Ha! Caught the phobes lying about something!
According to FF, good fundies "support" civil unions now because they offer substantive relationship equality to LGBT couples in the context of legislative guarantees. In which case, how does McCoskrie explain French antigay organisation Avenir de la Culture attacking the French Catholic Bishops for wanting strengthened French PACS and opposing even this weak 'concession' to LGBT 'equality' on the basis that:
"The Pact of Civil Solidarity (PACS) to which Bishop Daucourt refers is a contract, considered far less than a civil union, that can be granted both to homosexuals and heterosexuals, which can be dissolved at will by either party, and gives tax advantages to the couple as if they were married"
Matthew Hoffman: "French Catholic Bishops endorsing homosexual unions, undermining pro-family cause" Lifesite: 16.01.2013: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-catholic-bishops-endorsing-homosexual-unions-undermining-pro-fa
Well, it looks like the same-sex marriage equality angle will soon be fixed. At which point, we can laugh derisively at Oz and snicker at how backward they are. That's what you get for electing a Ginger PM, I suppose...
Stop this at once! McCoskrie is neither heteroerotic or homoerotic! Where are blackout bars when you really need them...? (Mentally visualises one over entirety of McCoskrie) Ah, much better.
Incidentally, this appears to be the primary source of Bob's ruminations. It's a US conservative Catholic website (surprised? :) ) , Public Discourse.
Or you, Geoff!
Not after breakfast, please, Gareth!
Damn it, the Australian Capital Territory has recriminalised zoophilia, meaning no Aussie states and territories are a soft touch for zoophiles. However, in Arkansas, Louisiana and Utah, zoophilia is a misdemeanour, not a felony. Zoophilia is legal in Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, the Phillipines, Sweden, North Sudan (!) and Thailand. Possession of zoophile porn is not penalised in Brazil, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Germany (although sales and distribution are in Canda, Finland, Germany and Hungary).
As for 'consensual adult' incest, it has been either decriminalised, or there is no legal prohibition against it in a handful of jurisdictions have decriminalised 'consensual adult' incest- Israel, Turkey, France, Spain, Portugal, China, Japan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Ukraine and Argentina- or else it has never been a criminal offence, unlike parent/child rape and child sexual abuse.
However, the European Court of Human Rights noted that Albania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova, San Marino, Slovakia, Denmark, Italy, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Hungary and the United Kingdom had all criminalised 'consensual' adult sibling incest.
This means that Belgium has same-sex marriage equality, legal zoophilia and CAI decriminalised, but not polygamy. The Netherlands has SSME, CAI but not polygamy or legal zoophilia. Sweden has SSME, legal zoophilia, but not CAI or polygamy. South Africa has SSME and polygamy, but not legal zoophilia or CAI. Argentina has SSME, CAI but not polygamy or legal zoophilia. Denmark has SSME, CAI and legal zoophilia but not polygamy. Norway has SSME only. Portugal has SSME and CAI, but not polygamy and legal zoophilia.
So in answer to Namesake's rhetorical question, nowhere on Earth has all four. Denmark and Belgium come close, although neither have decriminalised polygamy.
Insofar as I know, zoophile unions are legal nowhere on Earth. However, some jurisdictions haven't criminalised zoophilia/bestiality/animal sexual abuse, including (snicker) some Aussie jurisdictions and parts of the Deep Southern United States (hee hee hee). Think I'll root out (....) the guilty statelets and pop back here...
As for interspecies marriage, I think we're probably a few centuries too early for that. Why do I have a horrible suspicion that the descendants of today's Christian Right will be whingeing about human-alien intimacy, sexual contact and relationships, especially if the aliens in question resemble nonhuman animals from our own world? I suspect that Futurama's 'robosexual' episode will happen before that, just as soon as an AI passes the Turing Test.
Namesake, you left out (deep breath) the Zombie Apocalypse. Actually, I'm just waiting for someone other than Robert Mugabe to bring that up. And yes, I'm afraid that the Zimbabwean dictator in question did. Or necrophilia, apparently illegal under Section 150 of the Crimes Act (although apparently a mostly female pastime, it seems...) I know I'm usually a firm supporter of women's sexual freedom, but I do draw the line at pedophilia and necrophilia, it has to be said.
As for the Stuebing case, here's the reference:
Stubing Versus Germany (European Court of Human Rights: 2012): http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-110314
The facts of the case are these:
As a consequence of family violence, Patrick Stuebing was adopted out of his birth family as a child. As an adult, he was reunited with his family origin and started living with his mother, since remarried, and his adult but dependent and learning- disabled sister, Susan Karolewski. After their mother died in 2001, Patrick and Susan began a sexual relationship and had four children as a result. Of them, Eric and Sarah have severe physical and intellectual disabilities, and Nancy had a heart malady at birth, since remedied. All three older siblings are in foster care and only the youngest, Sofia, still lives with her parents. Under Paragraphs 153 and 173 of the German Criminal Code, Patrick served a two year sentence for committing incest with Susan (2005-2007).
In 2008, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court upheld the legality of Paragraphs 153 and 173. Stuebing and Karolewski have had no more luck with the European Court and Convention of Human Rights, which similarly upheld Germany's aforementioned anti-incest laws, on April 12, 2012. Stuebing complained that the Federal Constitutional Court and Paragraphs 153 and 173 violated Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, his right to form a family and privacy rights. The ECHR rejected this argument.
Insofar as 'consensual' sibling incest goes, wouldn't that be prevented under
Section 130 of the Crimes Act:
2) Every one of or over the age of 16 years who commits incest is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. ...?
I don't think Louisa's proposed legislation repeals that section of the Crimes Act.