Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Not that it helps one jot, really, but I imagine that there are quite a number of us who think you should be legally allowed to have as many spouses as you like, Tracy. <raises hand in a voting ‘aye’ fashion>
+1. Although apparently discussing this issue is on the list of things Christopher finds annoying.
To be totally honest, I think it should all be civil contracts, … and if you want to do the whole package with one person only, and call it “marriage”, great, go to it.
I have some sympathy for this view. The state only administers the application of the contractual/paperwork side, called a civil union, leaving the meaning of marriage up to the individual. For some, the most important part may be the “marriage”, which for them is the blessing of their church (although they’d get the formal contractual rights/protections from the state a la a civil union). For many, a service with an official and family and friends present will be both the point at which they enter the legal arrangement of a CU, and the point at which they count themselves as married.
Under this scenario, I think for a lot of secular people “marriage” would come to be an informal term referring to the fact that they’re in a civil union – but less clinical and with connotations of an emotional bond over and above the legal. The state’s job is to take care of the legal; for the emotional, spiritual, religious etc… that’s over to the people.
Having said that, I can’t see that approach happening any time soon, whereas I can see the possibility of same sex couples being able to have their union recognised as marriage the same as for heterosexual couples. That’s a step in the right direction. -
and the whole bleepin’ conversation descends into incest, poly something or other, marrying dogs, condescending comments about the gays wanting civil rights, and goodness know what.
Well, not the whole conversation, and only one guy was being condescending, I think.
As to the issue of multiple marriage partners, it was raised by Graeme, and followed up by Tracy Mac here…
And actually, being polyamorous, I’m in favour of having some kind of legal recognition of multiple relationships
… among others, well before ‘that derailing asshole guy’ showed up.
in the end are nothing to do with heterosexual marriage? Or my wanting to marry my partner??
I don’t see how it’s an unrelated issue, for the purposes of discussion. But if could vote in I/S’s bill to allow for same sex marriage tomorrow, I would.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Isabel Hitchings,
Given this I can see no reason to deny marriage to sibling couples who have been raised separately due to adoption or similar (though would recommend genetic testing/counselling be part of the decision to have children).
Yeah that sounds reasonable. I’ve not looked into the issues around siblings/part siblings or other related people having children. (Certainly if the hereditary dangers are exaggerated that strengthens the case for allowing them some sort of marriage rights.)
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Kracklite,
I agree by and large, Kracklite. But:
…the essential issue: consent. Consent is by definition informed, without coercion or obligation and between equals in power and cogniscance. A dog cannot consent because it is not an equal in cognition or power, so the comparison is absurd and a red herring.
But an adult sibling can.
No-one argued for incest,
I think it is a fair question: if ‘The “non-arbitrary” aspect is knowing, informed consent’ then incest is not covered (provided of course it is between consenting adults). Scalia’s a bigot who failed on logic from the outset. (He spoke of marriage equality as the right of any adult to marry any other adult, and then immediately used the example of children – fundamental logic fail.) Your response was very good, but that one aspect jumped out at me, too, (as well as B Cauchi, who got there first).
[Matthew wrote:] And how likely is it that they are going to seek to get married?
This couple wants to, and I think they should be allowed. I think a case can be made to say that siblings – or in this case half siblings – shouldn’t be allowed to have children, but I can’t see why they shouldn’t be able to enter into a marriage or civil union type arrangement, as consenting adults.
-
The experience of the woman was not recognised. Until as late as the early 1980s, in England IIRC, a husband could not be convicted of raping his wife because, logically, consistently, he could not steal his own property.
Minor point, but I think the reasoning was (latterly anyway) more along the lines that consent was given at the time of marrying. "Love honour and obey..." sort of thing.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to JackElder,
ETA Good to see the FF survey back up. I was laughing merrily away yesterday, clicking “Strongly Disagree” with gay abandon, when I came up short at a couple of questions that I had to click “Strongly Agree” to. It shook me. It shook me hard.
I "Strongly Agreed" to one. And a few were tough to answer because of poor wording. Eg, the question that went something like "NZ should oppose euthanasia - and increase finding for palliative care...". I Agree with the latter, but Disagree with the former.
(Edit: not that I expected it would be a totally well worded survey.)
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
This was “well, seeing as someone brought up marriage equality, how about marriage equality?” The next time someone says “If we allow gay marriage it will just lead to recognition of polygamy”, I’d like someone to have the wit to say “damn straight!”
Agreed. (Although I also would prefer another term to ‘polygamy’.)
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to ,
The right of any adult to marry any adult they please? ... [such as] children...
Oops!
-
I believe I got mildly told off for noting the pattern many pages ago.
That was me, sorry Sacha, I can see your point. But I certainly didn't mean it as a telling off! I just disagreed with your assessment.
Paul has tried hard to prove me wrong, but he's just an ideologue who is, as nzlemming suggested, invincibly ignorant - on this issue at least. He's made c.180 posts and not been noted as a troll before AFAIK. He links to his website and provides an email address. Trolls don't usually do that, do they? He's clearly not a "lil'p" type troll, anyway. I think he's effectively been forced into behaving like a troll due to his stubbornness and dogmatic outlook.
I'd close the thread, Russell.
-
The Govt making heaps of revenue is a good thing how??
Some options: to pay off debt, to reduce other taxes, to spend on health or other services, to provide incentives. These are bad things how?
I still can’t see the point
It’s okay, no one expects you to.