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.

Of course, I agree that we should behave in socially acceptable ways. If I have friends who are religious and I am at the dinnertable with them, I would respect their beliefs. I would not assert my own beliefs, and I would be open to listening to them (or even pretending to accept some of their views, if they are viewed as at least reasonable or moderate).

For a lot of people, this is really unsatisfying, but we shouldn't be bothered about whether the truth is comforting or not. I think the truth is the truth, and one of the goals of philosophy should be to ascertain truth. At the very least, any academic or intellectual discipline ought at its core to have truth as one of its values.

I think it is also the most logical view.

It would be totally arbitrary to say that there is an afterlife, and that you become an elephant or a tiger (I only say this as it is a commonly invoked example).

It would be weird to say that you go to Heaven or Hell, or some other variation of either.

There is totally no evidence for it.

It's impossible to imagine what it was like before you were born, just as it's impossible to imagine what it's like after you die.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.