Political Issues in Australia
There are a few questions/issues in politics in Australia that have confused me. I think that many of the political views that some Australians hold are arbitrary, inconsistent and illogical.
1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage?
2. Some people in Australia oppose s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This section prohibits people from using offensive or insulting language. People oppose it because it restricts free speech. Why do they not oppose sections in the Summary Offences Act which prohibit offensive language or offensive language? What about the Criminal Code in Queensland, which sets out leaving offensive material with someone as an example of stalking?
3. If someone dies in Queensland and does not leave adequate provision for their children in their will, those children have a legal right to sue beneficiaries to claim the estate (even though nothing or very little was given to them in the will). If Australians support gay marriage, why will they not support removing family provision legislation?
4. Should there be a right to suicide? Most people would say "no", because life is a gift. But how does this make sense, given that nobody makes a choice to be born? What if you are born in a poor family and you do not like your parents? Why should there not be a right to suicide? My view is that the State should provide facilities for people to undergo voluntary euthanasia, in a painless and quick manner, provided they are of sound mind. This only makes sense. You as an individual only exist because of a decision made by others (i.e. your parents). Why should you be forced to live a life you don't want to? The human instinct is to survive, and suicide is often expensive, impracticable or scary. Thus, the State should implement means by which to end one's life.
5. Is psychology a real science? I do believe in the existence of certain disorders like Asperger's and antisocial personality disorder. But the discipline is very poorly defined and it allows unscrupulous individuals (such as practising psychologists) to say almost anything about anybody, and as long as it is plausible not many people will question it. For example, if you are a clinical psychologist, you could get away with telling your client to "exercise more" or "don't overthink it". I do not feel as though it is a serious or rigorous scientific discipline. I do not feel like you need a degree to practise psychology. There is also little evidence that clinical psychology is at all effective compared to talking with friends, or talking to someone who is pretending to be a psychologist (but does not have a degree).
Thoughts?
1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage?
2. Some people in Australia oppose s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This section prohibits people from using offensive or insulting language. People oppose it because it restricts free speech. Why do they not oppose sections in the Summary Offences Act which prohibit offensive language or offensive language? What about the Criminal Code in Queensland, which sets out leaving offensive material with someone as an example of stalking?
3. If someone dies in Queensland and does not leave adequate provision for their children in their will, those children have a legal right to sue beneficiaries to claim the estate (even though nothing or very little was given to them in the will). If Australians support gay marriage, why will they not support removing family provision legislation?
4. Should there be a right to suicide? Most people would say "no", because life is a gift. But how does this make sense, given that nobody makes a choice to be born? What if you are born in a poor family and you do not like your parents? Why should there not be a right to suicide? My view is that the State should provide facilities for people to undergo voluntary euthanasia, in a painless and quick manner, provided they are of sound mind. This only makes sense. You as an individual only exist because of a decision made by others (i.e. your parents). Why should you be forced to live a life you don't want to? The human instinct is to survive, and suicide is often expensive, impracticable or scary. Thus, the State should implement means by which to end one's life.
5. Is psychology a real science? I do believe in the existence of certain disorders like Asperger's and antisocial personality disorder. But the discipline is very poorly defined and it allows unscrupulous individuals (such as practising psychologists) to say almost anything about anybody, and as long as it is plausible not many people will question it. For example, if you are a clinical psychologist, you could get away with telling your client to "exercise more" or "don't overthink it". I do not feel as though it is a serious or rigorous scientific discipline. I do not feel like you need a degree to practise psychology. There is also little evidence that clinical psychology is at all effective compared to talking with friends, or talking to someone who is pretending to be a psychologist (but does not have a degree).
Thoughts?
Comments (96)
Depends. Could be because they think that polygamous marriage is notably worse for societal conditions than gay marriage. Could also be because they have divested themselves parlty of their Christians values without divesting themselves from the xenophobia toward musulman practices. You should ask them, rather than us.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
That's the same pretty much everywhere in the Commonwealth. Here in Canada it's pretty much impossible to disinherit someone anymore. I don't see the relation between matrimonial law and marriage laws, tho.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
There is little point in asking for a right to do something which, anyway, everyone is capable of doing, will keep on doing, and where you could not possibly punish the person who commited it.
Well people support gay marriage because it promotes freedom. Testamentary freedom (the ability to give whatever you want to whomever you want in your will) is also promoted if we remove family provision legislation.
Quoting Akanthinos
By "right" in this context, I mean that the State should provide facilities to enable suicide to happen painlessly and quickly for those who are of sound mind.
There is some freedom in Australian law that allows polygamous marriage. The extremity of the offence of bigamy is, indeed, quite overwhelming (level 6) and there certainly is room to question whether polygamy should be a crime considering the rarity, but we do have room for relativism given that the practice does occur all over the world. You can be married to more than one person if the marriage is done internationally in a country that accept bigamy, but they will encounter some difficulties with the Migrations Act. However, unlike gay marriage, I doubt there will be manoeuvrability or any chance of this law relaxing in Australia. A large portion of Australians would not fight for bigamy primarily because it infringes on the rights of women and the custom is very peculiar to paternalistic cultures that challenges our liberal attitude. It is a great discussion to have in the philosophy of law, but the wider Australian population would likely see it as an infringement of rights and freedoms rather than the other way around.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
First of all, most people probably don't know about the Summary Offences Act, it is certainly not as well known as 18c and not as controversial; we all seem to accept that public decency laws are necessary to keep social order and so a person raving swear words and offensive language without sufficient reason in front of children or in public places near or around children would result in a fine, just as much as someone who decides to take their clothes off in a shopping centre. It is an isolated incident and the psychological harm is minimal in comparison to repeated harassment and particularly one directed at a person due to their race or religion that is often threatening.
This is the same as stalking. If someone I know is pretending to be someone else - say here online - and yet contacts me and I know that it is them, that increases my level of fear and psychological harm because I would be questioning why he or she would be doing that and will feel threatened accordingly. Indirect behaviour - such as leaving offensive material, say porn magazines - in a place where they know the victim will find it and the victim would know that it was the perpetrator that left it, it only increases psychological harm because they cannot prove what is happening but feel threatened (why would they do that?) and so the relevance to 18c here is the psychological harm.
The controversy with 18c is common all over the world and the executive government have been hostile to it since the very beginning, just as much as they are to Mabo v Queensland that led to a number of controversies with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities particularly during the Howard phase. We have s18d whereby prima facie there are exemptions to this law that enables fair expression particularly artistic that is of public interest that prevents the law breaching freedom of speech.
Holocaust denial is an act unacceptable viz., this law, for instance, but the law predominately works parallel to those who experience discrimination and harassment in the workplace such as repeated bullying where someone - say an indigenous employee - is called a 'coon' or 'nigger' and this increases liability due to the psychological harm it imposes. And it will stay that way, despite the recent attempt by the Turnbull government which was crushed by the Senate.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
This is weird. You are going to have to ameliorate why you compare the two.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
There are some jurisdictions that have legislated euthanasia laws for those who have a terminal illness under very specific circumstances. Other than that, the rest of what you say is nonsense.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
It is not very poorly defined, you are just very poorly educated on the subject.
