Cameron: "Let's export gay marriage!"

[Richard Barrett]

Many of the latter, however, are simply opposed on moral grounds which have nothing to do with politics.

You forgot the "spurious" before "moral grounds".

[Mary Chambers]

Discussed this with my family at the weekend. Without exception we were baffled by anyone being against something so positive. One partner had been brought up in a homophobic household, but in the early teens 'logic had kicked in'. One had been brought up Catholic, but the same applied to her. We varied in age from thirties to seventies, but we all felt the same. There was a general agreement that the objections, and homophobia in general, must be a hangover from the less pleasant aspects of religion, since there is no logical explanation.

This must be the only time I have felt some admiration for David Cameron.

[Beef Oven]

Can someone tell me what genuine morality is and also, what spurious morality is?

[Pabmusic]

You forgot the "spurious" before "moral grounds".

I don't know, though. The trouble is that morality is (in most instances) no more than what an individual thinks. That's not so much 'spurious' as simply a matter of opinion.

There is a deeper 'innate' morality, based largely on the Golden Rule, that says, basically, don't act in a way that harms others, don't cheat, and don't just give in to those who cheat you (this is a game called 'the prisoner's dilemma' by the way). This innate 'morality' can be traced back to our behaviour in simple, tribal societies, and may well be related to the need to pass on our genes. (In such societies, nearly everyone we meet is a close relative who shares a large proportion of our genes. It is counter-productive to act aggressively towards them.) Similar 'morality' has been observed in many species.

The spuriousness comes in when we seek to suggest that 'morality' stems from an external code that we merely follow.

[This may answer your point, Beefy - or at least point you in the right direction to find the answer.]

[Richard Barrett]

I wasn't talking about "spurious morality" but spurious moral grounds, by which I intended any "moral grounds" on the basis of which one might be opposed to something like same-sex marriage, which would surely be of the "external code" variety you mention.

[Pabmusic]

I wasn't talking about "spurious morality" but spurious moral grounds, by which I intended any "moral grounds" on the basis of which one might be opposed to something like same-sex marriage, which would surely be of the "external code" variety you mention.

Ah! Makes sense.

[Beef Oven]

[This may answer your point, Beefy - or at least point you in the right direction to find the answer.]

Yes, it does answer the point I was making - merci!

[amateur51]

My Oh My. Amsey's now marching arm-in-arm with the ultimate 'Tory Toff'. <laugh>

According to Wiki there are 206 sovereign states in the world so that makes exactly 190 (92%) out of step with our Dave in terms of legalising 'same-sex marriage'?

With a record like Dave's I'm not surprised so many politicians in other countries have sensibly decided to 'march the other way'.

Just when we thought Puir Auld Broon had to be the worst PM in recent times ...

Sour, scotty, sour

[amateur51]

Or else haven't yet passed legislation - which doesn't mean that they have decided not to.

Still, I'm quite happy for scotty to stay stuck in the mud with the other dinosaurs

(& ams was quite happy for me to post this when I checked with him by PM)

oh ffs why no smilies? First it was no :dohs: and now ....

[amateur51]

I don't mind Cameron being a self-serving politician. There hardly seems to be any other sort these days, but if he wants to slime about the place on the LGBT coat tails, he has to do some grafting for it, and that involves getting down and real with the n'eer sayers such as Russia who are basically, and quite blantantly, endorsing shocking levels of thuggery against its gay citizens.

This is not some sharia law quarter we're talking about, or the darkest corners of Africa. We are discussing a nation that takes its place at the table of world leadership under the guise of being a civilized people.

UK politicians cannot prance about with a rainbow flag only when it suits them to do so. If they wish to wave the flag at any time they must mean it.

Let's hope that nice Mr Snowden they're looking after isn't .. y'know

[amateur51]

No civilised person would condone thuggery whether it be directed against homosexuals, heterosexuals, in-betweenies, black people, brown people, yellow people, white people, catholics, protestants, jews, moslems, hindus, buddhists, atheists, agnostics ... well, anybody really.

The trouble with the 'same-sex marriage' issue is that it has become heavily politicised. Those who favour it are generally considered to be 'cool and modern' and socially-liberal and those opposed are mostly of a conservative disposition and frequently labelled as 'dinosaurs' and 'bigots'. Many of the latter, however, are simply opposed on moral grounds which have nothing to do with politics.

Whilst there may have been no recorded violence directed against those opposed in the UK there have been well-documented cases of threats, bullying and people losing their jobs because of their personal beliefs and principles on the issue.

Not my idea of a truly civilised, free society either ....

After so many years of hearing it, I'm very pleased to be able to say 'as long as you don't try to push it down my throat' scotty, believe what you like. Where does equal marriage fit into your 'love thy neighbour' (-ish) morality, scotty?

[LeMartinPecheur]

oh ffs why now smilies? First it was no :dohs: and now ....

Hosts' decision some while back that they shouldn't be used on this thread since they lower the tone and promote misunderstanding. And even gratuitous rudery perchance.

[amateur51]

You forgot the "spurious" before "moral grounds".

He's saving that for the next turn of the screw, RB.

Oooops, almost clique-y there

[amateur51]

Hosts' decision some while back that they shouldn't be used on this thread since they lower the tone and promote misunderstanding. And even gratuitous rudery perchance.

Ah censorship y'mean?

Daft I calls it.

But that's what happens when the Milk Monitor owns the ball, I s'pose

[Sydney Grew]

Homo-sexualism used to be much more thrilling in the 'fifties and 'sixties of the last century when it was illegal. This silly idea of "marriage" misses the point entirely. A sizeable majority of homo-sexualists find it ridiculous. The correct attitude is to campaign to abolish marriage in all its forms. Imagine signing up for a lifetime with one other! No thank you!