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

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.

This became a matter for debate because a very large number of citizens wanted the change and campaigned for it. — andrewk

I agree that this was a cause.

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

Thank you for the advice.

One cannot blame society for not responding to a movement that does not exist in any material sense. — andrewk

I agree.

Also, there is nothing in the law that prevents people living in long-term polygamous relationships. — andrewk

I am talking about marriage.

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 think it was a lot of things, including freedom and fairness.

I'm not attempting to rebut anything you have said. After all, you have said so little. — Banno

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.

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

So your issue is with the title rather than the substance of the thread?

You asked for my thoughts. I provided them.

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.

I think it was a lot of things, including freedom and fairness. — RepThatMerch22

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.

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

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?

And yes, the title is misleading. — Banno

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?

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

Yep.

I did say that someone who banged on forever about something that most folk are not interested in would be a dick — Banno

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.

If not, could you please list out your other substantive criticisms? — RepThatMerch22

I don't have any substantive criticisms.

Sometimes you have to strike when the iron is hot; other times you have to strike until the iron is hot. — Bitter Crank

Neat metaphor. But it would be simpler to build the fire.

No doubt that is what @RepThatMerch22 thinks he is doing.

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

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.

Since nobody has asked, there can't (yet) be a complaint about the lack of such a law. — Bitter Crank

That is not my complaint.

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 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?

I don't have any substantive criticisms. — Banno

Then your argument is null.

Since I did not present an argument, yes, it is null.

Sorry for disappointing you...

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?

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.

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

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.

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

So? Whether 5 people, 50 people or 500 people support an idea does not make that idea correct or incorrect.

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

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.

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

You are willfully misreading what I am saying here.

The beauty of democracy is that there is free speech, something you obviously don't like. — 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.

The fact that you claim that the majority of people in Australia do not support polygamous marriage is not a sufficient rebuttal. — 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.

The question is whether people who support gay marriage should also support polygamous marriage to remain philosophically consistent. — 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:

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

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?

I addressed whether it was an issue at all, and what it was that would make it a real issue. — Bitter Crank

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

First, your standard is arbitrary and bizarre.

Second, this thread is not about whether polygamous marriage is a "viable political issue".

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

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.

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

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.

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

That's a different issue. You are talking about how political change is effected. I am talking about whether polygamous marriage has merit.

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. 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 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 should also do well to read how others have already explained this earlier to him.

We all need to earn our own fatigue.

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

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.

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

I believe polygamous marriage would require freedom and equality to exist prior to it's being adopted.

2. The merits of polygamous marriage are that it promotes freedom and equality, and that it does not inherently infringe anyone's rights.

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?

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 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.

I believe polygamous marriage would require freedom and equality to exist prior to it's being adopted. — Bitter Crank

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).

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

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).

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

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.

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

Then why did you ask me to clarify my views on 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. — 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.

mutually consenting — RepThatMerch22

I wouldn't. They can do as they like.

I wouldn't. They can do as they like. — Banno

Great. So if you agree with polygamous marriage, you agree with what I have said.