suzeonline, "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."

The Greens will see the government into opposition. The election is the one poll that matters and unlike opinion surveys is not so easily rigged for a desired outcome.

The Greens went how in the recent Victorian election?

* ""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.""

Posted by Proxy, Monday, 6 December 2010 6:51:38 PM

In an article about gay marriage, the introduction of children engineered in such marriages is red herring fallacy and strawman fallacy.

It denies many gays might have considerations for children's rights.

Pelican – You throw terms, eg, unfair, ‘right thing’, responsibility, good, wrong, around with cheerful abandon, as if they have some definable, absolute meaning.

If human beings are the source of moral values as you claim, then one human being’s belief that slavery is ‘good’ is as legitimate as another human being’s belief that slavery is ‘bad’.

Or in the context of this article, one human being’s belief that same sex marriage is ‘bad’ is as valid as another human being’s belief that same sex marriage is ‘good’.

One belief is as valid as another because they are both constructs by human beings and, in the absence of any source of moral value that is above human opinion, there is no non-arbitrary way to give one belief priority over the other.

You want to believe that your moral values are better than the moral values of those whom you disagree with, but you are unable to provide any grounds for making that judgment. Doesn’t that, by definition, make you a bigot?

I know that you make a vague reference to ‘an internal nature that guides humans along the way’, but just what is that and how is it supposed to help? Do you think that somehow you have been able to tap into this ‘internal nature’ better than others and that therefore that makes you a more moral person than them?

What makes you so certain that the moral values you have made up, or constructed, are ‘right’ while their made up moral values are ‘wrong’?

moral relativism always shows how flawed secularism is. You can be sure some secularist will be absolutely sure that they are right. They fail to see how flawed their arguement is.

runner, it generally doesn't matter what individuals think; it is what the collective thinks - that is how societies or any civil organisation like a church works.

There is a moral relativism amongst the various churches, anyway.

Wrong, JP...

<<One belief is as valid as another because they are both constructs by human beings and, in the absence of any source of moral value that is above human opinion, there is no non-arbitrary way to give one belief priority over the other.>>

Morality is simply about maximizing wellbeing. We don’t need a god to answer to because we are answerable each other and our communities.

<<You [pelican] want to believe that your moral values are better than the moral values of those whom you disagree with, but you are unable to provide any grounds for making that judgment.>>

Secular morality is superior to religious morality in every respect aside from the fact that religious morality is simplistic. Secular morality requires thought and effort, whereas religious morality is for the lazy and thoughtless; those who are fooled into thinking that something becomes right or wrong for them, just because of an edict attributed to some other being.

Luckily though, religious people realise the superiority of secular morality and have been applying the moral views of the secular societies that surround them for a long time now as grounds for making judgments on what parts of their holy books are good, and which are bad - a necessity when their holy books contain so much conflicting ‘morality’.

There’s nothing moral about religion. It is simply ‘blind obedience to authority’ masquerading as morality and anyone who requires an imagined higher authority to prevent them from raping and pillaging, is an immoral person.

Besides, none of your points about the need of a higher moral authority mean much until you can demonstrate the existence of this authority. Until then, you haven’t provided place for your god in society; just a very flimsy reason to invent one with a total disregard for the truth.