Let's all think long and hard before we ask the state to "implement means by which to end one's life".
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Is this a big political issue in Australia?
Sure, psychology is a real science, but it has mixed terrain. Some areas are soft and spongy, even squishy, and other areas are hard.
The soft, spongy, squishy parts of psychology owe something to studies involving small numbers of subjects used as a spring board for leaping to conclusions. Some studies are poorly designed, methods are not rigorous, and so on. But then, we would not be at all happy if researchers did to people what they routinely do to rats. A large problem of psychology is the inherent cussedness of the subject of study -- homo sapiens -- one of the more cussed species around.
When psychologists study learning, for example, or memory, reaction time--all that sort of thing--they can turn out good results that are perfectly respectable. Personality research is much more difficult. For one thing, humans develop slowly. It takes a long time (25 years) for a brain to mature, to have a fully developed personality, and even then it's not the end of development. Longitudinal studies are very, very expensive and difficult.
There was a series of films done in England, 7-up, 14-up, 21-up... I can't remember what the last one was, 49-up or 56-up? It started with a group of 7 year olds who were interviewed. Then the filmmakers returned every 7 years and did another set of interviews with the same individuals. The point was t show how people's lives unfolded, but it wasn't a psychological research program--as I remember, it was more of a humanities project. This sort of thing is rarely done, but is essential to developing the science of psychology. Very expensive, again. And then the research has to be passed on to a second or third generation of researchers without losing the focus or continuity of the project.
Another problem of psychology is "researching behavior without the research affecting the behavior". Let's say you are interested in sexual behavior. Laud Humphries did a landmark study of public sex behavior in the late 1960s by becoming a "participant observer". He used the cover of marketing research to get objective information about the subjects he had observed in the field. Then he put it all together, and produced a very useful piece of research on sexual behavior.
He was dumped on rather thoroughly for all sorts of ethical violations, though in his defense, no subject identity was ever revealed, no subjects were interfered with in any way, and he did not personally engage in sex with the subjects. The subjects would not have known they were even involved in research had not the kerfuffle arisen over his methods.
I've been involved in surveys of sexual behavior, and the results were pretty worthless, because the people taking the surveys were volunteers. Obviously, or at least probably, their claimed behavior and opinions were different than those who would have refused to answer questions about their sex behavior. I tried doing the participant observer approach -- once -- and found that approach can get compromised pretty quickly. Like, one's subjects can sort of... turn the tables on you.
Well, sexual behavior is just one of many areas of behavior that are hard to observe or measure without the act of observation affecting the behavior of the subject. If you knew you were being observed in a study of reading habits, wouldn't this affect what you read?
In Australia, you cannot be married to two Australian residents at once. In that sense, polygamy is not legal. You say that "[a] large portion of Australians would not fight for bigamy because it infringes on the rights of women and the custom is very peculiar to paternalistic cultures that challenges our liberal attitude."
That is exactly my point. First of all, if people oppose it because it infringes their values, the same objection could be raised to gay marriage. Are we using personal values to justify law, or are we saying that gay marriage (like bigamy or polygamy) can be justified on the ground that it promotes freedom whilst minimally (if at all) infringing the rights of others? For the record, I do support gay marriage, but I also support polygamy and bigamy.
They do not violate the rights of women. Those terms are gender-neutral, so I do not see why you have brought women into this. Quoting TimeLine
That's exactly right. So I agree that we should have reasonable limitations to ensure social order. So there is no reason to fight to repeal s 18C at all, then, unless you are against all other similar laws that prohibit offensive language or behaviour (of the same kind that s 18C prohibits). Quoting TimeLine
You have actually not addressed the merits of what I have said.
Well, ONE reason is that those who are campaigning for legalized gay marriage are not campaigning for polygamous marriage. If someone wants to put polygamous marriage before the voting public, then they can do that. Just like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is mostly interested in issues around killing animals for their fur, experimenting on animals, mistreating animals, and so on. Automobile gas milage isn't their issue. If you are interested in gas milage, don't bother PETA.
For the record, I'm gay, am not very enthusiastic about gay marriage, and haven't decided whether polygamy is a good idea or not.
Whenever some heavily freighted issue comes before the public (like assisted suicide, forced vaccination, legalizing gay marriage, and so on, most people will most likely decide to vote on the basis of their personal values, prejudices, predilections, habits, and so on. That method of deciding how to vote doesn't mean that people are stupid. It just means that people do not consider each moral issue by starting from scratch, building a philosophy, and then deciding on what they will do. No, we follow familiar paths, I'm in favor of freedom, of course, but I also have a strong prejudice IN FAVOR of public health measures, like universal vaccination. If somebody doesn't want to get their children vaccinated against measles mumps, chickenpox, rubella, whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus, well... too bad. We'll force you to do it. Contradictory? Sure, but that's life. I value freedom and I value public health. The parent is losing a little freedom and getting a much healthier child.
The terms? Wait, are you suggesting that because polygamy is gender-neutral as a word, then the practice is gender-neutral?
That's just.. :-|
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Why do you support polygamy? What is your reasoning behind it?
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Not at all. Every nation-state has values and ideals that it broadly adheres to and the difficulty that we experience in a multicultural country like Australia is that sometimes there are ethical clashes, particularly religiously where something like polygamy is permitted and gay marriage is not. What we do in those instances is strike a balance and Australia has core values that we expect civic society to adhere to; these principles are both politically as a democracy as well as in law.
The problem of defining "marriage" vis-a-vis our core values and the law was that - while it was only with one other person - whether it should be considered between a 'man and a woman' and so same-sex marriage is really a question of defining person as all people should be equal before the law. That is human rights. The growing voice forced in support of gay marriage left democracy to allow citizens to choose because the law could not strike that balance; it was too complicated particularly for the reason that people like you would stand up and start saying, "well, what about polygamy?"
It is about the union of two people and therefore a plurality, not about gender. The content here is vastly different to polygamy where the cultural practice - for instance in some sects of Islam - is one man and four women. That is not about human rights, neither is it about personhood but it is a cultural practice that could in our terms and according to our values infringe on the rights of women which is in contravention of gender equality. If you put polygamy to a vote in Australia, it would get knocked off pretty easily because of this, this and because the communities that practice polygamy are so small.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Because there is no merits, buddy. I cannot address something that I cannot address.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Why do you think the law exists?
If you use personal values to deny them that opportunity, but then support gay marriage because it accords with your own personal values, you are hypocritical.
Religious people may object to gay marriage because it infringes their personal values.
There is no such thing, buddy. You can come up with all sorts of scenarios but you will only find yourself fabricating points to justify a moot argument. So, yes, there are restrictions necessary; it is the same complex restrictions you'll find in freedom of speech and hate speech.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
It is not my values that matter, but ours, when it comes to the law and democracy. I have no qualms with polygamy because I don't give a crap what people do in private as long as it is between consenting adults. But, marriage is a plurality in our culture and a predominate one. More than two, it is no longer marriage but something else.
You have not provided an adequate defence for polygamy, you just seem to be harping the same song.
Gay marriage requires adjustments to other laws besides those regulating who gets a license to marry. In the US, at least, tax law needs to be adjusted.
