Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Sacha,
“When left untreated"… #GoldenGlobes
That's what Daniel Day-Lewis looks like?
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Euan Mason,
The debate will be interesting, but it is important to argue about the matter at hand. It doesn’t make sense to turn the debate about same sex marriage into one about polygamy (which is what McKroskie is try to do).
If someone is really firmly opposed to state recognition of polygamy, and one also believes that allowing same-sex marriage will make the argument against polygamy harder to win when we finally get to it, then it is perfectly logical to oppose same-sex marriage.
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Graeme: yeah. But I don’t think anyone was denying that the long run goal was full equality, just that the bill under discussion reached that.
I think there were people denying it. It may have been dissembling, but it was there. I recall a fair bit going on when the bill to define marriage as being between a man and a woman had its first reading as well. The suggestion that the bill was unnecessary because marriage was already between opposite sex couples, and that that was what marriage was and everyone knew it certainly featured.
Some of the opposition to this bill also has included that idea. I think David Clark's first reading speech included a statement from a person in a same-sex civil union who was opposed to allowing same-sex marriage, that raised something like this.
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Moz,
Gay-and-lesbian marriage is not marriage equality, and it’s kind of annoying to see someone equate the two in a discussion of poly marriage.
What is marriage equality?
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Was there anyone that seriously thought civil unions were anything but a nose-under-the-tent for marriage equality?
Perhaps not, but there were a bunch of people denying that it was.
At the first reading of the Civil Union Bill, Metiria Turei said:
“Marriage as understood in our society, and as formalised in law, is a specific culturally and historically bound institution...
And David Benson-Pope said:
Through the Civil Union Bill, the Government … is also confirming that in New Zealand marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman. Marriage will continue to be covered by a separate Act and recognised as a separate institution. … The social, religious, and traditional values associated with marriage will remain”
Cribbed from Bob McCoskrie's helpful list. He also has quotes from several others (Helen Clark, Tim Barnett, Chris Carter) pointing out why Civil Unions are all that is needed, or why marriage is specially for heterosexual couples etc.
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Lyndon Hood,
Well Mr McCoskrie tried that argument for civil unions too
He seems to have been right about the slippery slope of civil unions leading to same-sex marriage, however.
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Bart Janssen,
!!
Fixed!
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Ross Mason,
Anyone know of (tribal?) traditions that allow a woman to have four husbands?
Wikipedia lists some.
-
Hard News: On Freedom, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Clint Rickards was admitted as a lawyer. If he can get in, anyone can, surely.
Is he still practising?
Yes. You can search the register of lawyers here.
-
Hard News: On Freedom, in reply to BenWilson,
Declare convictions? Or having used illegal drugs at some point in your life or not? ’Cause the first is on record anyway, and the second seems like just the kind of thing it would be very tempting to lie about, encouraging dishonesty.
You had to declare convictions. Also any occasion on which you received diversion.