I'm not attempting to rebut anything you have said. After all, you have said so little.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. — RepThatMerch22
This became a matter for debate because a very large number of citizens wanted the change and campaigned for it. — andrewk
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. — andrewk
One cannot blame society for not responding to a movement that does not exist in any material sense. — andrewk
Also, there is nothing in the law that prevents people living in long-term polygamous relationships. — andrewk
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. — andrewk
I'm not attempting to rebut anything you have said. After all, you have said so little. — Banno
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. — Banno
I think it was a lot of things, including freedom and fairness. — RepThatMerch22
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. — Banno
And yes, the title is misleading. — Banno
Are you saying that in order to not be a "dick", people should only "bang on" about things that most folk are interested in? — RepThatMerch22
I did say that someone who banged on forever about something that most folk are not interested in would be a dick — Banno
If not, could you please list out your other substantive criticisms? — RepThatMerch22
Sometimes you have to strike when the iron is hot; other times you have to strike until the iron is hot. — Bitter Crank
My main complaint about you, Repthatmerch22, is that you didn'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. — Bitter Crank
Since nobody has asked, there can't (yet) be a complaint about the lack of such a law. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
That is not my complaint. — RepThatMerch22
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? — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
1. If people support gay marriage in Australia on the ground that it promotes freedom, why don't they support polygamous marriage? — RepThatMerch22
The beauty of democracy is that there is free speech, something you obviously don't like. — RepThatMerch22
The fact that you claim that the majority of people in Australia do not support polygamous marriage is not a sufficient rebuttal. — RepThatMerch22
The question is whether people who support gay marriage should also support polygamous marriage to remain philosophically consistent. — RepThatMerch22
That is the same reason why people were against gay marriage, until there was enough social advocacy that it became a popular idea, at least in Australia and the United States. — RepThatMerch22
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. — Banno
I addressed whether it was an issue at all, and what it was that would make it a real issue. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
Whether or not it is a "real issue" to you is subjective. — RepThatMerch22
The criteria that you have set out for something to be a "viable issue" is arbitrary and bizarre. — RepThatMerch22
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. — 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. — Bitter Crank
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]. — Bitter Crank
You may be aware that politics is not an exercise of in logic. Maybe you think it should be, but it isn't. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
I am talking about whether polygamous marriage has merit. — RepThatMerch22
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. — Bitter Crank
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? — Bitter Crank
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. — RepThatMerch22
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. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
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? — Bitter Crank
I didn't think you were against gay marriage. Your posts made it quite clear that you were in favor of gay marriage. — Bitter Crank
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. — Bitter Crank
I wouldn't. They can do as they like. — Banno
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.