I may or may not have theoretical objections to more than two people marrying. A dozen people can marry (for purposes of discussion) BUT group marriage requires a lot more legal adjustment (should a legislature care to legalize group marriage). Who in the group marriage is legally responsible for a given child's welfare? Are there legally designated parents in group marriages? Let's say you have 5 men and 5 women in a marriage, all with equal conjugal rights and responsibilities. Is everyone considered the parent, or just the biologically proven parents? Who is legally responsible for children? What are the legal rights of group marriage partners who are not the parents of a child? If one member of the marriage is negligent in some aspect of the law, are they all negligent? Are all of them protected against testifying against their spouse--what a great way to run a criminal conspiracy--?
Group marriage is more problematic. I haven't seen very many ménage à trots work, let alone 4, 5, 8, or a dozen-way relationship. It's just plain difficult for us to manage a ménage. Hell, a one night stand 3 way can get complicated. There might be equality before the law, but equality in relationships is difficult to achieve and maintain -- and that's just with two people. 3? 5? 7? 11? All unimaginably complicated.
If gay marriage is put to a vote, and more people support it than reject it -- for whatever reasons -- then that is sufficient. It is sufficient because that is the way up or down voting works.
Utah became an American state and was required to legislate against the Mormon practice of Polygamy. Since then (well over a century ago) some people have continued to practice polygamy, sometimes with no interference, sometimes with considerable interference by the law.
So far, Mormons have not sought to re-legalize multiple marriage. They could, but they have not. (Marriage is a state matter, not a federal matter. But, if other states don't recognize multiple marriages, then it would only be effective in Utah.)
If there are Australians that wish to marry multiple partners, then they will have to do what other people have done, campaign vigorously for the right to do so. If your fellow Australians are willing, then it could happen. Nattering on about it here, however, isn't going to get you closer to the goal.
This is obvious. But it is not sufficient in the sense that it does not provide a cogent and logical justification. If there are 10 people in a room, and 6 people think that 2+2=4, and the other 4 think that 2+2=5, the 6 people are not right because they are the majority.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm not talking about Utah. I'm talking about a situation where, for example, three women wish to get married, and do not commit violations of law. The fact of their being married, and the fact of their committing or not committing an offence, are separate.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That is true in the United States, but in Australia the Constitution makes clear that marriage is a federal matter. This is part of the reason why I titled the thread "Political Issues in Australia."
Quoting Bitter Crank
You have not addressed the merits of what I have said. I never claimed that making a single thread about this topic on this forum would help achieve legislative change, so what you are saying is irrelevant.
You do realise that the same thing was said about gay marriage, right? "Nattering on about it isn't going to help," objectors said. You need to convince your fellow Australians. It all started with people voicing their opinions in free and open forums.
Are you comparing polygamy to a mathematical fact? You are also seemingly ignoring the fundamental argument against polygamy here, which is that marriage is a plurality. Anything more than a union of two, it is no longer "marriage" and so what would this actually be legislatively speaking? I think that Australia has done well enough to remain flexible to permit the small portion of our society willing to practice bigamy due to cultural reasons to do this outside of the country and return accordingly. Gay marriage is actually not just about rights, but about defining "marriage" which was previously a union between a man and a woman, which they changed.
No. The point is that that just because the majority thinks something is correct (that gay marriage should be allowed, but polygamy not) does not mean that they are correct. That was in response to your statement that: "If gay marriage is put to a vote, and more people support it than reject it -- for whatever reasons -- then that is sufficient. It is sufficient because that is the way up or down voting works". You should admit you are simply wrong here.
Quoting TimeLine
The word "plurality" means multiple in this context, in case you did not know. If you think it means "two people", then you are creating an arbitrary definition (much like people who oppose gay marriage, who arbitrarily define it as a union for life between a man and a woman).
Quoting TimeLine
It would no longer be a "marriage" under existing law, just like before gay marriage became legal in Australia a union between a same-sex couple was not a marriage.
Quoting TimeLine
That does not address anything I have said. I am not talking about whether it is legal to enter into a relationship with three or more people overseas. I am talking about whether it should be legal for three or more people to enter into a marriage in Australia. You are raising irrelevant issues, just like you did with your Utah example (which I have repied to, and you haev not addressed).
The fact that you "think" Australia is flexible is irrelevant.
Quoting TimeLine
That is what I have said. Gay marriage is now legal in Australia, which is good. I do not see a problem with three people who want to get married. Apart from pointing out that it is currently not the law and/or that the majority of Australians would oppose it, you have not addressed the merits of this proposal.
I am not talking about Utah, or the fact that you think Australia is "flexible" because you can enter into polygamous marriages overseas. Nor I am I talking about whether some polygamous marriages lead to criminal actions, which you have strangely suggested (and also a point that I have addressed, and you have not replied to).
You should do two things before your next reply:
1. Address my earlier replies, which you have completely ignored; and
2. Concisely list your objections against a proposal to allow three or more consenting adults of sound mind to get married.
The justification for legalising same-sex marriage (freedom) can be used to support polygamy as well. Neither forms of marriage are inherently destructive of anyone else's rights.
This is a political question, so you were somewhat factitious by beginning the discussion on legislative grounds. Essentially, your complaint is not about marriage laws but about this movement and whether Australians are either blindly moving in masses or their values - which you consider to be hypocritical - are aligned. It is an absolutely farcical statement to say Australians are hypocritical considering that you have no way to justify it and the reason why we had a plebiscite was to assist the government in ascertaining the legitimacy behind all the contentious arguments raised both for and against gay marriage. The result clearly exemplified that there still remains a sharp dichotomy of opinions related to this in addition to the fact that not everyone voted.
It is sufficient in a country that adheres to democratic principles to view majority vote as adequate to ascertain a proportional representation system. You need to provide an argument here that can prove why the majority vote is a form of tyranny and while it is clear that there are shortcomings, overall - the bigger picture - to show to me whether the balance of majority rule is insufficient.
As for admitting I am simply wrong, I will absolutely do no such thing. This discussion is elementary at best and I am trying to help you elucidate it and not prove some position that I do not even hold.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Comical. And, what?
As for the rest of your garbage, I really have no time to nourish your ego on a subject you clearly have very little knowledge of.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Well, unscrupulous individuals do lots of bad things in every field, from warehouse management to the priesthood. Why would psychology be any different?
But let's pass over that, just right now.
As a discipline, psychology grew out of philosophy. A lot of philosophical concerns issues we now classify as psychological. An example of this are discussions about consciousness, and whether one can experience having experiences. What about dreams? Will? emotions? All this stuff is fair game in philosophy. Do you think philosophers handle it so much better?
There are several sub-fields in psychology that philosophy didn't develop:
Abnormal Psychology. ...
Biological Psychology. ...
Child Psychology. ...
Clinical Psychology. ...
Cognitive Psychology. ...
Comparative Psychology. ...
Community Psychology. ...
Counseling Psychology...
I trained in counseling psychology at the masters level, so I have a small vested interest in psychology as a field--that was 45 years ago. Was it a creditable program? Some of it was, some of it wasn't. The program trained high school counselors. One of the first readings in the program was about the various people in a high school from whom a troubled student would seek out help. Counselors were last on the list, janitors were first. I should have taken a cue from that and moved on, but I didn't.
