1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage? — RepThatMerch22
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
4. Should there be a right to suicide? — 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. — Akanthinos
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
1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage? — RepThatMerch22
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
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
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
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
Thus, the State should implement means by which to end one's life. — RepThatMerch22
Is psychology a real science? — RepThatMerch22
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
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
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
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
1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage? — RepThatMerch22
For the record, I do support gay marriage, but I also support polygamy and bigamy. — RepThatMerch22
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
In Australia, you cannot be married to two Australian residents at once. — RepThatMerch22
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
You have actually not addressed the merits of what I have said. — RepThatMerch22
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
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
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
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. — Bitter Crank
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
Marriage is a state matter, not a federal matter. — Bitter Crank
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
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? — TimeLine
You are also seemingly ignoring the fundamental argument against polygamy here, which is that marriage is a plurality. — TimeLine
Anything more than a union of two, it is no longer "marriage" and so what would this actually be legislatively speaking? — TimeLine
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
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
You have not provided an adequate defence for polygamy, you just seem to be harping the same song. — 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. — RepThatMerch22
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
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
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
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. — TimeLine
From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with you. — TimeLine
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? — TimeLine
it is an example of when the majority is incorrect. — RepThatMerch22
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
Read what I wrote and tell me where I am incorrect, otherwise this conversation ends right now. — TimeLine
What is the law? How is policy formed? Are you suggesting that it has nothing to do with democracy, government or citizens? — TimeLine
So, tyranny of the majority. Explain. — 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. — RepThatMerch22
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.