Forget all the long-winded responses.

The best justification for State-assisted suicide is that you did not choose to be born, and therefore you should be entitled to a painless, quick and humane death.

Especially so if it's three men getting married. — Michael

And by the way, I don't see a problem with that at all. If three adult men, mutually consenting, and of sound mind, want to get married, that doesn't affect me one bit at all. Go for it. Whatever makes them happy.

The fact that there are people who would justify opposing that is to me quite ridiculous.

How so? — Michael

I suspect TimeLine has backed out of the debate.

The answer is that the right for three or more consenting adults of sound mind to enter into a marriage does not infringe on the rights of women.

I recommend that you eat more of these: — Bitter Crank

I am not surprised you have posted that because you have run out of substance.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

Those last two deficiencies would also make an assisted death more attractive. — Bitter Crank

I think the best case is freedom.

You should have the freedom to commit suicide if you want to.

The reason why a proposal for State-assisted suicide is frowned upon is, in part, because people find the idea naturally repulsive and/or have religious or values-based objections. 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.

Stella wrote a letter to 80 yr old Stella which explains why having the dignity of living with a disability is so important, more important than dying with dignity. Maybe this will explain my perspective better. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Just because she wants to live doesn't meant others do too.

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.

I don't have any substantive criticisms. — Banno

Then your argument is null.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

Indeed, it's not a rebuttal at all. Nevertheless, if there were someone who went on and on about polygamy, as if it was one of the most important issues facing Dow Nunder, to the detriment of civil conversation and in lieu of more pressing issues, how should one react? — Banno

I don't think that brushing the issue off as unimportant is a good rebuttal, either. Of course there are more important issues, but does that mean that we should only discuss those issues? Does that mean that all issues which people don't consider "important" should never be discussed?

If asked to list pressing political issues Dow Nunder, I would've suggested same-sex marriage of course, although that might be a bit passé now. Certainly the relation between the Commonwealth and First Australians would be up there; Children in detention, treatment of asylum seekers, environmental destruction. — Banno

Those are all good issues to discuss, but they aren't relevant to this thread. The fact that you consider there to be more important issues is not a good rebuttal. You could apply that logic to any issue which is relatively trivial, to the point where only issues that are "important" can be discussed.

But none of the things you list. Your list just seems somewhat eccentric. — Banno

So what if it seems eccentric? Is that a valid rebuttal?

So far you have mentioned that I am a "dick", that there are more important issues and that the issues I have listed are "eccentric". None of those comments are valid criticisms of what I have said.

The individual himself never chooses to be born. He is simply born, and he has no say over what his upbringing is, what his environment is and what to make of his life. He is a consciousness that has entered into existence, through no action of his own. Why should he not be entitled to put that life to an end if he is of sound mind? The individual has an instinct for survival, and finds the thought of suicide repulsive. He cannot think of any means by which to commit suicide efficiently, painlessly, quickly and humanely.

Why, then, should there not be at least a right to suicide? I would go further and argue for State-assisted suicide. Many people who advocate euthanasia need only open their minds a little to realise that there are some people without terminal illnesses, who are perfectly healthy, who perhaps do not wish to live.

I don't think this is an entirely serious proposal, but for a provocative post it's reasonably well thought out. — Bitter Crank

Could you please assume it is a serious proposal. I can assure you in all sincerity that I am serious about the proposal, or at least wish to test its merits.

I have already said that, right at the beginning. — TimeLine

You haven't.

How many of those 3 points do you agree with (if any)?

sure. I can agree with that. — Banno

If you agree with those 3 points, you agree with what I have been trying to convey to TimeLine.

It might be worth noting that polygamy is not at the centre of any larg scale discussion in Australian politics. So someone who keeps banging on about it when no one else cares might be mistaken for being a bit of a dick. — Banno

I don't think that calling someone a "dick" is a good rebuttal.

Also, it seems worth saying that Dow Nunder, even if they are wrong, majority opinion is relevant in setting out the law. — Banno

Of course it is.

But that doesn't mean that all laws which are passed democratically should be immune from criticism. That doesn't mean that we should avoid any discussion of principled law reform.

So if most folk do not give a fuck, the law will stay the same. — Banno

That is true, but you could say that about all efforts of law reform.

They are profoundly basic and whether one say's yes or no is irrelevant considering you do not even listen to the explanations. — TimeLine

Go back and answer them, then.

Those are very basic propositions I have put forward.

They can be answered with a "Yes" or a "No", with an explanation afterwards.

So, RepThatMerch22, out of curiosity, will you also agree with me that
1. The majority can be right
and,
2. That an idea with which one disagrees is endorsed by the majority does not imply that one is correct.

Just wondering. — Banno

I agree.

So once TimeLine agrees, we can move on.

I note that you have also agreed to my earlier reply.

Having agreed to those points, do you agree with these statements (which is what TimeLine was arguing about):

FIRST: Regardless of whether the majority agrees with a particular idea, in this debate we should not stop our discussion simply because of what the majority thinks.

SECOND: In looking at whether polygamy is a good idea, the fact that the majority may oppose it does not mean automatically that it is a bad idea.

THIRD: Pointing out that the majority opposes polygamy is not sufficient to undermine any merits of such a proposal, and that such an issue deserves a greater depth of analysis.

1. The majority can be right
and,
2. That an idea with which one disagrees is endorsed by the majority does not imply that one is correct. — Banno

I agree.

I am not going to ask you again. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Are you just saying that the majority can be wrong and issues like polygamy should be discussed, or do you want to go further and talk about the moral, ethical, political aspects to this problem?

It is a really simple question. — TimeLine

You have shifted the topic. Address my replies.

"Are you just saying that the majority can be wrong[?]"