The best classes in the program dealt with personality theory and group psychology (IMHO). True enough, there are widely discordant theories of personalities, but there are themes that are common to all of them, like the importance of childhood experiences and learning. We know more about the genetic influences on personality, intelligence, and behavior now than we did in 1971. We know much more about brains structure, thanks to PET scans, MRIs, fMRIs, CT scans, portable EEGs, and so on.
Despite the individual uniqueness people display, people are really quite similar. Not that everyone is alike, but rather, people are consistently similar in the kinds of things they do, and the kinds of thoughts they have. That is why we can understand each other. We are members of the same species, and like other species, we tend to behave similarly among ourselves.
There are a lot of things we don't know about human behavior, like... how do people develop sexual fetishes? Why do some people experience alienation, anomie, and isolation, while their peers (similar backgrounds, similar experiences, similar influences) do not? What are the short, medium, and long term effects of technology like smartphones, Facebook, or twitter?
Tell us more about your objections to psychology as a field.
What you have said above has zero relevance to my reply.
"This is a political question, so you were somewhat factitious by beginning the discussion on legislative grounds."
This is not relevant. You said that the fact that the majority of people think something is true means that their views have merit. I gave you a simple example to refute this. If there are 10 people in a room, an 6 people think that 2+2=5 and 4 people think that 2+2=4, that does not mean the majority is correct. That is similar to when the majority of people (hypothetically) thinking that gay marriage ought to be legal, but polygamous marriage ought not be legal. The very topic of my thread has to do with whether that (hypothetical) majority view has any merit, not whether there is in fact a majority.
You should admit you are wrong here.
"Essentially, your complaint is not about marriage laws but about this movement and whether Australians are either blindly moving in masses or their values - which you consider to be hypocritical - are aligned."
Again, you should admit you are wrong. Show me where I said that "Australians are...blindly moving in masses" and are "hypocritical". I think it is hypocritical to support gay marriage on the ground that it promotes freedom, but object to polygamous marriage because it offends personal values. That is not to say that Australians are hypocritical. This is simply wrong, because you cannot generalise every single person who is an Australian as hypocritical.
You should admit you are wrong here.
"t is an absolutely farcical statement to say Australians are hypocritical considering that you have no way to justify it and the reason why we had a plebiscite was to assist the government in ascertaining the legitimacy behind all the contentious arguments raised both for and against gay marriage."
See my response a few lines above.
"The result clearly exemplified that there still remains a sharp dichotomy of opinions related to this in addition to the fact that not everyone voted."
This is totally irrelevant. The fact that there is a dichotomy of opinions does not have anything to do with whether or not polygamous marriage should or should not be allowed on its merits. Of course, in a democracy, the majority of people will have the final say as a general principle. But the fact that the majority of people think a particular thing does not render their opinion valid. The point is to critically assess the merits of those views.
If your argument is that the majority is always correct, then applying your logic to its extreme, all laws as they currently stand are perfect and do not need to change, provided they were passed according to democratic principle whereby majority rules.
You need to think further and ask why the majority thinks a certain way, and whether it is correct. Simply declaring that there is a majority and that their views are always going to be correct is a very superficial form of analysis, if it could even be called analysis.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Incorrect. The merit here is not a philosophical one, it is political, it is the very nature of democracy here that you are questioning. Why do you think I indirectly suggested you prove why tyranny of the majority is a problem and why our proportional representation system is inadequate. If you can do this, you will find yourself discussing theoretical models far beyond practical reality. You will not find a solition because there are no sufficient indices that can calculate and measure equality accurately.
From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with you. Tocqueville and Mill both showed how there are disadvantages to democratic governance, with the former in particular discussing the effects of majoritarianism and the potential authoritarian implications.This despotism can work in many different ways; consider, the American populace promotes the idea of 'individualism' but can blindly move in masses and rather forcefully too whereby these ideas are subtly given rather than formed by this so-called individualism (and thus it is really just ideological and imagined). It could be the bureaucratic government has weakened civil society that blindly support them. Repeat enough times and you have the Erich Fromm' Sane Society where capitalism alienates people to a point where conformity is almost commercialised and the more continuous this repetition the more we lack any conscious identification to it as though it becomes a part of us, like language. JS Mill, from memory, spoke of this 'will' where the majority forces the minority to do what it wants and thus exercising tyrannical power. That is why we have a thing called 'Human Rights' - it is to empower the minority and safeguard their rights in the instance where the majority may not take responsibility for their behaviour.
One thing that I remember Tocqueville correctly outlining is the very limitations of the legislature, or at the very least imposing limitations on the legislature to ensure individual freedoms are not infringed; what we refer to as the separation of powers. Both, however, are warnings. To actually and practically apply 'democracy' at a political level is indeed much more difficult. While philosophers for centuries have offered suggestions to avoid this, no one - quite literally - has been able to provide an effective implementation or design of a just society. Essentially, democracy itself is just an ideal and even voting cannot adequate calculate (have a look at Arrows Paradox).
We are forced to safeguard justice from potential cracks or loopholes including, as I already mentioned, things like separating the legislature, executive and judiciary, offering plebiscites and referendums, voting. These cannot be fundamentally reduced to an actual egalitarian practice because there is a conflict between freedom and equality. You cannot have both. So, the activity of engaging citizens in political affairs is about safeguarding that individual 'freedom' and preventing that 'blind mob mentality'. Not sure if you were around during the Howard Government, but he fell because the Australian people were vehemently against IR laws that would have destroyed fair working arrangements. There have been a number of instances where our governments - mainly the liberals - have tried to breach that trust (Abbott and freedom of information for instance). There are multiple safeguards and the majority vis-a-vis citizenry is another form of power and that too needs ensure there are adequate protections to avoid despotism. It was not just the people that helped changed the law of marriage in Australia, there were many organisations including the Human Rights Commission as well as comparative studies on countries like Canada prior to such passing. It is not simply 'this is what we want' and that's that.
There is no real solution to equality save for perhaps the economic distribution of wealth and welfare ect, but not really this will or moral equality. Practically, it is impossible except for equality before the law. This, I gather, is where you are annoyed. Fair, distributive justice is about preventing inequalities and citizens - the right citizens, those 'individuals' who value freedom - will ultimately have different opinions. It is a fact that because of this freedom, we will occasionally find ourselves creating inequalities. There are situations where the outcome is not equal. Whether there is any moral liability here is questionable; if it were black and white, we would not be having this discussion.
I am going home now, I will write again soon.
I am not talking about democracy, tyranny, the proportional representation system or equality. The point I made is that just because a majority of people agree with something does not make them correct. Under your logic, every law that was passed through democratic means is correct, and should never be subject to any form of rigorous scrutiny or analysis.
Quoting TimeLine
I am not talking about democracy, so you have misinterpreted my position. Please show me a comment where I mentioned the democracy is good or bad as a political system. Everything else you have mentioned is premised on this misinterpretation, so is irrelevant. Please go back and address my comments individually and specifically.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
What do you think that is?
it is an example of when the majority is incorrect. And that point applies to the case of policy, too. One example is slavery. The fact that people once thought that slavery was acceptable does not mean that it should have been acceptable. That example has nothing to do with democracy, or any of the other related comments you have strangely injected into this discussion.
