<<There is no infringement of another's rights by allowing same-sex marriage between two consenting adults>>

This statement is a blatant lie.

The child artificially created by homosexuals is deliberately deprived of a mother and a father.

This is an infringement of its natural birthright.

But no price is too big for an innocent child to pay so that homosexuals can share in the "rich moral and symbolic meaning which marriage bestows on the commitment to a loving union".

It's enough to make one throw up.

Proxy, what the hell does this:
http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/B4462DDE-487D-4194-B0E0-193A04095819/0/HappyHealthyHot.pdf
have to do with gay marriage?

Did you even read it? I did, so I read the bit where it said "Young people living with HIV have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose their HIV status." and the bit where it said "There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of stigma and discrimination within their community. They may worry that people will fi nd out something else they have kept secret, like they are using injecting drugs, having sex outside of a marriage...".

But try as I might, I could not find the bit where it said "Only homosexuals have the right not to disclose their HIV status. If you are heterosexual and suffer from HIV, you are legally required to tattoo 'Look out! I have AIDS!' across your forehead in large bold letters." Nor could I find any mention of why the different legal requirements for homosexuals and heterosexuals concerning disclosure of HIV status (which I'm pretty sure don't actually exist) are relevant to the marriage rights of homosexuals. Given your frequently exhibited tendency toward mythomania, I must conclude that you have made these bits up.

Word to the wise, Proxy: clutching at straws and coming up with red herrings is not a good look - it gives folk the distinct impression that your skill in rhetoric is comparable to that of a retarded goat. Might I suggest that your next argument against gay marriage not be completely irrelevant twaddle?

A blatant lie Proxy!

A lie is a statement that is known to be an untruth, not a difference of opinion. One might argue that those who continue to relate pedophilia to homosexuality are spreading untruths to suit their own religious agenda. Heterosexuals are also capable of pedophile behaviour - this is a given. Being gay does not make one attracted to children - a whole different animal that one.

Marriage is not required to have a child. Many defacto couples are raising children without a bit of paper proclaiming their commitment. Many married couples are now divorcing, there is no security in marriage anymore.

Same-sex marriage merely bestows the right to marry - personally I can't see the difference between a civil union (with the same legal rights) and marriage, because ultimately the commitment is that between two people who love each other, but it is not about what I think or what you think but doing what is deemed fair in an equitable society.

I agree that a child should have access to information about their biological parents when they come of age (in the cases of adoption or IVF donation) if the donor agrees. Many gay couples do maintain contact with biological parents in the interests of the child. I watched a documentary recently about two lesbians (in Adelaide from memory) who had a child with a gay male friend and both mothers and father are involved in the baby's life. I can't find it on Google but when I find a link I will post it.

The most important thing in a child's life is love and security and that can be found in all manner of family structures.

JP,
Those who read my posts could expect me to side with you rather than with your adversaries. In general they would be correct, nevertheless let me quote from an interesting book I have read recently (David Fergusson, Faith and its Critics, OUP 2009):

“… arguments that move from moral objectivity to God are usually much too swift. Non-theistic outlooks such as Confucianism and Buddhism are deeply ethical and have sustained moral tradition over many centuries. This has been achieved religiously but not theistically. … Hence it would be as well for religious apologists to drop this argument in the form in which it frequently appears.” (p. 95)

“… the unease is around the notion that our cooperative instincts are simply the result of evolutionary conditioning and that there is nothing valuable about altruism beyond its capacity to ensure the survival of our genes. The ethical evaluations we make seem like illusions that nature has tricked us into believing. Yet our intuition is to hold that morality has a purpose and a claim upon us that are not exhausted by the evolutionary advantages that it offers.” (p. 101)

Note that Fergusson speaks of “unease” (to accept a reductionist explanation of morality), not an out-of-hand rejection. He explains what he means in the Chapter “Morality, Art and Religion”.

I am not an ethicist, but many years ago I asked an atheist friend a question similar to the one you asked: “why don'nt you do something (regarded as "immoral" by the society) knowing you could get away with it?” His answer was something like “for the same reasons I would not vandalize a beautiful picture or eat something disgusting”. In other words, he was amalgamating the moral with the aesthetic, goodness with beauty. (Since this was in Communist Prague in the 1950s, a reference to “the collective”, as the arbiter of morality would have sounded like a Marx-Leninist cliché, that we both suffered “indigestion” from).

I do not know how widespread this attitude is among contemporary atheists, but I since thought this was one possibility.

We might not always agree George but you always put things so well.

Please be comforted that the term 'collective' or 'community' does not necessarily relate or belong solely to a Marx-Leninist perspective. :)

Perhaps in the end, the theist and atheist come to the same conclusions in the main, about morality, albeit via different paths even if there is some dispute on detail (something not confined to atheist/theist). We are afterall, all human first, that overrides any differences on the religious front IMO.

While human behaviour is clearly flawed, they also possess an innate sense of altruism. Religious adherence would not be possible if there was no natural 'foundation' to work with - it is a pessimistic view that believes human morality is only produced through 'fear'.

Disputes about 'the detail' (in this case-same sex marriage) are also prevalent within Christian groups, the secular humanists and atheists or indeed any group. Change is part of human evolution and it is revealed by a growing recognition by some Christians of a metaphorical emphasis as opposed to a literal interpretation of religious text.

Believe it or not A J I read all the posts carefully and yes, I think before I write.

You insist that you don’t simply make assertions yet you continue to do so, eg. “there is very little subjectiveness in defining wellbeing and maximising it for everyone overall. You rights end where mine start.”

You are not presenting arguments to support your position. It is nothing more than your opinion that people should be concerned about maximising everyone’s well-being and that one person’s rights end where another’s start.

If a person says that they don’t want to maximise everyone’s well-being, it appears that the best you can say to them in return is that you think they ought to. Again I ask you, why is your opinion, as one human being, any more valid than theirs, a fellow human being?

Regarding The Euthyphro Dilemma, you’ve largely answered it yourself in that the usual response is that goodness is taken to be an essential part of God’s character, not something outside of God. But God is understood to be eternal and not created.

Pelican – you seem to have no problems setting yourself up as the great wise arbiter who can accurately determine whether individual values or communal values should prevail in a given situation.

But of course other people disagree with you. Why should your views prevail? You seem to feel quite certain that you are right, as if you have been able to tap into some source of objective, absolute values.
Could you please inform us what that source is.

George – please note that I have not been arguing from moral objectivity to God. As I have previously pointed out, the single point I have been making is that if there is no God who has created us then all moral claims are subjective and relative.
(cont)