Great article. Thank you.

I enjoyed this airing of the conflict between 'right' and 'popular'. However I think it's a little unfair to both the politicians mentioned to say that they are ignoring fairness. They both claim to value fairness, but defer to the current political difficulties in delivering it (they *are* politicians, after all). This is a great contrast to Janet Albrechtson, who places her own discomfort with same-sex marriage above any considerations of fairness or morality.

Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker argues that we are born with a moral instinct similar in operation to Chomsky's Universal Grammar. He says that expanding our knowledge of where our sense of morality comes from will help us to find commonality with people whose moral views differ from ours:

>> “Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral
>> sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the
>> illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with
>> and to focus on goals we can share and defend.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

If he's right, then it can be predicted that given sufficient education and debate, the majority view will tend towards the moral one. Shining a light on a problem will enable human beings to draw moral conclusions consistent with their moral instincts.

This, I believe, is happening now with respect to same-sex marriage, and it explains the current shift in popular views. Open and honest debate is showing that the opposition to same-sex marriage, essentially grounded in a distaste for male homosexuality, is irrational and unfair.

---

Also of interest is this summary of opinion polls on the topic: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/12/06/public-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/

>> What we see is that those folks less educated, older,
>> childless, male and on lower incomes either not working
>> or working in blue collar occupations are more likely
>> to oppose,

or as television presenter Monique Shafter put it on Twitter today:

>> Dumb, old, poor, childless men oppose gay marriage.
>> Smart, young, cashed up chicks dig it?

http://twitter.com/#!/moniqueschafter

A clever piece of legerdemain.
Seamlessly shifting from moral relativism to the moral highground.
How is deliberately depriving children of their natural birthright of a mother and a father a moral act?

<<Open and honest debate is showing that the opposition to same-sex marriage, essentially grounded in a distaste for male homosexuality, is irrational and unfair>>

"Open and honest debate?"

Honest like the 10% lie?
Honest like the homosexual gene lie?
Open like not addressing the natural birthright of children?

"Irrational and unfair?"

What could be more unfair than deliberately depriving children of their natural birthright?
What could be more irrational than claiming a child is just as well-served by two homosexual males as "parents" as that child would be by their mother and father?

JP
Phew...where to start. I ventured that opinion is not morality but can shape it should there be strong support in a community to effect change on an issue that might be perceived as grossly unfair. People now clearly believe slavery to be an abomination but mention freedom for slaves historically this would be met with strong censure and words like 'morality' and 'God' bandied around many times. Clearly in this case commonsense and goodness eventually won the day over an outdated and grossly unfair 'moral construct' about white supremacy for political and financial purposes.

Burning dissenting women as 'witches' was also considered morally just under a religious regime and eventually was seen to be a gross miscarriage of justice and ended up with large numbers of innocent women being removed for nothing other than malicious purposes.

"And why is one opinion about what is a good moral value any more or less valid than another? "

It isn't other than a belief that human beings do naturally possess a need and desire to do the 'right thing'. What is the difference between a moral opinion espoused by religion or one espoused by the judiciary or through 'the people' in a democracy? Religion does not always lead people to do the 'right thing' so it is all relative, ultimately we depend on our faith in human beings, even with their failings, to see a mutual and communal benefit in doing no harm.

Cont/...

Cont/...

"You claim that moral values have a survival purpose...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?"

See the previous paragraph. How does the religious 'made up' morality work differently? There will always be a minority of people who may not care about the life of another human being. Many people have also killed or died in the name of religion - often used as a means for control as well as a moral basis. The morality that protects life is better for human survival and wellbeing than one that does not. I don't think the majority of people feel comfortable about killing another or stealing from another.

"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."

How can any of us do anything but make raw assertions on such a complex subject. The foundation is staring us in the face, it all depends on your view of human nature. With or without religion as the foundation, human beings will always rely on their natural altruism, natural proclivity to form strong bonds and to give and receive love.

These are essentially of the 'human' not of the supernatural.

I cannot give you the 'evidence' you so strongly seek because morality is a human construct. There is no supernatural being, only an internal nature that guides humans along the way, sometimes stumbling for sure, but ultimately we are all solely responsible for our actions. We cannot blame a God or a Devil for when we do good or when we do wrong.

I too liked the fresh approach of this article, although it has resulted in a very deep and meaningful discussion on morality :)

One person's morality is another person's debauchery I think!

While we may still have a vocal minority damning us all to hell for even thinking of gay marriage, there are probably enough of them in parliament to stop the change going through for now.

Unfortunately, I really don't think we will see legal gay marriage allowed during this Government's term anyway.
The Prime Minister has made that very clear.