Wanting to decide debates by allowing that side with the majority of public opinion to get their way is ok, as long as it is used consistently. Many people want to use public opinion when it supports their views and ignore it when it doesn't.

A great article, but unfortunately it will
be wasted on that minority of fundamentally
bigoted folk who have painted themselves so far
into a homophobic corner on this issue that it's
hard to imagine a way out.

"The best she can offer in support of the opinion
is that it happens to be her own, and that it expresses
a "fundamental" belief.
[...]
Moral fundamentalism of this kind is inherently irrational."

Absolutely. Which is why in all the endless discussion
about gay marriage in this and other forums I have yet
to see an argument against single sex marriage that isn't
based on fallacious logic, blind prejudice, religious dogma, or very
suspect factoids.

This debate on gay marriage is doing one good thing – it is exposing the fact that in a materialistic universe there is no objective, non-relativistic basis for any moral values.

If there is a God then it can be argued that God has stated that certain things are right or wrong.

But if there is no God then claims that one thing is right and another is wrong are completely subjective and relative.

Just because a majority of people may believe one thing or another goes nowhere to establishing the rightness or wrongness of something.

No, one day, and probably it is already happening, most people are going to wake up and realise that if materialism is true, then absolutely anything goes. Of course there are still laws but they have no absolute basis and they can be changed or ignored (see abortion).

If you can get away with it, just do it.

And it is going to be one wild and scary ride.

OLO only allows a 350 word limit - not enough space to discuss the philosophy of morality in any depth.

The way I see it, morals are simply values or beliefs constructed by man that serve a 'survival' purpose and give a foundation to human wellbeing and health (physical and mental). With education and civilisation comes learning and traditional 'moral' perceptions may change.

While there is a solid foundation for morality ie. do no harm, morals are not static and if there has been some long term wrong-doing (in the name of morality) such as that which discriminates against homosexuality, the nature of man is to be able to review, judge, adapt and change. That is what evolution is all about and it works on higher order as well as basic survival needs.

There are very good survival reasons for example to make incest illegal and wide agreement about 'thou shall not kill, steal, covet' (etc) as being important and essentially 'human' in valuing life and various human rights considered important for greater social wellbeing and freedoms (as much as those freedoms don't encroach on another's freedom).

Opinion is not morality but it can influence or inform the shape of morality (which may manifest differently between cultures).

The question of same-sex marriage is one of those areas where there is growing realisation that prejudice of this kind is no longer acceptable in a world that strives for equality and personal freedoms that involve two consenting adults.

The 'no harm' principle applies within the judicial framework (albeit not perfect-nothing is) and within most religious practices. Both are human constructs that provide a basis for morality and behaviour but concepts of morality should be reviewed where harm is being inflicted due to long held beliefs based on nothing more than prejudice and on morals constructed in ancient times in a very different cultural landscape.

Pelican, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You claim that “morals are simply values or beliefs constructed by man” but then you go on to say that “opinion is not morality”.

If we just make up or construct our moral values how is that they are not therefore simply our opinions? And why is one opinion about what is a good moral value any more or less valid than another?

You claim that moral values have a survival purpose – but why should anybody care that that is what you think? If someone believes it is in their interests to end your life, and they believe they can get away with it, why shouldn’t they? Why is your made up morality better than their made up morality?

You simply make raw assertions without any foundation to your claims. And the thing is, that is true for all moral claims that are made within a materialistic worldview.

The excuse given by the moderator for rejecting my discussion yet again was often "the subject has been done to death" or somesuch.

That does't seem to apply to same-sex marriage for some reason.

Nevertheless...

<<Sadly, what is missing in the Brandis/Shorten approach is any sense of concern for those ....>>

Sadly, what is missing in the Max Anderson approach is any sense of concern for those children who are deliberately deprived of their natural birthright of a mother and a father when two homosexuals decide to artificially create them for their own satisfaction.

The state should not give its sanction to this deliberate deprivation of a child's natural birthright.

Homosexual "marriage" would be the ultimate seal of approval on this travesty.

And Dawn Stefanowicz at least had a mother:
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/