Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

Justice means treating equals equally and treating that which is not equal differently.

It is not justice to treat homosexual unions equally to marriage, or to treat marriage as if it were just one among many lifestyle choices. To do so will end up doing wrong and hurting homosexuals themselves.

In the case of laws already functioning in a way that recognises homosexual unions in some way, it is not charity or justice to fix a perceived breakdown in the ability of these laws to achieve their end (if their end is entitlement on the basis of a homosexual relationship per se). To do this would be like trying to be neighbourly by helping to repair a bus that is heading to the wrong end of town.

Michael Casanova, Victoria

Why doesn’t such a statement as “Because God says so” make no logical sense? Doesn’t morality have to be defined by God for it to make any sense?

Matt said: “Just because a religion says something is wrong, doesnt make it wrong – there is something else that makes it inherently wrong (and don’t ask me to specify what, because I can’t).”

I think it is important for us to determine what makes things “inherently wrong”. I think morality has to stand on a firmer foundation than vague, subjective intuition.

Matt said: “But, I have great respect for myself because I can clearly know what is right or wrong, not based on what God says.”

You may not be aware of it, but you’re actually contradicting yourself. Here you say that you “clearly know what is right or wrong”, but in the previous quotation above say that you can’t specify how you know right and wrong because it’s apparently unclear. On the one hand it’s clear, on the other it’s a vague sort of intuition, the truthfulness and accuracy of which we are presumably to accept at your word.

I think you would agree with me that for morality to make sense, it has to rest on a firmer foundation that vague, subjective intuition.

Matt said: “And, not one arguement against homosexuality has ever been convincing, and it never will be, because all it stems from is disgust and fear of something that really only affects 2% of the population, and will always only affect 2% of the population.”

You seem to be implying that there are criteria by which you are able to determine the validity of a moral statement, such that you know if it is based on “disgust” and “fear” then it is, by that fact, invalid.

But where are these criteria? Do we have equal access to them so that in the future we also may know not to make similar mistakes, such as basing our moral statements on what are apparently invalid bases like “disgust” and “fear”?

You know, if you really have access to this means of determining valid and invalid moral statements, I think it would only be fair if you shared it with us. After all, it’s not really all that fair if you know the means of determining right and wrong but aren’t willing to share it with us. People like me are always quick to share our source of morality with others. Why aren’t you willing to do the same with us?

Frank Gashumba, Melbourne

If there’s no objective standard of morality that, because of its transcendence, is universally binding in its authority, then we are reduced to the law of the jungle whereby might makes right. After all, in a roomful of arbitrary, subjective opinions, which one’s the right one? The opinion of the strongest person, that’s which!

But tell me, in a might-makes-right world, where does that leave a tiny minority like homosexuals? Doesn’t the principle that might makes right mean that homosexuals have no rights by virtue of their having no might due to sheer dearth of numbers?

Why on earth should homosexuals and their sympathisers be advocating for a system of morality which, when taken to its logical conclusion, denies them any rights?

Have homosexuals (and their sympathisers) given careful consideration to what they’re actually advocating for? If not, I think it would be well worth their while to do so.

Frank Gashumba, Melbourne

But your claims to moral relativism are not so easily made. If they were true, then you (and I) cannot complain about anything. If I decide that it is a good thing to kill all homosexuals (or tuba players, or whatever) you have no reason to be upset with that, if there are no moral absolutes. But if you dislike the idea that killing homosexuals is fair game, then you imply some kind of universal standard by which you expect me to also agree with.

If not, we are just comparing flavours of ice cream – you like vanilla, I like chocolate, and it is all a matter of taste, and no one is right and no one is wrong.

i expect you do not really believe this Matt. Do you regard anything as wrong? If so, why? And why should I agree with your assessment, if there are no binding moral absolutes?

And I do what I do not becuase it is interesting or exciting. If everything is relative, there is no point to argument at all. Only when you suppose that truth exists does argumentaion make sense and take on urgency.

Till next time,
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

And my point was simply that enough homosexuals admit to choice to belie the claim that it is all genetic, or that only right-wingers are making the claim.

Also, my point is that whenever something is presented as glamorous, cool, trendy or flavour-of-the-month, there is a natural tendency to see an increase in that behaviour. Common sense bears this out. And again smoking is a case in point, increasing or decreasing depending on the social approval or stigma attached.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

But is this standard of morality you apply transcendent in its provenance and thus objective and universally binding in its authority?

Or is it temporal in its provenance, and so arbitrary and subjective and thus relative?

Frank Gashumba, Melbourne