Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Tim Hannah,
OK, I’ll keep going, seeing as you did. My understanding was that the genetics issues tend to be overblown, at least until it happens for a few generations or within a small community, but I’ve got no evidence at hand and am not going to prolong this by looking for it.
Even if it isn’t I don’t see how up to 10 years can stand up to scrutiny – that’s all ick, not thinking about the children.
Yeah, possibly overblown, but you have to draw a line somewhere.
With "up to 10 years", I assume you mean "up to 20"? That law is not about "ick", it's about power imbalance because it's strictly for "dependent" children - foster, step, etc. If it was really about "ick" it'd be illegal for perpetuity, as it is with blood relations.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Tim Hannah,
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.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Tim Hannah,
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).
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to DCBCauchi,
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.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Paul Williams,
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.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to ,
Sounds good to me. Labour, Greens, Maori Party, Progressive. Let Greens and Maori Party duke it out for “major party/minor party” on a periodic basis.
See, two can play this trolling game.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Kracklite,
Until as late as the early 1980s, in England IIRC, a husband could not be convicted of raping his wife
NZ did away with the spousal rape loophole in the 70's. So England's not alone in having an unworthy history on the subject.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
Hmm, is that a male or a female pig?
Is it important? After all, if gay marriage is the slippery slope to legalised bestiality I don't think the anatomical configuration of the pig matters.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
repeal Part 3 & Schedule 2 of the Marriage Act.. (I think you’d have to have to deal with marital zoophilia separately, and repeal Sections 143, 144 & !42A of the Crimes Act first.) Let the (literal) mother-fucking marital fiesta, begin!
But what about the animals? I demand to be allowed to enter into a marital relationship with my uncle's cousin's aunt's daughter's husband's pet pig!
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Sacha,
Applause
+2 (I have two hands, and they’re both clapping)