Generally, laws should always be evaluated to see if they are good or not. We should not just accept that all laws are perfect, and shy away from any critical analysis of them, simply because of the fact that they were passed through Parliament in a democratic fashion.
Therefore, you should admit you are incorrect.
What is the law? How is policy formed? Are you suggesting that it has nothing to do with democracy, government or citizens?
So, tyranny of the majority. Explain.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Democratic fashion?
That's what I've been doing to each of your comments. You have not done the same. Quoting TimeLine
Those are general broad-brush topics you should bring elsewhere. The fact that a majority of people can be wrong is not a concept that you seem to grasp easily. Whether democracy is a desirable political system or not is another topic.
Quoting TimeLine
Not at all. You asked me what my example was, and I explained this to you. You have now shifted the conversation over to tyranny.
You are talking about the majority opinion being wrong in the context of Australian law and that will inevitably include discussions of majority rule, democracy, voting, law, politics, philosophy. There is no actual answer to your question without thinking about those broader subjects in an attempt to justify why freedom and equality are mutually exclusive that may result in laws contradicting rights. Hence why I mentioned Arrows Theorem as an example where no voting system is ever accurate. You clearly have no idea about most of what is being said here and that verifies enough for me to try and help you understand and I am making every effort to speak in plain language, but your refusal with this "I am right and you are wrong" attitude and saying it rather forcefully yet without any philosophical substance is actually really disturbing to me.
You are talking about majority rule. Read it and then maybe you may understand my response accordingly. Otherwise, stay silent if you refuse to actually have a discussion.
The fact that a majority of people is wrong has utterly nothing to do with voting, law or politics in my example.
Yep, we're done.
Perhaps you have been told this before, but your writing is extremely verbose, strange and irrelevant. I have said nothing of the merits of democracy as a political system. I pointed out that the majority can be wrong. If you disagree with that statement, and you also think that the majority is always right, that is an instantly refutable position.
if you agree that the majority can be wrong, then there is nothing more to add.
The point of my saying that the majority can be wrong is to demonstrate that we should not simply accept everything that the majority says is correct. That is the point of this thread. If, hypothetically, the majority of people oppose polygamy (and we don't even know if that is the case), then it is worth investigating further why they oppose it and the grounds on which they oppose it.
Simply stopping the analysis and saying that the majority thinks it is true is unscientific, profoundly mistaken and intellectually dishonest. A law that is democratically passed can still have effect even if a minority of people, rightly or wrongly, protest its merits.
You have started with a fallacy of assuming that the majority are saying 2+2=5 and so you have instantly made it a wrong. Comparatively, you are instantly claiming that the illegality of polygamy as also wrong. You have demonstrated nothing but faulty reasoning. The really disturbing part about that is that you project your own failures by claiming that "there is nothing more to add" and yet you say this:
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Sorry, buddy. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and so we are done.
I said that the majority can be wrong. The majority is not always right.
This is a straightforward point any reasonable person agrees with.
One hypothetical example of it is where 10 people are in a room, and 6 people think that 2+2=5, while 4 people think that 2+2=4.
Please explain where you disagree with this reasoning.
Do you have a cite for the study you're referencing?
Wrong. I am not arguing that polygamy is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5.
I am saying that just because an idea is endorsed by the majority does not mean that it is immune from criticism.
The fact that gay marriage is legal in Australia and polygamy is not does not mean that we should not investigate the issue further.
Your comment represents the height of anti-philosophy and intellectual dishonesty.
Rats! All those great looking svelte guys on the beach in their minimal Speedos are now lard asses, and have switched to gawd-awful looking floppy swim pants. Quelled horreurs! Cancel the beach vacation in Oz.
Alright, listen here. The one thing that I have very little patience for are those who do not listen and just assume that they know the answer; so stubborn that they actually trick themselves into thinking things that do not exist, playing word games assuming others are playing along with them so as to ensure that whatever they are telling themselves remains believable enough to continue and they can sleep better at night.
If you are fixed in your opinion, if there is no possible method of me actually being able to have a conversation with you because your opinion is set or solid, then what is this exchange between us other than you talking to yourself? If I do not exist, there is nothing there but your imagination and you may think that this is an actual discussion we are having, but it is really just me talking to a wall.
There are some people that lead a very happy and content existence when they have stupid people around them who will agree to every bullshit that they say so that they can go on thinking they are magnificent. Other times, these stupid people are not actually good people that they have around them and they are playing a different game which is to nourish your narcissism with compliments erstwhile doing all sorts of shit behind your back as you go on thinking that you are magnificent.
If you do not seek to improve, you will remain the same for the rest of your life, you will be stuck and immovable. You will hurt people who are good for you and remain close to people who are bad for you and you will do that happily so that the continuity of your self-deceit remains steadfast and you can sleep better at night. But, not really, the misery deep within will merely be suppressed for as long as one continues playing this game.
You will never experience a world that could be exponentially better than what you are currently experiencing, so limited is your understanding that the real pleasures and real happiness in life will pass you by.
Make friends with people who are not afraid to tell you that you are wrong, not people who will agree with you tooth and nail. Do not project your own faults and problems onto these people when they expose to you that you are wrong and claim that it is them doing what you are actually doing. The word forum implies a medium where ideas can be exchanged. It is a community of people that communicate. Education, communication, it is this exchange that roots out the ego and all those narcissistic self-defence mechanisms to enable progress and improvement.
You need to be concise. Everything here has nothing to do with my two replies.
Instead of writing about a million different topics, focus on this one:
1. The majority can be wrong.
2. For example, suppose there are 10 people in a room.
3. 6 of them think that 2+2=5.
4. 4 of them think that 2+2=4.
5. The majority in that example is wrong.
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please point out where you disagree.
The fact that the majority is wrong in that example does not mean that I support the overturn of democracy.
Ironically, in a democracy people are allowed to voice their disagreements, even the minority.
Bringing that example back to the topic of this thread:
1. The majority of people in Australia have voted in favour of gay marriage.
2. Polygamy is not legal in Australia, in the sense that three or more people who live in Australia cannot get married in Australia.
3. The fact that the majority of people in Australia have not yet voted for polygamy to be legalised.
4. The fact that the majority of people in Australia have not yet voted for polygamy to be legalised does not mean that:
(a) we should shy away from debating the idea; and/or
(b) we should assume that polygamy is a bad idea just because it has not been endorsed by the majority.
Please point out where in this simple chain of reasoning any disagreements you may have.
We get that. The majority can also be right, so the problem is why you are saying it. What is your point? You then say this:
Quoting RepThatMerch22
When you said this earlier:
Quoting RepThatMerch22
So, now what you are trying to say is that we should debate the idea? I already agreed with that, hence the democracy, voting system, paradoxes, why freedom and equality are mutually exclusive that may result in laws contradicting rights. These are the types of conversations that occur when you bring such a contentious issue to discussion and debate. Where exactly, other than saying "wrong" have you had this debate?
So do you agree with those 5 points? A yes or no answer is sufficient. The problem is that if you start making extra points, the scope of the debate becomes less clear. Let me ask you again.
