1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage? — RepThatMerch22

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.

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? — 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.

4. Should there be a right to suicide? — 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.

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. — Akanthinos

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.

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. — 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.

1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage? — RepThatMerch22

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.

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? — 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.

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? — RepThatMerch22

This is weird. You are going to have to ameliorate why you compare the two.

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. — 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.

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). — RepThatMerch22

It is not very poorly defined, you are just very poorly educated on the subject.

Thus, the State should implement means by which to end one's life. — RepThatMerch22

Let's all think long and hard before we ask the state to "implement means by which to end one's life".

Is psychology a real science? — 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?

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. — Bitter Crank

Horsewater! Psychology is just no science at all. The best that can be said of it is that sometimes, almost as if by accident, some science is done. More generally, the best psychology can do is statistics, except that (as you note) often the statistics are wrong, the studies flawed, and on top of that, their interpretation is itself open to interpretation.

One of the places where psychology is worst is in the study of learning - if you mean teaching people. Studies with rats - well - how do you get to conclusions about learning from behaviour without begging whatever question you're raising?

I remember very well asking the professor in a theory of personalities class how differing theories were reconciled (oh, ignorant question!)? The answer, given dismissively and with some asperity, was that I was supposed to pick and choose what made the best sense to me. Actually a serviceable answer - but not a respectable answer from a science. Respectable if and only if it makes no claim of being from a scientific viewpoint.

I doubt if ever a psychology textbook were written that could not be torn apart as nonsensical.

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. — TimeLine

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.

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. — 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).

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. — TimeLine

You have actually not addressed the merits of what I have said.

1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage? — RepThatMerch22

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 do support gay marriage, but I also support polygamy and bigamy. — RepThatMerch22

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.

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. — RepThatMerch22

The terms? Wait, are you suggesting that because polygamy is gender-neutral as a word, then the practice is gender-neutral?

That's just.. :-|

In Australia, you cannot be married to two Australian residents at once. — RepThatMerch22

Why do you support polygamy? What is your reasoning behind it?

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. — 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.

You have actually not addressed the merits of what I have said. — RepThatMerch22

Because there is no merits, buddy. I cannot address something that I cannot address.

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. — RepThatMerch22

Why do you think the law exists?

So if three women want to get married to each other in a three-way relationship, it is right to deny them that freedom even though they don't affect anyone else's freedoms?

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.

So if three women want to get married to each other in a three-way relationship, it is right to deny them that freedom even though they don't affect anyone else's freedoms? — RepThatMerch22

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.

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. — 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.

I'm not stimulated in the direction of righteous indignation by your argument. It strikes me as baiting. But...

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.

That is exactly the point. If we prohibit polygamy but allow gay marriage, there needs to be a cogent justification for it. The fact that more people support the former and not the latter, in and of itself, is not sufficient. We could apply that thinking to a range of other scenarios, with disastrous results.

The fact that more people support the former and not the latter, in and of itself, is not sufficient. — RepThatMerch22

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.

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. — Bitter Crank

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.

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. — 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.

Marriage is a state matter, not a federal matter. — 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."

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. — 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.

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. — RepThatMerch22

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.

Are you comparing polygamy to a mathematical fact? — TimeLine

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.

You are also seemingly ignoring the fundamental argument against polygamy here, which is that marriage is a plurality. — 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).

Anything more than a union of two, it is no longer "marriage" and so what would this actually be legislatively speaking? — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

You have not provided an adequate defence for polygamy, you just seem to be harping the same song. — TimeLine

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.

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. — RepThatMerch22

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.

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). — 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.

Let's switch topics for a while.

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. — 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.

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. — TimeLine

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.

Before I start, I must inform you that I am on my phone as I have been out all day and it is also really hot in this house so my aggravation may be slightly elevated. I apologise in advance if I come across as terse.

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. — 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.

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. — TimeLine

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.

From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with you. — 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.

Rep, you say this:

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. — RepThatMerch22

What do you think that is?

What do you think that is? — TimeLine

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.

Ok, look, forcefully speaking without substance and clearly failing to actually read and understand responses does not make you correct. Read what I wrote and tell me where I am incorrect, otherwise this conversation ends right now.

What is the law? How is policy formed? Are you suggesting that it has nothing to do with democracy, government or citizens?

it is an example of when the majority is incorrect. — RepThatMerch22

So, tyranny of the majority. Explain.

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. — RepThatMerch22

Democratic fashion?

Read what I wrote and tell me where I am incorrect, otherwise this conversation ends right now. — TimeLine

That's what I've been doing to each of your comments. You have not done the same.

What is the law? How is policy formed? Are you suggesting that it has nothing to do with democracy, government or citizens? — 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.

So, tyranny of the majority. Explain. — 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.

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. — RepThatMerch22

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.

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. — TimeLine

The fact that a majority of people is wrong has utterly nothing to do with voting, law or politics in my example.