For this last week we read Robert P. George's book In Defense of Natural Law. To be quite honest with you I am not really interested in natural law, especially the Thomist/Catholic view of natural law, as opposed to the Reformed view. I really do not have much to say in regards to the topic and to be frank, I wasn't that impressed with the book.
I find natural law problematic because it assumes humanity's capability of gaining knowledge and revelation through nature apart from God. It asserts that reason is our means by which we gain our ethic and moral qualities. Natural law puts too much stock in human capability. It is also too subjective. If there are a multitude of moral qualities and ethical boundaries that one can gain from observation of the natural order, than how is one to be sure that it is of the natural law. A crazy person could assume that killing is part of the natural order and claim natural law, there are not enough checks and balances. Also, George's argument about sex and marriage is kind of ridiculous. I don't think scripture supports the claim that all sexual activity including oral sex and any sort of foreplay, even in the context of marriage, is strictly forbidden and sinful. Song of Solomon certainly does not agree with this statement. I also think it limits and confines physical unity within a marriage to mere "penetration," please excuse the crassness. I don't find his arguments to be overly convincing
That's about it. I really don't have much to say and am really not that interested in natural law. If you are really interested in the topic of natural law read A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natural Law by Michael Cromartie. Sorry for the lame post