1. The majority can be wrong.
2. For example, suppose there are 10 people in a room.
3. 6 of them think that 2+2=5.
4. 4 of them think that 2+2=4.
5. The majority in that example is wrong.
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please point out where you disagree.
Quoting TimeLine
I did say that earlier. I am not arguing that polygamy is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5. I am arguing that the majority can be wrong, and that we should not accept ideas as correct simply because they are endorsed by the majority. The focus of this debate is on whether polygamy should be legalised or not. Simply pointing out that it is not an idea that is endorsed by the majority, and therefore that it should not be debated as an issue, is a very superficial argument.
Quoting TimeLine
Those are entirely irrelevant issues. The minority can disagree with the majority about an issue. That is the whole point of a democracy. Nobody is saying that democracy as a system should be overturned, so those conversations are irrelevant.
I am not going to ask you again. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Are you just saying that the majority can be wrong and issues like polygamy should be discussed, or do you want to go further and talk about the moral, ethical, political aspects to this problem?
It is a really simple question.
You have shifted the topic. Address my replies.
"Are you just saying that the majority can be wrong[?]"
Yes. Do you disagree? Yes or no.
"...the majority can be wrong and issues like polygamy should be discussed[?]"
Yes. Do you disagree? Yes or no.
"...do you want to go further and talk about the moral, ethical, political aspects to this problem."
We haven't gotten there yet.
The first step is for you to acknowledge, as anyone would, two points:
1. The majority can be wrong; and
2. Just because an idea is endorsed by the majority does not mean it is always correct or incorrect.
1. The majority can be wrong
2. That an idea is endorsed by the majority does not imply that it is either correct or incorrect.
So, @RepThatMerch22, out of curiosity, will you also agree with me that
1. The majority can be right
and,
2. That an idea with which one disagrees is endorsed by the majority does not imply that one is correct.
Just wondering.
I agree.
I agree.
So once TimeLine agrees, we can move on.
I note that you have also agreed to my earlier reply.
Having agreed to those points, do you agree with these statements (which is what TimeLine was arguing about):
FIRST: Regardless of whether the majority agrees with a particular idea, in this debate we should not stop our discussion simply because of what the majority thinks.
SECOND: In looking at whether polygamy is a good idea, the fact that the majority may oppose it does not mean automatically that it is a bad idea.
THIRD: Pointing out that the majority opposes polygamy is not sufficient to undermine any merits of such a proposal, and that such an issue deserves a greater depth of analysis.
Is it? So, when I said to you:
Quoting TimeLine
And you completely ignored it, as well as ignoring the fact that logic cannot be used to explain the type of problem you are suggesting and that the application of this problem in real-world scenarios fares differently to philosophical ones, you STILL continue.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
You are not even discussing it. This so-called logical process you are attempting to convey is not actually going to rectify your previous lack thereof and does not suddenly make you look like you know what you are talking about.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
So, is this a moral question, an ethical question, or a political question. What does "bad idea" mean?
Quoting RepThatMerch22
No one here is undermining it.
Lot's of words, nothing of consequence.
They can be answered with a "Yes" or a "No", with an explanation afterwards.
Go back and answer them, then.
It might be worth noting that polygamy is not at the centre of any larg scale discussion in Australian politics. So someone who keeps banging on about it when no one else cares might be mistaken for being a bit of a dick.
Also, it seems worth saying that Dow Nunder, even if they are wrong, majority opinion is relevant in setting out the law.
So if most folk do not give a fuck, the law will stay the same.
I don't think that calling someone a "dick" is a good rebuttal.
Quoting Banno
Of course it is.
But that doesn't mean that all laws which are passed democratically should be immune from criticism. That doesn't mean that we should avoid any discussion of principled law reform.
Quoting Banno
That is true, but you could say that about all efforts of law reform.
If you agree with those 3 points, you agree with what I have been trying to convey to TimeLine.
You haven't.
How many of those 3 points do you agree with (if any)?
Indeed, it's not a rebuttal at all. Nevertheless, if there were someone who went on and on about polygamy, as if it was one of the most important issues facing Dow Nunder, to the detriment of civil conversation and in lieu of more pressing issues, how should one react?
Oh, by all means criticise those laws and policies that are objectionable!
If asked to list pressing political issues Dow Nunder, I would've suggested same-sex marriage of course, although that might be a bit passé now. Certainly the relation between the Commonwealth and First Australians would be up there; Children in detention, treatment of asylum seekers, environmental destruction.
But none of the things you list. Your list just seems somewhat eccentric.
I don't think that brushing the issue off as unimportant is a good rebuttal, either. Of course there are more important issues, but does that mean that we should only discuss those issues? Does that mean that all issues which people don't consider "important" should never be discussed?
Quoting Banno
Those are all good issues to discuss, but they aren't relevant to this thread. The fact that you consider there to be more important issues is not a good rebuttal. You could apply that logic to any issue which is relatively trivial, to the point where only issues that are "important" can be discussed.
Quoting Banno
So what if it seems eccentric? Is that a valid rebuttal?
So far you have mentioned that I am a "dick", that there are more important issues and that the issues I have listed are "eccentric". None of those comments are valid criticisms of what I have said.
This became a matter for debate because a very large number of citizens wanted the change and campaigned for it.
A similar sequence of events has not happened for long-term polygamous liaisons simply because very few people have requested it. If it is important to you then you need to try to start a movement, just as those that wanted gay marriage did.
One cannot blame society for not responding to a movement that does not exist in any material sense.
Also, there is nothing in the law that prevents people living in long-term polygamous relationships. Indeed, to some extent this happened in the sixties in communes, although the long-term tended not to be very long. If the failure of the state to publicly and formally recognise such relationships bothers those involved, they are making surprisingly little noise about it.
Finally, the gay marriage movement was not bound up in notions of 'freedom'. The key theme was 'fairness'. I find fairness just as problematic a concept as freedom, as I believe neither is possible in this world. But nevertheless, it was fairness and not freedom that was the catchcry of the movement.
I'm not attempting to rebut anything you have said. After all, you have said so little.
But since this is an international forum, it is worth my efforts to point out that the title, Political Issues in Australia, is quite inappropriate. A better would be Political Issues for RepThatMerch22.
I agree that this was a cause.
Quoting andrewk
Thank you for the advice.
Quoting andrewk
I agree.
Quoting andrewk
I am talking about marriage.
Quoting andrewk
I think it was a lot of things, including freedom and fairness.
I have said a lot. One thing I have said is that perhaps polygamous marriage should be legalised. You have said that I am a "dick", that there are more important issues and that the issues I have listed are "eccentric". Those comments are not substantive criticisms of the proposal.
Quoting Banno
So your issue is with the title rather than the substance of the thread?
I didn't call you a dick. I did say that someone who banged on forever about something that most folk are not interested in would be a dick. The conclusion is yours.
And yes, the title is misleading.
Yes.
I've been out since 1971. Immediately after Stonewall, and in the years following for... maybe 20 years, at least in Fly Over Land where I live, marriage was not a pressing issue. By the early 90s, the whole gay movement had achieved a lot of its goals. For activists, this is a significant problem: Nobody really tries to work themselves out of a job (or a cause) and when you run out of cause, it's time to expand the franchise.
