Hard News: Gaying Out
295 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
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.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
In response to your pointed and pertinent comment, I can only say "Ooooo arrrrr!"
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
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.
-
No, I meant 10 years for incest between siblings or half siblings, as per your link to the crimes act. When I say thinking of the children I mean the potential children of an incestuous relationship between consenting siblings.
(I’d also love to change that Part name from Crimes against religion, morality, and public welfare.)
-
Thomas Johnson, in reply to
was that Clark's long service to her country
You mean overriding desire to be in power, right?
-
Kracklite
By “religion”, I meant the faith itself, a person’s spirituality, not the organisation.
If only it were that easy. Cause the number of people who use the loophole of, well I/we are human and fallible but my/our god/spirituality cant be judged by my failings, is truly mind boggling.
By “respect”, I mean that one should offer personal respect for a person who is presumably intelligent who sincerely believes something other than what one believes personally.again, I’m referring only to personal spirituality.
And they are all, I would say sincerely mistaken. But you won’t get any such admission out of spiritual's. And no I dont go around with a big club and hit 'em over the head.
I hope that clarifies things – I don’t think that we’re actually in disagreement.
Yes it does thanks, and yes we probably are in agreement.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
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.)
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
(Edit: not that I expected it would be a totally well worded survey.)
They might as well have asked if we'd quite finished beating our spouses lately.
Also, they were strangely silent on Rev Capill's utterly indefensible kiddy-fiddling episode - Google draws a blank. And your mileage may vary on whether they were effectively coming in defence of Tony Veitch or not. If indeed they were, then it all makes a mockery of their rankist preconceptions that the lumpen have a monopoly on domestic abuse.
-
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.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
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.
-
My understanding (if I remember Sociology 101 from umpteen years ago) is that incest taboos generally are less to do with hereditary diseases and more to do with family relationships - if your Mum is also your Aunt or your Dad is also Grandad then the family tree (and rules of inheritance etc) rapidly becomes very complex. 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).
-
Kracklite, in reply to
Steve, FWIW my own position, which I admit that I self-censored somewhat, turns out to be not so radical in this discussion after all, is to agree with you.
Anyway, if it was good enough for some Pharaohs...
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
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.)
-
Kracklite, in reply to
Yes, interesting that… kinda. The questions were often so worded that you could agree on principle with one half, but in order to indicate your agreement with that half, you also had to agree with the other, more overtly fascistic half. I do not think that this is accidental. It made me quite uncomfortable, and I generally retreated to the moral libertarian stance of “well yes, but even so, the state should not have a role in determining it” and clicked “(strongly) disagree”.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
If only it were that easy. Cause the number of people who use the loophole of, well I/we are human and fallible but my/our god/spirituality cant be judged by my failings, is truly mind boggling.
I find that rather charming, actually, when it's sincere. I know a number of faithful Christians who demonstrate true humility, which manifests as "I cannot claim to know the will of God, or to speak for Him". That I respect - and it makes them of a fundamentally different order from the Ratzingers, Bushes, Capills and Phelps of this world.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I find that rather charming, actually, when it’s sincere. I know a number of faithful Christians who demonstrate true humility, which manifests as “I cannot claim to know the will of God, or to speak for Him”. That I respect – and it makes them of a fundamentally different order from the Ratzingers, Bushes, Capills and Phelps of this world
Your argument is about respecting individuals for who they are, not what they profess. You are also calling for disrespect of individuals for what they do and say. I agree with both of these positions. It actually has nothing to religion, just as religion has nothing to do with spirituality.
And while you may "know a number of faithful Christians who... [do not] claim to know the will of God, or to speak for Him”, there are many, many more who claim and do both of those things.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
there are many, many more who claim and do both of those things.
Indeed, hence the distinction.
You are also calling for disrespect of individuals for what they do and say.
Well, that's a corollary, but not what I meant... in isolation, anyway. I believe in the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. Now defining wrong is really a can of anacondas...
religion has nothing to do with spirituality
I suppose that's why I'm more comfortable talking about someone's faith, denoting their spirituality, than their affiliation, as denoted by "religion".
And on the right to be wrong, find it in the lyrics below...
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Ah, Zevon. Sorely missed :-(
-
Kracklite, in reply to
One of my favourite videos too - it's obviously influenced by Ralph Gibson's photography.
-
It’s what being a conservative is all about. Especially when the population is aging (median age is nearly 37, up 2.2 years in the last decade, according to Granny), and that means more voters who want to jerk their knees and rail about the queers ruining marriage.
Depends if people get more conservative as they get older, or if society is generally moving away from conservatism, but people largely retain their political beliefs from an age in their life. Probably someone has researched the extent to which it's one or the other?
Like that family first survey. I chose to interpret this:
New Zealand should develop and enforce higher standards for TV, film, radio and advertising content including levels of violence, sexual content and objectionable language.
As meaning, the violence, sex and swearing on Tv film and radio should be really good quality, not just cheap unrealistic shit.
I'm pretty unclear how the emissions trading scheme does, or doesn't, put families first.
The slippery slope argument of gay marriage -> polygamy -> incest -> beastiality implies that it's only lack of marriage that's holding these people back. I can see it clearly now: "Well I want to sleep with my horse, but not until we're married. Got to do these things right".
Our laws in this area really date back to the idea that sex only happens in marriage, so marriage is how we control who has sex with each other. And it's been turned around now that people have sex married or not, so that the laws around marriage are about protecting a social institution and ignoring that trying to stop people having sex was half the point of them in the first place.
-
Sacha, in reply to
My understanding (if I remember Sociology 101 from umpteen years ago) is that incest taboos generally are less to do with hereditary diseases and more to do with family relationships
Same. The impact on clan relationships may also be a useful way of considering some of the other points raised.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I can see it clearly now: "Well I want to sleep with my horse, but not until we're married. Got to do these things right".
Bwahaha! 10 points, that male person!
-
I can see it clearly now: "Well I want to sleep with my horse, but not until we're married. Got to do these things right".
Bwahaha! 10 points, that male person!
Must have been listening to Lenny Bruce's Pscyh-o-pathia Sexualis
"Im in love with a horse that comes from Dallas.
Poor neurotica me" -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
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.
I don’t think this is a wall I want to keep banging my head against, but I can quite legitimately compare Key’s supposed intention to “do a runner” to a simple matter of fact: Clark resigned not only from the leadership of her party and the Opposition, but Parliament, quite literally seconds after conceding the 2008 election. And as I’ve said clearly and unambiguously, she was hardly candid about her intentions but I can’t really muster any outrage about what she did.
But if you really want to go there, I’d note Saint David Lange didn’t exactly pay his dues – he’d been in Parliament for a little over four years when he became leader of the Opposition, and Prime Minister two years after that. Fairly obviously, the electorate did not find Lange's inexperience against Muldoon's twenty four years of public service a disincentive to elect the Fourth Labour Government. Now, history may come to view Lange's tenure as something of a curate’s egg but I don’t think you could say he bludgeoned anyone with his privileged dick to get there.
-
Not sure if someone has linked to it already but there is an interesting piece on the MOJ website here.
I remember hearing on National Radio in the last few months someone who had done research on genetic disorders and relatives. Can't quite recall whether the work done was based on human or animal data but the bottomline was that first cousins having children did not result in a significantly bigger risk of genetic disorder. Given that falls outside of our legal definition of incest, I guess it's moot but my feeling is that in NZ first cousins in a relationship would still attract social opprobrium. It got me wondering how much of our reaction is based on social norms.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.