is the original poster (Deepa), and unfortunately he/she has been very silent on this thread of late.

Given the above, I venture to suggest that the motion is now completely lost and should be closed - or at least, given a deadline for an unambiguous definition of what original question is supposed to mean according to the original questioner.

Rommie

Mike, you seem to be suggesting that people use this thread to discuss WHAT THE TOPIC OF DEBATE ACTUALLY IS. That's not how debates work. As Clive Woodward said, a few posts ago:

In conventional debates the topic of the debate is defined. So far the topic of this debate has not been defined. Would anyone like to take a stab at it? What is `natures law` for example?

Clive is perfectly correct. In a debate, THE TOPIC IS WELL-DEFINED - then people debate on whether the topic is true or false. If the topic is not well defined, then it is not a debate, and hence should not be in the "Debating society" section of a forum. Furthermore, in a conventional debate, there is a time limit. This does not "deprive" anyone - it merely tells them when to get their posts in by. If a debate is NEVER closed, then again, it's not a debate.

Very well then - here's Rommie's definition. It's basically the same as Chameleon's.

NATURE'S LAW = any phenomenon in the universe which does not violate the laws of physics

By this definition:
? touching the back of your head with your nose is against natures law (as Guest said)
? marriage (by anyone, to anyone) is in accordance with nature's law

Do you see the problem? Given a sufficiently tight definition of "nature's law", the answer to the question becomes deducable in one step - which hardly warrants a debate. So instead, people debate over the meaning of the question.

I would like to see us having real, formal debates here. By which I mean, a topic is published, with the form "This house believes that ..." (for example "This house believes that Jean Luc Picard is a better captain than James T Kirk"), one poster speaks on behalf of the motion; one person speaks against the motion; a vote is taken; the deadline for closure is set; the motion is opened up to the public; the proposer and opposer remain around to answer any questions, and - when the deadline is reached - a closing vote is taken and the swing published. That's how real debates go. I don't suppose there is any chance of that within the Debating society area?

Rommie