Marriage was the obvious next place to go. So that is where the leadership of political activism took it. They took it that way along with a generally assimilationist program: "Gay people are just like straights", with the possible exception of what they do in bed. AIDS had somewhat narrowed the options for the well-informed, so what we all were doing in bed may or may not have been much different than your average tired heterosexuals were doing.
Saying that "someone who banged on forever about something that most folk are not interested in would be a dick" is not a substantive criticism either.
Are you saying that in order to not be a "dick", people should only "bang on" about things that most folk are interested in?
So your only substantive criticism of this thread is its title, is that correct?
If not, could you please list out your other substantive criticisms?
Yep.
Sometimes you have to strike when the iron is hot; other times you have to strike until the iron is hot. Many of my pet topics (like socialism) are either of little interest to most people, or they are anathema.
My main complaint about you, Repthatmerch22, is that you don't seem to get it that IF there had been no drive for polygamous marriage, THEN no one was a fault for it not happening.
Sometimes people lose: People against fluoridation of water lost. They tried to ban it; they failed. People in favor of good schools have voted for levies that raise taxes to support school. They won, at least some of the time. Sometimes they lose. NOBODY has asked for a law guaranteeing burial on the moon. Since nobody has asked, there can't (yet) be a complaint about the lack of such a law.
I don't know why you care, but apparently, nobody in Australia has asked for this law allowing polygamous marriage, so there are no good grounds (no grounds at all, really) for complaint that such a law hasn't been passed.
I don't have any substantive criticisms.
Neat metaphor. But it would be simpler to build the fire.
No doubt that is what @RepThatMerch22 thinks he is doing.
You have misinterpreted what I am saying. I am saying that if people support gay marriage on the ground that it promotes freedom, they should also support polygamous marriage.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That is not my complaint.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That isn't my complaint.
You say that "nobody in Australia has asked for this law allowing polygamous marriage". That is a very bold, general statement that can be instantly refuted because I am in Australia and I have asked for this law. I am sure there are others. Are you willing to admit that you are wrong here?
Then your argument is null.
Sorry for disappointing you...
It's close enough to your complaint that the difference doesn't matter. You asked, you say. Big fucking deal. You are 1 of 16,039,370 registered voters in Australia. If 1%, (160,400) or even 1/2 of 1% had asked, you would have a case. Have as few of 1/2 of 1% of Australian citizens (let alone voters) held public events requesting polygamous marriage? Have a dozen people met to request that polygamous marriage be allowed?
Socialism is my pet cause. In a city of 2.5 million people, one can get together a couple dozen people who are interested enough to show up at a meeting. If 50 people showed up, it wouldn't show that large numbers of people were interested ins socialism. It would only show that small numbers are interested. There may be larger numbers, but we don't know of them.
I can't argue that socialism is a live political issue without seeing evidence. IF 5% of the population voted for a candidate belonging to the Socialist Workers Party, I could make that argument. (Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Socialist Workers Party.) If 5% of the electorate voted for a Socialist Democratic candidate, or a candidate from the Communist Party USA, I could say that there was interest.
You are claiming that because you asked, there is interest. Sorry, not enough. Not enough by a long shot.
The beauty of democracy is that there is free speech, something you obviously don't like. If you think about it, gay marriage used to be an idea that very few, if any people, supported. It was only through their advocacy that it became a well-known issue.
But that is not my complaint. The fact that you claim that the majority of people in Australia do not support polygamous marriage is not a sufficient rebuttal. The question is whether people who support gay marriage should also support polygamous marriage to remain philosophically consistent.
Pointing out that very few people support an idea does not refute that idea.
Quoting Bitter Crank
So? Whether 5 people, 50 people or 500 people support an idea does not make that idea correct or incorrect.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm not talking about socialism.
Your argument that for an idea to be discussed there must be at least 5% of the electorate to support it is arbitrary and bizarre.
Simply because they are two quite distinct issues.
Yes, it is obvious that you want to say they are the same, but as with your other thread you adopt the convenient fiction of equality.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
I adore free speech, but I didn't say anything to the contrary. I did not address whether polygamous marriage was good, bad or indifferent. I addressed whether it was an issue at all, and what it was that would make it a real issue.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
No, I didn't say anything about "a majority" supporting polygamous marriage. Majorities are needed to enact laws. Political viability can be achieved with much smaller percentages. I referenced 1% or 1/2 of 1%, or even less than that; how about 500? If 500 people asked for polygamous marriage, it would be closer to being a "viable issue". Political viability isn't about consistency, it's about at least minimum numbers of interest. In 1975 or 1985, maybe even in 1995, gay marriage was not a politically viable issue because too few gay people, let alone straight people, supported the redefinition of marriage to mean two people, whether of the opposite or same sex.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
It is consistent to support heterosexual and gay marriage IF one defines marriage as a legal arrangement between two people, and only two people. It remains consistent to support heterosexual and gay marriage, and oppose polygamous marriage, IF one defines marriage as a legal arrangement between two people, and only two people.
It would be inconsistent to define marriage as a legal arrangement between two people, and only two people, and at the same time define marriage as a legal arrangement among several people.
More than the issue of polygamous marriage's political viability or logical consistency, I wonder what it is that you wish to achieve in this discussion about what is, for all practical purposes, a NON-ISSUE.
Apart from what is logically consistent and politically viable or not, my own take on marriage makes me an outlier. This has nothing direct to do with your hobby horse of polygamous marriage.
As a gay liberationist, I never bought the idea that the term "marriage" had the inchoate meaning of "between any two people, whether a male and a female or two people of the same sex". I have always thought that marriage was a heterosexual institution, designed to facilitate stable families in which to rear children. Two-parents-of-the-opposite-sex families that are stable and enduring are critical to a healthy, stable society.
Gay liberation asserted that homosexuality was both good and not the same as heterosexuality. In practice, homosexuals had developed an assortment of living arrangements ranging from solitary to long-term, stable couples of two males or two females, with various alternatives in-between. There was never any reason to not continue to promote the range of homosexual relationships, EXCEPT that assimilationists wish to portray homosexuality as essentially the same as heterosexuality, and could/should include "marriage and child rearing".
Of course, it is possible for a homosexual couple to provide 1/2 of the genetic requirement for a baby, and obtain the other half from a surrogate. It is done, and there are other arrangements such as adoption or foster care whereby a homosexual couple can provide a family for a child to grow up in. I don't consider it a priority (or even a desirability) for gay people to duplicate the institutions of heterosexuality.
I would prefer that gay people who wish to form enduring relationships do so on the basis of mutual commitment, without legally binding documents defining the relationship. Gay relationships can last decades (ours lasted 30 years until death intervened) because the two people want them to continue, without any inconvenient legal framework to make it difficult to quit. But relationships don't have to last for the rest of one's life, whether that be 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or more years into thee future. They don't have to last the rest of the week, and many gay people have had very short term relationships (a matter of days, weeks, months) which were very good. So do heterosexuals, of course.