Yes. Do you disagree? Yes or no.

"...the majority can be wrong and issues like polygamy should be discussed[?]"

Yes. Do you disagree? Yes or no.

"...do you want to go further and talk about the moral, ethical, political aspects to this problem."

We haven't gotten there yet.

The first step is for you to acknowledge, as anyone would, two points:

1. The majority can be wrong; and
2. Just because an idea is endorsed by the majority does not mean it is always correct or incorrect.

We get that. The majority can also be right, so the problem is why you are saying it. What is your point? You then say this: — TimeLine

So do you agree with those 5 points? A yes or no answer is sufficient. The problem is that if you start making extra points, the scope of the debate becomes less clear. Let me ask you again.

1. The majority can be wrong.
2. For example, suppose there are 10 people in a room.
3. 6 of them think that 2+2=5.
4. 4 of them think that 2+2=4.
5. The majority in that example is wrong.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please point out where you disagree.

When you said this earlier: — TimeLine

I did say that earlier. I am not arguing that polygamy is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5. I am arguing that the majority can be wrong, and that we should not accept ideas as correct simply because they are endorsed by the majority. The focus of this debate is on whether polygamy should be legalised or not. Simply pointing out that it is not an idea that is endorsed by the majority, and therefore that it should not be debated as an issue, is a very superficial argument.

So, now what you are trying to say is that we should debate the idea? I already agreed with that, hence the democracy, voting system, paradoxes, why freedom and equality are mutually exclusive that may result in laws contradicting rights. These are the types of conversations that occur when you bring such a contentious issue to discussion and debate. Where exactly, other than saying "wrong" have you had this debate? — TimeLine

Those are entirely irrelevant issues. The minority can disagree with the majority about an issue. That is the whole point of a democracy. Nobody is saying that democracy as a system should be overturned, so those conversations are irrelevant.

Alright, listen here. The one thing that I have very little patience for are those who do not listen and just assume that they know the answer; so stubborn that they actually trick themselves into thinking things that do not exist, playing word games assuming others are playing along with them so as to ensure that whatever they are telling themselves remains believable enough to continue and they can sleep better at night. — TimeLine

You need to be concise. Everything here has nothing to do with my two replies.

Instead of writing about a million different topics, focus on this one:

1. The majority can be wrong.
2. For example, suppose there are 10 people in a room.
3. 6 of them think that 2+2=5.
4. 4 of them think that 2+2=4.
5. The majority in that example is wrong.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please point out where you disagree.

The fact that the majority is wrong in that example does not mean that I support the overturn of democracy.

Ironically, in a democracy people are allowed to voice their disagreements, even the minority.

Bringing that example back to the topic of this thread:

1. The majority of people in Australia have voted in favour of gay marriage.
2. Polygamy is not legal in Australia, in the sense that three or more people who live in Australia cannot get married in Australia.
3. The fact that the majority of people in Australia have not yet voted for polygamy to be legalised.
4. The fact that the majority of people in Australia have not yet voted for polygamy to be legalised does not mean that:
(a) we should shy away from debating the idea; and/or
(b) we should assume that polygamy is a bad idea just because it has not been endorsed by the majority.

Please point out where in this simple chain of reasoning any disagreements you may have.

You have started with a fallacy of assuming that the majority are saying 2+2=5 and so you have instantly made it a wrong. Comparatively, you are instantly claiming that the illegality of polygamy as also wrong. You have demonstrated nothing but faulty reasoning. — TimeLine

Wrong. I am not arguing that polygamy is wrong because 2+2 does not equal 5.

I am saying that just because an idea is endorsed by the majority does not mean that it is immune from criticism.

The fact that gay marriage is legal in Australia and polygamy is not does not mean that we should not investigate the issue further.

Your comment represents the height of anti-philosophy and intellectual dishonesty.

You have started with a fallacy of assuming that the majority are saying 2+2=5 and so you have instantly made it a wrong. Comparatively, you are instantly claiming that the illegality of polygamy as also wrong. You have demonstrated nothing but faulty reasoning. The really disturbing part about that is that you project your own failures by claiming that "there is nothing more to add" and yet you say this: — TimeLine

I said that the majority can be wrong. The majority is not always right.

This is a straightforward point any reasonable person agrees with.

One hypothetical example of it is where 10 people are in a room, and 6 people think that 2+2=5, while 4 people think that 2+2=4.

Please explain where you disagree with this reasoning.

Yep, we're done. — TimeLine

Perhaps you have been told this before, but your writing is extremely verbose, strange and irrelevant. I have said nothing of the merits of democracy as a political system. I pointed out that the majority can be wrong. If you disagree with that statement, and you also think that the majority is always right, that is an instantly refutable position.

if you agree that the majority can be wrong, then there is nothing more to add.

The point of my saying that the majority can be wrong is to demonstrate that we should not simply accept everything that the majority says is correct. That is the point of this thread. If, hypothetically, the majority of people oppose polygamy (and we don't even know if that is the case), then it is worth investigating further why they oppose it and the grounds on which they oppose it.

Simply stopping the analysis and saying that the majority thinks it is true is unscientific, profoundly mistaken and intellectually dishonest. A law that is democratically passed can still have effect even if a minority of people, rightly or wrongly, protest its merits.

You 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.

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.

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.

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.

That there is no existence of any kind after we die is simply not provable -- just as the assertion that there IS existence after death is not provable. Either one could be true or false, but we have no way of proving it. We can't even get an inkling of what happens after we die. Zero clues.

I agree with you that "existence after death" is the same as "existence before birth" but I have no evidence that such is the case, therefore I can not say that there is any truth in the claim. — Bitter Crank

I said it was a logical view to have. I never said you could prove it.