Hard News: Gaying Out
295 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Emma’s link doesn’t seem to work, but this does.
Stanley H. Tweedle in a sidecar, he's a middle-aged man in a suit. Judging by his prose, I thought that he was an adolescent pimple farm.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Checked Hansard, it's not up yet, but was interesting that Maryan Street whilst debating the Prime Ministers Statement in the House yesterday mentioned a radio interview, in which JK said his 3 top desires for himself this year was to win the RWC followed by his wish to "win the other important thing this year" because if he didn't ,he wasn't hanging around, and to go to the Royal Wedding. Truly ambitious for NZ?
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
This mightn't be the thread, but it does strike me that the next 12 months could be difficult for NZ with the trans Tasman economic cycles seemingly going in opposite directions. Net PLT departures was a big issue at the last election, Key made it so, and he might regret it soon.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Net PLT departures was a big issue at the last election, Key made it so, and he might regret it soon.
Only if the Opposition can, well, oppose. So far Labour have demonstrated seemingly invincible incompetence when it comes to seizing the multitude of opportunities that've been dropped in their collective lap.
-
I'm not so sure Kracklite's response to Scalia was quite the knockout blow that is assumed.
Certainly, informed consent deals with necrophilia, bestiality, and incest between adults and children. However, there are cases of incest between adult siblings where there is no coercion or imbalance of power – that is, where there is informed consent.
If the only criterion for marriage equality is informed consent, should they too not be allowed to marry?
-
While I'm sure the resulting data will be both interesting and valuable to the debate, I'm a bit uncomfortable about the defacto requirement to declare your sexuality in the Census. Not to mention making the question pretty complex:
**Mark as many spaces as you need to show all the people who live in the same household as you.**
my legal husband or wife
my opposite-sex legally registered civil union partner
my same-sex legally registered civil union partner
my opposite-sex partner or de facto, boyfriend or girlfriend
my same-sex partner or de facto, boyfriend or girlfriend -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Possibly right (as in not the right place) Gilliard in the House today, and hopefully Keith will be up with something soon for perusal, or even Russell for that matter.
Still, the man (PM not Russell) looks bored to me. :) -
No mention of beasts or corpses however.
-
Curse the time difference:
Damn it. Going +4 is a bit like saying ‘me too’. Yeah, me too.
+5.
+6.
Is this a record?
-
Christopher Dempsey, in reply to
Should I spoil the form and say "my legal husband" and get my partner to do the same?
-
You can put what you like in the 'other' write in section.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
And he's in advertising (he says). I'd expect better written posts if that were the case.
-
However, there are cases of incest between adult siblings where there is no coercion or imbalance of power – that is, where there is informed consent.
Yes but. How many of these couples are there, really? 2-3 every decade?
And how likely is it that they are going to seek to get married?
-
sally jones, in reply to
Was there a point there, Sally, beyond you like Clark and despise Key?
The point, Craig, that you're so cunningly obfuscating, was that Clark's long service to her country, not to mention her hard labour entering parliament as one of the first women to do so and then battling against institutionalised sexism and male privilege for 28 years, cannot be constructively compared with Key's cruisey and quick ride to the top made that much easier by his willingness and ability (having a dick) to exploit this privilege and prejudice. If Key does indeed do a runner, having added PM of a small country to his CV, this cowardly, if entirely predictable act for a man with his eye on the money (I hear the World Bank is his target), there will again be no comparison with Clark's decision to leave NZ for the UN. The only relationship between these two leaders is one of contrast - and it couldn't be more stark.
I don't despise John Key, I despair of him. Oh, and I more than like Clark. I revere her. -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
If the only criterion for marriage equality is informed consent, should they too not be allowed to marry?
Small matter of the inherited health issues that come along with mating with one's immediate relatives. Not just siblings, but also parents and children. Ignoring the "ick" factor, incestuous relationships are illegal for very good reasons that have nothing to do with informed and equal consent.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
So your argument for denying someone a basic human right is that they do not make up an arbitrarily sufficient proportion of the population and that they may not want to exercise that right?
Would you also argue that, since gay people make up a small proportion of society and many do not want to get married anyway, marriage equality for gay people is not important?
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
If the only reason for banning incestuous relationships is inherited health issues (since we're ignoring the 'ick' factor), then should we not also ban all other relationships that would result in inherited health issues?
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
What do you think DCBCauchi? Honest debate means playing some of your cards occasionally.
Personally, and I'm by no means speaking for anyone else, I don't think there should be laws against incestuous marriage between consenting adults.
Ick factor aside (cos, let's face it, ick factor is a piss poor basis for public policy), banning marriage doesn't prevent siblings having sex or children. Inherited health issues are only an issue for siblings with blood ties, so even if there was a health reason to ban incest, it wouldn't extend to step or adopted siblings anyway - and there's still an ick factor there.
But I also think that's a different debate than marriage equality between gay and straight, and trying to use it as a passive aggressive cudgel doesn't help create light in either debate.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
If the only reason for banning incestuous relationships is inherited health issues (since we’re ignoring the ‘ick’ factor), then should we not also ban all other relationships that would result in inherited health issues
Ah, eugenics-baiting. Let the fun begin!
Seriously, if poking the FamilyFist nest has caused all the crazies to come over here, I'm going to be mightily pissed at those of you who did
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
I remember seeing something about a brother and sister who'd been separated at birth. Before they found out they were related, they'd met and fallen in love.
Then they found out they were related, realised they could never have kids, but wanted to continue their relationship anyway.
This did not go down well with friends, family, or the wider community.
I found that very affecting, and couldn't think of a reason why they shouldn't continue their perfectly genuine relationship.
I do not think this is a different debate than marriage equality between gay and straight at all. It's a simple question – on what basis should society sanction some relationships but not others?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
banning marriage doesn’t prevent siblings having sex or children. Inherited health issues are only an issue for siblings with blood ties, so even if there was a health reason to ban incest, it wouldn’t extend to step or adopted siblings anyway – and there’s still an ick factor there.
No, banning marriage doesn't, but there's also a legal prohibition on incest which is very narrow: siblings, half-siblings, parent/child, and grandparent/grandchild. I'm pretty sure it only applies to blood relationships, so adoption or step-child relationships aren't covered (though there's also a non-blood prohibition on sexual relations with a dependent child under the age of 20).
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
If one participant (child, cat, corpse) requires protection from the other then the state should withhold sanction, otherwise it shouldn't.
Not to say your brother and sister would have an easy time of it - it's their relationship that's causing their problems in the community, not their inability to legally marry.
Still plenty of gray areas, but if we're overly worried about them, it's probably easier to stop the state sanctioning marriage altogether.
-
Is this the new turnip thread now? I like my mash best with 50-50 swede/potato mix.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
Ah well, should've guessed. I reckon that should be taken out of the crimes act for siblings as well. Intergenerational is a little different due to pretty inherent power differentials. But now is neither the time nor place.
Sorry to help drag it down this road.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I reckon that should be taken out of the crimes act for siblings as well
Again, genetics issues. This is one area of apparent morality enforcement that can stand up to scrutiny on other grounds. It's not like the prohibitions on excrement porn, where the act is legal but a graphical or textual reproduction of the act is not.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.