I cannot consistently support the idea of polygamous marriage because I think it means "two heterosexual people". But I have no objection to people attempting to devise polygamous relationships, and if they do, more power to them. They don't have to receive the imprimatur of normative heterosexual society to be valid. They either make it valid themselves, or it isn't valid at all.
PS: a quote from the State Assisted Suicide thread:
Quoting RepThatMerch22
Legalising both would promote freedom, so in that regard it would be the same.
Why would you deny three mutually consenting adults from entering into an arrangement called marriage?
Whether or not it is a "real issue" to you is subjective. It is an issue that is raised in this thread. I am not making any claims about how widespread the issue ought to be in the public.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The criteria that you have set out for something to be a "viable issue" is arbitrary and bizarre. People are allowed to voice their opinions, whether or not those opinions would attract what you call 1% or 0.5% of supporters in Australia. Every issue once had zero supporters until a few people started speaking out. But what you have said is irrelevant because I never made any claims about how widespread this issue ought to be.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If you support gay marriage because it promotes freedom, you must logically support polygamous marriage as well if it is between multiple consenting adults of sound mind. There is no reason to arbitrarily draw the line at two people, just as there is no reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
I don't much care what you think it is arbitrary, subjective, or bizarre.
I set up a minimal standard of interest to indicate whether an proposal was a viable political issue. Whether you like it or not, there are viable political issues and political issues which are non-starters, non-viable, DOA. This changes over time, mostly owing to advocacy or some kind of crisis event plus advocacy.
Quoting RepThatMerch22
I do not have to agree with you that gay marriage is ultimately about freedom, or that gay marriage is somehow inextricably tied to the marriage of multiple partners. You could extend that formula to "if you support gay marriage because it promotes freedom, you must also logically support the marriage of [fill in here whatever absurd combo you like].
No, I don't have to do that, and I won't. Changes in the right to vote, the right to enlist in the military, the right to marry, and various other civil acts have been made BECAUSE people advocated for those changes, organized around those changes, made a legal case for those changes, and convinced a majority (sometimes more than a majority) to agree. There was, never is, a guarantee that advocacy, organizing, and legal work is going to lead to success.
You may be aware that politics is not an exercise of in logic. Maybe you think it should be, but it isn't.
Consistency doesn't come into play until a group has actually advocated for change, organized to achieve change, and made a legal case for change. IF XYZ group makes a case as compelling as the cases for women's suffrage, the right of citizens to enlist in the military (provided they meet physical and psychological standards), or the right for gays to marry, THEN there is a question of consistency. And at that time I, you, and everybody else, can be subjective and inconsistent if they so wish, and still not agree. Like it or not, that's how politics works.
It is illogical to demand logic where opinion rather than logic rules. That's politics.
First, your standard is arbitrary and bizarre.
Second, this thread is not about whether polygamous marriage is a "viable political issue".
Quoting Bitter Crank
Wrong. I argue that if you support gay marriage substantially or exclusively on the ground that it promotes personal freedom and equality, you should logically support polygamous marriage because it can be justified on the same grounds.
You have yet to articulate a basis to differentiate the two.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I never said politics is an exercise in logic. I am asking you to articulate a sound basis for supporting same-sex marriage but not polygamous marriage.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That's a different issue. You are talking about how political change is effected. I am talking about whether polygamous marriage has merit.
You are doing a remarkably bad job at it. If you want people to engage with you, you would do well to be more forthcoming about what you think in support of your main idea and why. Mostly what you are doing is sparring. Sparring is OK if it is done with clever wit. I don't see any sign of with in your responses, which makes interaction with you tedious.
You clearly have the capacity to be more engaging, but I'm not seeing it here.
If you want me to continue this conversation, tell me this:
Why do you care about polygamous marriage?
What do you think the merits of polygamous marriage are?
What is your view on gay marriage, and why do you make support of gay marriage (as an extension of freedom) bound up with whatever views you have about polygamous marriage?
You should also do well to read how others have already explained this earlier to him.
As I have said earlier, the arguments on freedom and equality that can be used to justify gay marriage can also be invoked in the case of polygamous marriage. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "sparring". You seem to be incapable of responding directly to comments.
Let me answer your questions directly:
1. I care about polygamous marriage because there are people who would like to enter into relationships involving 3 or more people, and it promotes freedom and equality.
2. The merits of polygamous marriage are that it promotes freedom and equality, and that it does not inherently infringe anyone's rights.
3. I support gay marriage absolutely for the same reason I support polygamous marriage. You should have already gathered this given my earlier posts. I am not against gay marriage at all, and the fact that you seem to think I am already reveals your bias.
I believe polygamous marriage would require freedom and equality to exist prior to it's being adopted.
Their group marriages would be more a demonstration of freedom and equality, less a promotion of freedom and equality. I don't think it would infringe on anyone's rights.
What I do not see in your answers is any consideration for polygamous people themselves. What is the current state of relationships among people who want to marry more than 2 people? How do these relationships work? What kind of problems arise in these relationships? How are problems resolved?
I didn't think you were against gay marriage. Your posts made it quite clear that you were in favor of gay marriage.
I would prefer that gay rights not be linked to the rights of people who are not gay BECAUSE the various sexual minorities (gays, bisexuals, transgendered people, etc.) have their own unique issues, which they should deal with, and which are not synonymous with the unique issues which gay people have.
Legalising polygamous marriage is similar to legalising gay marriage because it promotes freedom (three or more mutually consenting adults of sound mind can choose to be married) and equality (there is no discrimination between two-partner and three- or more-partner relationships).
Quoting Bitter Crank
So you disagree over the word "promote" and "demonstrate", rather than the actual substance of the grounds which are used to support polygamous marriage like you asked? (i.e. freedom and equality).
Quoting Bitter Crank
You could ask the same questions of same-sex relationships. The fact is that if three or more mutually consenting adults of sound mind want to get married, I have no issue with that at all. It doesn't affect my rights, and if they want to do so then so be it. They should be able to get married. You would not be affected in any way, and what happens within their relationship is a matter for them.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Then why did you ask me to clarify my views on gay marriage?
Quoting Bitter Crank
So you do not support the LGBTIQ+ movement?
The issues do not have to be the same. They are, by definition, different groups of people. I support the rights of transgender people, just as I support the rights of bisexual, transgender, intersex or queer people. If any of those groups, or if anyone straight, or if anyone gay, wants to get married they should have the right to do so. I do not think it is fair to draw a line in the sand and exclude three or more people from getting married.
My argument is all in favour of freedom and equality, and is only an extension of what many LGBTIQ+ supporters are arguing. Gay marriage is certainly a step in the right direction, and a huge move that demonstrates and/or promotes freedom and equality.
I wouldn't. They can do as they like.
Great. So if you agree with polygamous marriage, you agree with what I have said.
I am not surprised you have posted that because you have run out of substance.
How so?
I suspect TimeLine has backed out of the debate.
The answer is that the right for three or more consenting adults of sound mind to enter into a marriage does not infringe on the rights of women.
And by the way, I don't see a problem with that at all. If three adult men, mutually consenting, and of sound mind, want to get married, that doesn't affect me one bit at all. Go for it. Whatever makes them happy.
The fact that there are people who would justify opposing that is to me quite ridiculous.